Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
gwd-scouter

What Training is needed?

Recommended Posts

Watching C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning, the host was reading headlines from several newspapers. One was about DADT and stated that the service chiefs want at least a year before implementation in order to train the troops.

 

My question, and I am not trying to spark a debate about the merits of DADT, is: what kind of training of the troops is necessary? Our military is the best-trained, most professional, most disciplined force in the world, right? I just can't imagine what kind of additional training they need before homosexuals are allowed to serve openly.

 

Not being snotty here folks, I really just don't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not knowing nothin' about birthin' no babies or training required we have:

 

Do the openly gays have separate quarters? Will there be a separate shower schedule,

 

I do think that the Islamic faith does not think highly of homosexuals, will Islamic officers have to be "trained" not to hold the sexuality of their command against them? What about other cultures? Will there be an issue?

 

It is possible having openly gay soliers will be like having men and women bunking together, I don't know. The argument against having openly gay soldiers has focused on how they will be treated by peers, now we will find out if the concerns were real or not

 

I know there are gay soldiers now, will having them being able to be open change all that much? I don't know,

 

I do know that an openly gay man or woman should have as much a right to die for their country as myself, son or daughter (or their mother as well)assuming all of us are straight of course

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gwd,

 

Right now, as a Commander, I can hit troops of any gender for:

 

Adultery:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm1342.htm

 

Sodomy:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm125.htm

 

Right there, when Smith admits he did Jones, last night, I've got him dead to rights. I do not put him out because he's gay, I put him out because he broke military law.

 

BTW, military law has a different basis than civil law. Civil law protects the civil peace.

 

Military law promotes the good order and discipline of the force in the field.

 

Now, let's add in:

 

Rape:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/art120new.htm

BTW, that article covers sexual assault as well. It's a long article now.

 

A clear and unambiguous message will have to be baseball-batted into the heads of hormone-heavy 19 year olds: Don't talk about your prowess and your exploits

 

The force also has to ready the guys in the combat arms. Have you ever had 3 Scouts in a two man tent? Imagine being 10 Infantrymen in a Brad or a Strker. You've got 40 sq feet inside the hull for you and your gear. There is no privacy whatsoever. Some troop with more hormones than brains is going to make an unwelcome advance. There will be a squad that will deal with the matter directly and forcefully. It's called a blanket party. Mark my words, it will happen. It's going to take time in the Infantry, Armor, and Field Artillery for attitudes to change.

 

It took a full generation after President Truman ordered desegregation for matters racial to become a thing of the past in the Armed Forces. It will take that long for matters gay as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine the training is needed to prevent commanders from laughing everytime a soldier complains that a gay soldier is hitting on everyone in the barracks except him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

 

Given the current status of DADT, whats preventing the gay troop member that's currently in the infantry and not telling from reacting with more hormones than brains now? While I'm sure the response from an unwanted advance would be the same, given that gays are currently in the military, just not openly serving, why would one expect an increase in unwanted advances with open service allowed?

 

SA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would guess that some training of the commanders would be necessary to educate them that being gay doesn't mean engaging in sex with the troops anymore than being hetero means engaging in sex with the troops.

I can see that training requiring a long time for some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having no military background myself, this is an uneducated guess, but it does not seem to me that the training would be all that complicated, and a year (or more) seems a little excessive. On the other hand it has been almost 20 years since this change was first proposed, and one might argue that another year is not that big a deal. (Easy for me to say, since it doesn't affect me personally.)

 

It may indeed take awhile for some people to get used to it, but implementing and having people get used to it are two different things. In fact, people can't really get fully used to it until after it is implemented. The desegregation of the U.S. military in the late 1940's was probably implemented very quickly, but as John-in-KC points out, it took awhile for people to get used to it. But they did, and they will this time.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just recalled something that I think is relevant here. A few weeks ago I heard a statement that Senator McCain had made on this issue. It was right after the survey, or whatever it was, came out that indicated that most service-members did not think that repealing the exclusion of gay people would have an adverse impact on military readiness, or words to that effect. McCain was complaining that the survey should have asked the service-members the direct question of whether they favored a change in the policy. Through the magic of the Internet, I just found his exact quote explaining this position. Referring to service-members, he said: "I think they're mature enough to say who they want to serve with." This seemed odd to me, because it has always been my impression that in the military, you do NOT have any input in who you serve with. I'm not talking about high-ranking officers who may be able to select (or at least recommend) some of their own subordinates. I'm talking about the lower-ranking men and women. So maybe those who are serving or who have served in the military (for which, thank you, by the way), can tell us whether what McCain said has any basis in reality. The question isn't whether they are "mature" enough to "say" who they want to serve with, the real question is, are they ever actually given a say? In other words, do they have any meaningful input as to who they serve with? Because, if they generally aren't asked, it seems a little too convenient that someone who is against changing this particular policy wants to start asking them now.

 

(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NJ,

 

The survey was the opportunity to ask Troopers "Who do you want to serve with?" The complaints of Senator McCain are, in order:

- It was not a mandated instrument. The response rate was around 25%, even though it was sent out, supposedly, to the entire force.

- It did not weight the concern of the relatively few Soldiers and Marines who are the "tip of the sword," the men in infantry, mech infantry, cavalry, tank, and artillery battalions.

We don't ask Troopers who they want to serve with. They fall into teams, squads, tank crews, gun sections, and platoons.

 

SA: An unwarranted advance is a "TELL." Until very recently, TELLs developed by independent information, such as a Troop coming in and seeing his unit commander or First Sergeant, had sufficient grounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John,I guess my question is, how common is it for the troops to be surveyed at all, about anything? And if they are surveyed, what kinds of things are they surveyed about? How common is it for the troops to be surveyed about specific proposed changes to military law or policy?

 

As for "unwanted advances", is there any military law or policy that prohibits them, other than the "don't ask don't tell" policy? What if the "unwanted advance" is between members of different genders? Is there any law or policy prohibiting an "unwanted advance" by a male servicemember to a female servicemember, or the other way around? (I'm not talking about assault, I'm talking about something that stops short of that, as I assume you were when you used the phrase.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NJ:

 

The force is constantly being surveyed on an array of matters. I'd say I got stuck with 2 instruments a year throughout my service.

 

See my posts above, the punitive articles of the UCMJ. Oral sex is sodomy, period, whether with your wife/husband or not. Adultery is any sex with anyone not your wife/husband. Both are punishable.

 

Gern,

 

The troopers of my generation would say no, all right. The next day, the soldier would be at sick call, having fallen down the stairwell.

 

The training is to forestall these accidents. Just remember that we are dealing with young adults, who probably were not Boy Scouts (literally and figuratively), for whom proving their manhood is marking their territory and proclaiming they are the strongest bulls in the pasture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we are at it,lets ask in the souther born want to serve alongside with Yankees.

 

Ask whites if the want to serve along side with blacks, Hispanics, asians, or other races.

 

Ask catholics if they want to serve along side Jews, bhuddists, or whatever other relion.

 

Of course,. let's don't forget the country music military vers rap, and heavy metal.

 

Funny thing..Today I saw something in the newspaper that hit the nail on the head:

 

People were supposedly taking about "Sraight rights" in the military as opposed to "Gay rights" in the military.

 

Suppose we switched it up to read :"white rights" or "black rights" or "Christian Rights".

 

But then you have to ask: What rigfhts are we talkiking about? Rights to what? Not be offended by something thjat actually doesn't affect you? The right to not be exposed to, and thus offended by a lifestyle other than your own?

 

How about just living your life your way and letting others live their way.

 

I have an openly gay cousin. By openly, I mean he doesn't hide it, but he doesn't shove it in your face. He isn't flamboyant or "girly". Matter of fact, you wouldn't even know by looking at him or talking to him.

 

But he once told me about a job he had, A fellow worker said he was cool working with a gay guy as long as the gay guy didn't do anything.

 

My cousin brought up a very great and valid point:

Just because he;s gay doesn't mean he; sgonna hit on every male within soite no more than a heterosexual male will hit on every woman in site. JUst like a woman doesn't try to jump in bed wity every guy she sees.

 

And tructh be told,,,I beliecve that straight men who are in the 20 to 30 range make more passes, attemps or hit on women more than a gay guy ever does to other gay guys..

 

The he said something else: Let a group of straight guys know a gay man is in the rom, then suddenly, all the straight guys assume they are the most attractive thing ever. They just assume that they are so hot that the gay guy couldn't control himself.

Talk about an ego! :)

 

Did any of the straight guys ever consider for even a moment that the gay guy might not be attracted to them in any way at all?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief, Scoutfish. Is your keyboard broke or something? I almost required special training just to read your post. :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×