The US Marine Corps, I was told as a midshipman, is an exceptionally successful real estate acquisition corporation, with a side business in population control. Military humor aside, long time readers of this blog will recognize the host’s admiration for the Corps: Pound for pound and man for man, no finer friend, no worse enemy.
The Corps is many things, but one thing it is not is broken. Why then, does Ms. Tammy Schulz, director of national security and joint warfare at the U.S. Marine Corps War College, consider them a problem to be fixed?
Well, for one thing they have unfashionable views on who ought, or ought not serve in Their Corps, and the conditions under which the Marines should grant them service:
After 17 years, “don’t ask, don’t tell” may finally be on its way out. Even if the Senate resists the latest efforts to end the policy, it appears that most members of the military – from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on down – support the law’s repeal.
But there’s one part of the military where resistance is greater than in any other: the United States Marine Corps.
That is clear from early reports about a survey sent to 400,000 active duty and reserve service members on “don’t ask, don’t tell” that will be officially released next month. More than 70 percent of respondents, spanning all branches of the military, said the effect of repealing the prohibition on openly gay troops would be positive, mixed or nonexistent. But about 40 percent of the Marine Corps respondents expressed concern about lifting the ban…
What is it about the Marines? Compared with the other services, why do a disproportionate number of them overtly resist ending “don’t ask, don’t tell”?
Because you don’t fix things that aren’t broken.
I am an openly gay woman, equally comfortable at Quantico and in Dupont Circle. Each of these worlds holds negative stereotypes about the other, and like all stereotypes, they tend to break down on an individual level. Yet for some in both cultures, the notion of a gay Marine seems almost impossible, as though this most masculine and punishing service simply isn’t for gay people.
You don’t need to spend time with Marines, as I have, to realize how important the warrior ethos is to them. Simply turn on the television and see how the Corps markets itself: Do you have what it takes to join the few, the proud? When discussing their high retention numbers with the Marine Corps leadership a few years ago, I was told that the Corps prides itself on not having to pay big bonuses, as the other branches do, to keep people in the force – the honor of being a Marine is all the reward offered or desired. It’s part of why there are no former Marines, only retired Marines. Once you’ve joined the tribe, unless you do something that goes against the Corps’ values of honor, courage and commitment, you never leave.
In the Marines, anything that seems to contradict or challenge that warrior culture is treated like a foreign particle entering a body’s immune system – it is rejected. This visceral reaction will not change if we dismiss those who value these traditions.
I’ve read that last sentence over and over again, and I can’t quite get at what Ms. Schulz is trying to say.
Although I am not closeted, the fact that I am gay does not come up in my job as a professor at the War College. Nor should it. I am not a Marine. I have not been in combat with Marines. The students at the college are the future leaders of the Corps, and I lead respectful debates in class on issues from grand strategy to counterinsurgency operations. I’m sure that my sexuality does not fit with the private views of every Marine. But it doesn’t have to. I was hired by the college as a professional and honored as the 2010 outstanding Marine Corps University civilian professor. In my experience with the Marines, professionalism trumps sexuality.
There are many kinds of professionalism: One allows you to engage in open and polite intellectual discourse with people who have sharply different points of view than your own. Another allows you to close with, fix, engage and kill an enemy force in close combat while minimizing the death and destruction visited upon your own forces. Marines know how to do both, Ms. Schulz only knows how to do the former. But that doesn’t stop her from expressing her preferences about how the Corps ought to be manned, trained and equipped.
I am very sympathetic to the strain that the Marine Corps is under and would never support a policy change that I thought would hurt the Corps in a time of war. I have researched the implications of repealing the law, willing to land wherever the facts led me. The argument that we can’t repeal the policy because it would impair troops on the ground from carrying out their missions is specious; the opposition to the policy on practical or logistical grounds is surmountable.
A researcher should always be cautions when the results of her research conforms to her pre-existing preferences, but Ms. Schulz throws caution to the wind: A modest deference to the opinion of those who will – and have – led Marines in actual combat would have been more becoming. And we must take Ms. Schulz at her word that the counter-argument is “specious”: It’s a wonderful word, specious, but it used here as little more than bare assertion, entirely unsupported by the rest of her essay. One senses that it is specious because Ms. Schulz would like it to be so. And it’s fair to note that the details of surmounting practical obstacles and the trivialities of deployed combat logistics are equally omitted from Ms. Schulz’s essay. She is a strategic thinker after all, and details are best left to other people. But all work is easy when someone else has to do it.
Perhaps she’s even right, and if the law is changed she will no doubt be proven so. But a platoon of Marine riflemen in summer uniforms could very likely surmount Mount Everest in a snowstorm, if they had to, and were well led. The question is whether such an endeavor is the best use of their time and efforts, resources being definitionally limited. Would such an endeavor contribute to the successful execution of the mission?
The values of honor, courage and commitment are inseparable from the Marines. By definition, gay and lesbian Marines break one or more of these core tenets every time they have to hide or lie about who they are. Eventually, gay Marines must out themselves by upholding Corps values, or continue compromising the very values that make them Marines.
Non sequitur: A Marine can be honorable, courageous and committed while in the closet, so long as he’s committed to his brothers and sisters in arms, the Corps and his country. More committed, in other words, than he is to himself, or his need to be affirmed, even celebrated in his otherness.
This is the key point that even highly educated civilians like Ms. Schulz always fail to comprehend, and what Marines always intuitively get: It’s not about the individual, not about his rights to self-expression, not about his needs, except in the loosest and most aggregated sense. It’s about what’s best for the unit, what is most likely to make them successful in combat, what will enable the greatest number of them to endure harsh privations, face perilous obstacles and emerge victorious on the other end. I said it before, on the eve of the second battle of Fallujah, but it’s worth repeating: When it comes to combat, Marines don’t fuck around.
The Marine Corps senior leadership get this, and – unlike the flag and general officers of other services, whose acquaintance with close combat is more distant than is their proximity to fashionable academics and politicians – never fail to express their unvarnished opinions.
That might present a problem for academics and politicians, but it’s not the Corps’ problem.
And THIS is the core of the DADT debate. It’s not about any one person. It’s about the whole…and sacrificing collective fighting power for one person is bad math.
But will we be sacrificing collective firepower? According to the article 60% of the Corps have little to no concern over lifting the ban. That’s why I’m interested in seeing the full results of the survey. Right now all we’re getting are leaks designed to advance the leakers’ agendas. We cannot have a meaningful debate about the effects on the military without data on what the military thinks. Personal observation, mine or a four-star’s, are of limited use. The full report, including any data that might indicate bias, will give us a place to start discussing how the military would resound to a repeal.
Your third paragraph from the bottom is a perfect summation of the situation, and why those who favor repeal should fail. They seem to think the wants of the individual should trump that of the origanisation. When carrying out the duties of a military service, the needs of the service and the mission must always prevail. To do otherwise is to court failure. The USMC is far more aware of it’s needs and requirements to carry out it’s mission, and the type of personnel suitable to those requirements, than those on the Left, who see this as a “fairness” issue. Some thing are far more important than fairness, and this is one of them. I wish that the rest of the DoD would have the backbone that the Corps has.
What a great piece of reasoning and writing! Topic aside, although I entirely agree with our hosts conclusions, this is why I have an RSS feed from Neptunuslex.
I am on the other side of the fence here from Tailspin—I disagree for quite a few reasons, but the reasoning and careful thought here is why I too subscribe to Lex.
As for the content, I agree that the strength of the fighting force is what matters, but wonder what the impact of having roughly one in ten of the members (based on the admittedly shaky assumption that gay men are proportionately represented in the armed forces) hiding an entire side of their lives from those around them. It strains credulity to believe that one fights as well along side men you must lie to, and men you think are lying to you.
I would suspect, that if DADT was repealed, a significant number of fighting men would sleep better, trust more, and be safer in the line of duty knowing that their career was no longer in position to be ended by an inadvertent slip of the tongue. Which is why I feel DADT ought to be repealed.
Doesn’t hurt that it does right by those soldiers in the closet, too.
So….using your logic, approximately 10 percent of the force would ‘sleep better, trust more, and be safer’ while some percentage of the other 90 percent might therefore sleep worse, trust less and be less safe????
The simple fact of the matter is that the PC forces in our government are far more interested in pushing their societal agenda than they are in defending this country. The Armed Forces SHOULD NOT be used as a social laboratory for the rest of the country. I agree with Lex. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. We screw around with it at our peril.
It strains credulity to believe that one fights as well along side men you must lie to, and men you think are lying to you.
Not sure about the Marine Corps, but I’m heard more than once from those in the other services that they know/knew who is gay among them–any lies are just for form’s sake. You can’t hide for long in an infantry unit…
Ah, I see Sgt. B has spoken on this–I hadn’t read his comment before I wrote this.
I dunnno, Tyler. There are many aspects of my personal life I hide at my day job. It’s really nobody’s business, is my reasoning, and my lifestyle doesn’t make me better or worse at my job. While I might perhaps have a “slip of the tongue” once in a while, my co-workers can rest assured it is not going to involve them, their courtin’ tackle, or which side of the plate I happen to hit from.
We do the job together. They’re not my lovers, they’re not my friends, they’re my peers. For Marines, they’re fellow Marines, and the only part of them that needs knowing is the part that can soldier.
Which isn’t to say that I don’t privately think that woman in Accounts Receivable with the tight sweaters and who competes in karate isn’t the subject of a few moments of contemplation near the water cooler. Nicely dressed, athletic, cute, one could imagine a little office romance, probably a chance meeting near the vending machines, a quick retreat to the office supply closet, the excitement of the moment and the lure of the forbidden leading to a scene of shirts and blouses flying and Blackberries being dropped to the floor as our couple attempt to, well…
As an idle thought it’s harmless. Even if she has the same thought about me it’s still harmless. When it becomes part of our working relationship it affects The Job. The gay guy in Marketing, likewise, does his job and never mentions his thoughts concerning my cute and, dare I say firm, derriere during staff meetings.
Quite simply, who or what or when we desire is immaterial and inappropriate for the office or any other professional setting outside a brothel.
If there is a way to screw up a perfectly good working relationship it’s to bring sex into it.
– Max
Max,
The problem here is that DADT isn’t about sex. I mean, of course it is in some regard, but it isn’t the sex part of it that is restrictive. It’s the restriction on sharing the rest of life that is so dangerous. While I don’t share with my coworkers the details of my bedroom, when my girlfriend was hospitalized, they knew. They also knew when her car broke down. They also knew when we found a great restaurant. For most of us life is not something done alone, and it is those pieces about life that involve someone else, the mundane and the momentous, that we share with our friends and coworkers, and it is those same pieces that are restricted by DADT.
Another way of thinking of this is to imagine going through life never letting on that you were married or had a girlfriend. Never showing a family photo. Never mentioning who ate dinner with you. Never mentioning who went on vacation with you. I don’t think I could do it.
Well said Tyler. This the point overlooked by nearly everyone – it’s not about sexual preference. It’s about living a honest life and serving your country.
In an age when so many Americans refuse to stand up and defend their country and freedom, we’re tossing out folks for being “different” in a way we can’t handle.
I say, “So what if they’re gay? Can they do the job and carry their share?”
Greetings:
I read an article a while back in which the author posited that our society, as part of its cultural morés, is divided into “sexualized zones” and “non-sexualized zones”. What DADT tries to do is maintain the military as a “non-sexualized zone” due to the inherent encroachments on personal privacy incumbent with military service. The good and honored professor’s observation is in the time honored tradition of all self-identified victims of victimization. “Please, sir, some more.”
The professor might well go back to that fateful day in the ’70s when the American Psychological Association took its vote to remove homosexuality, if I may still use that word, from its diagnostic manual. No science was involved and thousands of years to human experience across many cultures was summarily dismissed in one of the major early steps along the “progressive” on which road we now find our selves. I would be interested in her analysis of this moment in the history of homosexuality.
As with the infusion of significantly larger percentages of women into the military, there is no argument that this will improve military effectiveness. Perhaps it will make homosexuals in the military feel better about themselves. That would not be one of my managerial goals. What is certain is that, just as with the female process, there will be follow on problems that have to be dealt with. The sexual culture that evolved “glory holes” and San Francisco’s “Up Your Alley Fair” is not stagnant and will continue its process within the military.
Does the USS Norton Sound ring any bells anymore?
In the name of all that’s Holy, just HOW did she get appointed to her position at the USMC War College? Unfortunately I think I already know the PC answer….back to the Barbancort..
Virgil, don’t Bogart that bottle! I’m in need of a shot myself.
One thing that strikes me as funny is that Ms. Schultz has used her sexual preference as justification for inserting her opinion on the matter into the debate. She actually has, at the risk of making a pun, no skin in the game otherwise. She claims to be open and that it hasn’t affected her professional relationship with her students, but doesn’t note if the students considered that part of the syllabus. That she claims “the opposition to the policy on practical or logistical grounds is surmountable” is likewise telling — gopher mounds and Mount Everest are surmountable too, but that doesn’t mean the effort needed is equal, nor does it state *why* either of them needed surmounting in the first place.
I have a wife. I also have two kids. Anybody with a brain can figure out how some unskilled labor with one resulted in the other two. I’ve yet to have that unskilled part of my skill set become relevant to my professional resume.
Maybe Ms. Schultz needs to be reminded that for all she thinks her sexual preferences are part of her being, for all she may think they are relevant to her students or to the Marine Corps itself, there are approximately three billion Chinese who don’t care one whit and are building carriers, subs, and UAV’s that will become relevant to her students.
At some point one has to have their priorities in order. The Corps does.
– Max
How many readers suspected instinctively before reading further that director of national security and joint warfare at the U.S. Marine Corps War College, Dr. Tammy Schultz, was gay?
What does it say when an activist is appointed to a high-profile quasi-military position? — It certainly tells us political pressure has been applied where it does not belong.
Please remember, the lawyers who once declared none of their clients were guilty have been telling us with equal
absurdity after their elections to congress that they are not guilty.
Ask yourselves how it ever made sense that we keep electing any lawyers (2% of the U.S. workforce) to 60% of U.S. Senate seats and about 40% of house seats?
This is why we and our courageous USMC are doomed to have such ‘enlightened’ academicians as Dr. Tammy Schultz opining beyond their proper proportion, in my humble opinion.
To answer the question that makes up the title of this thread, the problem that exists in the minds of the elitist social engineers. The idea that anyone and anything that stands opposed to their enlightened view of How Things Are Supposed To Be is a problem to be overcome, and that any world view that differs from theirs is wrong and/or evil and/or unfair.
I love some of her wording: More than 70 percent of respondents, spanning all branches of the military, said the effect of repealing the prohibition on openly gay troops would be positive, mixed or nonexistent. But about 40 percent of the Marine Corps respondents expressed concern about lifting the ban.
Or, While a Shocking 30% of all other armed forces would find a repeal of DADT a problem, 60% of the Corps would not have a problem with it.
And (I have never seen as many trucks with gun racks as I do driving on the Quantico base.)
Which means what? Gays don’t shoot? Gays don’t hunt? What is with her stereotyping here?
Means she doesn’t get out much?
About 40% expressed a concern…so the majority of the Marines did not express a concern, check?
“Majority of Marines did not express a concern over the change in the policy. Same as the other three services.”
Right?
The Corps has allays resisted change, weather it was the adoption of the 9mm or the integration of blacks. While they were probably correct in the former, they were undoubtedly wrong in the latter. Conservatism isn’t always a virtue. Sometimes change is good.
And the line you couldn’t figure out was a message to DuPont circle. Dismissing the views of Marine generals is counter-productive.
Jeff, quoting aphorisms such as “Sometimes change is good,” alas, begs the question whether this particular proposed change would be good.
“Change for the simple sake of change” is never good. At best, it’s not particularly bad.
In terms of marine combat effectiveness, unless a change can be specifically proven to enhance combat capability, no change should be considered.
Even if the change does no overt harm, the cost in terms of time, money, and energy expended to make a ‘neutral change’ still makes it a net loss. The benefit must clearly outweigh the cost, in terms of overall combat effectiveness.
And unless it can be conclusively proven (not argued, but PROVEN) that the repeal of DADT would enhance force capability, it’s a waste of time discussing it.
We don’t see Marines wearing French Pancakes on their heads, for much the same reason.
Lex has done the back-of-the-envelope math on this before.
So 40% of Marines would have some problem with openly gay Marines. If just one quarter of THAT subset walked away from the service, (or if similar numbers were deterred from enlisting) that’s a loss of 10% of the Corps. Literal decimation.
But the PC police will be happy.
You beat me to it, XBrad.
Other services may have a significant minority who do not like it, but will probably not leave the service over it. For the Marines, I suspect that a significant number will not renew their contracts and reenlist because they are either morally opposed to the new law or simply don’t hanker having to share tight quarters with someone who’s staring at their junk.
On a different note, I also wondered – as did our host – why she simply skipped over the opposing view by simply labeling it “specious” and “surmountable.” Who did she talk to? What research did she actually perform?
Quantico is a huge base – justifiably called “The Crossroads of the Corps” since there are such a large number of schools there. From Officer Candidate School, The Basic School, Expeditionary Warfare School, SNCO Academy, USMC War College, etc. Not to mention the various MOS schools located there as well. So she could have a representative sample from nearly every segment of the Corps – from officer candidates and 2nd Lieutenants, Captains & Majors, all the way to Colonels on the officer side. PFCs & LCpls, Staff Sergeants up to First Sergeants and Sergeants Major on the enlisted side.
Did she interview the CO of OCS? How ’bout the Tactics Instructor at the Infantry Officer Course? Mebbe the Director of Manpower & Reserve Affairs? Somehow, I doubt it.
Well according to this, a little over 70% of the other services feel the same way. So all the services have a majority that dont care, and the difference between the USMC and the other services is approximately 10-15% difference.
I think the differences between one service and another are being exaggerated somewhat. Just wondering, how do you know that 1/4 of the USMC would ETS over this and 1/4 of the USN would not? Was that question asked?
Are you willing to take the chance that we could lose 1/4 of our best warriors? To keep the Marines at the top of their form, I’m willing to let them have their way on this. More to the point, “If ain’t ain’t broke, DON’T FREAKIN’ TRY TO FIX IT!”
Are we having a recruiting problem getting the usual population into the USMC? Is leadership and combat so easy that we can afford to take chances with small unit dynamics, the bedrock of combat effectiveness? Please put me down for no on both questions.
Not yet; please standby.
Don’t know where to begin with such a stupid article by Ms. Schulz.
Hope this doesn’t offend and sorry if it’s too long.
1. Using a survey to determine what course of action rather than doing anything scientific. If we analyze it scientifically we might not get the answer we want.
2. She shows a lack of logic. Her statement, “and would never support a policy change that I thought would hurt the Corps in a time of war.” is false. By her own words, 40% of the Marines say there would be significant problems. If only ten percent choose to make trouble the fighting efficiency of the Corp is diminished.
3. She claims the argument that it would impair the mission is specious. No doubt her voluminous combat experience backs that up. I see no other supporting statements.
4. In the Post article she references studies on how “to integrate minority groups”.
Hint, homosexuals are not a minority group, they are an aberrant group. Put 500 on a deserted island with everything they need to live and in 100 years they’re gone. Mother Nature has kicked them out of the gene pool for whatever reason.
5. She points out that the military will do what it’s told. Yes, they fly the planes we give them whether the planes are good or just what some Congressman wanted. They use what equipment and orders we give and sometimes die because of our stupid decisions.
6. Then she mentioned we shouldn’t have any more trouble then Britain, Canada, Australia or any other country that allowed homosexuals to serve. Did she ever look at the lower enlistment rates or increases in non judicial punishment or any other loss of effectiveness when that happened.
I’m just glad my last son will ETS after this deployment and not have to deal with this.
However I feel concerned for those who will have to take an increased risk for only political gain.
Then she mentioned we shouldn’t have any more trouble then Britain, Canada, Australia or any other country that allowed homosexuals to serve.
I’ve had this argument advanced to me by advocates of DADT repeal before. My answer is always “How do you know? How many wars have they fought lately?”
I don’t know, maybe I’ll ask the British, Canadian, and Australian solders I’m in line with next time I’m at the DFAC here in Kandahar.
Its mildly amusing that in all of the discussions that swirl around the issue of homosexuality in the context of the military, the conversation invariably revolves around whether or not it will “work”.
I rarely hear anyone suggest that it might be wrong, as in “right and wrong”.
To argue “right and wrong” you would need an agreed upon absolute standard. Rather than spend time on that I believe they are trying to point out it doesn’t achieve the necessary conditions for a pragmatic solution.
Back in the day, I had two friends (both in separate support units) who were gay. They comported themselves professionally, were exemplary Marines, and I’d go to war with them in a heartbeat…
“Everybody” knew they were gay, but… We didn’t care… As long as they didn’t “flame” or throw it in everybody’s faces, it just didn’t matter… We had a gazillion other things to worry about.
Funny thing was, the only folks who got bent out of shape were the rear echelon types… The grunts couldn’t care less… Totally apathetic…
One got booted, the other made it to the end of his contract…
Just sayin’…
You put your finger on the problem: “As long as they didn’t ‘flame’ or throw it in everyboby’a faces.” What do you think gays will do if DADT is repealed… they’ll all “come out” into everybody’s faces.
Really? And your evidence and/or hard date for this claim is?…
This debate is not moved forward by unsupported assertion.
Your pardon, Casey… but isn’t the whole DADT debate about the right for gays to ” ‘come out’ into everybody’s faces” should they choose to? Isn’t that the point of eliminating DADT? To make it OK to ask… and to tell?
I disagree with Shaman that “they all” would choose to do so – many gays I have known are reticent about their person lives, just as some straights are more ‘private’ than others – but your attempt to prang him for ‘unsupported assertion’ hangs from a very tenuous logical thread as well.
If it’s not the “right to come out in others’ faces” that’s being debated here, then what IS?
And how do you know that Shaman is wrong? Seems to me your presumption is every bit as unsupported as his assertion.
Did the one Marine who got “Booted” get booted for violating DADT? And if so, and he was a exemplary as you claim, how apathetic were you and your fellow Marines upon learning of his dismissal? I ask, only to learn if the counter argument may be true. Is there any attrition of quality non-gay Marines due to something like Ms. Schulz, presumption that to remove a Marine for this “offense” is wrong, and correctable by repealing DADT? Albeit I seriously suspect that we do not lose anywhere near 10% of Marines because they “Come out” or the “straight” Marine is offended so much when a brother Marine is “Booted” for cause… he leaves…, I am curious as to how the Grunt in the field reacts when a “known” Gay trusted brother in arms is dismissed for violation of the policy. Unit morale etc…
Oddly enough, I find the percentages of Marines who “Find a Problem with the repeal of DADT” -VS- those who (the assumed corollary) don’t have a problem (or are as SGT B states, merely apathetic) mirror quite closely my internal debate on this topic (although I think I am more toward a 60/40% keep the current policy).
Personally, I was angry that a good Marine was being booted out on the allegations of a sh*tbird… (The “facts” of the event were HIGHLY questionable…) My response wasn’t in defense of a gay Marine’s rights; more a case of being outraged because he was being shafted (sorry) by a con artist who knew how to work the system. (Later, this same sh*tbird ran afoul of the combined NCOs of the platoon, and the resulting charge sheet, it was a thing of beauty – the CO even said so, right after the sh*tbird got his BCD.)
Perhaps this does prove the point, if obliquely…
My point is simply to point out that everybody makes this a hot button issue, but, in my experience, I observed that we… just… didn’t… care… (As you say, a “trusted” brother… Once they’ve proved their mettle to the unit, sexual orientation issues go by the wayside: That is the strength and depth of the Brotherhood of the Corps.)
Then again, the Marines in my story didn’t push the issue of their orientation, and that probably kept them off of the general target list… Having a flaming queen in the ranks, that would be an entirely different story…
Sgt. B,
Thank you for the follow-up. I am concerned only that the repeal of DADT will permit those who are “Flaming Queens” a soapbox in which to make unneeded noise in an organization who has much higher priorities than becoming a sociological proving ground.
“Outing” someone is equally aberrant to me if that someone had been “playing by the rules”.
-JC
I guess I still don’t understand.
DADT was designed to allow gays to defend their country.
The DA part is: we won’t ask your preference, all we ask is that you become a Marine.
The DT part is: you won’t use your enlistment as a political platform, because if you do, you tear the fabric that IS the Corps. (had a better phrase but I lost it).
I have never been a Marine although my son is a Sgt. on his 2nd re-up with the Corps. It occurs to me that what the Marines are saying is the same thing…you want to be a Marine, fine, but the Corps is the only statement that you need to support, anything else dilutes the spirit of the the Corps., dilutes what makes the marines the Marines.
DADT does this for all services doesn’t it
Feel free to re-direct me where needed.
Minor re-direct:
Marines don’t “re-up,” they ship over.
I know; I’m petty.
My apologies Padre, I should have known that!
Funny… in my day, we called it “re-upping.” Even appeared in cadences that way:
Re-up?
—-You’re crazy!
Re-up?
—-You’re out of your mind!
Maybe it was regional/unit-variant?
No you’re a Pedantic Pecker-Wood…so stand tall. Best
AND, the Marines are part of the Navy. Ergo, the nautical term.
I said basically this above, but the problem isn’t the “don’t tell” about your sexuality, it’s the “don’t tell” about your family.
My coworkers never needed to know about my Saturday mornings, but I’d feel awfully restricted if I couldn’t tell anybody I was picking out a ring for when I ask my girlfriend to be my wife.
Frankly, my dears, I don’t give a damn about the sexual preferences of Marines, sailors, baseball players, politicians, or small farm animals.
However, I do worry quite a bit about those radical leftists (especially the gay activist types)who have been infiltrating into academia, and indoctrinating our youths and leaders. What has been common sense and taken for granted has now been displaced by assorted leftist drivel under the banner of “diversity” and tolerance.
These people have no place in our military structure anywhere, nor in our academic structure where they are destroying our traditional values which served this country well for two centuries.
I view these people as little better than an enemy “fifth column.”
If the good professor would keep her yap shut on sexual issues, perhaps she really can earn a paycheck addressing military strategy and tactics.
However, I would be shocked to learn that her qualifications were any better than a number of other applicants who do not share her enthusiasm for closeted or uncloseted homosexuality. A PC diversity quota hire, almost for sure. The decision makers who hired her have to accept the blame for her activism on this issue.
We need warriors to fight our wars, not clowns from a gay “rights” parade.
I’m thinkin’ you’re on the right track… It’s not the gay person who want to be a good Marine that concerns me… It’s the person who want to be a gay Marine that worries me.
Amen. I mind the passage in “Cryptonomicon” about Bobby Shaftoe’s problems with Bad Marines in his regiment. He just wanted to be a Marine. Not a Special Marine, just a Marine.
My occasional exposures to the Shark Tank, er, Beltway military, leads me to suspect this article was not so much aimed at her purported audience, the Corps’ senior leadership, but rather towards whomever has let her know that her future employment opportunities elsewhere in the DCosphere will be greatly enhanced by such an article. Watch where she is in 12 – 18 months and we’ll see if my prediction is true.
Got it in one, Comjam. IMO.
I suspect Comjam has hit the nail on the head, there.
I don’t think 10% would walk away.
The Marine Corps, like the Navy and the Army, are subject to civilian leadership. It’s one of things that make the United States unique. If the civilian leaders say pull out of Afghanistan, we pull out. If they say attack, we attack. The military assessment of the situation is data, civilians decide. It makes the civilians we elect very important.
If civilian leadership says homosexuals can be open about their sexual preferences, it will occur. How well that works out for the individuals involved and for the various services remains to be seen. The Marine Corps will comply, though, and then get on with the mission.
“Although I am not closeted, the fact that I am gay does not come up in my job as a professor at the War College.”
And that says it all…whom is the nincompoop that hired this navel [naval?] gazer?
…and how can she survive in the job, since she is utterly without understanding?
Comjam, I am shocked, SHOCKED beyond belief that you and Grandpa Bluewater are SO cynical..
Signed: Jaded
Yes, after all the turmoil, our forces will adapt and press on…….assuming that we aren’t destroyed by our outside enemies and pressures BEFORE that readjustment is made. In today’s environment, survival is a razor’s edge. One small stumble could lead to a point where we will never regain our place as a superpower and our advantages as a country.
No pun intended……but I’m afraid we are well and truly screwed.
Do as I do, ZSS. Drink moar, so that you will be numb when they come for you. Oh, it is not true that alcohol hurts yer aim, it actually makes you more steady. It does affect your judgment, but if it’s effing obvious at whom one should shoot, not much judgment is required.
Umm, dare I say, “Mission first!”? Some of the people of her ilk just don’t seem to get that. Lord knows I prolly would have failed horribly at being a Marine, but had sense enough not to try. You have to fit into the Corps, the Corps does not have to adapt to fit you.
You guys are all missing the point here – this lady WORKS around Marines all the time in Washington, that makes her eminently qualified to say anything about Marines, even in combat, cuz, ya know – she works with them in Washington, she’s an expert.
Freaking knuckle-draggers, get with the program (literally) a little collateral damage to the fabric of the force is fine as long as the football is kicked down the field.
Great post Lex, love the way you write!
So, let’s see if I get this right. Don’t ask, don’t tell goes away. We’re all part of the big picture now as Ms. Schulz wants it to be.
What happens if I’m part of that big picture and have a room mate assigned to me that is quite outward in his “uniqueness.”
And it happens that no way do I want to be there with that person. I positively state I don’t want a homosexual room mate.
Do I get on the CO’s “doesn’t conform to military standards” list because I don’t participate in the diversity in my unit and in the military?
You can bet the ranch, your life, and a number of other possessions that will happen.
This is all about forcing something down everyone’s throat. If you’re stuck with a flaming queen the CO should do something about it. However, I’ve got a very strong feeling he will be placing his career on the line if he does.
Ignorance is bliss. Many of us have worked with gays and had no problems because the topic was not part of the professional environment. If an alternative lifestyle is morally unacceptable to me, yet we have to participate in a morally mixed world – then we separate professional and personal to the greatest extent possible. When others (e.g. gays) bring the personal into the professional ( you can’t do anything about me now because I will scream discrimination … you must accept my morals whether you want to or not … and so forth) THEN we have problems. Gays don’t have to accept my morals, or even acknowledge mine. Oil and water don’t mix well but can be homogenized into a suspension by essentially destroying the cellular structure … right v. wrong, acceptable v. unacceptable, what isn’t known can’t hurt, innocent until proven guilty, was that a simple touch or A Touch? … what a slippery slope she would have us fling ourselves onto. Back to right v. wrong which is to be adjudicated on so many levels.
The problem as I see it is the Law of Unintended (or perhaps in this case, Intended)Consequences. Once DADT is revoked, there will be the “implementation/compliance” phase: Mandatory sensitivity training. Request Mast for “harassment”. Legal suits contesting the results of promotion boards based on “prejudice” (or even unspoken “quotas” for promotion). And how about dependent status? Will a Marine’s same-sex spouse be legally recognized in North Carolina as well as in California? Will the Marine Corps have to sanction local jurisdictions for violating “fair” housing standards?
Won’t happen you say? Maybe not, but I wouldn’t bet the farm.
Reiver44 is totally on tgt, here. He scores a shack. And I WILL bet the farm that if open homosexuality is sanctioned all that ’44 predicts WILL come true. “That which is not expressly forbidden will eventually be championed.” Open homosexuality would be akin to introducing a slowly metastacizing cancer into the armed services that will eventually severely cripple/degrade the combat effectiveness of the armed forces, and speed the rampant cynicism already spreading like the plague in the officer and enlisted corps caused by the introduction of women into fighting and combat support units resulting in a secretive, “unofficial”/”semi-official” parallel shadow command system of promotions and assignments that in terms of fairness and merit cannot stand to see the light of day.
Look at our larger society. The cancer is already there, and it isn’t metasticizing slowly at all. The do what you wanna do crowd has won.