Gay policy will cost military dearly

  • Follow Letters

As a retired Army officer who spent nearly 21 years on active duty, I pretty much share the opinion recently expressed by Bill Weger on this page ("The military is not a social experiment," Jan. 2). I would, however, like to explain it a little differently.

First and foremost, the military doesn't need servicemen and women who are there to promote an agenda other than national security. National security is not served by sacrificing unit cohesion and effectiveness to either discriminate against, or on behalf of, one particular group.

I served during the racial discrimination witch hunts and during the retirement of the Women's Army Corps. I sat through, and sometimes even presented, countless hours of classroom instruction, workshops, and endless parades of "experts" explaining how and why blacks or women were being treated unfairly. I watched the entire chain of command from corporal to general forced to coddle and caress whichever group happened to be the subject of the latest campaign. I watched special treatment of these soldiers in their assignments and their promotions.

I have seen what happens when the services change their focus from national defense to social engineering. It is a tragedy in peacetime and a catastrophe in wartime. I'm pretty sure homosexuals have served their country with great honor and distinction just as have blacks, women and other categories of human beings in the military. To all of them we owe our freedom and our prosperity.

But nothing good can come of the pro-homosexual campaign about to be foisted on the military, in which militant homosexuals constantly will test the limits of the services' ability to maintain order and discipline within the ranks as this new "special" group finds their place. I'm glad I won't be part of the process, and I'm saddened by what I believe will be the result.

There is no chance we have done the right thing by forcing the military services to provide openly homosexual personnel a place in the ranks. It will cost us dearly.

Tom Taber

Augusta

Comments (62) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
robbie1
0
Points
robbie1 01/10/11 - 11:21 pm
0
0
Amen, Retired. I've worked

Amen, Retired. I've worked with plenty of folks I thought wer gay or lesbian. Fact is, it didn'tm matter. As long as they did their part. There will be some problems, but nothing the military can't overcome.

usapatriot
0
Points
usapatriot 01/11/11 - 02:27 am
0
0
thing is, retired, women and

thing is, retired, women and blacks are mainstream, accepted members of society. accommodation within the military was in inevitable. blacks and women in the military was not a new phenomena. they had been there for decades. integrating units known was that issue.

gays have been allowed to serve. as the DADT law Clinton signed, they were required to keep their homosexuality to themselves.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/03/politics/main7113989.shtml

"Bucking the Pentagon's top leaders, the chiefs of the Army and Marines urged Congress on Friday not to allow openly gay people to serve in the military..."

"Assimilating openly homosexual Marines into the tightly woven fabric of our combat units has strong potential for disruption," among individual units fighting or readying to deploy, Amos said Friday. "It will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus of preparing units for combat."

So, to accommodate the so very few openly gay enlistees, we must sacrifice the integrety of the combat units fighting the war. The Marine Commandant and Army Chief of Staff are pretty damn good experts to testify about this.

These brave commanders put their careers on the line to voice their opinion to Congress and the nation. Argue that they do not have the most informed opinion in this matter of national defense?

They stuck up for the war fighter. They know how that warfighter trains, lives, eats, sleeps and breathes. They know how he fights. They know what any disruption in that cycle would cause.

You want to force this issue upon them. Your decision should trump that of the warfighter?

You bleeding hearts wanting this openly gay clause are not laying your life on the line. The men that are are against this. If gays want to serve, they are able to. Just keep it to yourself. I know I had some work for me. I trained some. But they kept it to themselves.

I've seen military polls favoring lifting the ban. What I didn't see was the results broken down by age groups. I've no doubt younger service members are open to this. I bet you, when age groups and service length is taken into acct, there is a gap in this idea. As your leadership and supervisory experience increases, the more you understand cohesion. As those youngsters mature into leaders, they will understand also.

A distraction in the foxhole is a distraction from the mission. If you haven't been there, you'll never understand it.

The institution of the military is larger than your liberal social experiments. This is life and death, not your local school board.

Brad Owens
5068
Points
Brad Owens 01/11/11 - 03:55 am
0
0
Now, I think this letter can

Now, I think this letter can be turned around and written in a way that makes sense....

Let me show you....

Dear All Haters,

As a retired Army officer who spent nearly 21 years on active duty, I pretty much abhor the opinion recently expressed by Bill Weger on this page ("The military is not a social experiment," Jan. 2). I would, however, like to explain my position a little differently.

First and foremost, the military doesn't need servicemen and women who are there to promote an agenda other than national security.

National security is not served by sacrificing unit cohesion and effectiveness to either discriminate against, or on behalf of, one particular group.

I served during the racial discrimination witch hunts and during the retirement of the Women's Army Corps. I sat through, and sometimes even presented, countless hours of classroom instruction, workshops, and endless parades of "experts" explaining how and why blacks or women were being treated unfairly, although I didn't need to be told, I was living in all that hate.

I watched the entire chain of command from corporal to general forced to accept and help intergrate whichever group happened to be the subject of the latest equality campaign.

I had watched special treatment of white male soldiers in their assignments and their promotions destroy morale and corrode the very basic tenets of the US Constitution inside the military for many years.

I have seen the good that can happen when the services change their focus from perpetuating a bigoted system to building a united national defense through positive social engineeringinside the controlled military enviroment.

It is a tragedy in peacetime and a catastrophe in wartime when we do not use all our best to fight our enemies.

I'm pretty sure homosexuals have served their country with great honor and distinction, just as have blacks, women and other categories of human beings in the military. To all of them we owe our freedom and our prosperity.

But nothing good can come of the anti-homosexual campaign that has been foisted on the military, in which I am sure militant anti-homosexuals will constantly test the limits of the services' ability to maintain order and discipline within the ranks as this fine group of homosexual/gay/lesbian soldiers finds their place in an Army which no longer oppresses them.

I'm sad I won't be part of the process, and I'm gladdened by what I believe will be the result.

We have done the right thing by forcing the military services to provide openly homosexual personnel a place in the ranks. It was way overdue and the bigoted policies have cost us dearly in the past.

For Tom Taber

U.S. Army retired

Augusta

-------------END OF LETTER--------

See how good that could have been with an editor like me?

Progressive and inclusive.

Brad

Brad Owens
5068
Points
Brad Owens 01/11/11 - 04:00 am
0
0
Now, lets take a look at what

Now, lets take a look at what he said...break it down, examin its parts.

Herr Taber sez, "First and foremost, the military doesn't need servicemen and women who are there to promote an agenda other than national security.."

If you were someone who saw making sure your command had basic human and civil rights as "forced to coddle and caress whichever group happened to be the subject of the latest campaign" then you were playing politics in uniform yourself.

As Dubya would say, "That makes you a hypocritisizer..."

Herr Taber also sez, "I have seen what happens when the services change their focus from national defense to social engineering"

Me too there Ike, we built the strongest military in the world and we did it with "Colored" and "Broads" serving right beside white males. So what is your point? All those classes and combinations and fusions worked?

Marco Luxe
0
Points
Marco Luxe 01/11/11 - 04:24 am
0
0
Uspatriot fails US History

Uspatriot fails US History when he states "women and blacks [were] mainstream, accepted members of society. accommodation within the military was in inevitable. blacks and women in the military was not a new phenomena." Read the reports on Truman's efforts at integration and see how the entrenched opposition and insubordination by top Army brass nearly lead to a Constitutional crisis. Uspatriot's claim of "mainstream" and "inevitable" are naive revisionism.

With such a wildly ahistorical view of the facts, everything he says can be considered gut-reaction prejudice. I have complete confidence that history will prove this.

southernguy08
536
Points
southernguy08 01/11/11 - 06:38 am
0
0
The military isn't a platform
Unpublished

The military isn't a platform for the "alternative" lifestyle either. This will lower morale. When the ranks are so low that the word "draft" is being considered to meet recruitment needs, the liberals will be screaming how this is all Bush, Palin, and Fox News' fault.

TrukinRanger
1749
Points
TrukinRanger 01/11/11 - 06:54 am
0
0
Great Response Brad!
Unpublished

Great Response Brad!

Carleton Duvall
6308
Points
Carleton Duvall 01/11/11 - 08:25 am
0
0
This is a very sensitive

This is a very sensitive matter. People on both sides of the issue have strong opinions about their position. I think that it is totally inappropiate to refer to the letter writer as Herr Taber because of his opinion on the matter. I disagree with him but I respect the way he feels and, more importantly, respect him for his service to our country. I wonder if those that have insulted him have served.

Carleton Duvall
6308
Points
Carleton Duvall 01/11/11 - 09:11 am
0
0
RA, There is very little that

RA, There is very little that you post that I agree with as I am moderate that leans to the right. With that said, You are spot on about a draft. I served in the navy for 4 years during WWII. Most of my fellow sailors were draftees. I was not. I found them to be excellent in every respect. I have always felt that a tour of duty for every young man (notice , I exclude women) would be a good thing for their development. I know it was good for me.

soldout
1287
Points
soldout 01/11/11 - 10:09 am
0
0
I agree with the letter and I

I agree with the letter and I see he was attacked as anyone with a moral position always is. The fact is; anytime we do anything to promote or celebrate sin society always loses. You can't stop the results of sin with your words because the Word is stronger than your words. Once again God's plan will win and man's will lose. Just as abortion created a spirit of death in this country which is creating destruction so will the celebraton of sin.

onlysane1left
223
Points
onlysane1left 01/11/11 - 10:47 am
0
0
Brad, you have made my day

Brad, you have made my day once again! Amen great response and I felt like saying everything you did!

rmwhitley
5547
Points
rmwhitley 01/11/11 - 11:28 am
0
0
There is an ingrained modesty
Unpublished

There is an ingrained modesty in most humans. When I'm in a public restroom, I don't care to share stalls with other men, heterosexual or homosexual. I don't find it redeeming to discuss my sexual preferences with other men or women, unless the woman and I are intimately involved. I served My country from 1968 through 1971 with some very fine men and women. Sexual preference wasn't in the top 50 priorities then. Why now? Next we'll bleed for child molesters and their lack of civil rights and self-control, then mass-murderers who just can't cope with some segment of society.You don't have to be a "bible-toting" person to realize that morality is a necessary part of life. If you're dealt what is percieved to be a "bad hand", be an adult and deal with it. Don't make your problems everyone's problem.

dougk
3
Points
dougk 01/11/11 - 11:56 am
0
0
A "bad hand?"
Unpublished

A "bad hand?"

tommyboy61466
0
Points
tommyboy61466 01/11/11 - 12:20 pm
0
0
Um,...folks, I think that

Um,...folks, I think that you're all missing the big picture. The military has community shower facilities. As a heterosexual man, I am not allowed in the "womens" shower/restroom for good reason. What this "law" is going to do is allow people that are gay to enter a shower/restroom that I being str8 would not be allowed to do. And of course, now that they are allowed to be open about it, if they do/say something inappropriate and are assaulted, it's "Gay-bashing". If I however go into a womens shower/restroom, that's a sex crime. This is one huge Double Standard waiting to hit the fan. Imagine that your wife is active duty and that she's deployed. Is it right that she has to wonder if she's the target of an over-zealous Lesbian? What this is is basically a call for coed community facilities. Why is it ok for a gay man to come into a community shower with str8 men but a str8 man goes into the shower with the ladies and he's arrested??

User420
2
Points
User420 01/11/11 - 01:50 pm
0
0
To those arguing the Bible as

To those arguing the Bible as a basis for anti-gay rhetoric: IF your God is the God of creation, then your God made homosexuality as part of his design. Your God made DNA, and all of it's facets. Therefore, either your God wanted homosexuality in the design of life on this planet, or your God is not all-powerful, as he made a mistake!

To those arguing about perversion: If being homosexual is a choice, or perverted, then why does every species of life on this planet that has two genders have it's share of homosexuals ?

To those arguing "common sense": 50 years ago, it was "common sense" to forbid women from serving. 50 years before that, it was "common sense" to forbid blacks from serving with whites. 50 years before that, it was "common sense" to forbid blacks from serving at all, except as meat shields.

I miss anything?

Oh yeah they aren't going to rape you in the barracks or a foxhole either! There's not a single gay person who's looking for the right to sexually harass. Don't let your insecurity get in the way of sanity any more than it already has. Someone please tell me how this differs from the health club where I work out. Of course, there are men's and women's locker rooms, but it's a pretty large club and there no doubt are some gay members who see us walking around naked after showering. I've never had anyone openly stare at me in the locker room, I would assume that most gay members simply know to "keep it civil" in the locker room, just like a straight doctor knows to be professional when examining an undressed female patient - I doubt that a straight doctor would pretend to gay to put his female patient more at ease.

rmwhitley
5547
Points
rmwhitley 01/11/11 - 02:51 pm
0
0
Reality check. This is the
Unpublished

Reality check. This is the real world. If everything was perfect, there'd be no wars, hunger, poverty, jealousy or crime. Nothing is perfect. The "left" will always blame the "right" and vice versa. Openly gay in the military is a social experiment with a fuse.

Dan at The Scott Daily Post
0
Points
Dan at The Scott Daily Post 01/11/11 - 02:59 pm
0
0
@User420:"I would assume that

@User420:"I would assume that most gay members simply know to "keep it civil" in the locker room"

What about men keeping it civil in the ladies locker room?

Willow Bailey
20606
Points
Willow Bailey 01/11/11 - 03:05 pm
0
0
Whether or not gays are

Whether or not gays are allowed to openly serve in the military is the least of our problems. Wandering , godlessly, in the desert of our own sinfulness will be our great undoing as a person and as a nation.

Brad Owens
5068
Points
Brad Owens 01/11/11 - 03:42 pm
0
0
scoobydoisback, 19 years and

scoobydoisback,

19 years and counting in the Army, Army Reserves, Army National Guard, and Individual Ready Reserves...

Korea, Bosnia, OIF, OEF, and countless training missions lots of places.

My opinion has no more or less worth due to my service I might note.

Brad

NewHere
0
Points
NewHere 01/11/11 - 03:57 pm
0
0
Thank you brad for you very

Thank you brad for you very common sense post... I don't have anything else to add.

harley_52
27763
Points
harley_52 01/11/11 - 04:31 pm
0
0
Brad, you say...."19 years

Brad, you say...."19 years and counting in the Army, Army Reserves, Army National Guard, and Individual Ready Reserves...

Korea, Bosnia, OIF, OEF, and countless training missions lots of places.

My opinion has no more or less worth due to my service I might note."

Odd that you'd deny any value to your own wisdom and personal experience. Most folks hold a contrary view.

iletuknow
8
Points
iletuknow 01/11/11 - 04:34 pm
0
0
The military with all it's

The military with all it's futile attempts at world domination is already costing the taxpayers dearly to the tune of $1 billion a year.The only thing they have succeeded is embarassing the people of the USA and making the country despised through out the world.

Brad Owens
5068
Points
Brad Owens 01/11/11 - 04:42 pm
0
0
harley 52, My point is that

harley 52,

My point is that you do not need to have served to have a valid opinion on this subject. My service doesn't mean that my opinions have more or less 'worth' than someone who did not serve.

Brad

Riverman1
99659
Points
Riverman1 01/11/11 - 04:51 pm
0
0
Brad said, "... and

Brad said, "... and Individual Ready Reserves..."

I thought that part was pretty funny, Brad. :)

Willow Bailey
20606
Points
Willow Bailey 01/11/11 - 05:14 pm
0
0
Yes, Retired Army, I get

Yes, Retired Army, I get the full scripture, We are all sinners fallen short of the glory of God and in desperate need of saving. If we name all of the sins, and keep those from serving in military also, we would have no military. The same is true for any other groups. My comment is not a smite to gays. It is to point others to the only answer any of us have. I appreciate your comment and am sorry you misunderstood me.

lovingthesouth72
1410
Points
lovingthesouth72 01/11/11 - 05:24 pm
0
0
Tommyboy has a good point. I

Tommyboy has a good point. I guess the military will now have to supply for new private showers.

dougk
3
Points
dougk 01/11/11 - 06:04 pm
0
0
Willow has gone thru some
Unpublished

Willow has gone thru some sort of new enlightenment that I would be happy to be privy to.

InChristLove
22486
Points
InChristLove 01/11/11 - 06:33 pm
0
0
User420 stated "IF your God

User420 stated "IF your God is the God of creation, then your God made homosexuality as part of his design. Your God made DNA, and all of it's facets. Therefore, either your God wanted homosexuality in the design of life on this planet, or your God is not all-powerful, as he made a mistake!"

User420, you are assuming that homosexuals are born that way. There is no proof of that. God is the creator of life and he doesn't make mistakes. Our sickness or suffering is not caused by God, but by the sin in the world. If he corrected all the things that are wrong in this life because of sin, then we do not have free choice and we'd have no need for God. God allows suffering in order to draw us closer to Him. Some see it, some don't. You say God made homosexuals. Do you also say God made mentally handicapped children, does he make the blind, the ones who are born with heart defects, cerebral palsy, what about down syndrome. All these things are due to sin from the beginning of time. God loves us, not hate us. Why else would God come to earth as a child, die on the cross for all of us, be raised from the dead and promise to return so that we can one day spend eternity with Him...no other reason than He Love US.

dougk
3
Points
dougk 01/11/11 - 07:07 pm
0
0
And, your point is, ICL?
Unpublished

And, your point is, ICL?

usapatriot
0
Points
usapatriot 01/11/11 - 07:31 pm
0
0
Brad, I was highly

Brad, I was highly disappointed in your post of rewriting this LTE and starting with "Dear Haters".

This was higly presumptuous of you. I'd go on but for the rules that must be followed here.

If you had read the LTE for what it said, and not what you wanted it to say, you'd realize it is not about hate. The writer did not once state a hate, disgust nor intolerance of gays.

Women in the foxhole or tank crew would be a distraction. So would openly gay soldiers. Our concern is the unnecessary effects this will bring to morale, cohesion, integrity and a unit's ability to accomplish its mission. It solves no military related problems but will create many.

Back to Top
loading...
Search Augusta jobs