Well, sensitivity to host culture has its own merits.
I remember reading what set Osama bin Laden off on his jihad was the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia during Desert Storm. This is the first serious engagement of female American troops in the middle east. I could speculate that 37,000 female troops in the region kicking muslim ass was intolerable for this sexist bigot and may have been a significant motivating factor in creating al Qaeda. America and Europe had quite a history in the middle east, but apart from the Israeli aspect, I can’t recall any significant threat from Islamists until the first world trade centre bombing shortly after Desert Storm.
I just wonder if we would be in the pickle we are in today with the Islamists if Americans didn’t encourage so many women to participate in Desert Storm.
There’s no need to “announce” your sexual orientation for it to cause trouble.
What troops are in Saudi Arabia?
If I had to guess, I would say that the average Iraqi is much more concerned about sectarian violence, crime, the economy, security contractors and the American disregard for Iraqi calls for a withdrawal timetable than whether or not some American soldiers might be gay.
And yet women in the military are in exactly that position. And more and more often they are coming under fire. Frankly, if I have to put up with knowing my fellow soldiers think occasional lustful thoughts about me, I think the big, manly men around me can learn to deal with it, too.
To go back to the OP, the military should let gays and lesbians serve, but it’s not going to any time soon, and neither this Congress, nor any Congress that could get elected in the near future is going to extend more rights to gays and lesbians.
I don’t have a whole lot to add to this thread, except to say some simple and hopefully self-evident things.
Throughout history (yes even in the US), there have been gays in the military. From way before Sparta, right on down to modern times. Somehow, the world kept spinning, armies still functioned, battles were still won. The ability to follow orders and to fight have nothing to do with a person’s love interests.
I imagine, during a pitched battle, people won’t care who you sleep with, they’d be more worried in whether you will fight and keep them alive.
Well the military consider “telling” to be comunicating one’s orientation in any way to any other human being. Private diaries, letters, family members, being at a club while on leave, having certain magazines, etc. are all ways to get thrown out. I have a friend who was in the USAF and just finished basic training when her ex-girlfriend sent her a letter and someone found it. She was given a choice betweeb adiminstrative seperation and dishonourable discharge.
I thought “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was a botch-up from the get-go. I was active duty then, and I think that allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military could have been done, then. Certainly I don’t think it would have caused the problems that people keep bringing up for unit cohesiveness. And that was almost 15 years ago.
(I think the so-called Wiccan who didn’t shower, until he got an order to do so, was more detrimental than any number of homosexuals who would shower regularly could be.)
Remember, though, that in Israel most of the extreme fundamentalists stay out of the military. There would doubtless be a lot more hostility towards gay Israeli servicemembers if the ultra-Orthodox haredi weren’t exempt from the draft.
Which wouldn’t be a bad thing. I’d love to see more communication between both the military and the left. I don’t mean to say that it doesn’t happen, but there is a lot of prejudice on both sides, which often leads to people who actively avoid being “contaminated” by talking to those across the boundary.
worst of all, under dont tell, gay soldiers are more or less obliged to pretend to be straight, thus competing *unfairly for the limited pool of permissible pussy.
(*They are too buffed, too tidy, too well-read, too color coordinated, too good at dancing, too communicative, too …oh shit, you get the idea. Let them out of the closet, or the straight guys will never get laid…)
Most likely, she was given a choice between accepting an administrative separation or facing charges at a court-martial. A Dishonorable Discharge can only be issued pursuant to a sentence of a court-martial.
An Administrative Separation (ADSEP {this acronym is also used as a verb}) is a means by which the Service Member may be separated from the Service without having to go through a court-martial or waiting until the contractually-required period (known as OBLISERV or obligated service) expires. There are a number of reasons for which a Service Member may be ADSEPed. Not all of the reasons generate a negative re-enlistment indicator.
A court-martial, on the other hand, is an actual trial. One of the sentencing options available to the military judge, if the accused is found guilty, is to award (yeah, I know, the military has some funny ways of saying things) a discharge such as Bad Conduct Discharge or Dishonorable Discharge. Actually, the type of separation is Discharge, the character of service is either Bad Conduct or Dishonorable.
For ADSEP, the type of separation is Discharge (or perhaps Administrative Separation) and the character of service is based on a set formula taking into account the Service Members record of punishment (if any) and evaluations. Dishonorable and Bad Conduct are not choices for this type of separation.
One hundred ten members of Congress now support the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, a Congressional bill that would repeal the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual personnel.