General Petraeus
I had an hour long lunch today with Gen. Petraeus and eight other CPTs. Pretty freaking cool! He wanted to know about the greatest lesson learned on our deployment (answers ranged from taking ideas and putting them into practice, positive leadership, Afghani culture, working with the ANA and ANP, patience, the importance of COIN versus CT ect..). He also asked us our thoughts on relooking at the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. A lot of emotional responses from everyone. In the end, I think that folks get around a lot of rank and just parrot what they think that person wants to hear. In true fashion, I didn't. I told him that I thought it was a bad idea to relook at the policy, a policy that works.
The bottom line comes down to one thing: Readiness.
What do we stand to gain by allowing gays and lesbians to be out within the military ranks? I hardly think MORE people will join because our policy on gays has changed. In fact, I think more people will LEAVE the military due to the change.
I get it, people argue that we felt the same way about women and ethnic minorities in the Army. But this is different.
Let's take logistics:
1) How will we recognize gays as married couples? Are we going to ask the Chaplain Corps to perform marriages for gays? I hardly think our Catholic Priests are going to be okay with that one.
2) Currently, single Soldiers (re: Me) can not live on post. On-post housing is reserved for married couples. So, do we extend the same hand for gay couples? Where do we draw the line.
3) Combat versus Support units. I worry about the safety of out gays in combat units. The Army is a conservative entity. We know that when we sign the dotted line. I'm sorry, but Soldiers are tortured if someone even SUSPECTS them of being gay. Furthermore, we attract folks from all strata of society. Not everyone was raised in suburban/urban areas where homosexuality was visible. I worry about gay Soldiers in infantry units and the violence that occurs with long-deployments, alcohol and anger. I'm just saying.
4) Deployed Housing: How many fucking bathrooms/showers are we going to have? Do we bunk gays in one tent and straight men in another? What about General Order Number 1? We don't house men and women together in a deployed environment because it is innapropriate and no one wants to tempt the invetiable (re: Soldiers having sex). It's a lot harder to "control" when you have men living with other men who like to have sex with men. That's UCMJ punishable actions we are talking about. Having sex on a deployment will get you KICKED OUT OF THE ARMY. It's a serious integrity issue and harmful to unit cohesion. Why are we even looking at doing this?
Now I'm not saying that no gays are in the military. I know they are their.
What I am saying is that this doesn't feel like we're looking at the policy because it's what's best for the Army. We've got two fucking wars going on! Several Brigades in Haiti! Folks in Bosnia! Folks in the Phillipines and the Horn of Africa! I get it! We need more manpower however; this feels more like a ploy to stir the emotions of the public (re: "It's about time the Army be more inclusive.") in order to gain the support of the public for the upcoming years that it will take for us to rebuild Afghanistan.
Because it will take years. If you tought Iraq was a pain in the ass, Afghanistan is even more of a tribal headache. We're talking about the location where the plans for 9/11 were created. The Afghani people don't understand nationalism. All they understand is what's best for their tribe. It's going to be an uphill battle to build their policy force and military. Corruption is the norm NOT the exception. It's not 1,200 miles that seperates Iraq and Afghanistan rather, it's 1,200 fucking years. Even Kandahar and Kabul the "cities" of Afghanistan are hardly cities at all. They resemble the old West of American expansion during Manifest Destiny.
Alright, enough.
I've been running a lot over the past few days. 5 miles, 5 miles, 7 miles, 5 miles. I've found that running takes up a lot of time. And it's better for me than just sitting around watching, "Nip Tuck."
The bottom line comes down to one thing: Readiness.
What do we stand to gain by allowing gays and lesbians to be out within the military ranks? I hardly think MORE people will join because our policy on gays has changed. In fact, I think more people will LEAVE the military due to the change.
I get it, people argue that we felt the same way about women and ethnic minorities in the Army. But this is different.
Let's take logistics:
1) How will we recognize gays as married couples? Are we going to ask the Chaplain Corps to perform marriages for gays? I hardly think our Catholic Priests are going to be okay with that one.
2) Currently, single Soldiers (re: Me) can not live on post. On-post housing is reserved for married couples. So, do we extend the same hand for gay couples? Where do we draw the line.
3) Combat versus Support units. I worry about the safety of out gays in combat units. The Army is a conservative entity. We know that when we sign the dotted line. I'm sorry, but Soldiers are tortured if someone even SUSPECTS them of being gay. Furthermore, we attract folks from all strata of society. Not everyone was raised in suburban/urban areas where homosexuality was visible. I worry about gay Soldiers in infantry units and the violence that occurs with long-deployments, alcohol and anger. I'm just saying.
4) Deployed Housing: How many fucking bathrooms/showers are we going to have? Do we bunk gays in one tent and straight men in another? What about General Order Number 1? We don't house men and women together in a deployed environment because it is innapropriate and no one wants to tempt the invetiable (re: Soldiers having sex). It's a lot harder to "control" when you have men living with other men who like to have sex with men. That's UCMJ punishable actions we are talking about. Having sex on a deployment will get you KICKED OUT OF THE ARMY. It's a serious integrity issue and harmful to unit cohesion. Why are we even looking at doing this?
Now I'm not saying that no gays are in the military. I know they are their.
What I am saying is that this doesn't feel like we're looking at the policy because it's what's best for the Army. We've got two fucking wars going on! Several Brigades in Haiti! Folks in Bosnia! Folks in the Phillipines and the Horn of Africa! I get it! We need more manpower however; this feels more like a ploy to stir the emotions of the public (re: "It's about time the Army be more inclusive.") in order to gain the support of the public for the upcoming years that it will take for us to rebuild Afghanistan.
Because it will take years. If you tought Iraq was a pain in the ass, Afghanistan is even more of a tribal headache. We're talking about the location where the plans for 9/11 were created. The Afghani people don't understand nationalism. All they understand is what's best for their tribe. It's going to be an uphill battle to build their policy force and military. Corruption is the norm NOT the exception. It's not 1,200 miles that seperates Iraq and Afghanistan rather, it's 1,200 fucking years. Even Kandahar and Kabul the "cities" of Afghanistan are hardly cities at all. They resemble the old West of American expansion during Manifest Destiny.
Alright, enough.
I've been running a lot over the past few days. 5 miles, 5 miles, 7 miles, 5 miles. I've found that running takes up a lot of time. And it's better for me than just sitting around watching, "Nip Tuck."