Posted on 06/10/2013 11:47:23 AM PDT by jazusamo
The headline on the front page of the New York Times said it all: "Women in the Senate Confront the Military on Sex Assaults."
In a triumphalist article showcasing the growing numbers of women on the Senate Armed Services Committee, "one of the Senate's most testosterone-driven panels," the story line presents female Senators attacking male military officials over charges of sexual assaults against women in the armed forces.
Us-against-them stories are great for generating excitement in the media and in politics. But whether any of this political theater will actually reduce sexual assaults against women in the armed forces is a totally different question.
For thousands of years, people around the world had the common sense to realize that putting young men and young women together in military operations was asking for trouble, not only for these young people of both sexes, but for the effectiveness of military forces entrusted with the fate of nations.
Yet, in these politically correct times, civilian leaders who increasingly have no experience whatever in the armed forces are far more willing to try to micro-manage the military than back in the days when most members of Congress and most Presidents had served in the military.
There seems to be something liberating about ignorance and inexperience. You are free to believe whatever you want to, unencumbered by hard facts and, if you have political power, to impose your headstrong ignorance on those with first-hand knowledge.
If sexual assaults in the military are taking place in our own country, far from the scenes of battle, what do you suppose is going to happen when men and women are in the same tents or trenches at night on battlefields thousands of miles away?
(Excerpt) Read more at creators.com ...
*A* problem is homosexual rape. I am not much for creating circumstances where either form occurs. You are correct however that the aspect of homosexual rape is being ignored in the media.
I am a retired senior NCO. Served over 20 years in the Air Force. I enjoyed every minute I served my country. With that said, I would not recommend today’s sodomized, feminized military to any young man or woman. No way in the world. Today’s military is about social experiments, not fighting and winning wars. It is only a matter of time before China surpasses us as the greatest military force in the world.
“There seems to be something liberating about ignorance and inexperience”
as anyone can identify with, just watching many teenagers, or listening to what many teernagers say, or listening to the popular teen music, or watching popular teen entertainment, or just remembering, with honesty, their own teen years.
But we expect that to come with the territory of immature juveniles, not with adults given charge over anything.
There seems to be something liberating about ignorance and inexperience.
( A golden nugget from Sowell.)
It must of been real rare. As a submariner serving on two boats during my time in the nav I spent nearly 2-1/2 years submerged and never heard of it...
What era? The former submariner I know served in the 1990s and said it was a big reason the U.S. Navy rank and file who served on ships was almost universally opposed to Clinton’s DADT policy when it came out.
I was in during the iron men and wooden ships era. LOL!
I was on boats from '81 to '85... When I got out the politically correct wussification was just beginning. Real military people were against DADT and are against DADT, homosexual sex practitioners and women serving in close quarter situations such as combat or submarines becuse it is a distraction to good order. It is a social experiment that at best adds nothing to the readiness and order equation and at worst detracts severely from the true mission VICTORY. The military is all about defeating the enemy and NOT about creating a diverse workforce with opportunities for all and affirmative action for some.
Men are men and women are women -AND perverts are perverts. There is a reason for uniforms and haircuts -IT involves uniformity which premises order.
It is tough enough on the boats WITHOUT introducing distractions like women that men will naturally be attracted to or men who are attracted to other men. I would not feel okay taking a shower knowing some guy was checking out my ass JUST as some woman would not want to take a shower with men. Unlike the leftist ideology which proclaims all are equal workers, just cogs in the machine -I am an individual.
The boats, once silent and deadly denizens of the deep and the crews once an ordered fighting force are being transformed by the left into MTV big brother 90210 side shows...
I seriously wonder how many good men and women are going to have to die to fix all the sh*t which they started. I'm also wondering if getting rid of a Red Chinese occupation army will be any more dangerous and deadly than the liberal occupation army voted in with BO and his cohorts.
Most of all, I'm looking forward to the second comming of Jesus Christ to lessen this suffering.
One thing that would concern me with a military ban on homosexuals would be the possibility that someone who knew someone in the military was a closet homosexual could blackmail the person with such knowledge. A prohibition on overt homosexual actions could retain must of the protective benefits of a ban on homosexual individuals, while perhaps reducing the effectiveness of blackmail. I'm not sure what the best policy would be, but reducing the extent to which people would be damaged by various revelations would seem like it would have some value.
Yes, I agree. As well the possibility of witch hunts could rear its ugly head. Initially these two concerns led me to put up with and not actively oppose DADT.
HOWEVER, after much consideration I corrected my flawed thinking having realized I was buying into the leftist compromise truth for justice and establish a false peace that promotes injustice propaganda meme.
REALLY we discuss an activity that was banned from the military for good reason. People do not have to engage in it. Those that feel they must -they suffer from a disorder.
Adultery, Drug Use, Swinging, Bestiality, Pedophilia -whatever -the same DADT arguments could be used to justify turning a blind eye to disorder. We discuss here the leftist strategy which entails any means necessary in pursuit of the goal. Evil means are justified by noble goals
My understanding is that under the old rules, a person could be discharged from the military on the basis of homosexual actions which were performed even before the person joined the service. To my mind, there should be a huge distinction between actions which are performed during the time a person employed by the military, and actions which are chronologically disjoint from any term of employment.
I think the 'science' du jour physical and mental has affected and still affects policies. For instance, prior drug use is a major no no in many areas as is prior felony convictions. In essence, past behavior can provide insight into predicted behavior and predicted 'risk'. As an aside, if one buys into the homonazi propaganda regarding born that way and having no choice but to engage in the activity like flaming penguins suffering from global warming and genetically modified food THEN one could see where prior activity would matter....
Leftists routinely equivocate on such issues, but that shouldn't prevent conservatives from recognizing that people are responsible for their own actions.
If someone engaged in some homosexual experimentation and decided it wasn't for them, I see no reason why such a person should forevermore be disqualified from military service. If after such a person had served their country valiantly, evidence of their past experimentation came to light, I would not think that the person should be considered dishonorable for having wanted to serve their country despite their past.
I could see a basis for requiring that someone who wants to join the military despite having some dubious things in his past that he wants to put behind him, must disclose such activities, and affirm that they do not wish to repeat them, before joining up. If voluntary disclose of such past behavior before entering the service is considered sufficiently honorable as to balance out any dishonor associated with having committed it, that would greatly reduce any legitimate basis for failure to disclose it. Further, such disclosure would make a person immune to any possible blackmail threats related to the disclosed information.
Yes. There are always exceptions and they can be handled exceptionally as in being granted a waiver. I speak from experience on this as when I enlisted to serve in the submarine force I admitted experimenting with pot a time or two when younger which automatically disqualified me from submarine duty. As a result, I was interviewed, determined eligible and granted a waiver.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.