Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “Straight Eye for the Queer Guy”

« No Time for Sergeants - the First Post-Penultimate Word on the A.D.D.D.D.A. | Main | "Argue" Post: Gays Serving Openly in the Military »

June 25, 2009

Straight Eye for the Queer Guy

Hatched by Dafydd

An American officer in Iraq offers a plan -- "under protest!" -- for mitigating problems of gays serving openly in the military

As readers know, I strongly support allowing gays to serve openly in military service in any capacity, and also allowing women to serve in combat. The two policy questions are very different, so I will split them into two different posts.

Please do not post arguments here for or against the policy of allowing gays to serve openly; I opened an "argue" post for that purpose in this post here. Please only put comments in this post about the efficacy of the training regime discussed below, and put any comments for or against the policy itself in the post linked in this paragraph. Thanks!

I recently argued the first in a blogpost titled Martial Arts and Marital Darts -- wherein I took the Obamacle and his Bestial Virgins to task for pushing so hard for same-sex marriage (yes, even Barack "Lucky Lefty" Obama himself, when he denounced California's Proposition 8)... while doing absolutely nothing to allow gays to serve openly: I argued that the favored policy was an attack on traditional marriage and could gravely damage Western civilization, if it leads to further changes in marriage, such as acceptance of polygamy; while the disfavored policy was actually an exercise of liberty and every person's fundamental right to defend his nation and society.

I was naturally aware that many, particularly in the military, rejected the policy of gays serving openly in military service; so when I heard from one such -- an officer in Iraq, a "Transition Team Leader" who blogs under the name Boss Mongo -- I responded, and we had a friendly and fascinating discussion.

Please make no mistake: Boss Mongo very much opposes the policy change I support. He is an upper mid-level commissioned officer who served two tours in Iraq and now commands a training team. He believes that such a policy change would be "prejudicial to good order and discipline," and would damage our warfighting capability.

But I was much more interested in Boss Mongo's expertise than his opinion; I've heard opinions on all sides from officers and enlisted, many with similar combat experience. But this was the first time I was able to speak, one on one, with a training officer who could move the discussion forward beyond the hand-waving stage (on both sides!)

I urged Boss Mongo to tell me what he would do to mitigate the damage -- what training he would have to institute (were the policy ordered) to preserve "good order and discipline." The thought experiment I gave him specified that Congress, the Commander in Chief, and and Pentagon had all agreed -- and no branch of government had consulted Boss Mongo before making its decision (amazing!) So now, the orders have come down the chain (in this hypothetical), and he is ordered to take charge of the training program to prepare current and incoming soldiers, gay and straight, for the New Way.

What, I asked him, would you do? He agreed that he would not resign his commission; he's a career guy, and he would stay in the military and obey orders. So with those caveats, here is Boss Mongo's plan -- including how he arrived at it, which is amazing in itself... I think I spawned a series of high-level meetings that may have set-off a policy prairie fire; what power these blog-things have! Here is what we would need to do in order to make such a policy change work, if the government decides to do so:

Okay, under great protest and not ceding to the premise that the open service of homosexuals would not be prejudicial to good order and discipline, I'll proffer a mitigation strategy for incorporating the policy.

While thinking of the answer, I used the topic, and our e-mail discussions, to conduct a couple round-table discussions with various members of my team and some of my subordinate teams. The demographics of the participants were pretty varied. Tallying it up later, I talked in small groups to: two O4s (one Asian, one Puerto Rican), three O3s (two white, one black), two E8s (both black), five E7s (two black, two white, one hispanic), and one Warrant Officer (hispanic). When I initiated the discussions, the universal first reaction was "Eww."

So it took a while to get the guys to focus on the discussion point; the first X number of minutes were spent getting them off of decrying the policy itself. Most of the senior (ie, ~20 years) guys said that it would be time to drop retirement paperwork (my crew consists of mostly senior guys; my youngest team member is 28 with six years in). Anyway, once we established the constraints of the conversation (and tabled the HIV factor for a later discussion), most of the guys came up with the same concept of response that I had:

First, tangentially, commissioned officers thought that problems would manifest mostly on the battlefield, NCOs [non-commissioned officers -- the Mgt.] thought that the most serious problems would arise in the barracks environment.

The service already has a chain training mechanism in place; it is used for annual, biennial, and quarterly training on EO [Equal Opportunity, I presume -- the Mgt.], Family Advocacy, prevention of sexual harassment, suicide prevention, DUI/Drug prevention, etc. This would be the venue for most training. Officers, NCOs, and junior enlisted would probably have different training evolutions, with unit training at the end, conducted by said officers and NCOs.

The training would have to be tailored to present homosexual service as consistent with the military values -- loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage -- and the military values would have to be the foundation of the training/instruction.

The service-member support networks, from the Chaplains to the headshrinkers, would have to be a part of it and be consistently available to help members with problems arising from the new strategy.

Orders would go out giving the officer and NCO corps instructions on how the chain of command wanted adverse or serious incidents handled.

One thing we all agreed on was that a significant chunk of time and effort would have to be expended on retention, keeping good service members in who are determined to vote with their feet -- or rather, their discharge paperwork -- because of the policy.

That's about it. Everything after that would be adapting to the situations arising and always being ready to call an audible when things go awry, and they will.

Two points that struck me immediately; the first is the disparity between what the commissioned officers think would be the most serious problem versus what the NCOs think (point 1 above); I wonder why they didn't agree? I hope that Boss Mongo will send another e-mail clarifying that disconnect.

The officers thought the battlefield would be the focal point of conflicts, but the NCOs were more worried about problems in the barracks -- I suppose that showers and sleeping arrangements would top that list of concerns, though that's only my opinion. But if the NCOs don't see the battlefield as a serious problem, and officers seem less concerned about controlling problems on bases stateside and abroad, then perhaps between the two, both concerns can be adequately addressed.

The other point that jumped out at me, which I knew but hadn't thought through the implications of, is that within all branches of the military, training is ongoing, constant, and universal; and a great deal of "civilian" values training is already incorporated into that regime. That is, we don't only train our soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen to be warriors; we don't restrict training to the martial virtues that Boss Mongo enumerates; we also train them to be "good people" and "good citizens," according to the virtues currently accepted within the nation.

We train our service members not to discriminate on the basis of race, not to engage in sexual harassment, to eschew excessive drinking, and to avoid illegal drugs entirely. We train them to notice early warning signs of suicidal tendencies in themselves and their fellow servicemen, to seek counseling for serious family "issues" (that's a word my sister the MFCC loves), and so forth.

And we already train them in a certain level of tolerance towards gays: I'm sure that Boss Mongo and every member of his team would agree that a response as extreme as actual gay-bashing -- physically assaulting a person because he or she is thought to be homosexual -- is inconsistent with the military virtues they all strive to achieve.

This gives me great expectations that if such a policy is ever enacted -- I hope it is, Boss Mongo hopes it isn't -- it would not be too hard to train the very, very vast majority of servicemen and servicewomen to go beyond mere avoidance of gay-bashing to judging their fellow service members by how well they do their jobs and by their adherence to those same military virtues, rather than by whether they are attracted to the opposite or the same sex.

Please note that I am not arguing that homosexual activity is not a "sin." In many religions it is, and self-proclaimed members of those religions should probably abjure and forswear.

But in those same religions, having any sex outside of marriage is also a sin, even for the unmarried; yet we don't ban sexually active singles from military service, it's no violation of the UCMJ, and it needn't disrupt good order and discipline. (Of course, anything can be a problem if misused or abused; we do condemn adultery in our military, and we disallow certain types of fraternization.) Tolerance is not the same as approval or applause: Under the policy I advocate, straight service members don't have to cheer homosexual squadmates... just tolerate them.

It should be an easy sell for most servicemen to say, "What the other guy likes to do with his naughty bits is none of your business, unless he shoves it in your face -- figuratively or (especially) literally!"

Whether we should make this policy change is a subject for another time; but I hope this post -- especially including Boss Mongo's reluctant contribution, spelling out what can be done and what would need to be done -- advances the topic to the point where we can ask the critical question: Do the positives of allowing gays to serve openly in the military outweigh the negatives?

The better we can quantify each side of the equation, the easier to see which way the scales tilt.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, June 25, 2009, at the time of 6:23 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/3714

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Fenrisulven

"What the other guy likes to do with his naughty bits is none of your business"

It is if his bloodtype is A+

"3. The training would have to be tailored to present homosexual service as consistent with the military values -- loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage"

Good luck with that. Its hard to respect a leader with the image of someone's dick up his ass. And that will result in deaths in training and on the battlefield. Are you willing to die for this belief, or do you expect others to do it for you?

The above hissed in response by: Fenrisulven at June 25, 2009 7:06 PM

The following hissed in response by: nk

Do the positives of allowing gays to serve openly in the military outweigh the negatives?

De minimis. It will make no difference to the effectiveness of the military either way. We'll be just find with or without the god-forsaken sodomites condemned to burn in Hell for all eternity for being what God made them.

The question is whether an able-bodied citizen has the right to take up arms on behalf of his country. Or, do we have classes of people entitled to bear arms on behalf of their country and people who do not. Or, do we have classes of people entitled to bear arms and people who do not.

The above hissed in response by: nk at June 25, 2009 7:43 PM

The following hissed in response by: Fenrisulven

"The question is whether an able-bodied citizen has the right to take up arms on behalf of his country"

The answer is NO.

The military routinely "discriminates" based on age, sex, health, height, weight, etc. There is no "right" to join the military.

The above hissed in response by: Fenrisulven at June 25, 2009 9:01 PM

The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael

service members don't have to cheer homosexual squadmates... just tolerate them.

Forgive a comment from somebody who was not allowed to join the Military... (Medical)... but isn't it a requirement for the performance of the Military that all the Members DO cheer all their squadmates? I've always heard that Unit Cohesion and trained reflex are absolute necessities in a military unit. Mere toleration of another member (or group of members) would not be enough to achieve the goal.

On a separate issue:

It should be an easy sell for most servicemen to say, "What the other guy likes to do with his naughty bits is none of your business, unless he shoves it in your face -- figuratively or (especially) literally!"

Isn't that exactly the kind of reputation the LGBT Lobby has earned? What kind of training would you have to give to the Command Structure to keep this from happening... or dealing with it when it does?

My main objection to people serving in the Military while publicly proclaiming their Sexual Identity has less to do with what happens between thinking adults and more to do with preventing the assault on our Military by the inevitable LGBT pressure groups.

The above hissed in response by: Mr. Michael at June 25, 2009 9:39 PM

The following hissed in response by: bdunbar

I too would like to hear some clarification on this point.

I spent eight years in the Marines, about four years of that was living in barracks as a junior enlisted.

It's more than sleeping arrangements, I think. Barracks are where the troops live and - depending on the unit and location - it can be like Animal House or a college dorm or an apartment complex.

What I am trying to say in a clumsy way is 'barracks' are service members homes and the quality of life there has a direct affect on morale. One should tread lightly in that area.

Example - in the late 80s, early 90s (and probably today) the Marines made a strong effort to segregate living arrangements by sex: girls on one floor, boys on another. You allow homosexuals to serve openly and suddenly you have potential sex partners next door to each other.

I don't say this is good or bad but it's sure different from what it is now.

I imagine the NCO / Officer divide on this issue is that the NCOs have spent a whole lot of time in barracks. Officers only cruise through on inspections and will see the quarters and the troops themselves at their best.

The above hissed in response by: bdunbar at June 25, 2009 10:08 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Folks:

I'm trying not to debate the case here for allowing gays to serve openly in the military; so I will restrain myself from responding to arguments to the contrary -- in this post.

If enough of youse want to argue against the policy, I'll create an argue post. Please comment on the training program here, and post arguments for or against the policy in the next post...

Thanks!

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at June 25, 2009 10:55 PM

The following hissed in response by: Fenrisulven

Sorry, not interested. My points are here, not reposting them again.

I'm also uneasy with the way you "table" points that undermine your poistion. I don't think its a deliberate attempt at deception, but it feels like a manipulative management technique. Pls don't take offense, I enjoy reading you.

Bottom line is that this is a cultural problem that won't be rdy for resolution until men & women in ship berthing spaces are comfortable showering and sleeping together, and without all the usual shenanigans we've come to expect from young adults.

The above hissed in response by: Fenrisulven at June 26, 2009 12:35 AM

The following hissed in response by: nk

Sorry, Daffyd. My impression of military training is that they can take anybody who is not outright insane, break him down, and remake him into a soldier. There was a book "Maggot" made into a movie "Full Metal Jacket" which had this as its main theme. I think it can be done just as easily with a gay as it can with any other eighteen-year old wise-ass know-it-all.

The above hissed in response by: nk at June 26, 2009 5:10 AM

The following hissed in response by: bdunbar

There was a book "Maggot" made into a movie "Full Metal Jacket"

The movie came from the book 'The Short Timers' by Gustov Hasford.

I highly recommend the book.

The above hissed in response by: bdunbar at June 26, 2009 5:36 AM

The following hissed in response by: Binder

Re: differences between problems forseen by officers and NCOs

I don't pick up my platoon for another couple weeks, so I'm taking most of this on faith from my peers and instructors.

Officers are encouraged by their NCOs not to spend much time in or around the barracks. As bdunbar said, officers are expected to poke their head in during inspections of once or twice a night when the duty officer.

NCOs, on the other hand, lived in the barracks themselves, might still live there, and definitely spend more time there, whether looking for people for work details or preparing for the officer's five-minute inspection.

Officers are likely to be more concerned about troop performance on the battlefield because that's all their superiors care about; stateside training primarily revolves, not unreasonably, around performance on the battlefield. So the officers are going to run any new concept through the filter of how-will-it-affect-my-people-in-combat. A certain amount of if it ain't broke, don't fix it, probably comes into play here.

NCOs might think that when the bullets start flying, trained reflexes will rule things more than religious or ideological differences.

Boss Mongo's people, having vastly more experience than I, can probably give better detail on whys of the officer/NCO divide, but this seems to me to be a likely starting point.

Oh, and don't get too caught up in annual training requirements. I've never seen people take them overly seriously, and heard a number of people complain about the time they take away from "real" training needs.

The above hissed in response by: Binder at June 26, 2009 6:47 AM

The following hissed in response by: mdgiles

First, having been an NCO (Marine Corps) the only time my Platoon commander (for example) would hear of a problem in the barracks, would be something that would be completely beyond my ability to handle. That's why they have NCO's, so the officers can concentrate on the important stuff like running battles.

Second, my military service being a tiny object in the rear view mirror, I can't speak for how things are done today. However, military training, is a wonderful thing. It will teach you to trust your life to someone you would normally walk across the street to avoid. Whether training can overcome the gay/straight hurdle may well depend on what the definition of what "openly" is. It also depends on the the persons reason for entering the service.If someone has joined simply for the privilege of serving their country, they should be willing to make almost any sacrifice toward meeting that goal. Anyone who didn't join for that reason, or unwilling to make that sacrifice, will probably be weeded out in boot camp. However, the problem of someone joining purely for political reasons may end up being a thorny issue. The "you're discharging me because I'm gay, not because I'm a complete idiot" argument/court case.

The above hissed in response by: mdgiles at June 26, 2009 11:45 AM

The following hissed in response by: Fenrisulven

Boss Mongo very much opposes the policy change I support. He is an upper mid-level commissioned officer who served two tours in Iraq and now commands a training team. He believes that such a policy change would be "prejudicial to good order and discipline," and would damage our warfighting capability.

But I was much more interested in Boss Mongo's expertise than his opinion

His opinion is a result of his expertise. I don't see how you can seperate the two. But hey, lets "table" expert testimony that conflicts with your argument... Again.

The above hissed in response by: Fenrisulven at June 26, 2009 2:57 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

Two points that struck me immediately; the first is the disparity between what the commissioned officers think would be the most serious problem versus what the NCOs think (point 1 above); I wonder why they didn't agree?

Senior NCOs have a lot more experience being with the troops and haave come from that environment themselves.

So maybe the difference in outlook of practical experience versus theory?

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman at June 26, 2009 3:04 PM

The following hissed in response by: Fenrisulven

/edit: attrib error, pls ignore prev post

But I was much more interested in Boss Mongo's expertise than his opinion

His opinion is a result of his expertise. I don't see how you can seperate the two. But hey, lets "table" expert testimony that conflicts with your argument... Again

The above hissed in response by: Fenrisulven at June 26, 2009 3:05 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Fenrisulven:

I'm also uneasy with the way you "table" points that undermine your poistion....

[Boss Mongo's] opinion is a result of his expertise. I don't see how you can seperate the two. But hey, lets "table" expert testimony that conflicts with your argument... Again.

No argument has been "tabled," as you can see from the extensive discussion on the other post. It was simply directed to a more appropriate venue.

I separate them because other current and former members of the service with similar combat experience take the opposite side; it's not "evidence" that something won't work that some experts think it won't, while others think it will. It tells us nothing except that people have opinions.

If Boss Mongo wants to comment in the other post, I will of course respond to his arguments.

What is unique about him, however, is not that he opposes ending the DADT policy -- many others oppose it as well -- but that he is in an unparalleled position to tell us what it would take to implement such a change. This gives us new information we didn't have before.

That's what makes this post different from, e.g., the Argue post.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at June 26, 2009 6:07 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

But I was much more interested in Boss Mongo's expertise than his opinion
His opinion is a result of his expertise. I don't see how you can seperate the two. But hey, lets "table" expert testimony that conflicts with your argument... Again

In the military, you may give your opinion where appropriate, but then use your expertise to implement orders given you.

Opinion and implementing orders are quite frequently in opposition

Google REMFs ;-)

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman at June 28, 2009 5:02 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

But I was much more interested in Boss Mongo's expertise than his opinion
His opinion is a result of his expertise. I don't see how you can seperate the two. But hey, lets "table" expert testimony that conflicts with your argument... Again

In the military, you may give your opinion where appropriate, but then use your expertise to implement orders given you.

Opinion and implementing orders are quite frequently in opposition

Google REMFs ;-)

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman at June 28, 2009 5:02 AM

The following hissed in response by: Mike K

Unit cohesion is a big part of training. If the barracks is dirty, you don't say "That guy isn't doing his share !" You all get punished and then you beat the shit out of the repeat offender in the shower later. When I was in basic (50 years ago), my bunkmate below me was a slob and an idiot. We finally dragged him into the shower and bathed him with scrub brushes. Then we each took over one aspect of his bunk area. One guy shined his shoes, another made his bunk, another squared up his footlocker.

Now think about a gay guy in training. I don't know how it would work. Somebody said it depends on how "out" he is and that may be the answer. I fear the political volunteer.

The Israelis gave up women in combat because of love triangles.

The above hissed in response by: Mike K at June 29, 2009 11:09 AM

The following hissed in response by: Doc-obiwan

Interesting discussion. Short version: I agree with Mongo, I'm 'agin it.'

NCOs vs. Officers...I've been both. Spent almost 6 yrs as enlisted (including combat tour) rising to E-6. Went to OCS, retired at the rank I deduce Mongo is, or one higher.

My opinion is based on my perspective from both worlds. The poster who mentioned "potential sex partners" was dead on.

As for "how do you set up the training" I can't fault Mongo, and for sure, we do a lot of "required" stuff even today (I'm still in the environment as a civilian) is "fill-in-the-blank, accomplish the stupid requirement"-type training.

And every EO or sexual harassment ("Don't Do it") class a soldier (airman, marine, coastie, etc.) is forced to attend, is an hour s/he isn't training for combat.

Daffyd, you forced the discussion on Mongo: You told him, "Okay, I reject your opinion based on your experience, but even so, how WOULD you implement it?" Daffyd, I reject your conservatism/libertarianism, but if you were a Liberal, how WOULD you write a column? (Pope B., I reject your Christianity, but setting that aside, how WOULD you argue for Islam? Okay, maybe that one's a bit strong.) You can put enough "givens" in a theoretical discussion to maneuver a person into a position from which he cannot debate.

Mongo then tried to figure out how he would accomplish the mission--military tend to be mission and task-oriented folks, despite whatever may be thrown at us--them. Whatever.

Well, as much as I agree with Mongo (and his subordinates), I fear that that's the way we're heading.

The above hissed in response by: Doc-obiwan at June 29, 2009 1:49 PM