DADT repealed*

HR 6520 has been signed into law. Titled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010", the bill is remarkably short considering it's considerable impact on our nation's armed forces. About a page long, it allows for the repeal of DADT 60 days after the President, Secretary of Defense, and Joint Chiefs send a signed letter to Congress certifying that the repeal will not affect military readiness and that the DoD is all set to function without it.

It's uncertain when this approval will get sent, but it's not likely to be long and is assured in coming. Fortunately, I have every confidence that the DoD will spend plenty of time carefully formulating solutions to overcome the problems cited in every single survey of troops they've ever done, namely that of privacy, particularly as it related to showers and close quarters living.

Wait, hold on. They've already got the solution. Here it is:

"A special Defense Department working group appointed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates has recommended that the military should “expressly prohibit” heterosexuals from using separate showers, bathrooms and bunking facilities from homosexuals when the repeal of the law banning homosexuals from the military goes into effect."

In other words: Get over it.

Gee, thanks DoD.

The report says that a "very large number" of servicemembers (nearly 75%) expressed this concern. The report says that having separate showers or living quarters would be a "logistical nightmare" (We could have saved the taxpayers millions on this report if anyone at DoD had just read my blog. I've been saying this for months). Also, it might make people feel bad.

Here's how the conversation between DoD and actual ground troops would go.

Joe: "Hey, what about me showering inches away from a gay man? That makes me uncomfortable. I can't shower next to a straight woman for obvious reasons, and that same logic applies to gay men showering with me."

DoD: "Yeah...We really can't think of a good way to solve this problem. But don't worry, we've got a solution that never fails."

Joe: "Stick with what works?"

DoD: "Ignore the problem and pretend it doesn't exist!"

Joe: "...But...What about ---"

DoD: "Lalalalalalala I can't hear you! lalalalalala"

Fortunately, this whole situation has provided us some new guidance from higher. Here it is, the rules straight from DoD.

Joe's opinion only matters if:

1) Joe is not a combat troop, and will not be fighting in any war.

2) Joe's opinion agrees with our politically motivated preconceived notions.

3) The solutions to Joe's concerns are quick, inexpensive, and easy.

The military will adapt and overcome to this new complication, like we do to everything else. This will not, in my opinion, cause a mass exodus from the military. What it will necessitate is leaders at the lowest level becoming creative and finding solutions to overcome the idiocy dictated by people who have never left the office.

So, pretty much the same as always.

Oldie but a goodie: Dihydrogen Monoxide

One of those jokes that never gets old no matter how many times it's told. Dihydrogen Monoxide. It's responsible for many, many evils. In vapor form it is a major contributor to global warming. It is deadly if inhaled or if digested in sufficient quantities. It's a prime ingredient in hundreds of toxic chemicals, acid rain, and practically every pesticide used globally. It's directly responsible for over 3500 deaths annually in America. Sadly, this chemical is present everywhere from your shampoo to baby food.

(In case you didn't catch the joke. "Di-" means two. "Mono-" means one. So, Dihydrogen Monoxide = H2O, AKA Water)

This time the joker was the Commitee for a Constructive Tomorrow, or CFACT. The jokee was the UN. CFACT passed about a petition asking these dignitaries to endorse the banning of this dangerous chemical. Now, of course there's no telling how many people signed it for fun, or how many refused to sign it. Still, nothing like a good chemistry joke on the unwitting.

House passes "tax cut" deal

Moving with "uncommon speed", the House passed along, unaltered, the Senate bill which extended the "Bush" tax cuts. It extends the lower tax rates for another two years for every American, even those super evil rich people. It even keeps the estate tax lowish, allowing all estates under $10 million to be passed along tax free and taxes everything above $10 mill at a "meager" 35% (Because the person who has that much money doesn't deserve to give it all to his children. Thanks for saving his descendants from all that hard earned money, Big G!).

The bill contains a fair amount of sweeteners for the other side, including extending unemployment benefits for an additional year.

Of course there were many detractors. Most, including Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y), complained that we just couldn't afford the lower taxes on the rich. Even if we allow that tax revenue would go down with the lower tax rates (it doesn't), the problem we have with the budget is one of spending, not income.

The government needs to run it's budget like every other budget is run on the planet. Start with the amount of money you have, or can expect to receive. Then, spend that money based on your priorities and not a cent more. If the money runs out, guess what: You can't spend any more! Something has gotta give.

Until that day Congress will always find a way to rationalize more and more spending. It's easy to say "Well, all this stuff is awfully important, so let's raise taxes." It's not so easy to say "This function of government is more important than that one. So, we're going to stop doing that one to pay for this one."

Now the government can get back to other things. Like blatantly ignoring the opinions of combat soldiers.

Military Day at JAC!

Today I have three military related stories to share with you. The first is a dodged bullet, the second is a disturbing close bullet, and the third is a bullet with levels of awesome before only attainable by Chuck Norris.

Last week the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, tucked away in a much larger spending bill, was filibustered to death in the Senate. From the SF Gate website:

"The vote fell three short of the 60 needed to move ahead on the defense authorization bill, which contained the repeal, and may kill, possibly for years, legislative repeal of the 17-year-old ban."

Of course, every interest group and their brothers and second cousins are railing against the injustice of it all. Fortunately, the military isn't about being fair, it's about being effective, and Congress has stood for just that. With any luck at all the Powers That Be will spend the time they've been bought actually working on a solution to the legitimate logistical problems. Perhaps they could do be classified similar to females and kept to non-combat roles, at least at first?

Oh, speaking of that...

A congressional panel is recommending that we go ahead and unrestrict the combat arms, and allow women into jobs like armor and infantry.

"A five-page analysis prepared for the commission concluded that women do not lack the physical ability to perform combat roles; gender integration will not negatively affect unit cohesion; and women are not more likely than men to develop mental health problems."

That's all well and good, so long as the military also abolishes the longstanding tradition of different scales for fitness. For example, in order to barely pass my APFT, or Army Physical Fitness Test, I have to run my two miles in at least 16:36. A woman of exactly my same age has 19:36 to accomplish the same task. Call me crazy, but in combat the enemy isn't going to run slower just because I have a woman along for the ride.

If women are to be allowed to serve alongside me when the bullets are flying, I need to be absolutely confident that she can run as fast, as far, and carry as much as I do. She needs to be held to exactly the same physical standards as a man. While that may not seem fair, because women are constructed differently, the hard truth is combat is an equal-opportunity killer, and the requirements to close with and destroy the enemy don't change based on your gender.

Of course, physical standards aside, there is the mental aspect. Here I'm not talking about the abilities of women to handle the stress of combat. I'm talking about men being able to handle women handling that stress. From Wikipedia:

"In On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman briefly mentions that female soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces have been officially prohibited from serving in close combat military operations since 1948 (in 2001, subsequent to publication, women began serving in IDF combat units on an experimental basis). The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines is no reflection on the performance of female soldiers, but that of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression.

Grossman also notes that Islamic militants rarely, if ever, surrender to female soldiers. In modern warfare where intelligence is perhaps more important than enemy casualties, every factor reducing combatants' willingness to fight is considered. Similarly, Iraqi and Afghani civilians are often not intimidated by female soldiers.
However, in such environments, having female soldiers serving within a combat unit does have the advantage of allowing for searches on female civilians, and in some cases the female areas of segregated mosques, while causing less offense amongst the occupied population. A notable example of this would be female US military personnel who are specially selected to participate in patrols and raids for this purpose.

Melody Kemp mentions that the Australian soldiers have voiced similar concern saying these soldiers "are reluctant to take women on reconnaissance or special operations, as they fear that in the case of combat or discovery, their priority will be to save the women and not to complete the mission. Thus while men might be able to be programmed to kill, it’s is not as easy to program men to neglect women."

Men, it seems, are instinctually programmed to be protective of women. If this is truly an instinct, and therefore is difficult to impossible to remove from the male soldier, does it make tactical sense to allow it? Can we give up any advantage over our enemy? Tough questions. I can only hope that Congress and the Pentagon ask "What will make our military most able to destroy the enemy?", and not "What is fair and equitable?"

Finally, on to the badass portion of the blog. As a good ol' US Army Infantryman, I am naturally inclined to recognize the Navy only as a repository for funny walks and unusually high levels of Don't Ask Don't Tell violation. However, in the face of this, even I must humbly submit to the Navy's awesomeness in this instance.

That is a railgun.

"An electromagnetic railgun offers a velocity previously unattainable in a conventional weapon, speeds that are incredibly powerful on their own. In fact, since the projectile doesn't have any explosives itself, it relies upon that kinetic energy to do damage. And at 11 a.m. today, the Navy produced a 33-megajoule firing -- more than three times the previous record set by the Navy in 2008.

"It bursts radially, but it's hard to quantify," said Roger Ellis, electromagnetic railgun program manager with the Office of Naval Research. To convey a sense of just how much damage, Ellis told FoxNews.com that the big guns on the deck of a warship are measured by their muzzle energy in megajoules. A single megajoule is roughly equivalent to a 1-ton car traveling at 100 mph. Multiple that by 33 and you get a picture of what would happen when such a weapon hits a target."

Because of it's ungodly speeds it can reach a target within 6 minutes. It can fire 6-12 rounds per minute. It hits the target with the force of thirty three friggin cars, all without explosives. Right now it's just ships. Imagine, if you will, once this technology is miniaturized into a mobile artiller platform. Artillery pieces safely in a green zone in Richmond, VA shooting rounds into Washington, DC.

It's nice, in this time of uncertainty, to know that the US military is still able to break stuff and kill people better than anyone else in the history of the planet.

DADT report endorses repeal...Kind of.

The Pentagon finally released it's much anticipated report on the predicted effects of a repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. The report was, for the most part, positive. The link is to the report itself, directly. I have not read the entire report, since it is 266 pages long. I have, however, studied many of the responses closely.

Most service members who were surveyed predicted either no effect or a positive effect in nearly every situation. One category of service members actually had an overwhelming positive response, nearly 80%! Of course this means that anyone who disagrees will have been proven wrong now.

This is the point where proponents of an immediate DADT repeal will tell me to pay no mind to the man behind the curtain. Unfortunately for them, I'm going to pull the curtain away anyhow.

That 80% figure that's being touted from sea to shining sea? It comes from page 65. As you can see, the question was:

"If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect your immediate unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission…"

For "day-to-day" operations, 17.4% said positive, 32.6% equally positive and negative, 29.3% no effect, and 20.9% negative effect. That's 79.3% who don't see it as a negative, or at the least see the negatives equal the positives. Just one tiny little detail. These respondents are the ones with no combat experience since Sept 11, 2001.

The ones with "combat experience" are still positive by majority, but not nearly as much. For day-to-day, the non-negative answers get 55.7%, negative 44.3%. That negative number drops when they ask about "intense combat" to 30.6%.

It gets better. Flip to page 74, "Army, Marine Corps, and Combat Arms."

"Among the Services, the Marines were consistently more negative in their responses about the effect of repeal. The combat arms communities in both the Army and the Marine Corps were also more negative about the effect of repeal than others in their Services.

For example, as discussed earlier, approximately 44% of all Service members said
that their unit’s effectiveness “in a field environment or out at sea” would be negatively impacted by repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Nearly 60% of respondents in the Marine Corps and in Army combat arms said they believed there would be a negative impact on their unit’s effectiveness in this context; among Marine combat arms the number was 67%."

The report goes on to say that those who serve in single gender (read, male only) units currently are far more likely to oppose a repeal of DADT. (Insider tip: The units that traditionally see the heaviest combat, AKA Infantry, Armor, etc., are all male. Females are not allowed to serve in these units except in limited support roles.)

Call me crazy, but I always thought that the most important thing the military does is, you know, win wars. Perhaps I'm old fashioned, but I think the opinions of those who have actually done the whole war thing ought to be given a bit more than equal weight with those who haven't. Similarly, the fact that the responses of those whose job it is to actually close with and destroy the enemy are so much more negative should be a huge red flag.

There is a misconception in the civilian world that everyone in uniform is a soldier in the same way, all shooting and fighting the enemy. The fact is that the combat arms specialties, your Infantry, your Armor, your Artillery, etc., are actually a minority of all servicemembers (At least 2.5 support troops for each combat soldier). Their voice is easily drowned out by the roar of all the pogues behind them. While the job of a quartermaster, a laundry specialist, and a mail clerk are all important to the success of the military the fact remains that the needs and concerns of someone who typically stays inside the FOB are very different from those who actually leave the wire.

This report, if you read it carefully, only reinforces exactly what has been said by myself and others over and over again. In terms of the actual firefights, (I.E. That intense combat question) whether they a soldier is gay or straight makes about as much difference as whether they prefer cake or pie (though of course the soldiers who prefer pie show far better taste). Similarly, for those who do not serve in combat arms it is likely to have little impact on the way business is done. But where the rubber meets the road, for Private Joe Blow Rifleman, the world is a little different.

If the big thinkers in the Pentagon can think of a legitimate plan to enact a repeal of DADT, one that addresses the concerns of the combat arms specialties and allows for privacy for all involved, then count me in. Unfortunately, it does not appear that this will happen. As usual, those knuckle dragging idiots who actually do the fighting are likely to be dismissed as outliers, unimportant, and uninformed. The brunt of how to effectively enact this change will fall on the unit leaders, right down to team leaders like myself.

Thanks, sir. Guess I'll take it from here.