When John McCain Is Good, He's Good
The Obama administration, the media, and, now, the Secretary of Defense--all are pressing, hard, to have Congress repeal "Don't ask, don't tell" during this lame duck session. What's stopping them?
John McCain.
The military, as most of the civilized world know nows, has conducted a survey of 115,000 active duty and reserve servicemen. (Sorry. I won't use "service members." I just won't.) Most, as Secretary Gates has glibly informed the Congress, would have no objection to the repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell."
To which Sen. McCain has replied, Not so fast.
Speaking at a hearing, McCain noted that, whereas members of the military who work in positions removed from the field of battle have little objection to repealing the law, the same cannot at all be said of those actually expected to fight. Almost half of Army combat troops and more than half of Marines in combat positions said repealing the law would have a "negative" or "very negative" effect on the cohesion of their units. McCain:
I remain concerned, as I have in the past, and as demonstrated in this study, that the closer we get to service members in combat, the more we encounter concerns about whether ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ should be repealed. These views should not be considered lightly, especially considering how much combat our forces face.
I suppose it's decidedly uncool to say so, but, a) McCain is right about this, and, b) he's displaying real guts here. Everything we know about combat--I mean everything, from Thucydides to my Uncommon Knowledge interview with war correspondent Sebastian Junger--tells us that men in combat don't fight for ideals, or even for their country. They fight for the other men in their units. Anything that would interfere with the unique bonds of respect, trust, and friendship that characterize America's little units--the squads and platoons--would directly undermine the defense of the nation.
Stop, McCain is saying. Listen--listen to the men we ask to fight. Think.
Good for John McCain.
- Comment (23)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: When John McCain Is Good, He's Good
There always has been a large difference in the culture of line units versus those in supporting roles. You spend more time on the move, more likely to be living on small COPs, often stuck 20-30 men in a cramped tent. Those stationed on large FOBs, particularly support units who will spend the entire deployment there, often have individual rooms in b-huts and a measure of privacy that does not exist for a unit on the move. Then there are the days spent sleeping in the field, in your vehicle side by side with the rest of your unit. You have to learn to be comfortable having the most intimate routines of daily life be shared in the open with other people. This is one reason why having a woman in that sort of unit can be complicating, to say the least. I've seen fights break out over women from other units. Its not hard to imagine why a person's sexuality can also present problems and unease in such an environment.
Edited on Dec 2, 2010 at 2:41pmOct '10
Re: When John McCain Is Good, He's Good
Here here. You know the military is one of the few conservative institutions left in this country. I've always had the feeling that this is one of those issues that liberals dramatize for effect. It's like a proxy battle to advance an ulterior motive related to diversity, race relations, gender, etc. Besides, after homosexuals the next issue is going to be what to do about transgender folks serving in the military.
Re: When John McCain Is Good, He's Good
When McCain is good he is very, very good (in fact, politically courageous). And, alas, when he is bad (as in the case of McCain-Feingold), he is very, very bad. It really is a great shame. In one sphere (and a very important sphere it is), he is a man of principle. In the other, he is a . . . I fear that the word I have in mind (which is ordinarily used to describe a woman who sells her, uh, favors) is proscribed on this site. Sigh.
Jun '10
Re: When John McCain Is Good, He's Good
"...[K]now nows..." I like it. You just added to the lexicon Peter. Next we should work in "nose how,"
Peter this is meant in good fun, given that the typo is the scourge of blogging.
Jun '10
Re: When John McCain Is Good, He's Good
Let's review how well it worked within a different brotherhood of warriors--spiritual warriors (just saying...) :
'Several years ago, Father Donald Cozzens, then rector of a Cleveland seminary, wrote that many seminary faculties included a disproportionate number of homosexuals. [...] he commented that "straight men in a predominantly or significantly gay environment commonly experience self doubt." In my own study of seminary life over the past three decades, I have found that many heterosexual men give up their seminary studies precisely for this reason, leaving behind a student body gradually swollen with homosexuals. I'm not talking about the presence of a few gay-oriented men who want to live chastely, but rather the institutionalization of a gay subculture that has earned some seminaries nicknames such as the Pink Palace, Notre Flame, and Theological Closet. One aspect of this gay subculture of both priests and seminarians is that too many men who want to be chaste, whether gay or straight, are propositioned, harassed or even molested – occurrences that are more common than one might think. [...] it fosters a pathological pattern of living.'
(From: Michael S. Rose: "Are gay priests the problem?" http://preview.tinyurl.com/7ed6m )
Jun '10
Re: When John McCain Is Good, He's Good
I'm assuming that McCain probably has a harder problem arguing this issue with his daughter, so I'm sure he's already battle-hardened.
Oct '10
Re: When John McCain Is Good, He's Good
Can the Marine Corps continue with the current DADT policy while the remainder of service branches repeal the policy? Since we have an all-volunteer force, this might mitigate some of the recruiting and combat issues. And make the Navy-Marine rivalry even more interesting.
Nov '10
Re: When John McCain Is Good, He's Good
Thank you Mr. Robinson, because this is exactly the point.
The U.S. military does not exist to impliment affirmative action goals, although left to its own devices as a meritocracy, it has created many opportunities for African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans to prosper and thrive. Gender diversity and sexual orientation are more complex issues, as acknowledged by General Colin Powell:
"Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument."
Let us remember that the purpose of our fighting forces is to protect and defend our country. Period. As civilians, our responsibility in all of this is to clear as many road blocks as we can for these honorable folks to succeed in their mission.
Oct '10
Re: When John McCain Is Good, He's Good
Both the Marines and Army continue to have gender restrictions that are not found in the other branches. There's a lot more women than homosexuals. I'm sure the Marines would be fine.
Re: When John McCain Is Good, He's Good
A hugely useful post--you convey what life in a combat unit is actually like. Thank you.
May '10
Re: When John McCain Is Good, He's Good
The argument here that the repeal of DADT would undermine the capacity of the Army and Marine Corps to wage war effectively is contingent entirely upon the premise that the findings of the Pentagon survey that McCain has appealed to are actually accurate. Indeed, it is the case that,
But if I'm not mistaken, this the same Pentagon study that, according to USA Today, "found that gay troops could serve openly in the military without impairing the nation's war-fighting ability." According to the study,
"70% of those surveyed felt that allowing gays to serve openly will have a positive, mixed or no effect on military readiness. It also found that between 40% and 60% of Marines and troops who engage in direct combat had negative views about serving with troops who are openly gay."
So what are we to make of this study?
May '10
Re: When John McCain Is Good, He's Good
McCain stressed the fact that 12% of respondents of the Pentagon survey "would not want to stay in the military absent the law."
I can only argue from anecdotal evidence, but nevertheless I think this is nonsense. That the 12% responded this way is undoubtedly true, however I question the further claim that these responses reflect the actual preferences of the respondents. It is a principle of economics and statistical analysis that preferences are only truly expressed in action. A respondent can tell you whatever he/she likes but one can only really become aware of a respondent's preferences when he/she acts in accordance with his/her judgment. I can tell you that I prefer Coke to Pepsi, but knowledge of this can only genuinely be attained when it is observed that I drink Coke over Pepsi. Unfortunately, the actual preferences of the combat personnel surveyed can only be determined after the repeal of DADT.
Furthermore, given the anecdotal evidence that I am privy to, I believe that, given the litany of opportunities and benefits offered by the military, it simply is not the case that 12% of the military would leave if DADT was repealed.
May '10
Re: When John McCain Is Good, He's Good
etoiledunord: Let's review how well it worked within a different brotherhood of warriors--spiritual warriors (just saying...) :
In my own study of seminary life over the past three decades, I have found that many heterosexual men give up their seminary studies precisely for this reason, leaving behind a student body gradually swollen with homosexuals.
The integrity of your analogy requires a correspondence of characteristics between the elements you are comparing. There are discrepancies however. It is massively easier to leave a seminary compared to leaving an active duty combat unit. Seminaries do not require their members to sign stringent contracts the military requires its members to sign. The nature of the solidarity is also different. Cooperation is a necessary condition for survival within an active duty combat unit whereas such is not the case in a seminary. Given the greater need for cooperation in the military than in seminaries, the likelihood that heterosexual soldiers and marines will agree to cooperate and coexist with their homosexual colleagues in the event that DADT is repealed is significantly greater than the likelihood that such solidarity would exist within seminaries (apparently). Thus, I deny that there is a sound analogy here.
Edited on Dec 2, 2010 at 8:07pmOct '10
Re: When John McCain Is Good, He's Good
This is what worries me. I don't think any gay service member would want repeal, if it made them all huge targets for rape--especially given the stress of combat conditions.
There are always consequences to these sorts of things. I'm all for repealing DADT--but only if the consequences warrant it. In the end, the military isn't a fair, equal, or equitable institution--it's job is to protect, defend, and kill the enemy.
Equality is part of free markets and a free society; the military is neither. This isn't an issue to be politicized; the lives of servicemen are too important to play God with. Especially if this led to gay members being targeted for rape and other abuse. I think this is one issue the public needs to stay out off.
May '10
Re: When John McCain Is Good, He's Good
It hasn't seemed to harm the effectiveness of the Israeli defense forces.
The point is that they are there already and always have been -- that's what DADT is all about after all. And allowing gay men and women to serve doesn't mean that they won't still have to conform to the powerful norms and traditions of the military. It just means that they don't have to keep their personal lives secret for fear of ruining their careers.
Yes, the characteristic is behavioral not passive like skin color. But it doesn't mean that the behavior in question will be tolerated while on duty, And it also doesn't mean that bigotry based on behavior is acceptable.
Will there be issues? Yes. Will it be bumpy? Yes. But so was integration by race. Yet the strength of the military overcame that difficulty because it was the right thing to do and it's the right thing to do in this case too. Even if some jarhead is worried that his bunkmate might be staring at his butt. Sorry but that's just whining and unacceptable.
Since when do soldiers get to vote on conditions of service?
May '10
Re: When John McCain Is Good, He's Good
I just had to share this NYT piece about reactions to DADT. The first soldier featured is a former student of mine named Godmund Schick. I really think he has a thoughtful and informed perspective on this issue as a gay man who served in the Army in a combat role, a Cav Scout no less. He's also fairly politically conservative.
Oct '10
Re: When John McCain Is Good, He's Good
Trace Urdan:
Since when do soldiers get to vote on conditions of service?
Ours is an all volunteer force where those who do so, choose to serve and put themselves literally in the line of fire. Shouldn't their opinion matter on decisions which will fundamentally alter the status quo? And shouldn't it have more weight then the rest of the public who do not serve? Gay servicemen join now, understanding the Military's DADT policy. Why should they get to vote on the conditions of their service if other servicemen do not?
Why must it be either/or? Currently females are not allowed to serve in a designated combat MOS (i.e. Infantry, Armor, Combat Engineer, etc) in the Army or Marines. If, as Sen McCain argues, the majority of non-combat servicemen have no problem with gay servicemen, but there is opposition in line units, then why not a policy where gays serve openly in non-combat roles, while DADT still applies for combat units? If nothing else, such a policy would allow many gay soldiers to come out, while allowing combat units more time for opinions to change without destroying cohesion where it matters.
Edited on Dec 2, 2010 at 11:22pmMay '10
Re: When John McCain Is Good, He's Good
chadn737
Ours is an all volunteer force where those who do so, choose to serve and put themselves literally in the line of fire. Shouldn't their opinion matter on decisions which will fundamentally alter the status quo?
But this is my point. They do get to choose. They can choose not to re-enlist. Or maybe you think the soldiers should unionize and engage in collective bargaining?
Oct '10
Re: When John McCain Is Good, He's Good
Trace Urdan
chadn737
Ours is an all volunteer force where those who do so, choose to serve and put themselves literally in the line of fire. Shouldn't their opinion matter on decisions which will fundamentally alter the status quo?
But this is my point. They do get to choose. They can choose not to re-enlist. Or maybe you think the soldiers should unionize and engage in collective bargaining? ·
So if enlistment drops, especially enlistment into combat MOSs, as a result, then that is not an issue? Particularly in a war where the having as large a presence is the most critical key to success?
And you're being slightly ridiculous in even hinting that I would thinking unionization would be an answer. All I am saying is that we take in consideration the opinions of soldiers and the potential impact on fighting effectiveness.
You say if soldiers don't like the military's policies, then don't reenlist. In other words vote with their feet. Well nobody is forcing homosexuals to join. If they or anybody has a problem with military policy, they don't have to enlist to begin with.
Edited on Dec 3, 2010 at 9:10amMay '10
Re: When John McCain Is Good, He's Good
chadn737
So if enlistment drops, especially enlistment into combat MOSs, as a result, then that is not an issue? Particularly in a war where the having as large a presence is the most critical key to success?
Edited on Dec 03 at 09:10 am
I'll be perfectly clear:
1) the military is a federal employer and may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation;
2) there is no objective evidence that such a change would have a material impact on military effectiveness;
3) the leaders of the military (both serving and civilian) want this change.
4) whatever these soldiers are worried about is based on misinformed prejudice, and if it keeps them from enlisting they never belonged there in the first place. Bad food would be a more legitimate complaint IMO.
End of story.
The logic of why this is too soon or too precipitous is tortured and grasping and could easily have been employed to defend segregated forces as well.