Center for a New American Security

Oh that's still second place in the sweepstakes AM.

Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia said that if they began to loosen one restriction, others might unravel, leading to a louche atmosphere brimming with “alcohol use, adultery, fraternization and body art.” Don’t ask, don’t tat.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/opinion/03dowd.html

Alcohol in the military? Check. Adultery? Ever seen a broom on the porch in base housing? Fraternization? Thats why we have the reserves! Body Art? Bwwwaaaaaaaaaaa.

And yet somehow the US military has managed to chug along despite the strains of 2 wars and numerous other brushfires.

And I'll say it for a last time, the real test won't be during the work day, it'll be the first time someone takes their date to a Dining Out or other unit function with their significant other. Or when they become the lead in their FRG. It's the officer's wives clubs and all the other family functions where we'll see the real fun develop. Oh delicious!

Boondoggle, there's a lot of anecdotal evidence that the male partners of gay soldiers are natural allies with the other Army Wives during long deployments. Obviously not all of them—there remain those who don't and won't accept it—but as with younger soldiers finding gays not to be an issue, the trends are definitely moving in a specific direction.

As for this "hot tranny mess" business... what's with CNAS guys, straight as they are, using that? First Ricks, now you—who's next, Nagl?

Dude, it's worse than that, you're missing some stuff, here. What I found astounding was MacOwen's contention that the unleashing of 'eros' into the organization by the acceptance of homosexuals into the military would unravel the fraternal and paternal cohesion of the order because everyone would be jealous of the favoritism that might be shown by some officers to their more attractive and sexually compatible subordinates.

Um... didn't MacOwen just make an argument against allowing women into the military? An argument, that, if valid, would be actually be MUCH, MUCH stronger?

Taking the rough incidence of homosexuality as 0.1, and of women in the military as 0.2, here's my math. The idea is to figure out how much more frequently 'Eros' might manifest itself between an officer and an enlisted, given both homosexual and heterosexual men and women in the military. It could be completely wrong, as it's on the back of an envelope and I don't do any mathematical modeling on a regular basis. Corrections are welcome. But here's what I figure:


G - Gay Hazard
S - Straight Hazard
O - officer
E - enlisted
m - subscript for male ratio (0.8)
f - subscript for female ratio (0.2)
g - subscript for gay ratio (0.1)
s - subscript for straight ratio (0.9)
G = Omg * Emg + Ofg * Efg
S = Oms * Efs + Ofs * Ems

Assuming all ratios hold for both O and E,

G = (mg)^2 + (fg)^2
S = 2(ms * fs)
G = (0.8 * 0.1)^2 + (0.2 * 0.1)^2
S = 2 * ((0.8 * 0.9) * (0.2 * 0.9))

G = 0.08^2 + 0.02^2
S = 2 * ( 0.72 * 0.18)

G = 0.0068
S = 0.2592


In other words, this argument would THIRTY-EIGHT times stronger when used against including women into the military, judging by incidence of potential pair formation.

Visitor 10:57:

The challenge we have, however, comes back to Andrew's argument about data. Since we know gays serve, just not openly, how many have been discharged for the sexually aggressive behavior you posit? At least in the popular imagination, most gays seem to have been discharged merely for revelation—that is, someone outed them, so Army regs require they be removed from service.

Similarly, and again this is in the popular imagination and possibly apocryphal, there IS a very real incidence of straight male soldiers being disciplined and discharged for aggressive behavior toward female soldiers (even if the absolute incidence is really small). Now, we can theorize about why this is, including that the very real threat of harrassment or discharge serves as an incentive against sexual aggression for gay men that might not necessarily be present for straight men, but we need data to be able to discuss it without resorting to biases and assumption—on either side.

Put another way, you will always get predatory jerks in any sufficiently large sample of the population—the real policy question seems to boil down to whether you ignore them or punish/exclude them. I've been deployed (as a civilian, mind you) with soldiers whose behavior and attitudes toward women is reprehensible and unacceptable; far more soldiers, actually the vast, overwhelming majority, behave appropriately and honorably toward their sisters in uniform. I'm not comfortable drawing broad conclusions about either end of that experience. We wouldn't think twice about a straight soldier being punished or discharged for inappropriate behavior toward the other gender; but we seem terrified of being unable to control for the probably miniscule percentage of gay and lesbian soldiers who might mirror such behavior. Why is that?

All this talk of sex drive dynamics is great, but it needs to be balanced against actual study and research... which leaves us at the same point as Andrews argument from yesterday, just a few steps beyond opinion polling.

Foust,

Any data we collect on the number of sexual misbehaviors by gays in the Military in the past 18 years are really useless because we haven't really opened the flood gate to all gays in the service. DATD did more to scare gays from joining the military, why put up with that hassle....once we open the flood gates and gays are allowed in, only then can we start collecting statistics that make sense and can be interpreted against male/woman aggressions

From Mr. Owens:

The glue of the military ethos is what the Greeks called philia—friendship, comradeship or brotherly love. Philia, the bond among disparate individuals who have nothing in common but facing death and misery together, is the source of the unit cohesion that most research has shown to be critical to battlefield success.

If you believe that philia can overcome race, overcome gender, overcome religion, overcome nationality, overcome cultural heritage, overcome economic background, overcome political party, overcome every freakin' thing on the planet but sexual orientation, what does that say about you?

Gays should not be persecuted. And if people are being outed by 3d parties and that's being used to push discharges, that's wrong on many levels. I am basically against informing on all but serious offenses, and Mr Willie has to be involved in a rape or a child to be considered serious. Or adultery if it were in the open. Whether or not open gayness in the ranks will be a detriment to combat effectiveness remains to be seen. I will say from multiple experiences and 13 years experience that the thought that someone might be a rat or that there are informers in the barracks is utterly, utterly ruinous to a unit's cohesion and to the bonds of trust between comrades, leaders and led. In fact if there's a thought that Command is cultivating snitches in the unit then the bond between leaders and led becomes nothing but a matter of threats and calculation on both sides. That's not hypothetical. No one likes a rat, or the thought that someone might be a rat. Being gay or suspected of same wouldn't even approach the levels of suspicion and hate that comes with being suspected as a snitch.

I lend qualified support to the imperfect and not perfectly just policy of DADT based on it being a great improvement over the previous witch hunts, scandals, ruined careers and lives, revoked security clearances, CID and CI hanging out at gay bars parking lots, etc that happened under the zero tolerance policies. Also there are very real reasons we should be very chary of introducing dissension in the ranks. And sexual intrigue is great fodder for tension and dissent.

If people really are being pushed out for being outed, than that's very wrong and counterproductive and should cease.
Now, is that actually happening? Because I can't think of a case that comes to mind.

I really don't think letting the agenda have it's way in the barracks is good policy, but cultivating informants and the informant culture is ruinous.

For those concerned with agendas, social justice, or justice at all...that's not what the military is about. At all. We don't carry guns to do justice. Nope. PC/COIN, propaganda aside...the guns are to kill people. Still.

And anyone whose had any encounters with UCMJ would certainly agree it's not about justice. They tack that on at the end for show. In fact it's a risible notion. You'd be lucky if it even entered their heads, on any issue.

Come on. No one is calling for a reinstitution of the Sacred Band of Thebes. Even if it was the best fighting unit in tha ancient world during its time, until finally overwhelmed by Phillip and young Alexander.

The ship sailed on Mac Owens' argument when the service went coed. He places the worst possible construction on an unlikely situation, and apparently assumes that it will occur in every unit with widespread affects, disregarding the current belief that sexual orientation is not relevant to job performance or teamwork, taking a low view of hte abilities of American soldiers to function in an environment of equality, failing to distinguish how the favoritism in this awful scenario is any different from the bonds of buddyship that do develop and cause a soldier to take extraordinary measures for a best friend in the unit, and above all, failing to make any meaningful analysis of why our fundamental American principle of equality should be compromised for a potential minor intangible benefit which compromises individual integrity.

Dude - Achilles and Patroclus.

I'm gay and I'd like to serve in the Army if DADT is repealed. I don't really qualify as a hot tranny mess, but I have no intention of hiding or lying about being gay. I never feel the need to announce my sexuality at every chance (present comment excepted), but I know all too well that being in the closet prevents a pretty basic level of honesty with myself and with others.

For what it's worth, I don't view the military as a dating service and have no intention of looking for a boyfriend among the ranks. I won't gaze lustily at my comrades during the long steamy showers everyone is worried about. I do hope to come out, if you will, a better leader and a better decision maker. I do want to be a better citizen.

@Nemesis 12:21pm:

"As far as Ancient Greek warriors go....those great city states/nations didn't survive....their Armies were DEFEATED."

I have no idea what passes for history in modern schools, but take it from someone who studied this period: THE STATEMENT ABOVE IS ENTIRELY MISLEADING AND DISINGENUOUS.

The Greeks were able to take on and win against the Phoenicians (whom they kept at bay) and the Persians (then the greatest military power on the planet). Didn't they teach anyone about the great Greek victories at Salamis and Marathon? The only times the Greeks lost were when they fought EACH OTHER or ROME. The Peloponnesian war was between Athens and Sparta: there's noone who can make a case that this was a straight v. gay conflict. The conquest of the Greeks by Philip and Alexander of Macedonia can easily be described as between Northern Greeks and Southern Greeks (modern ethnic identifications notwithstanding), and Alexander (himself at least bisexual) went on to CONQUER the same Persia the Athenians defeated earlier. The Roman conquest of Greece, in turn, only happened after Roman culture had been well exposed to the Greeks - and had taken on many Hellenistic aspects. Describing the Romans as upstanding heterosexuals is marginally less humorous than citing ancient Greek philosophy to defend DADT.

I agree that we are probably looking at a gradual integration of gay servicepeople. But if you're going to make an argument, make sure of your facts first - especially when trying to tear down a perfectly applicable criticism of homophobic stupidspeak.

The last thing anyone wants to do when they're trying to avoid getting ventilated is have sex with somebody. This idea that having women or homosexuals in combat brigades will create distracting "sexual tension" is baloney because anyone undisciplined enough to be thinking about sex under fire would have been bounced out during basic, or killed during their first engagement, in the first place.

The real reason we don't have women in combat brigades, beyond the hygienic concerns, is because basic training, particularly within the Marine Corps, uses women as a stick to beat the recruits into shape and break down their self-esteem, a process which involves basically calling any significant other they have a whore 100 times a day and repeated slights to their mothers. An unfortunate side-effect of this is breeding a rabid and violent contempt for women in the minds of some soldiers and the last thing the military wants from a p.r. perspective is a rash of female fraggings; hell, it has a hard enough time keeping the high incidence of domestic violence among its members out of the media as it is. A similar reason exists for the opposition to homosexuals; it removes a cheap but easy tool from the trainer's arsenal of brainwashing abuse. How useful is calling a recruit a fag going to be when he is, admittedly, a man who likes screwing men? How useful will it be with his fellow straight recruit when he sees a homosexual one next to him everyday, doing everything he does just as well or better? Admittedly, there are those who are uneasy about it out of squeamishness or bigotry, but I'd imagine that from a structural point of view, it will be this necessary change in how our military training is done that upsets most of the naysayers in the Pentagon bureaucracy. Of course, going in front of a camera and admitting that it will invalidate a core part of the mental battering our military uses to break men to command and respond quickly in combat situations isn't exactly possible given how our society feels about the dignity of the individual, and justifiably so in my opinion.

What visitor at 3:52 said. Athens enshrined pederasty in law for over one thousand years. We can only hope for a run that long.

However, even applying our modern terms like homosexual or heterosexual to the ancients is absurd. They simply did not view sexuality like we do. Hell, Ptolemaic Egypt had a decent run... should we all start screwing our sisters now?

Continuing along the lines of my 10:57 am comment above.

If, however, we believe that -- generally speaking -- the sex drive of gays and straights is likely to be somewhat equal, and that (like with men and women in the military today) excessive opportunity and provocation (sleeping and showering together with potential sex partners) IS LIKELY to present a significant problem for the US military,

Then, prior to ending DADT, we will need to -- like with men and women in the military today -- provide this new cohort of potential sex partners with separate shower and billeting/sleeping arrangements.

This would only seem right. As we in the military have always acted to protect the privacy and physical well-being of members of the opposite sex in a military environment (by providing separate sleeping and showering arrangements),

Likewise, we will need to act to protect the privacy and physical well-being of members of the same sex in the military -- by (1) identifying those who are gay and (2) segregating them (re: sleeping and showering) from each other and from the other members of their own sex.

This would seem to be very important to do (as with women and men in the military today) but definitely a nightmare to try to accomplish.

Thus, unless and until we can argue -- and prove -- that the sex-drive of gays is but a very small ember (when compared, for example, to a "volcanic" sex-drive for straights), then we must treat gays and straights equally in the military.

This to be done by protecting both groups (and, thereby, the United States military) from the dangers associated with exceptional sexual provocation and gross loss of privacy.

All of these reasoned arguments that explaing why gays should not be allowed to serve openly in the military don´t seem to be supported by any data from the myriad of countries that have allowed gays to openly serve for years. Do opponents of repealing DADT think that this days is being hidden or falsified? Where are all the studies that prove homosexuals destroy unite morale and cohesion?

Once again, the same baseless arguments that were used to oppose desegregating the military and allowing women to serve are being trotted out to oppose gays serving openly.

When DADT is repealed, it will be a gigantic non-event. Gay men and women will be allowed to serve openly and honorably. And hardly anyone will give a shit.

Um, last time I checked the reason we don't allow women into "combat MOS'es" has nothing to do with sex. That's a complete non sequitour. Rather, we have excluded them for the following reasons:
1) Hygiene issues - During extended combat operations, their hygiene requirements are vastly different from a male's and require special attention to prevent infections. The females in the Korengal valley in 2006 had to, from time to time, be evac'd to a FOB to shower and clean their internal parts.
2) Their safety (and not from our own male soldiers) - We realized that not all enemies we fight would view women in the same light that the western tradition does (with relatively high regard... although from reading some of these comments that's not at all apparent). We hypothesized that a woman in an infantry unit may be come targeted for capture and raped. Yes, that concern also exists for men, but the fear lingered with women.
3) Some of our allies didn't view women the same. Some traditions still have a hard time viewing women as fighters. They would have issues with it.
4) Physical differences - The donning of a 120-lb ruck and patrolling for 10 days straight probably requires some physiological minimum. Someone decided that the differences between men and women physically would preclude women from, on average, being able to do just that.

Much of this has now been negated due to the "modernization" of warfare. Women serve as gunners on mounted combat patrols with great regularity, now. That's not to say that there aren't times when a unit has to dismount and ruck 15-30 miles carrying a full combat load, but that's much less frequent AND there are plenty of male soldiers who are not physically built in a way that is conducive to patrolling.

I'll admit that while I studied quite a bit of soviet history, most of it was non-military related and post-WWII. If, however, memory serves me correctly, the Soviets made quite a large use of females in combat roles, with quite a bit of success.

The idea that every single person is driven primarily by pure, unchecked sexual desire is ridiculous. Not every soldier rapes every female they see. Hell, not every soldier finds every girl they see attractive. Similarly, not every gay man finds every other man attractive. While its pretty well established that one's sexual orientation is not something that an individual has control over, that same individual does have the ability to control when and how they act on that orientation and desire. I find it very hard to believe that with a repeal of DADT, that there will be an all-out greek-cultural swinging orgy rampantly making its way through the ranks.

This gets more hilarious as it goes.

Yeah AM sure...sure this is your last post on this....in the same world where you stop blogging.

Once again, you are going to be left at the altar! In front of your family, the guests, the photographer....this is all bullshit!! He dusted it off because of the loss in Mass of Kennedy's seat. Your looking for a 69 when he'll never count higher than 68 (you do me, I'll owe ya one).

But let's say it' comes to pass. I do think we'll survive it. All other things being equal. Nemesis - chill out dude. Winning is most definitely NOT on the menu. Learn to stop giving a f*ck and get out, or glide to 20. Seriously. The people who make the decisions don't even believe in victory, other than the next election.

As far as it being a non-event. Uh, no. The activists with an agenda won't let it be, and will do their level shit stirring best to make sure it's right and righteously in everyone's face. And as sure as shit when someone doesn't take no for an answer and gets their head broke, he'll be the victim and martyr.

Just as the military drug scene isn't like college kiddies - it's the Hood - so the military sex scene isn't like college either.
You homos who serve in all male units don't really appreciate this...but then again you have forgotten how to talk to girls, if you ever knew. Briefly if there are women around there will be competition, fights, jealously, intrigue, and the little minxes will play every card they've got. Half those cards are dealt by nature, the other half by the Left's strange political combination of attempting to perfect society according to their dictates and being vengeful and vindictive when it doesn't work. In other words Nemesis is wise in a way not to be alone in the room if he wants to play disciplinarian.

It's a f*cking bar fight always waiting to break out, take your pick of the Brother's bar just off post, or your favorite redneck shoot em up Texas style honky tonk. And why not? Enlisted Men are basically slaves when on duty, slaves that could die or be hurt very badly, and we work for over-educated, effete idiots. Why not drink, fight, and f*ck everything that moves. Especially if she's a prized GI Jane. And from GI Janes POV, why shouldn't she take advantage of all the attention? Why not give into the primal urge to have strong men fighting over you? And if there's trouble why not accuse the leadership of sexual harassment? WTF do you have to lose? Live life to the fullest! For tomorrow ye may well die. Also for you civilian homos - understand something. These Mil Chiks will proposition you within 15 seconds of first setting eyes on you, and they're quite blunt and ready to go - with their boots on. It's kinda tough to say no, it's not like there are too many more important things going on that are more important than getting your Jimmy waxed. Mission? You must be kidding. Sure, I'll support the mission but it's just for the adrenaline fix and to keep faith with my brothers. The rest is delusional.

Now none of you Combat Arms fags should misunderstand me. I absolutely think we should continue to deploy with Chicks with guns. Why? Please see above paragraph. OH and BTW the bigger the gun: the hotter the chick.

The same can go for gays. I know of a couple of great soldiers who are almost certainly Bi. I don't care.

However as you may have gathered we're rather strong game, and play by rough rules....sooo...if some idiot with malfunctioning Gaydar doesn't get the message that no means no and has the followup delivered by fist, ASP or bang bang please don't make him into some kind of martyr. Cuz he probably isn't.

Oh, and per previous cases - and my dictum is prior behavior predicts future behavior - the worst, worst offenders will be Drill SGT's and D.I's, followed in a close second by middle aged CSM/SGM types, and field grades. No male Drill who has female trainees wants for female companionship. Bullshit. Hell some of them basically will screw every female in the cycle. That's from jump street, OK? And oh yes...when and if they get caught they'll face professional ruin. And guess what? Is it worth it? HELL YES .

"the other half by the Left's"

Of course! LOL.

Mr. Exum,
You portray yourself as some kind of serious scholar, so you have made the case for repealing DADT. I don't have any position one way or the other but I'm interested to hear how you might answer the compelling arguements that have been made against on this blog:

"I might suggest that a "coherent case against gays in the military (or "for," depending on how you look at it), which could enlighten public discourse" might be found at 6:00 pm and 6:28 pm in yesterday's entry.Herein, the suggestion was made that: If the "sex-drive" of gays is generally believed to be of the same degree of magnitude as that of "straights," then the problems (or lack thereof) relating to exceptional sexual provacation (sleeping and showering with individuals one is sexually attracted to) should be similar for both groups.Thus, if the dynamic of sexual drive and attraction is expected to pose no significant problem for the military re: gays and same-sex individuals sleeping and showering together, then, likewise, it should pose no significant problems re: straights and members of the opposite sex sleeping and showering together."

Are you going to answer? Or are you going to just write snarky posts calling those who disagree on DADT backward hicks? I suspect it's the latter which is why I don't understand why you've posted this twice in the last two days, it makes you sound like a punk if all you're going to do is hit an run like some kind of celebrity pundit.

@another,

Yes, I'm currently in contract talks with the USMC to produce a recruiting video for them, the concept combines the magic sword fighting the dragon with Xena warrior princess porn as the warriors reward. Basically the theme is getting shot at = getting laid. Vince McMahon is producing. And since I believe in EO 100% pure PC, if DADT is repealed we'll be producing a LGBT-R (Robot) recruiting flick, although that one will be more geared towards USN and USAF and sub-contracted to CNAS. They said they wanted more research, well here ya go.

You'll have to excuse me. My lovebot True Companion and I have to get ready for the dining in. And they'd better not think about not letting her in, or I shall report them for being bigoted Christian progeny of incest racists.

OK semi serious, reserving the option of falling back into insanity...

"What I'm hearing is that there's a fine line between brotherhood and man-to-man eroticism.."

Dude. No. No. Not unless ye were so inclined anyway, and the life/death nature of what occurs transcends that...

And please if you are going to refer to Israel and it's military culture: Sir (I presume) Israel is a country that formed around an band of warriors who became the nation. Actually Zionism going militarist happened in response to tribal raiding self defense and a reaction to the Czarist pogroms. Hell they were basically a vigilante gang in the beginning. It's a country that formed around armed bands and total, total mobilization. That's also the reason that for awhile socialism seemed to be working. OK that's my free market side coming out, but on the militarist nature of Israel - yeah. It's a different story in the US, even if you take into account the English yeoman tradition which evolved into our citizen soldiery.

You may want to check out Martin Van Crevald's "The Sword and the Olive" for a critical look at the History of the IDF, going back to the end of the 19th century. It's also instructive for learning what the Israeli male soldiers true attitudes towards the females serving was at various points. Which doesn't make it right, or right for us (sexist by our standards). But that's a different world.

The alternative to this idea, of course, is to require that all service members, regardless of sex and sexual orientation, sleep and shower together as a requirement of serving in our Armed Forces.

Vistorwiththeshowerfetish -

Have you ever taken a shower to a health club? The gays have probably been there, too.

If sleeping and showering with one's preferred sexual partner group is really no big deal, and certainly not a problem for the US military (as a few commenters above have suggested),

Then why are there, throughout the military -- at every location -- stateside and overseas -- in the rear and in the forward areas -- separate billeting/sleeping/showering facilities for males and females?

Are these separate billeting/sleeping/showering arrangements done for no intelligent purpose and, therefore, should this practice (of building and maintaining separate facilities -- and of requiring that males and females to be separated from each other re: sleeping and showering) simply be abandonded?

If we were to adopt such a practice (having all sexes sleep and shower together as a requirement of military service), should we expect no significant problems with this new policy and these new arrangements?