Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Get 3%, lose 10%-24%? A gayyyyreat deal!
America's Debate > Policy Debate > Domestic Policy
Google
Bikerdad
Is it worth gutting our military in order to allow gays to serve openly? That's a question that hopefully is on the minds of the incoming administration. Why should that question be on their minds? Here's why:

The Military Times, a liberal Gannett publication favoring inclusion of professed homosexuals in the military, has just released an astonishing poll of active-duty subscribers. Results of the 2008 annual survey indicate that success for that cause essentially would destroy the volunteer force.

As in previous years, the annual Military Times Poll (linked on Drudge today) reveals that approximately 58% of respondents are opposed to efforts to repeal what the survey described as the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.” The catchphrase incorrectly labels the 1993 law, Section 654, Title 10, which clearly states that homosexuals are not eligible to be in the military.

The 2008 Military Times Poll asked a new question that produced jaw-dropping results: “If the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is overturned and gays are allowed to serve openly, how would you respond?” The article emphasized that 71% of respondents said they would continue to serve. But almost 10% said “I would not re-enlist or extend my service,” and 14% said “I would consider not re-enlisting or extending my service.” Only 6% expressed “No Opinion.” Before voting to repeal the law, Section 654, Title 10, members of Congress, and President-elect Barack Obama, ought to do the math.



Questions for debate:

1) Do you believe the results are an accurate reflection of the sentiment of active duty personnel? If not, why not?

2) Accepting for the sake of argument that the above polling is correct, do you support repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?

3) If DADT is repealed, and the above polling is an accurate indicator of the consequences, would you support reinstating DADT?

4) If "no" to #3, how would you propose to make up for the lost personnel?
Google
Zack
1) Do you believe the results are an accurate reflection of the sentiment of active duty personnel? If not, why not?No, the survey was selective.

2) Accepting for the sake of argument that the above polling is correct, do you support repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?No, but hell no!

3) If DADT is repealed, and the above polling is an accurate indicator of the consequences, would you support reinstating DADT?Why change it in the first place?

4) If "no" to #3, how would you propose to make up for the lost personnel? How about a draft? I think Blackwater would start looking good to a lot of people from the left about the time recruiters couldn't meet goals but the only true way to meet enlistment requirements would be to reinstate the draft.
CruisingRam
1) Do you believe the results are an accurate reflection of the sentiment of active duty personnel? If not, why not?

I give it a qualified "maybe". Quite frankly, we don't need bigots in the military, and if we lose them, no big deal. In fact, those that are against gays in the military shouldn't be letting the door hit them in the butt on the way out. I think most younger recruits are probably okay with it- it is the guys my age that seem to have the most problem with gays in the military.

2) Accepting for the sake of argument that the above polling is correct, do you support repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?

Yes, it is a horrible policy, only because gays should be allowed to serve openly. This argument again, has such close paralells to the civil rights movements for blacks and women in the military- we just don't give the military the option to have an opinion about it, fire officers that don't go along with it, and ruin the careers of generals that fight it- just like we did with blacks and women in the military.

3) If DADT is repealed, and the above polling is an accurate indicator of the consequences, would you support reinstating DADT?

No, if we can't get enough troops for Iraq or Afghanistan, who cares? Pull out our troops and actually use them for actual American security issues.

4) If "no" to #3, how would you propose to make up for the lost personnel?

I would probably limit the total force of the military anyway- it has been over utilized to spread terrorism and hatred for America already- time to pull back to our borders and cease military adventurism altogether.

The best way to stymie neo-con chickenhawks is to have too small a force for them to play with. Let the troops vote on the war with thier feet.
Mrs. Pigpen
1) Do you believe the results are an accurate reflection of the sentiment of active duty personnel? If not, why not?

I'll just take this one and get to the others later. Have to go see my son in a geography bee....

I don't believe that military times polls accurately reflect the sentiment of active duty personnel at large, no. They reflect the opinions of regular subscribers/readers. A small percentage of active duty military subscribe to the times...we don't even have a subscription, and read it about four times per year if the cover is interesting, and my husband is a commander. Secondly, the poll only reflects the view of readership who wish to participate in the poll, and those willing to participate would be more likely to hold a strong opinion on the matter one way or the other.

I'd hazard an guess (based on evidence I've seen on the distribution of readership...about half are officers, more likely to be older, ect) that generally the readership are in leadership positions and that would influence their vote. They don't want to change anything that might open them up for problems later, and are fearful of any future fraternization, hate crime, ect, that they might have to contend with. Even if there is only one hate-crime case out of thousands, that can impact the career of a commander.

Edited to add: Back from the bee...Looking over the next few questions I'll answer them together. I wouldn't support changing things if the change would dilapidate the military so much. But I'm more than a little circumspect about these results. Frankly, I don't believe them...we had the same types of discussions before 'don't ask don't tell' was passed and it only changed things for the better and led to no problems.
still
1) Do you believe the results are an accurate reflection of the sentiment of active duty personnel? If not, why not?
The Times itself says to Advertisers that their subscriber's average income is $82,618. That would tend to indicate officers rather than enlisteds. It is probably accurate among their sample.

2) Accepting for the sake of argument that the above polling is correct, do you support repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
Gays serve openly in the Israeli military, a conscription service. Anyone who wants to voluntarily serve their country should be able to.

3) If DADT is repealed, and the above polling is an accurate indicator of the consequences, would you support reinstating DADT?
If it meant getting the wacko bigots out of the officer's ranks, then I'm all for it.

4) If "no" to #3, how would you propose to make up for the lost personnel?
Promotions from the ranks.

The 10% and 14% figures aren't presented as mutually exclusive choices, so I don't know if that total number is 24% or if it's overlapping samples that rise up to 14%. The normal attrition (non re-enlistment) rate is currently around 85%, so there's not really much change there. ref

I would guess that you'd get more homosexuals than the 3% mentioned in the article (some already there would probably come out of the closet), and it would normalize to the 9% of the total population figure.
Paladin Elspeth
The Tuskegee Airmen brought distinction to our nation and to black Americans in particular during the second world war. One man in that surviving squadron was interviewed. He said that there was a white pilot who refused to sleep in the same quarters as the black men one night and decided to sleep in his plane instead. The temperature went down to 10 degrees Fahrenheit that night and guess what! His aversion to sleeping with blacks was miraculously overcome!

Now, of course, the military is totally integrated. What a silly and tragic waste of manpower it was to exclude others because of their color!

One thing that has not been brought up here is that several translators who were actively deployed were released from the military because they are gay. Now they didn't need to "come out", and some of their co-workers knew their sexual orientation and found out that they were much-needed, effective personnel in a very important job. But that didn't stop the military from letting them go, even though the loss of translators was not easily made up for--not many U.S. troops know Arabic.

It seems to me that deaths of one's comrades because of not knowing some key military intelligence would be more demoralizing than knowing that someone in the barracks was "light in the loafers".

If you phrase it properly, you can just about get any poll to say what you want it to. How about getting the pollsters to enlist?
rsixing
I'd like to take a swing at this. Like Mrs. Pigpen I have some experience in the service but not from the dependent perspective (and her perspective and experience is a very, VERY important and experienced perspective so let me clear that up before that comment gets me in trouble) but as a retired U.S. Army Senior Non-Com. My experience comes from being with the boots on the ground. Something I lived, breathed and loved for 21 years. So with that said here goes:

Questions for debate:

1) Do you believe the results are an accurate reflection of the sentiment of active duty personnel? If not, why not?

No way these numbers reflect retention reality.

Not ALL service members re-enlist! For many different reasons but as you read this article by MT it appears as if all personnel reenlist. Just look at the numbers offered:

QUOTE
A rough estimate using Defense Department numbers for all service branches and components, totaling more than 2 million, indicates that a loss of one in ten (almost 10%) would cost the military approximately 228,600 people — more than the active-duty Marine Corps (200,000).


These numbers are clearly misleading. I can't find any current data on the numbers of current military reenlistments but let's just say 30% of the current forces reenlist at their ETS. That would obviously change the numbers offered by this MT article and draw into question the idea of openly serving homosexuals causing a vast exodus. Total hooey IMHO.

2) Accepting for the sake of argument that the above polling is correct, do you support repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?

I served before DADT and served with many, many homosexual men and women. So DADT? feh...worthless hyperbole. The military is simply presenting open homosexuals as detrimental to the good of the order which, in my experiences, isn't the case. I proudly served, honorably, with some of the finest men and women who happened to be homosexual and I personally never found their sexual orientation in any way to effect their ability to do their jobs or perform their duties.

So to answer the question, don't repeal, dispose of DADT and allow homosexuals to serve, openly or not according to their choice.

3) If DADT is repealed, and the above polling is an accurate indicator of the consequences, would you support reinstating DADT?

Keep in mind retention is a constant struggle for the Armed Forces; not only in peace time but in times of war. The prohibition of openly homosexual men and women enlisting or reenlisting depletes the eligible enlistment resources and depletes the already in service forces. Perhaps not in a high percentage of numbers but still this effects retention.

And just to toss this out there as food for thought...if homosexuals were able to serve, openly, perhaps the numbers who wouldn't enlist/reenlist because homosexuals would be allowed this right might just be a wash with the amount of homosexuals enlisting?!
Ted
Questions for debate:

1) Do you believe the results are an accurate reflection of the sentiment of active duty personnel? If not, why not?
Yes
2) Accepting for the sake of argument that the above polling is correct, do you support repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
No. It’s a ludicrous idea that will hurt the military just when we need them the most.

But it will satisfy one Obama and Dem voting block so it will almost certainly pass regardless of the harm it will do to the military.


Azure-Citizen
Do you believe the results are an accurate reflection of the sentiment of active duty personnel? If not, why not?

I've been in the active army and army reserve for a mix of 22+ years now (ten years enlisted before becoming a commissioned officer). No, I do not believe the poll results accurately reflect what military personnel will do if DADT is repealed.

Yes, I do believe that 10% of the respondents said "I would leave the military" and 14% said "I would consider leaving the military." This was a poll that posed a question to a sample group of respondents. It was not a comprehensive study of exit interviews from soldiers' ETS dates. As such, this poll carried no consequences. Soldiers will say a lot of things prior to their ETS about how they feel about the military, but come their ETS window, they have more substantive things on their mind, like, am I going to get a job on the outside? Go to school? Do I like my current MOS, and can I get a cash bonus? Are their other places and things I want to do now, either by reenlisting inside the military or by getting out of the service? What do I really want?

This poll is more or less what you would expect to happen if you asked a random sampling of Military Times subscribers if they will leave the military if homosexuals can serve openly. A quarter will say yes, not because the choice is real and at hand before them, but because they have reasons for wanting to give the impression that they will quit if that happens... then when reenlistment times rolls around, it will be of little importance in the decision of whether or not to continue serving their country, take a cash bonus, seek an overseas assignment, stay in the service because the job market isn't doing so well, get out of the service because they want to go to college, etc. If you've served and been through the soul searching process of contemplating what to do when your ETS window was drawing near, you know what I mean.

Might there be those who truly can not continue to serve in any capacity if homosexuals are allowed in the military? Yes, I believe there still would be some whose feelings on that matter are so passionate and extreme they would feel unavoidably compelled to leave. One to two percent would be an overly generous estimate to err on the side of caution, but that's just my opinion. As a result, I believe this poll is not reliable.
Ted
QUOTE
One to two percent would be an overly generous estimate to err on the side of caution, but that's just my opinion. As a result, I believe this poll is not reliable.


The poll may not be completely reliable but certainly your opinion is not at all. What do you base the 1-2% on? How many men have you discussed this with.

And the issue is not just with men leaving but with me joining – how many will not join the regular military or the National Guard over this issue?

More study is needed before a decision is made.
Google
metropolitical
1) Do you believe the results are an accurate reflection of the sentiment of active duty personnel? If not, why not?
I don't have reason to believe the contrary, but the problem I have using those numbers as a basis for analysis is that the population polled consists of active personnel, not the general population from where future recruiting would be done. Presumably you have concluded they should be identical in cross-section, but the fact the military traditionally represented a haven for such bias in the first place may have skewed the population entering its ranks. Polling a skewed population will give you skewed results.

2) Accepting for the sake of argument that the above polling is correct, do you support repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
As pointed out, the polling may be correct, but your conclusions are less certain.

3) If DADT is repealed, and the above polling is an accurate indicator of the consequences, would you support reinstating DADT?
There are many factors besides DADT that affect recruitment, factors which may have much more importance in an individual's decision to enlist than DADT.

4) If "no" to #3, how would you propose to make up for the lost personnel?
Given that most existing military personnel have run several tours overseas and probably want to resume normal lives again, the focus for future enlistment is more likely to be how to attract new volunteers rather than how to retain old ones.
CruisingRam
QUOTE(Ted @ Jan 22 2009, 08:02 AM) *
QUOTE
One to two percent would be an overly generous estimate to err on the side of caution, but that's just my opinion. As a result, I believe this poll is not reliable.


The poll may not be completely reliable but certainly your opinion is not at all. What do you base the 1-2% on? How many men have you discussed this with.

And the issue is not just with men leaving but with me joining – how many will not join the regular military or the National Guard over this issue?

More study is needed before a decision is made.



Ted, those soldiers that would leave because homosexuals are allowed to serve are the same soldiers that would not serve in desegregated units when blacks were serving.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't even let those soldiers leave with an honorable discharge if I could help it, because they are not honorable people.

don't let the door hit them in the keester would be the name of the program. One dedicated but homosexual soldier is better than all those that would leave combined.

Bigots have no place in the military nor should they be allowed to serve.
Ted
QUOTE
Ted, those soldiers that would leave because homosexuals are allowed to serve are the same soldiers that would not serve in desegregated units when blacks were serving.


And you magically know this how CR? blink.gif

QUOTE
Quite frankly, I wouldn't even let those soldiers leave with an honorable discharge if I could help it, because they are not honorable people.


So not wanting to be in the same shower with a homosexual makes you “not honorable”? You have to be kidding. laugh.gif

This is not about “bigotry” but about very personnel comfort issues. I for one would not be comfortable serving closely with openly gay men. Others may have no problem with it.
Azure-Citizen
QUOTE(Ted @ Jan 22 2009, 11:02 AM) *
The poll may not be completely reliable but certainly your opinion is not at all. What do you base the 1-2% on? How many men have you discussed this with.

And the issue is not just with men leaving but with me joining – how many will not join the regular military or the National Guard over this issue?

If you are asking me what I base my opinion on, it's my experiences in the military, discussions with other soldiers, and observations on human behavior. I've been a soldier, an NCO, and a company commander, and I'm still in the army reserve as a field grade (my most recent deployment to Iraq ended in 2008). If you want to reject my opinion, that's fine. Perhaps you could share your own background, experiences, and reasons (your own, not a poll editorialized in the National Review) on why you're convinced a signficant number of soldiers will abandon the military because of homosexuals, or why significant numbers of potential recruits will do likewise.

QUOTE
Quite frankly, I wouldn't even let those soldiers leave with an honorable discharge if I could help it, because they are not honorable people.

I don't think that's a reasonable or fair character assessment. Honorable service does not depend on whether or not you think homosexuals should or should not be in the military, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Many of those opinions simply stem from the environments they were raised in.
droop224
1) Do you believe the results are an accurate reflection of the sentiment of active duty personnel? If not, why not?

Maybe... I really only have served in one branch... I know those numbers of people who said they would leave seem a little low to me... but then I started thinking...

Air force Navy... maybe not so much the army... but yeah I can see a lot of those branches not minding serving( or showering) with openly gay people.

2) Accepting for the sake of argument that the above polling is correct, do you support repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?

Under one of two stipulations. If we are moving our armed forces into a gender neutral mentality where sexuality is not an issue at all. I see no reason for DADT to exist.

Two, there is no issues of privacy (my guess post boot camp)... one soldier per room.


Let me give a story.

A young 19 year old female soldier gets to her new unit. She gets picked up at the airport by the officer of the day. She gets to the Baracks and the OOD takes her to her room in the middle of the night. *knock knock* Here come a man to the door in his underwear who tells her... "you get the top rack" Above another man sleeping. She must see these men nude and have them see her nude or close to it... dress in front of these men...

Now anyone who sees a problem with this... ANYONE... but has the audacity to call a straight man who doesn't want to be forced into a room with homosexuals a bigot, is just unapologetic hypocrite... but hey we all are about something. whistling.gif

The race issues that existed in the day were about suppossed attitudes of inferiority and superiority. The issues i see with removing DADT deal with sexuality and privacy.

We still separate our soldeirs based on gender now due to issues of privacy that stem from sexuality.

I was POG (oersonnel other than grunt) and I served with women even in feild exercises. Even then there were line drawn. If all you had were field showers their were hours of operations for females and hours of operations of males.

Why do you think these things exist?? Why do they have a right to exist?? Is this bigotry??

CruisingRam
QUOTE(Azure-Citizen @ Jan 22 2009, 12:17 PM) *
QUOTE
Quite frankly, I wouldn't even let those soldiers leave with an honorable discharge if I could help it, because they are not honorable people.

I don't think that's a reasonable or fair character assessment. Honorable service does not depend on whether or not you think homosexuals should or should not be in the military, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Many of those opinions simply stem from the environments they were raised in.


well, it is like this Azure- if you enter the military today, and you are a flaming racist, you better well get over it or integrate, because the military really doesn't make room for racists. But that wasn't always true. When the word came down that racists were not to be tolerated, high ranking people would lose thier jobs if they didn't follow the new guidelines, and no choice or opinion was allowed, nor should have it been. Sexual harasment had similar effects post tailhook.

If there are people that are homo-phobic in the military, shut up, follow orders or get out. If you keep your mouth shut, and follow orders, don't sign up, and keep your opinion about homosexuals to yourself, you get an honorable discharge when you get out. You be a butt about it, then you don't even get an honorable discharge come time to get out.

There should be no choice or opinion given to the homo-phobic soldier, no more consideration than given to the racist soldier, period.

In fact, we don't even need Americans that are homo-phobic, those folks need to move to more restrictive societies that celebrate homophobia as a strength- such as most middle eastern countries. thumbsup.gif

Homo-phobia is the a vestige of a barbarian and oppressive culture, and the worst of what religion has to offer in this world (since most of this stems from religious views) - and it has no business in a professional military.

Keep your sex life to yourself, if someone goes snooping and doesn't see what they like, they need to mind thier own business. That should be the way it should go anyway. I would like to see Obama just step up and declare DADT dead, and homosexuals can serve freely without fear of reprisal, and those that don't like it, either shut up and finish your hitch, or get a dishonorable discharge for insubordination.
Ted
QUOTE
Droop
Two, there is no issues of privacy (my guess post boot camp)... one soldier per room.


This is not true on base for enlisted men. If you want to rent that is different.

QUOTE
CR
There should be no choice or opinion given to the homo-phobic soldier, no more consideration than given to the racist soldier, period.

In fact, we don't even need Americans that are homo-phobic


The issue is what does it do to enlistments, and retention.

Ya lets just drum em out of the US – how about all other forms of bias? Should we have a National test and if you are biased in any way we revoke you citizenship? ohmy.gif laugh.gif
CruisingRam
QUOTE(Ted @ Jan 23 2009, 06:16 AM) *
QUOTE
Droop
Two, there is no issues of privacy (my guess post boot camp)... one soldier per room.


This is not true on base for enlisted men. If you want to rent that is different.

QUOTE
CR
There should be no choice or opinion given to the homo-phobic soldier, no more consideration than given to the racist soldier, period.

In fact, we don't even need Americans that are homo-phobic


The issue is what does it do to enlistments, and retention.

Ya lets just drum em out of the US – how about all other forms of bias? Should we have a National test and if you are biased in any way we revoke you citizenship? ohmy.gif laugh.gif



Hey, just saying if you dig the Taliban position on homosexuality, perhaps you should join them- homo-phobia is as anti-American as racism, and has no place in the military, and those that don't like it- too bad, sure, drum them out, who cares about a homophobe in the military?


I am sick to death of playing nice with bigots, time to drum them out of the military, I have no problem with that. We were too nice to them back when the Army chose to desegregate too, like a racist deserves to have some sort of break for being a racist.

It is the military, Obama needs to give the orders, the soldiers need to obey, on this issue. If they do not, get them out, we don't need them.

You bet, if I could wave a wand and have my way, I would send all homophobes and racist to Iran, where they would be in good company. thumbsup.gif
Paladin Elspeth
These days the question is whether those who have lost jobs and can't find them in the public sector who are now enlisting will view the repeal of "Don't ask don't tell" as a deal-breaker. Enlistments are up (surprise! surprise!) since the economic downturn has hit more households. When it comes to keeping your family fed and sheltered, having gay brothers (or sisters) at arms is less of a consideration. I have slept in the same quarters (a dormitory) as lesbians and was never bothered by any of them.

No, all of the problems with gay-straight issues will not go away anymore than women are no longer sexually harassed by fellow military personnel and don't end up pregnant. There are still racists in the military who dislike fellow recruits whose skin isn't the same color. But I suspect that they are told the same thing kids are taught in Kindergarten or day care: "You don't have to like everybody, but you have to get along."
CruisingRam
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jan 23 2009, 09:34 AM) *
These days, the question is whether those who have lost jobs and can't find them in the public center who are now enlisting will view the repeal of "Don't ask don't tell" as a deal- breaker. When it comes to keeping your family fed and sheltered, having gay brothers (or sisters) at arms is less of a consideration. I have slept in the same quarters as lesbians and was never bothered by any of them.

No, all of the problems with gay-straight issues will go away, any more than women are no longer sexually harassed by fellow military personnel or don't end up pregnant. There are also racists in the military who dislike fellow recruits whose skin isn't the same color. But I suspect that they are told the same thing kids are taught in Kindergarten or day care: "You don't have to like everybody, but you have to get along."


PE- being a racist in the military will certainly curtail your career unless you are very, very private in your views. Sexual harrasment, getting caught up in that will cost your career as well. Wasn't always true, and in fact, the opposite, it was fostered in the military. Once that was frowned upon, no one considered the feelings of the racists or sexual harrassers.

It is time the bigots in the military are once again marginalized and careers put in jeopordy for thier behaviors.
Paladin Elspeth
I edited my post as you were responding so that it actually said what I meant it to say.

QUOTE
No, all of the problems with gay-straight issues will not go away...
CruisingRam
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jan 23 2009, 09:40 AM) *
I edited my post as you were responding so that it actually said what I meant it to say.

QUOTE
No, all of the problems with gay-straight issues will not go away...



No, but they can be minimized and marginalized, similar to racism in the military, where "we are all green".

First General that doesn't agree with gays in the military- fire him and get rid of him, publically and loudly. Shortly after that, gays in the military won't seem such a problem to other officers. thumbsup.gif
droop224
Ted
QUOTE
This is not true on base for enlisted men. If you want to rent that is different.


That's my point Ted...

Unless there is one man per room in the unit then straight men shouldn't be made to share quarters with homosexual men.

unless....

The military is willing to take out all barriers of privacy and forces members to room and board weith each other regardless of sex.


My point is if you can recognize why a reasonable right of a male or female to have a right of privacy from members of the oppossite sex there should be no reason to not recognize a straight male or female wanting privacy from a male or female homosexual.

Cruisingram
QUOTE
It is time the bigots in the military are once again marginalized and careers put in jeopordy for thier behaviors.


Do you think it is bigoted for the military to make females live in separate quarters from males, while in the military?? Is it bigoted to separate them in boot camp? Would you find it inappropriate to make women shower with men?? Why or why not??

I really just want you to stop and think with out all the wrath and anger and calling people bigots all over the place.

Now let me add... that if DADT is lifted... oh well... I agree with you... get over it or get out. I just really really really disagree that this has anything in common with segragation that happened in the military based on race.
CruisingRam
Because it is an irrational fear based on, well, nothing. Similar to the same fears and concerns the segregationists (in the military, a bit different animal, or rather, for different reasons given) back in the 40s and 50s in the military "it will harm military preparedness" etc. Of course it doesn't. Who you are having sex with should make no difference, no more than single men and married men should not be able to serve together.

Actually, yeah, I have always been a bit miffed that they don't shave women's heads the same as men- why not? Why are women given preferential treatment in the military- AND excluded from combat positions? There is no logical reason, and if it became SOP, then there would be no problem- the military FOSTERS these problems by segregation and they CREATE these problems with the rules, not the opposite.

Guess what? Quite a bit, women already serve under those very conditions where the latrine and showers have to be shared, just the way it goes down sometimes.

I think it is a testimoney more to American prudishness and puritan background than any real logic or military cohesiveness issue.

Orders comes down that we don't do biz that way anymore, and it is enforced, problem is over.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.