Playing to Win

I checked the news today and found that there was something historic again happening.  For those of you who have not heard, the Pentagon has decided to lift the restriction on females in all combat occupations.  Several of the more 'elite' groups have several years to explain why there shouldn't be females in certain roles, but for the most part, it seems as though America's military is done with its discriminatory practices.

Good for us.

I'm sure there are more than quite a few Americans out there who are again thumping their chest in pride at how we continue to become a more progressive society.  Our inclusivity is again at a level which puts us amongst the proudest progressive nations in the world.

I've got some personal experience with females in combat, and by in large its not something that I'm particularly concerned about.  Neither did I care terribly about 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and from friends that remain in, neither did anyone else.  The Army knows better than anything else how to keep itself running, so I'm not worried about this causing large-scale disruption or anything.

Honestly, this is probably something that I should be much happier about, but for some reason I can't quite get behind this current action by the government.

I think it has to do largely with what I see going on in this video.  No, not the jokes, but what happens near the end:

In my first term, we ended the war in Iraq; in my second term, I will win the war on Christmas.  (Laughter.)  In my first term, we repealed the policy known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” — (applause) — wait, though; in my second term, we will replace it with a policy known as, it’s raining men.

The President is remarking on some of his accomplishments during his first term.  And he leads with what I believe to be a pretty strong one.  Ending a war.  Good job.  No applause.  Next up in the slot, ending 'don't ask, don't tell' (applause) does not really do it justice.  People are very pleased with this outcome.  Check the tape, around 15 minutes in.  This is apparently a bigger deal to most Americans.

And pretty soon women in combat roles is gonna be a bigger deal than Afghanistan.

Honestly, it hurts every time I witness shit like this go down.  Every time, it becomes more and more clear to me that the risks I ran, the blood and tears, the bodies, the shit, all of it was completely and utterly unimportant to America and to most Americans.  It really hurts to know that my friends who are dead are dead because of ambivalence and that deep down no one cares about winning.

Which brings me to my second video.  A classic to many people, I feel like this man a lot when I think about the war.  Since when was it ok to lose?  Since when was the Army about anything other than winning wars?

Let me be clear, I do not believe that women nor openly gay soldiers in combat will not endanger lives directly. But that does not mean it is appropriate to change these policies now.  You play to win the war.  We are at war.  We should be doing things that help us win the war.  Otherwise we should just quit.  It is heartbreakingly clear to me that America does not understand this.

While these current issues are often compared with the racial desegregation of the military in the 1950s, there is a critical difference in how these issues were portrayed and why they were carried out.  Racial desegregation was enacted to ensure that African-Americans continued to support the military and because it was inefficient and ineffective.  It was a waste and it made things more complicated, not less.  In short, desegregation was argued for on the basis of its inherent military benefits.

No one today even considers such things as military benefits.  We enact these current reforms because we want to feel better here in America.  It feels better to tell ourselves that we don't discriminate, even if it probably means that some unit is digging an extra trench for their new female counterparts to shit in.  We can be just that extra notch prouder, even in our non-service, while some company spends what little down time they have getting some extra sensitivity training on how to deal with openly gay squad mates.

I'm so sick of this bullshit.  And again, the bullshit is not these reforms, its why they are being carried out and when they are being implemented.  We are trying to social engineer our Army while it fights a war for no military benefit.  Its something that screams of an overblown ego.  And perhaps this too would be acceptable, but we are not winning.

But we aren't playing to win, are we?

Plessy Versus Ferguson II

We hold these truths to be self-evident --
that ALL men are created EQUAL
--U.S. Constitution
___________________

"Needs of military take precedence over liberal social engineering" was a recent USA Today op-ed by Marine Corps veteran Tony Perkins arguing against the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy (DADT).

Every one of Mr. Perkins' assertions was deserving of refutation, and away we go:


[1] First, his thesis is erroneous.

The military has long been a site of social engineering. Testing -- vocational and psychological -- began in WW I; racial integration of non-segregated combat units began post-WW II. The current Volunteer Army (VOLAR) is also a form of social engineering by virtue of creating a separate military caste (versus the previous draft army.)

Military academies and ROTC are also forms of social engineering, as they professionalize the officer class. The integration of minorities and females into the officer corps of the military has also been a social engineering project. Females serving in deployable units is yet another form of social engineering.


[2] "A soldier must represent his or her country and maintain military discipline 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This is why sexual behaviors such as adultery and sodomy remain crimes under military law."

This is a non-sequitur, and a faulty comparison, to boot. Sexual behavior does not necessarily impact upon one's ability to represent one's nation or to maintain discipline. (Sloppy sexual behavior would be an exception.) Adultery is a crime, or certainly a breech of contract; sodomy is just a variation on a theme, and not one confined to homosexuals. Why is sodomy a no-no, but fellatio and cunnilingus aren't?

If we are so moral, why are illegitimate offspring of service members now afforded coverage under the Tricare system? Is this sanctioning of fornication any less of an offense to order, discipline and soldierly conduct? To equate adultery to sodomy to unsoldierly conduct is hypocritical.


[3] "To put people with sexual attractions to one another into conditions of forced intimacy — sharing bathrooms, showers and sleeping quarters — runs the risk of increasing sexual tension, harassment and even assault. These are clear threats to good order, morale and unit cohesion."

But "people with sexual attractions" are already in proximity -- they are called "men and women". Mr. Perkins is carrying on the libel that homosexuals are predatory and not in control of their libido. His illogic is revealed if one replaces gay male soldiers with female homosexual soldiers, or heterosexuals of either gender.

Is Perkins presuming men are strong enough to be soldiers, but not strong enough to fend off unwanted advances? Or that homosexuals are not regimented enough to curb their libidinous drives? He is condemning them a priori. It is the Mandingo fantasy in its 2010 update.


[4] "There is no constitutional right to serve in the military, and individuals are routinely denied enlistment on the basis of characteristics that would rarely, if ever, be the basis for exclusion from civilian employment. These include height, weight, family responsibilities, or even relatively minor health conditions such as asthma."

Homosexuality is not a pathology. It is a gender orientation which has no bearing on the individual's ability to perform a task. It does not prevent the service member from executing duties faithfully. (As an aside, the first U.S. military service member wounded in the Iraq Occupation was Marine Staff Sergeant Eric Fidelis Alva, who lost his leg to an IED. Staff Sgt. Alva is homosexual.)

[5] "Polls showing support for homosexuals in the military have been distorted by biased wording."

Opinions are irrespective of the Constitution. We have all become such slaves to the talking heads and the pollsters, but their views or results are irrelevant to the topic. Polls do not trump the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection of all.


[6] "Only one in eight of the world's countries allow homosexuals in their armed forces. The 10 largest military forces all exclude homosexuals."

Irrelevant. We are our own example, and lead by American exceptionalism. It would be more relevant to look at our NATO allies. Nations like Afghanistan are filled with good family men who keep personal dancing boys for their pleasure. (But they are not gay, you see, because they do not love the boys.)

If you prohibit homosexuals from the military, not only do you indulge in affirmative action bias, you do not remove the scourge of rape and sexual abuse which is rampant among hetero service members.


[7] "The needs of the military must come before the demands of radical social activists."

Au contraire. The needs of the nation precede those of the military. We are not a military dictatorship.

One wonders if Mr. Perkins has ever known or had any interaction with a homosexual. Surely he acknowledges that a percentage of our population is homosexual, and phony arguments cannot change that fact or marginalize these people.

His arguments are lacking in Christian compassion and understanding, qualities which should not go missing in a man who is the leader of the Family Research Council.

[Cross-posted @ RangerAgainstWar]