I am going to post this with complete honesty... I ama Marine Corps combat veteran, I served in an infantry unit, and I went to war. The group of men I served with I will always consider my brothers. No matter what you feel about current conflicts, and whether you are left or right, we need a capable fighting force. My unit was very successful in doing our mission, and without a doubt unit cohesion is the reason we were successful. Allowing gays into the infantry would disrupt this cohesion.
I would go as far as saying that gays could serve openly and successfully in 95% of all military jobs. I would however exclude service in tight knit infantry units. Infantry unit cohesion is essential, and a break down would cause loss of life, and less success, and much less moral. The extremely close living conditions while in combat and constant interaction would create an uneasy awkwardness that would not be a good thing. I am sure there are some gay men that would still do just fine and fit right in, but some wouldn't, and bad situations would arise from it. However, almost every Air Force and Navy jobs would be just fine, and even the majority of Army and Marine Corps jobs. I don't think someone serving their country with honor should have to deny their sexuality. However, I think infantry units whould be left as they are... am I unreasonable? This is my oppinion and mine only, and I hope I haven't offended anyone.
What, you don't think lack of cohesion is already goring on under DADT?
There ARE gays serving in the military. The only difference between DADT and no DADT is that YOU don't know they're gay. So, why would you knowing someone is gay affect your ability to focus and stay on task (or, someone else's ability to focus and stay on task)?
How about when a soldier is "found out" under DADT regulations and then is booted out - doesn't matter how, why, when or where - out they go? Doesn't that effect cohesion? What about when a soldier is found out - but isn't booted out - and instead is just abused by his fellow soldiers and socked every chance they get for their personal satisfaction? How does that help moral and this 'cohesion' factor?
Let's look at a scenerio similar to what's actually happened under DADT:
What if, let's say, a soldier was gay and tried *very very* hard to keep his gay relationship private. However, someone saw him with his partner at the movies in the next town over, took a few pictures, and turned him in - he was, under DADT, processed out.
Well, let's say he was a seargent - he had guys who depended on him to help them get through deployment, mission and assignments - musters and splurges - all that jazz. . . and then suddenly he's gone.
What then? They just Sunshine him out of their memory - re-cohese without him around, move on like he was never important? That's hard to do, that's damn hard.
What you're thinking of is a 'weak link' in a chain type scenerio - weak links can be straight, democrat, white or female - their orientation, race, gender or political leaning is NOT the reason why they might be a weak link. Someone might be a weak link because they just don't fit in with the group - maybe it's a personality clash or a clash of the titans scenerio.
Unless he's cohesing your buttcheeks - you "knowing" won't affect anything other than what you allow it to effect - as is with a lot of men - what they allow it to effect is their personal judgement, attitude and feelings. Nevermind that they're all soldiers and should put all those things aside or be in control of theirselves - nevermind all that jazz - suddenly - it's what people *feel* that counts when *feelings* are the last thing that should be stirring in the warzone.
It's a job, focus on it, get **** done.
And here I am always thinking that being a 'man' means not giving a damn about others and just proving you can handle everything - that nothing gets to you.
Guess not?