pipetting zoo
As a follow-up to my previous rant about the "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) debate, I just have to wonder where the buck should stop. If people are concerned that a person's sexuality could affect the military's cohesion and morale, why don't they apply that same concern to other potentially divisive characteristics? People start riots over the outcomes of basketball games. Should recruiting offices turn someone away if she shows up in a Lakers T-shirt? Letting in sports fans could open a can of worms if you want solidarity in your ranks.
Why don't we also apply that concern to gang membership? Nick Turse pointed out the following in his book The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives:According to the Chicago Sun-Times, law enforcement officials have reported that the military is now "allowing more applicants with gang tattoos because they are under the gun to keep enlistment up." They also note that "gang activity may be rising among soldiers." The paper was provided with "photos of military buildings and equipment in Iraq that were vandalized with graffiti of gangs based in Chicago, Los Angeles, and other cities."
It's strange that the potential for gang rivalry seems to be of less concern than the possibility that a straight guy might feel uncomfortable bunking near a gay man. And perhaps I'm missing something here, but I think a combat-trained gay person sounds a lot less dangerous than a combat-trained gang member.
What else is divisive? I can think of something: privatization. We wouldn't dare do away with privatization, even though, as Army Reserve Spc. Aidan Delgado put it (quoted by Chris Hedges and Laila Al-Arian), "We had a lot of animosity against a lot of civilian contractors because they were being paid much more than us. They had a better life and yet we were convoying their stuff." Let's not get too carried away worrying about military cohesion and morale. Some people's profits are at stake.
Why don't we also apply that concern to gang membership? Nick Turse pointed out the following in his book The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives:According to the Chicago Sun-Times, law enforcement officials have reported that the military is now "allowing more applicants with gang tattoos because they are under the gun to keep enlistment up." They also note that "gang activity may be rising among soldiers." The paper was provided with "photos of military buildings and equipment in Iraq that were vandalized with graffiti of gangs based in Chicago, Los Angeles, and other cities."
It's strange that the potential for gang rivalry seems to be of less concern than the possibility that a straight guy might feel uncomfortable bunking near a gay man. And perhaps I'm missing something here, but I think a combat-trained gay person sounds a lot less dangerous than a combat-trained gang member.
What else is divisive? I can think of something: privatization. We wouldn't dare do away with privatization, even though, as Army Reserve Spc. Aidan Delgado put it (quoted by Chris Hedges and Laila Al-Arian), "We had a lot of animosity against a lot of civilian contractors because they were being paid much more than us. They had a better life and yet we were convoying their stuff." Let's not get too carried away worrying about military cohesion and morale. Some people's profits are at stake.