Allright, I usually steer clear of these political flame-bait posts on LPSG. I come here to see, meet, read about and enjoy big cocks and the men that are fortunate enough to wield them, not talk politics. Even though most politicians ARE big dicks, it doesn't mean they *have* big dicks. That being said, despite my inherent distaste for the "excessive bias" that is a defining quality of Jingoism, which is the source of his handle, I actually think Jingoist is giving himself unwarranted bad press.
Buried in his posts are lots of statements that actually show him to be an ally socially, just resistant to a change within his military construct. And as far as that goes, that's actually kind of okay.. In many ways a good military is a conservative, slow to change military.. Nations get into trouble with aggressive militaries that go over-reaching and try to initiate social change on their populations. e.g. Soviet reformation, Pol Pot, North Korea. A healthy nation is IMHO better served by a military that is inertia laden and unlikely to change at the drop of a hat or a change in the wind.
That said, since much of this thread seems to be throwing rhetorical mud at his wall of opinions I thought I would address some of his statements with knowledge.
1) the only civilian the military answers to is the one in the chain of command.
On the surface he is correct. Beyond budgetary allotments the remainder of the civilian government has precious little control over the military. However where he is wrong is that the ONLY civilian in his chain of command is NOT the President. There are many civilians in the chain of command from the civilian statisticians, planners and administrators in the State Department and the Pentagon that issue instructions and commands down stream that become orders (lawful or not, is another matter). That is how Wolfowitz, Feith and crew were able to architect and implement the invasion of Iraq. That one is simple. However it is also incumbent on that civilian government to encourage and goad that military establishment to grow, improve and adapt.
2) Militaries that incorporate open homosexuals in the ranks are less effective / give him an example of a military that does so that is as effective/lethal/powerful/ etc as the USA military is now without that complication...
Israel.
They not only allow openly gay members and WOMEN! in all roles including combat, they are granted equal benefits and support infrastructure, including housing and survivor's benefits. With no disrespect to our Military, who I honor, respect and support, if the Israeli military were scaled up to the USA's size and budget, they'd kick our ass. If you include their dark ops and special forces they are the deadliest, most effective, most disciplined and ready military force in the world, bar-none. And they admit ALL comers, all faiths, all genders all orientations and all philosophies. If you want to serve and protect Israel and you are a muslim, they will take you and find a useful role for you. They're my ace in the hole. No one with any real military experience and knowledge can refute that. However I would add the Australian, British and Canadian forces are also top notch and again scaled to our size and budget would compare very favorably to ours. The simple fact is we spend more on our military than any other nation in the world. Seven times more than China (#2) and 10 -20 times more than any of the other western cultures. It is that budgetary investment on our part and reduction on other nation's parts that has more impact on "effectiveness" than any inclusion or segregation of potential candidates. Sorry, that is fact.
3) the ancient ephebophile traditions in Greece, Crete, Persia, Rome etc were abusive dominance based relationships. While he is right that the receptor was typically the younger male and it was considered shameful for the older male to be receptive in these cultures, it does not extend that a) it was shameful for the younger males nor b) the relationships were abusive, borderline on rape. It was an honored and expected role. The erastes-eromenos relationship was a crucial social construct and a lifelong bond where the older was a sponsor and a patron of the younger helping and guiding him throughout his life even long after their sexual relationships may have ended or modified after the younger's marriage (usually @ 30). So no.. it was NOT a "prison-bitch" situation. In fact it was the heterosexual marriage that had more of that stigma where the bride was abducted, her head shaved and dressed as a man on the wedding night and it was considered unseemly amongst the Spartans for a man to spend too much time with his wife.. Often he would have to sneak out of the military compounds to go see her even if his goal was simply creating heirs. The inherent heteronormative / homo-denying academic culture of the past 100 - 400 years has done a lot to "straight-wash" this and "clean it up" to shore up the current heteronormative dominant social mores.. but the historical sources and archaeological facts are clear.
But this does open an interesting line of thought in that it is true: in many modern Islamic cultures, due to strict gender segregation, boys are for pleasure, women for babies. But that is actually a closer construct to the current military policy. i.e. "fuck all the guys you want, just keep it quiet, don't fall in love with them and marry a woman eventually and make babies".
In a nutshell, that third point along with the refutation of his first stance is why the policy is dangerous for America's military readiness and should be changed.
1) Forcing an honorable soldier (used to include all branches, not to disrespect the Marines, Navy, Coast Guard or Air Force) to *lie* in order to serve is a paradoxical implementation of Military honor.
2) to deny those same honorable and dedicated Soldiers the same benefits and opportunities given to others they serve with is wrong and disincents service by the best candidates. As it stands foreign nationals in our military have more rights, benefits and protections than gay/lesbian citizens serving (didn't know that non-us citizens could serve in our military? well it's true, not only can they, they are a sizable percentage of active duty ranks). The spouses of Guatemalan, El Salvadoran, Brazilian, etc Soldiers get survivor's benefits and immigration assistance as well as deployment support and housing allowances. My military buddies who have died in Afghanistan, Iraq and Africa had the final post-humous indignity of having their boyfriends/girlfriend denied counseling, support and assistance and in at least one case turned away from base when trying to collect his personal effects. This is disgusting and disgraceful. And this says nothing of the shortage of competent Arabic linguists we currently have because gay linguists have been discharged. That to me is the ultimate in STUPID POLICY IMPLEMENTATION. Who might have a better incentive to help battle a fundamentalist Islamist enemy than a gay arabic speaker?
Quite simply our Armed forces should and MUST want the best candidates in the proper roles and denying some of those candidates based on an innate characteristic, or forcing them to behave dishonorably (lie) and then further dis-incenting them by not rewarding or supporting them equally betrays and undermines that goal.
Oh, and I will sign off by answering Jingoist's inevitable (if unspoken) question of "Have you been in the military?" with my standard smart ass response:
"never more than one at a time." :smile:
But as I hinted at above, I have dated, been friends with, loved, been related to and supported many in my life and know quite a bit about the workings of the institution and its culture, thank you.
