|
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
How far is too far?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...5278.shtml?123
Quote:
(CBS) A gay soldier says he disclosed his sexuality to his superiors, even offering graphic proof, and was neither discharged nor reprimanded, despite the military’s "don't ask, don't tell" policy on homosexuality.
Army Sgt. Darren Manzella appears in a Lesley Stahl report on gays in the wartime U.S. military to be broadcast on 60 Minutes this Sunday, Dec. 16, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Manzella, a medic who served in Iraq for a year, currently serves as medical liaison for the 1st Cavalry Division stationed in Kuwait, where he says he is "out" to his entire chain of command, including a three-star general. After leaving Iraq, he started receiving anonymous emails warning him about his openness that suggested he was being watched, so he went to his commander to head off an investigation he felt was coming. "I didn’t know how else to do it," he tells Stahl, acknowledging that he initiated an investigation of himself by violating the policy. "I felt more comfortable being the one to say, 'This is what is real,'" Manzella says.
He then says his commander reported him, as he was obliged to do, and then "I had to go see my battalion commander, who read me my rights," he says. He turned over pictures of him and his boyfriend, including video of a passionate kiss, to aid the investigation. But to his surprise, "I was told to go back to work. There was no evidence of homosexuality," says Manzella. "'You’re not gay,'" he says his superiors told him. This response confused him and, he says, the closest a superior officer came to addressing his sexuality was to say "I don't care if you're gay or not."
Manzella's commanders may not be the only ones who are indifferent to gays serving openly under them. Discharges of gay soldiers have dropped dramatically since the Afghan and Iraq wars began, from 1,200 a year in 2001 to barely 600 now. With the military struggling to recruit and retain soldiers, gay soldiers claim that commanders are reluctant to discharge critical personnel in the middle of a war.
Stahl spoke with several gay former military members who say they were also out openly in their units, known to be gay by as many as a hundred other service members. "They don’t care….these are our peers…the 'Will and Grace' generation," says Brian Fricke, referring to the popular television program featuring a gay character. Fricke was a Marine Corps avionics technician who served in Iraq. "They grew up with it in the media….They see gay people as people…Americans," says Fricke. "They don't see gay people as people with a disability…."
These gay former service members say they did not re-enlist because they oppose the don't ask, don't tell policy, which they say shows the military's leadership is out of step with American society and its allies. Gays serve openly in the British military and in those of the other 14 NATO countries.
U.S. Army Maj. Daniel Davis, speaking to Stahl out of uniform to emphasize that he does not speak for the U.S. military, says don't ask, don't tell is necessary to achieve cohesion among soldiers, especially those in combat. Most service members are conservative, he says, and won't readily accept gays. "If you have a moral or religious issue, you cannot order me to [bond] with that [gay] person," says Davis, a specialist in battlefield tactics. "Our purpose in the military is not social engineering….It’s about fighting and winning the nation's wars."
|
The story isn't that shocking. Soldier's commanding officers ignore his open gayness- this isn't really that interesting. Obviously the potential for this to occur is there, so it inevitably will.
I bolded the part i think is interesting, assuming that this guy speaks for a large number of members of the military. The purpose of the military is not social engineering, but fighting and winning wars- i don't necessarily disagree with this notion. I don't think that anyone expects the military to be on the forefront of any sort of social issues.
What i think is interesting is the apparent implication: forcing american military personel to put aside their possible distaste for homosexuality doesn't fall within the scope of "fighting and winning the nation's wars". That is to say, it is okay to ask american military personnel to kill to win wars, it is okay to ask american military personnel to put aside their possible distrust of members of other races and religions to win wars, it is okay to ask american military personnel to spend indeterminant amounts of time doing really physically and mentally uncomfortable things to win wars, it is okay to ask american military personnel to die to win wars, but it is not okay to ask american military personnel to overlook their personal distaste for homosexuals and homosexuality to win wars.
I should say that i'm not in the military and am not in a position to comment on military culture with an insider's perspective, but if this is true, what gives? It has always been my understanding that homosexuals are just as able to handle a rifle as heterosexuals, even moreso depending on the type of homosexual and the type of rifle (heh). Wouldn't allowing homosexuals to serve actually help us win wars? Why is so much respect given to homophobia while so little given to racism? If the american military is as disciplined as it claims to be, would it really be that difficult to train american soldiers to ignore the sexual preferences of their fellow servicepersons? Is it worth depriving the military of skilled members to not do so?
|