Asking and telling in the U.S. military

Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - 11:45 AM Share

That appears to be the case for gay soldiers in South Korea, according to recent Stars & Stripes articles about Seoul's "Homo Hill."

Says a young Army medic, "This is the perfect place, if you've never been [openly] gay before, to come out."

Just keep it off the pool tables, guys.

urbantofu/flickr

EXPLORE:EAST ASIA, MILITARY

(11)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

WALKING WOUNDED

9:39 PM ET

March 16, 2010

DADT- abuse, blackmail and rat-out

DADT never solved the most convincing security argument against service gays; outting still ruins careers, and therefore makes the silent minority vulnerable to blackmail by enemies and criminals. But the ability to threaten a career hit on uniformed gays is not just available to Chinese, Islamist or Israeli espionage recruiters; it can be used by service rivals, the mean spirited and self-righteous. Imagine the leverage against a contracting officer with more than a decade invested in their career and retirement?

Whatever the reform issues are, continuing DADT is really not a good option.

Gay Air Force Sergeant Booted After Cops Out Her
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/lesbian-air-force-sergeant-jene-newsome-discharged-after-police-out-her/19397963

RUBBER DUCKY

10:43 PM ET

March 16, 2010

Gays in America - gay in the military

Our military is best equipped for service to the nation if it truly represents our nation. That's why we need a draft. That's why allowing gays to serve openly should be a no-brainer. And to the nation's young - recruiting age - this is simply not an issue. Get on with it. Get over it.

JPWREL

3:50 AM ET

March 17, 2010

Unnecessary controversy

We keep addressing this issue as if there is something new and novel here, there isn't. Unlike the issue of women in ground combat units, there is no sound reason gays should not openly serve in the armed forces. If they act contrary to good discipline then court martial them just as you would any person who does not conform to rules and regulations. RD and WW are spot on with their views on this non-controversy.

ERIC_STRATTONIII

5:32 AM ET

March 17, 2010

I agree, silly rule

I agree with JPWREL on this, not a real issue and no sound reason for it really, unlike allowing women in combat this is just a non issue. As long as the headshed enforce the Frat Policy this should go and it will, betting within two years it will be totally gone from the books.

RUBBER DUCKY

10:46 AM ET

March 17, 2010

Women in combat

For my BFF Eric...

We have a day coming when the women in our two wars who have been shot at and under mortar fire and in the vicinity of IEDs and near suicide bombers when the bomb went off will challenge the silliness of the combat-exclusion for ground troops.

If you are under attack but have no FEBA, you have no distinction between combat zones - where females are excluded by law - and non-combat zones - where females are legally stationed. So female Iraq and Afghanistan veterans can legitimately say they have been in combat all along and what the hell is this exclusion all about and why are you telling me it should remain policy that we not be allowed to do what we've been doing and take the risks that we've been taking for years.

I'm surprised this has not come up yet. When it does, be prepared for a weak replay of the anti-feminist and misogynist drivel of the past .... and then the policy will either fall or undergo a severely narrowed focus. Stand by.

ERIC_STRATTONIII

3:38 AM ET

March 18, 2010

For my BFF Rubber Ducky

I have actually been overseas to see these "vaunted" women you talk of, your argument does not and will not hold water. Wow! They were near and IED or a Mortor?!?! Holy Smoke Batman, that has happened since at least the Civil War, it is like you have some sercret insight though! lol
Women get Combat Action Ribbons, Purple Hears and awards when they are warrented, I have only seen a few that were real though, the two Privates taken prisoner at the start of the war and the the medic who got the Silver Star, all deserved. The rest have been classic examples of award inflation. The fact that you think they don't shows your ignorance on this topic yet again.
Rubber Ducky, when that topic comes up you will again try to relate disagreement with that to racism and misogynist "drivel" when the reality is that you have never done ANYTHING on land, have never seen combat and never had women with you in combat zones or on your ships so your knowledge is very limited but that will not stop you from making silly statements. You are along the lines of people who think they are "entitled" and who when they are ignorant about something would rather call names than admit they are wrong.
I will tell you what, when that happens again, I will bring up actual facts, things like science, anatomy & physiology, studies and real world expierence and let you stick to your feelings that anyone against it is a closet racists or misogynist and we will see who sounds better informed and rational. Good luck tiger! ;)

RUBBER DUCKY

10:31 AM ET

March 18, 2010

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/iraq_war_at_female_cas

Geez. Guess they didn't duck.

ERIC_STRATTONIII

6:32 PM ET

March 18, 2010

Ducky, link does not work

Ducky, the link does not work and I am not sure how an article would prove to me that women belong in ground combat? You can continue to ignore the real physical differences, the fact that when we go into homes hand to hand happens all the time and ignore things like history and real genetic hard wiring differences. If we are talking about diesal subs, I will consider you an SME, otherwise it is just more PC BS. I await to be called a racist and misgoynist by you for using the real world and not my "Feelings" in the argument though, it will only weaken your arugments, so feel free to toss it around often :) Cheers!

RUBBER DUCKY

7:23 PM ET

March 18, 2010

Try this...

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/iraq_war_at_female

RUBBER DUCKY

7:25 PM ET

March 18, 2010

The point...

... is not that females belong in ground combat but that they ARE in ground combat and have been since Saddam's statue was hauled down.

ERIC_STRATTONIII

7:52 PM ET

March 18, 2010

Ducky

Not the same thing, FOBs get shelled and Convoys get shot at, that has happened with women in or on them since forever. Ground Combat is going head to head. Nurses and Support people in WWI, WWII, Korea, etc...all got shot at, all got shells thrown their way but that does not mean they can hump 70lbs of kit for 10 klicks, shoot someone close up and engage in hand to hand in an urban environment, but you keep think that being shot at is the same as that. I have four tours now, 2 to OEF and 2 to OIF, I have seen what the media and people like you consider "Ground Combat", joke. "Oh my goodness, someone shot in our general direction, whatever shall we do?! Quick, CIBs abd CARs for everyone" lol When I was in OIF in 04', our FOB got shelled every night, but the rounds were never any real danger, they always hit way out, does that mean EVERYONE on that FOB, even those a klick on the other side of the base was in engaged in ground combat? Umm...no. Post something when you have something real to argue to place women in ground combat positions, I doubt that will happen, seems to me you think women and men are just social constructs but last time I checked I think we have different A&P. Cheers! :)