Military Expert Questions West Point's Reward of Pro-Homosexual Dissent

Agape Press ^ | August 10, 2006 | Chad Groening

[colrpfournier]

...the military's policy banning homosexuals from service is not only wrong but harmful to America's armed services.

Harmful?

Hardly.

Girly men don't belong in the trenches. Come to think of it, neither do girly girls.

[vetvetdoug]

she intends to question....

That about sums up why it is being questioned. I would look into the one making the questionings personal life.

[LS]

I don't like the topic, but support West Point's rationale. For years, the U.S. Naval Academy's "Proceedings" has been the most open and provocative of the military journals for precisely the reason that debate and discussion among officers promotes critical thinking and makes . . . better officers.

In previous eras, when debate on ANYTHING was stifled, we paid for it: Billy Mitchell arguing for land-based air; William Sims in the Navy trying to introduce new methods of aiming guns. What the services found was that debate and critical thinking were more important to producing officers than censoring any particular subject, so in the 1980s, "Proceedings" had a wide-open debate over the shooting of the Iranian airliner, and, later, about both women in the military and "gays" in the military.

It is our ability to create officers who THINK which gives us the advantage over all of our enemies, anytime, anywhere.

[gaspar]

A "Twenty-year career"!? Most ambitious graduates of our military academies look forward to a career of 30+ years. The graduate is, to be charitable, a phoney.

[pgyanke]

A "Twenty-year career"!? Most ambitious graduates of our military academies look forward to a career of 30+ years. The graduate is, to be charitable, a phoney.

Ignorant rant.

[Monterrosa-24]

"...to create officers who THINK..."

It does not look like a case of thinking. It looks like a case of trendy political correctness by West Point faculty who wish they were at Columbia or Yale.

They might as well give an award to some snot-nosed cadet who writes about how America is the greatest threat to world peace.

[LS]

Perhaps, perhaps not. The point is, our strength comes from having officers who think, and who are not robots. I write at length about this in my book, America's Victories: Why the U.S. Wins Wars and Will Win the War on Terror. We have what they will never have: autonomous thinkers.

[xzins]

He received an award from the English Department.

That means it was for a well-written, well-argued paper. I imagine someone else has gotten an award in the past for a paper on some novel or other. That's what English Departments do.

That said, homosexuality should continue to be banned among our troops because of morale, team unity, and the walking blood supply.

[DustyMoment]

This incident has led Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, to wonder what officials at the Academy were thinking. "I do intend to bring this to the attention of some of the people in the leadership roles at West Point," she says. "I think it ought to be questioned."

Even dim-bulb Clinton understood why the military frowned on gays when he finally saw the living conditions aboard a carrier. Until that time, he thought everyone had their own private stateroom. The wake-up call he received after being elected didn't last, unfortunately - he went on to perpetrate the "Don't ask, don't tell fraud".

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

if this lt stays in look for problems in the future.A liberal? you betcha.

[colrpfournier]

Thanks to ffff for this:

(Original publication: April 21, 2006) WEST POINT — The U.S. Military Academy at West Point was host last night to one of the world's foremost critics of American foreign policy. Noam Chomsky, the Institute Professor Emeritus of Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, spoke at the academy as part of its Distinguished Lecture Series.

It sounds like West Point is becoming to the U. S. Military Establishment as Notre Dame is to the Roman Catholic Church.

[colrpfournier]

I find absolutely nothing with which I disagree in your last, well written sentence.

[Steel Wolf]

Girly men don't belong in the trenches. Come to think of it, neither do girly girls.

I'm glad you raised that point. I found it very ironic that the author, who is female, pointed out studies that show problems with homosexuals.

Women don't make very good soldiers. I've served with them for years, and they make excellent technicians, analysts, linguists, medics, etc. Anything skill based, they're as good as any man. But as far as soldiering goes, they're not as strong, fast, or aggressive as men. In fact, they're outright detrimental to have in a combat environment.

I personally don't care if the guy in the foxhole next to me is gay, so long as he's a good soldier. The only issues with integrating gay soldiers are psychological, not physical. For instance (and I've had this specific problem) if you've got 400lbs of gear to distribute among 4 soldiers, you can basically do a 100lb split between 4 males. You can't with 3 males and 1 female, or 2 males and 2 females. Once my load starts inching past the 130 mark, I start to lose appreciation for the women who, in many ways are nice to have around, are the cause of my increasingly sore back.

So, the author can look down on gay soldiers all she wants. As soldiers go, I'd pick them over her in a heartbeat.

[colrpfournier]

Do you not believe that there is nothing "balanced" in respect to homosexual behavior and thought processes?

Homosexuality is a progressive and welcomed disease of the mind and is contrary to anything that makes sense in our society.

By continuing homosexual behavior the mind becomes undependable and certainly unhinged.

If one thinks for a short while about what homosexuals have forced themselves to believe and about how they achieve orgasm in their love methods, it should make one stop and consider whether they should be in the military.

They are as opposite of heterosexual men as is possible.

Perhaps they could serve in a pansy division.

[xzins]

The female issue is a real problem with some maintenance units.

They permit females in those specialties, but when it gets down to it they can't do the lifting. One mechanic I know complains that when it's time to change a tire, they have to call on the guys to do the lifting. In short, a 5 man shop just became a four man shop.

When it's time to hold an alternator up with one hand and emplace it with another, the girl has to take the shop's jack to do it, while the guy holds with one hand and tightens with another.

What difference does it make?


Think.....what about when in the field without all the equipment?

[Antoninus]

Second-Lieutenant Raggio has said he plans to pursue a 20-year career in the military and believes there is no reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to serve.

Let's ask him again after 20 years. I'll bet he has a somewhat different point of view. Many of us are deeply embarrassed of some things we wrote in our late teens, early 20s.

[Antoninus]

Here's reason #1,273 why homosexuals should be booted from the military. I'll bet this cadet never ran across this story:

From Frontpage Magazine, Feb. 4, 2004:

"Odder still is the attempt to make some sort of martyr out of former Lt. Col. Steve Loomis, a Vietnam war veteran and recipient of both the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star. Liberals point to his dismissal from the Army in 1997, purportedly because of his sexuality, as proof that the United States military is a backwards institution running a witch hunt for homosexuals. In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down a sodomy law on the grounds that it “furthers no legitimate state interest,” Loomis has brought a lawsuit against the government over his dismissal.

"So how was it that the United States Army “outed” Loomis? Well, it was right about the time his house burned down and pornography he had made with enlisted men was found in the debris. Furthermore, the arsonist turned out to be an enlisted man Loomis had been photographing nude."

[napscoordinator]

Although gays in the military are harmful to morale etc. I would want to know what the requirements were for the essay. First, if the award was given for the English grammer etc than the award would be appropriate. If it was a philosophy class, I would not agree to this award. It would depend on the parameters that were given to the students. We give awards for fiction all the time so I don't see why this would not be considered a fictional piece of one's opinion. Plus it is a little late to be questioning something that will not be taken back at this point. The Soldier is now probably in Iraq fighting for the country and maybe his perspective has changed. I don't find it that bad for a person to believe something and after getting a dose of reality finding he was mistaken in his opinion. If fact, that could be a good thing.

[Lucky Dog]

All of the hoopla surrounding this whole issue [gays/women in the military] ignores the basics. The military (all branches) exists to fight wars.

War is hell, as Sherman noted. Unfortunately, despite this undesirable condition, there remain those in world who insist on perpetrating “hell” on their fellow humans. Sadly, even if one is repulsed by war, there is no refusing to participate in it when others would force it upon others.

Consequently, as Macarthur noted, one truism exists for all wars, there is no substitute for victory. Military victory, not to be confused with political victory, generally goes to the most capable, best led and most determined military force. Anything that weakens a military force’s capability reduces its chances of victory and that which increases a military’s capability increases its chances for victory.

As a result, the key question concerning gays or women in the military becomes does the presence of these two population segments increase, or decrease, the military capability of the nations war making forces? Many have made substantive, fact based arguments that the presence of these population segments add nothing to military capability and strength, but, rather, weaken military capability.

Therefore, there is really no reasonable response but restrict the presence of these population segments. In the case of females, they should be restricted to those duties in which there is a positive contribution with no negatives. In the case of gays, there is not even one such position. Consequently, barring them from service is the only reasonable course.

[Old Student]

"Ignorant rant."

Agreed. I spent 24 years in the USAF, although I'm not an officer. I would not recommend it, although 20 years is a nice round number for a temporary career. I'm afraid I be live that anyone making policy in the military should be a civilian who has served, and those executing that policy should be relatively young, and mentally flexible.