Winning the nation's wars is the military's functional imperative. Indeed, it is the only reason for a liberal society to maintain a military organization. War is terror. War is confusion. War is characterized by chance, uncertainty and friction. The military's ethos constitutes an evolutionary response to these factors—an attempt to minimize their impact.See also, the Los Angeles Times, "Joint Chiefs Chair Says Gays and Lesbians Should Serve Openly in the Military."
Accordingly, the military stresses such martial virtues as courage, both physical and moral, a sense of honor and duty, discipline, a professional code of conduct, and loyalty. It places a premium on such factors as unit cohesion and morale. The glue of the military ethos is what the Greeks called philia—friendship, comradeship or brotherly love. Philia, the bond among disparate individuals who have nothing in common but facing death and misery together, is the source of the unit cohesion that most research has shown to be critical to battlefield success.
Philia depends on fairness and the absence of favoritism. Favoritism and double standards are deadly to philia and its associated phenomena—cohesion, morale and discipline—are absolutely critical to the success of a military organization.
The presence of open homosexuals in the close confines of ships or military units opens the possibility that eros—which unlike philia is sexual, and therefore individual and exclusive—will be unleashed into the environment. Eros manifests itself as sexual competition, protectiveness and favoritism, all of which undermine the nonsexual bonding essential to unit cohesion, good order, discipline and morale.
P.S. I hate to say this, but I'm finding myself on the same side of this issue as the demonic Attackerman, God help me (although he doesn't help his case by mocking Mackubin Thomas Owens).
12 comments:
“Don’t ask Don’t tell” took sexual orientation appropriately out of any military context. The policy wasn’t enacted out of disrespect, sex should be irrelevant.
DADT does not disallow gays the right to serve. DADT effectively makes the sexual question irrelevant to the mission, as it should be.
Why is it so desperately important, for a guy, let’s say, to make it known to all “I’m joining the military and I’m gay!” Jeez. Who cares? It is sounding an awful lot like, “I am gay, I want to be admired and respected for that and further don’t be surprised when I hit on you.” I know that is not the stated objective of gays, but, some are saying, “It is just the real me and I am not comfortable hiding this!” -to me, all that is still irrelevant.
If you ask men and women in service today about it, they say, “We all know who is and who isn’t it isn’t a big deal.”
So, in my estimation, the government is once again imposing its liberal, we-know-what’s-best-for-you mentality on the military.
Clear and simple, I think this is just another political attempt of Obama to get the gay vote (from a candidate that stated he was opposed to gay marriage).
Doesn't the "Eros" argument apply to women in the military too?
Rusty, I doubt that many gays in the military are of the Perez Hilton variety who would feel the need to scream their sexuality from the rafters and run around in pink camouflage; they just don't want to be forced to lie about who they are in order to serve their country.
A couple hundred years ago, a mixed race man like Professor Douglas would have had to lie and say that he was a white man in order to serve and fight for his newly founded country's freedom. Should he not be proud of who he is, regardless of the problems others might have with it?
We rightfully hold our military men and women to a higher standard than everyday Americans. We require that they hold duty, honor and country as sacred above all else, yet we also require that some of them essentially lie about who they are as Americans even as we know that it's not a necessary condition of their service; I personally see no honor in that.
I also think you are making a fundamental mistake about DADT: it wasn't put into place because of gay service members, but rather because of straight ones. No one is making the argument that gay soldiers don't do their jobs well. Instead the argument has always been that gay soldiers serving openly would make straight soldiers uncomfortable. The threat to unit cohesion is from the straight soldier, not the gay one.
And while sexual orientation and preference should be irrelevant to being a soldier we must not forget that these people are still human. They're friends to each other while also being a certain kind of family as well; they're going to talk about their lives, their dreams, their lost ones and their loved ones. One could hardly begrudge gay service members for wanting to do this as much as their fellow straight soldiers.
You are indeed correct that service members today already know who's gay and are fine with it but if that's the case, then why keep DADT at all? This very admission would seem to negate the stated argument for the policy. So we must then ask who wants to keep the policy intact.
I submit that that it is being fought for by non-military citizens and politicians who perhaps harbor a bit of anti-gay sentiment yet also have never served themselves and have no idea how our military men and women feel about the subject. As you said, soldiers know who's gay and have no problem serving with them. Our fighting men and women can handle it; certain elements of American society might have a harder time accepting this. If anything, the military is imposing its conservative, we-know-what-works-best-for-us mentality on government.
And on a final note, if Obama was really using this issue to "get the gay vote" (a vote that he had over 80% of in 2008 already) he would have simply abolished DADT with the stroke of a pen. Instead, he's taken an entire year of gays being up in arms over his apparent foot dragging as he's consulted military commanders, forced congress to act on the issue (appropriate since congress enacted DADT in the first place) and given the vast military bureaucracy ample time to get the necessary implementation into place.
Rather than going for a cheap, quick political win, Obama is taking his time and making sure that what's being done is done correctly and is what's best for the strength of our military and for this country's safety. In short, he's being presidential.
I've been on the bench about DADT for a while, but I've come to the position it should be repealed simply because of all the stupid PC bullcrap that's been injected into military life, the least dangerous thing is letting gays in the military. IMHO, women on the front line are much more of a distraction than a gay man who willingly signed up and willingly pushed himself to be an infantryman. I really don't think we have anything to worry with this issue. Also, if the Israelis are doing kick-ass with gays in their military, I think we'll be just fine. Tho I don't doubt that repealing DADT will make the far left think they can social engineer the military more than they already have.
Good points.
Trust you Donald, to weigh in of "practicalities" and "military effectiveness" - given you've never served and all.
Even you will be aware that gays have been openly serving in the British military for the past 10 years - with dignity and the respect of their peers, junior and seniors.
I don't suppose you're now going to lecture us on Brit Forces being a bit "gay" for your liking. I doubt our troops would.
You've rolled out the same tired arguments - and their foundation rests on your twin specalities of prejudice and conjecture. Go you.
I await your "editing".
Rick, that was me (not my wife saying), "good points."
All due respect, I don’t see the analogy here with gays in the military compared to pre-civil rights race issues. In any event, sexual orientation, I would hope, would be so irrelevant for a volunteer military with a clear mission that it wouldn't be on a questionnaire. To me, that would be a point of reason for the status quo of DADT.
If there is a precedent in Great Britain or Israel then perhaps the military command would look into it. If I haven’t made this point, I should: I really would feel less strongly about any of this, would the decision be made by the military command themselves, not the president. It has been standard operating procedure in the past for the Commander in Chief, to seek the advice of the Army and Navy Chief of Staff and those serving generals and admirals running the military.
Rick, that was me (not my wife saying), "good points."
All due respect, I don’t see the analogy here with gays in the military compared to pre-civil rights race issues. In any event, sexual orientation, I would hope, would be so irrelevant for a volunteer military with a clear mission that it wouldn't be on a questionnaire. To me, that would be a point of reason for the status quo of DADT.
If there is a precedent in Great Britain or Israel then perhaps the military command would look into it. If I haven’t made this point, I should: I really would feel less strongly about any of this, would the decision be made by the military command themselves, not the president. It has been standard operating procedure in the past for the Commander in Chief, to seek the advice of the Army and Navy Chief of Staff and those serving generals and admirals running the military.
Rusty, I'm not attempting to conflate the gay rights movement with the civil rights movement. I'm just saying that both groups have had to overcome somewhat irrational prejudices in order to gain the right to serve their country while also being proud of who they are, regardless of their sexual orientation or race.
I do however think that you're a bit turned around on the effects of the status quo of DADT. As I agreed with you above, a person's sexual orientation should most definitely not be relevant as it concerns their military service but DADT tries to make it so. By abolishing this law, we are in fact saying that sexual orientation has no place on a military service questionnaire.
As to your preference that this decision be made by the military commanders, I would think that the recent testimony from Gates and Mullen would be enough to convince you that our commanders see the logic in abolishing DADT. True, the impetus for the change is coming from the Commander-in-Chief but this is sometimes necessary when trying to change procedure in an organization as large and conservative as the U.S. military, and it seems quite obvious that Obama has sought out and obtained the support of the commanders I cited above.
In the end, I believe that this law should be changed because it weakens our military by preventing patriotic Americans from volunteering to serve their country all in the name of irrational and archaic prejudices. At a time when America is endangered on so many different fronts, shouldn't the nations safety and security be one of our primary concerns? I think it should.
LETS ALL GET A CLUE!! I've been in the military for 24 years and continue to serve proudly. NO ONE ASKED ME MY FEELINGS ON GAYS IN THE MILITARY! I can tell you this...Allowing homosexuals to serve violates my human rights. I should have the ability to choose who I shower with or share a room with. That option is not available in the military. Young service members live 2-3 people per room, if they're not married. Put an open homosexual in a straight serviceman's room and see the friction develop! Are you kidding! I am sure our country will see more beatings and members lost at sea etc. Think, for a second, the majority of the personality types that enlist in our military. Do you think these young men won't take action against homosexuals? They will...If they can't change policy, they'll find a way to keep the homosexuals away from them. I can also guarantee favoritism. Play it off, make assumptions, I'm telling you that the majority of our military is straight. If a known homosexual is within the ranks, that person will not be afforded meritorious promotions; they won't be assigned positions of promise. In fact, they will be assigned to the most demeanor work possible. Straight leadership will not want them in their workspaces since their presence will disrupt the workflow. Tell me I'm wrong, I'll tell you, you're lost. Military members do what they're told. They know about "some" homosexuals currently serving, trust me when I say, "THEY ARE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH IT!" Please do not feed me b.s. about, "They won't hit on you!" I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT. That statement is pathetic. If not hitting on a person is a strong argument, then men should be able to go into a women’s shower facility and shower with them, as long as they promise not to hit on the girls. (Tell that to a 19-25 year old male or female). "They won't hit on the women." How would that affect the women in the shower? They're safe, but yet uncomfortable knowing that a male is in the room "possibly" looking at them in a sexual manner. Go ahead and tell me a homosexual will not lust after another in a group shower stall. Homosexual or not, sex is a frequent thought in EVERY YOUNG PERSON regardless of sexual orientation. This is important since we are required to exercise and shower together. WAKE UP SUPPORTERS OF HOMOSEXUALS IN THE MILITARY, you're lying to yourselves. It'll be interesting to see if seriously feminine males that are homosexuals survive military life. Can you imagine a feminine type male homosexual as a Marine Corps Drill Instructor? It'll never happen! I have 56 civilians that work for me. If I move an office, I have to check with a union to ensure the civilians have no issues with having to walk down stairs to use the restroom. But, my President can order me to shower with a homosexual without even consulting me for my opinion! Ask yourself why we have separate quarters and restrooms for men and women? BETTER YET, ASK YOURSELF: “Why don’t colleges let boys and girls share dorms together?” They are the same age groups as the majority of our service members. That will answer everything! If you have any objection to men and women sharing restrooms and quarters, you could NEVER justify homosexuals in the military unless they're provided their own restroom facilities and quarters. Otherwise, prepare for some serious...serious friction.
YOU Go! I have served for the past 13 years and I agree. I feel that the lift of don't ask don't tell is BS. No one asked me! I am tired of people pissing on the moral values and beliefs this great nation was built on just to build a good campaign. Who are these people that have never served telling us what is right for us. Next we will be letting child molesters openly serve. They cant help it, it is just a genetic disorder like homosexuals. I have brothers and sisters dieing as we speak and this is the hot topic! All because some big pop star freak is trying to be loud so she can make more money (GAGA). I think these people need to read the book our values came from and realize that we are going down a path that will end us all. I also agree that as a straight man my human rights are being violated and my religious beliefs are being pissed on. Who will stand up for that. No one because I am the lowest of the low, a Straight Christian White American with now voice in any matter. Who is being discriminated against now!
My post on how moral theory supports the DADT policy:
"Hello flamers, goodbye Marine Corps"
Post a Comment