DADT: Some Milbloggers Miss Target

Obama & Co are subverting Western Society everywhere else, why not the military too? Obama does NOT need your help Milbloggers!

I really don't have time for this, but can't let it pass without comment (which I made at the site linked in the title of this post). I am usually in complete agreement with most of the Milbloggers listed, but today, for some reason that escapes me, they felt a need to speak out on the wrong side of an issue near and dear to my heart. I still might have let it pass, except the Fabulous (usually-right-but -unfortunately-blind-on-this-issue) Instapundit linked into the 'statement' which will gain it traffic and exposure far beyond its relevance. I expect it will be mentioned on the network news in ten, nine, eight......

I've covered all this before ad nauseum here, here, and here.

PS: I just wish people would drop these turds into the punchbowl before OR after I go to work so I can zap them early in the life-cycle.

Now, I've got three DAU module tests to do tonight -- so go away!

Merrill McPeak (Blind Pig) Finds an Acorn

And Max Boot then Glenn Reynolds take issue with it.

Even a University of Tennessee Law Professor finds Gen Merrill McPeak 'unpersuasive'. (Even though the General for once in his political-military career is on the right side of the argument)

I would also ask Max Boot how those in today's military could gauge the 'corrosiveness' of women on the battlefield? Since none serving (active duty anyway) can remember what it was like before modern times - back when women were relatively scarce in the military?

I'm reading Thomas Sowell's Intellectuals and Society at the moment, and there's a lot in the book relevant to most major modern societal issues. I would commend it to Max Boot and Professor Reynold's: especially as it concerns the observation that societal norms are not the product of ignorance and inattention, but the product of systemic processes.

Systemic processes can bring into play more knowledge for decision-making purposes, through the interactions and mutual accommodations of many individuals, than any one of those individuals [participants] possesses. (p.16)

Max Boot, in his Commentary Contentions article trots out the old 'other militaries are doing it' argument [Did Moms stop using the Socratic "if everybody else jumped off a bridge would you do it?" stopper after my generation?]. He then goes off the deep end:

One would think that the presence of women would do even more than the presence of gays to undermine “male bonding.” Yet women have been granted admittance into almost all military occupations, in roles including flying fighter jets as McPeak once did. They are present on all major and most minor bases even in war zones. They frequently and regularly circulate on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan. What evidence is there that their presence has undermined combat effectiveness? And if it hasn’t, why would the presence of un-closeted gays be more corrosive than that of women?

'Evidence'? Hmmm. I'll answer his first question, which will dispense with the second.

First it must be recognized that such 'problems' are real and ongoing:

Some shore commands in the Norfolk, Va., area report that up to 34 percent of their billets are filled by pregnant sailors, and commanders are complaining about a “lack of proper manning to conduct their mission,” according to a Naval Inspector General report.

Second, it must be recognized that there is evidence that, I assume for politically correct reasons, such information is routinely suppressed or played down, it has been going on for years, and is a current problem.

I'm not picking on the Navy here: it is just a more obvious problem when you are structured to live, deploy and fight in geographically discrete units (aka 'ships'). The problem is one that affects all the services to varying degrees.

I enjoy the writings of both Max Boot and Professor Reynolds: they both have pretty good instincts, but they are both wrong on on repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell". I am guessing both Professor Reynolds and Max Boot view this as some sort of 'equal rights' issue instead of a military effectiveness issue. It would help both of them to recognize the military as a unique sub-culture in America, with unique limitations on civil rights, freely acknowledged by its members in taking an oath and accepted for the duration of our service.

I would only add that I find Max Boot's attitude somewhat irritating, but only because he suffers from the same shortcomings found in so many of those analysts and historians that are involved with the military, but are not of the military: not a part of the continuum of "systemic processes" that "can bring into play more knowledge for decision-making purposes, through the interactions and mutual accommodations of many individuals", over two centuries of the American military experience.

This is not a case of 'special pleading'. I assume ALL subcultures within the greater American civilization have systemic processes that have evolved and are unique to their groups (why would they not?). I claim no insight of any to which I do not also belong. I merely insist others do not claim relevant knowledge of mine in return.

Almost forgot: 'Heh'.

P.S. Recommended reading on Women in the Military: Coed Combat

Don't Ask Don't Tell Issue: Its Back...Again

President Obama, finally receiving pushback in his efforts to Socialize the United States of America to date, now seeks to subvert the only part of the Federal Government that is viewed positively by the American public: The Military. And it's all just to appease the radical 'homosexual activist' subset of an already small minority of the population. At Pajamas Media, I've posted my 2 cents, including reusing some point's I've made already earlier here and elsewhere:

The criteria as to what is acceptable in the military has not changed, nor should it to appease some tyrannical minority’s demand of not only acceptance but of ‘endorsement’. In the military, what delineates that which is acceptable conduct and behaviors from the unacceptable is how this this single question is answered:

Is it predjudicial to the good order and discipline of the Armed Forces of the United States?

DADT, while IMHO not a perfect solution, has worked because it focuses on conduct and behavior, and generally fits within the larger construct of required behaviors of all types.
All this bleating about ‘civil rights’ is rather limited in scope and focused on only the rights of that tyrannical minority don’t you think? Until separate sleeping and hygiene facilities that are provided in every possible field situation can be reasonably guaranteed to be equal to a heterosexual female’s vis-à-vis heterosexual male and vice versa — how will (insert heterosexual’s name here)’s sense of personal privacy and freedom from harassment be protected? Doesn’t (insert heterosexual’s name here) have as much of a right to not be quartered with a homosexual of the same sex as (insert name here) to not be quartered with a heterosexual of the opposite sex? (And isn’t all this PC gender-speak lovely?)

For the record, lest I (~sigh~once again) be accused of a being a 'homophobe'. Hardly. I am completely indifferent to it in my public life and the civilian workplace. Personally, I find the concept of 'exclusive homosexuality' itself to be in the grand scheme of things: 'pointless'. But that hasn't kept me from liking and respecting coworkers on their merits or not liking them and disrespecting them when warranted for a lack thereof.

About that "Don't Ask Don't Tell" So-Called 'Study'

It was a 'study group' of retired senior zeros. THEY CONDUCTED SURVEYS OF PEOPLE'S OPINIONS. I'll get to the so-called 'bipartisan' bit in a minute.

I recently told a late commenter to an earlier post of mine:

I believe one should always argue the data and judge the source by the data, not the data by the source.

The 'study' report gives no REAL data that supports the repeal of the DADT, but that doesn't stop them from asserting that it should be repealed because there is no real data (as they see it) that supports its continuance. This report is at the very least a mere issue advocacy PR release. Is it something else? Let's see.

Now having judged the 'data' (what the source had to say) let us look at the source a little more closely and with some earned skepticism.

I've never heard of the source of the study before: The Palm Center. Nice, friendly, name....What is it?

From their website:

The Palm Center, formerly the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, uses rigorous social science to inform public discussions of controversial social issues, enabling policy outcomes to be informed more by evidence than by emotion. Our data-driven approach is premised on the notion that the public makes wise choices on social issues when high quality information is available.

The Center promotes the interdisciplinary analysis of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and other marginalized sexual identities in the armed forces by forging a community of scholars, creating a forum for information exchange and debate, offering itself as a launching point for researchers who need access to data and scholarly networks, and supporting graduate student training.

The Center's ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell Project’ will continue to be its first priority under its new name – The Michael D. Palm Center. The goal of the DADT Project is to improve the quality of information available to public deliberations about the military policy.

So, the center's whole reason for its existence is to promote this kind of s*** as science (I love the hilarious claim of 'rigorous social science' - who says engineers don't have a sense of humor?). All the while hiding behind the 'bipartisan' disclaimer. How much press would this tripe have received if it the press release read "Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military Study Calls For the End of DADT"?

George Carlin once said something to the effect of: "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out."

That sounds about right. Oh, and unless study techniques and data are forthcoming very quickly, I will have to call this BS 'study' PROPAGANDA!

Update 9Jun08 @2300Hrs: I've been commenting on this topic over at Box Turtle Bulletin, and have been waiting patiently for someone to pick up on the ramifications of my asserting the 'study' has a propaganda stink. Why? Because I am OF the surveyed population, and am a part of it at least as much if not more than a lot of retired generals: I am still close to my once-2lts who are now approaching flag rank, my Son is now on a base in Japan, and another significant other (don't know if this is still sensitive info and so will not reveal the relationship at this time) is headed for Afghanistan very soon. Are my opinions and reasons for them a form of bigotry? Hardly. I assert that the insistence that I must think other than I do under some PC mandate could be viewed as a form of fascism. (thank you, Jonah Goldberg). Oh, and as anyone who has read this blog for any length of time is well aware, some of my thoughts on DADT can be found here.

Update 2, 20Jul08, 2107hrs. Visited the Box Turtle Bulletin to see if any more comments of interest had materialized. Saw only one worth replying to. Saw another one from some swell guy(?) calling himself 'Ben in Oakland' who went off on a long tirade about something. I think he's upset just because I and other heterosexuals in the military don't want to sleep with him. Evidently that makes guys like me evil.

Ack! It's Don't Ask Don't Tell.....Again!

Surprise! (not really)

General Peter Pace, good military man that he is, defers to and supports official policy (“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” or DADT) but makes the egregious error of thinking he was speaking to human beings when in reality he was speaking to reporters and also offers an aside on his personal beliefs, that he was raised with the belief ….gasp!....that homosexuality is immoral.

Why if one believes the Christianphobic press machine, this is as outrageous a thing as if he said he actually believed in the 10 Commandments! (If one can be ‘homophobic’ simply by not believing homosexuality is moral, the press can be ‘Christianphobic’ for insisting a Christian belief is ‘bigoted’)

Now that an aged moderate (but pro-defense) Republican has come out calling a Christian belief ‘bigoted’ by reversing his position on “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, Captain’s Quarters has chimed in on the topic (where Captain Ed is, alas, un-typically WAY off-base this time). There’s a lot of popping sounds in the comments section drowning out the few comments by people who understand the real issue….and the real issue is this:

Until separate sleeping and hygiene facilities that are provided in every possible field situation can be reasonably guaranteed to be equal to a female’s vis-à-vis heterosexual male and vice versa -- how will (insert name here)’s sense of personal privacy and freedom from harassment be protected? Doesn’t (insert name here) have as much of a right to not be quartered with a homosexual of the same sex as (insert name here) does to not be quartered with a heterosexual of the opposite sex? (And isn’t all this PC gender-speak lovely?)

An Illustrative Tale (all quotes approximate since it has been 25 years)

One of my most interesting off-duty moments while stationed at Keflavik NAS (Iceland) in the early 80’s came while sitting in my quarters watching the weekly AFRTS cable show called “Feedback”. The show was like a weekly Commander’s Call and bulletin board all wrapped up in one. This particular show was the monthly edition with the senior commanders of the Naval and Air Force components of the Icelandic Defense Force taking telephone questions from people on the base.

There was a grand opening (or reopening ) coming up of a dormitory that would house the unaccompanied Senior Enlisted (mostly Navy Chiefs) with the top floor to be dedicated to housing unaccompanied female naval personnel. This was controversial at the time because the Navy housed its people by units, and the new arrangement would move the females out of ‘female-only’ areas of their respective unit living quarters. The female personnel were not at all happy about this change: they did not want to be separated from their units -- so the phone calls became more and more irate as the show went on.

The AF Colonel was barely containing his enjoyment at his counterpart’s difficulty in fielding the tough questions, when the Navy Captain finally blurted out at the last questioner that he really “didn’t see the problem” with or "understand everyone's resistance" to the move and that this new arrangement would help “protect the females from ‘all the predatory’ males”…..when the female caller responded with heartfelt concern:

‘But who is going to protect me from all the females?”

The Colonel and Captain’ jaws dropped and crickets chirped for a while….

Then the Captain responded sheepishly with:

‘um, ah, we like to think that we don’t have that kind of problem …..

And the show wrapped up faster than you can say "DADT".

So all you people who say it won’t be a problem to lower the bar of acceptable behavior and allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military and that it won’t be prejudicial to good order and discipline, I hear:

‘um, ah, we like to think that we won’t have that kind of problem …..

Epilogue:

Navy Chiefs at ‘Kef’ were extremely heavy-handed in many things, and among them were being especially aggressive in gathering females in areas off-limits to junior enlisted without an invitation. A couple of months after the dorm was occupied, ‘someone’ (no doubt a junior enlisted male) pulled the fire alarm of the dorm in question. I was treated to quite a good show from my ‘accompanied’ quarters: all those flashing lights, with Chiefs and ladies milling around in the cold after being made to evacuate their Toga Party on the second floor, but not having enough clothes on to go anywhere else.

Extra Homework: Advanced Reading Topic

Talk about the tyranny of the minority!

Can anyone believe we would still be rehashing this as a ‘civil rights’ issue if NORC hadn’t chickened out and gamed the data summaries to hide the fact that homosexuals make up closer to 1% of the population instead of 3%?

For those who might not remember or be familiar with the study, the normally respected and disciplined NORC tried to pawn off ‘3%’ to the population in their study/book: “Sex in America”, in 1994. They did it by drawing the circle around the definition of homosexuality in an extremely broad context. All it did was piss off those (primarily religious conservatives) who thought it should be less than 1% on the one hand, and pro-homosexual activists that thought it should be 10% or more on the other. I think the end result was that hardly anybody actually read the book or studied the data provided. I highly recommend it. Read it and see for yourself what YOU think the data indicates.

Update 03/25/07 - corrected another fat-fingered typo