Asymmetric Military

I interrupt my blogging vacation (I'll be back tomorrow or Friday) for this important announcement. One of my first blogging buddies, Flag Gazer, wants us to help Susan Porcello win the AMW All Star contest. I don't know anything about Ms. Porcello except what's on the web page, but if Gazing says she's OK, that's good enough for me. I generally think that we should honor this kind of sacrifice than, say, not working for a corporation to organize a community (to shake down the corporation that you didn't work for). You can vote for her here.

We had Prevention of Sexual Harassment Training (POSH) today. Yes, people in the military take it too and, yes, it's as boring as it is in the civilian world.

Human interactions are complicated, but organizational policies can't afford to be which is why we get "zero-tolerance" type rules, which can be chilling, silly, and unfair.

My point in bringing this up is twofold: First, that sex-related issues in the Army are a problem worthy of a two-hour training in the Army and second, that these problems would be complicated to a great degree by having openly homosexual soldiers.

Part one, here.

Some flip flops are good.

Barack Obama has made a good decision in not allowing openly gay soldiers in the military:

A change to the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward gays in the military will be delayed despite promises by the Obama administration to overturn the rule, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday.

"The president and I feel like we've got a lot on our plates right now and let's push that one down the road a little bit," Gates told "FOX News Sunday."

"Don't ask don't tell" is actually an inspired compromise, a formalization of the de facto American military approach since George Washington called the first formation in 1775. It allows homosexual soldiers who wish to serve their country to do so while eliminating the negative effects to morale that would come about from a completely open policy.

Detractors of DADA often give two analogies to make their case (usually followed by some ad-hominem attack):

One is that excluding open gays is similar to the forties-era segregation of black soldiers. Segregation is different from an outright ban, but the analogy doesn't apply anyways because there are no essential differences between people of different races.

The second analogy is that permitting open gays in the military wouldn't be any different from having women in the military, and women have greatly contributed to the military. People who make this argument are correct that women do an excellent job and have made tremendous contributions to our war efforts.

That being said, having women integrated into the military brings its share of problems. During my time in Iraq, scandalous fraternization policy breeches occupied a lot of commanders' time (they told one captain that he couldn't be alone with female soldiers. What would they tell a gay soldier with that problem?). When couples inevitably formed or females became pregnant, the results were inconvenient personnel shuffles (husbands and wives; and boyfriends and girlfriends couldn't be in the same section). Although I never witnessed it, this article discusses the problem with sexual assaults amongst soldiers of the opposite sex. And, this occurred in a situation where women and men slept in separate quarters and had different showering and bathroom facilities, where there were clear boundaries.

Now, imagine the above problems- except pregnancy, of course- amongst soldiers of the same sex (we know that most homosexual soldiers wouldn't assault other soldiers sexually, but neither do most straight soldiers): No separate facilities; soldiers cowed by a speech code (for whatever reason, most male-soldier humor is sexual in nature and guys tease each other about their sexuality all of the time) and resentful for it; soldiers go off-post to a gay bar; two soldiers get drunk together and one takes advantage of the other (this happened in my college fraternity); guys carrying on, flirting; cliques, formal or informal, spring up, causing dissension.

The above things will happen if Obama changes DADA and soldiers won't like it.

People will dismiss the above scenarios as bigotry and ignorance (of what?) and it's true that almost no one policy change would render the military useless, but open homosexuality in the military will cause more trouble than it's worth. Shouldn't making the best military, and not conforming it to PC agendas, be our primary concern?

Wouldn't that make private insurance more expensive for everybody? It seems pretty simple to me: War injuries are in service to the country. The country pays for their treatment.

Here

In the letter, the groups said they have been told by sources on Capitol Hill and at the VA that the idea under consideration would allow the Department of Veterans Affairs to bill health insurance for a treatment of a disability or injury that was a result of military service.

The argument for the proposal is that it frees up money for the VA by charging the private insurers, allowing the VA to spend on more services, said Joe Violante, legislative director for Disabled American Veterans, who opposes the idea. While there could be savings, Violante warned it also could lead to an increase in premiums for veterans with private coverage.

I went to Camp Pendleton Marine base this weekend with my reserve unit for weapons qualification. I shot my Beretta M9 pretty well, with about thirty of the forty 9mm rounds they gave me finding their target.

I called my commander, "Mission accomplished, sir."

"Go back on the 11:30 bus."

I must have been playing on my Blackberry because I missed the bus. I'm glad I did.

I went over to the supply truck, sat in the front seat, and started reading Watchmen. I read the part where the protagonist in the comic within, Tales of the Black Freighter, straps his dead comrades onto a raft and heads out to sea. Hunger forces him to lure seagulls close to his raft, catch them, and eat them.

I love my fellow soldiers: The diversity of experience is genuinely fascinating and the general level of honor amongst them is very high. I went to the back of the truck for a cola. I say "cola" because the sergeant only buys generic colas- Sam's Club, etc. We teased her about it. I made up a story about her being traumatized by a Coca Cola accident as a kid. She turned to me with her thick Vietnamese accent, which is relevant because in Watchmen's alternative 1985, Dr. Manhattan wins the Vietnamese war (something we could have done without a naked super dude, by the way) for the United States after being asked to intervene by Richard Nixon. Author Alan Moore suggests that an actual American victory in Vietnam would have been a bad thing.

She tells me, "That's a good story" (it wasn't, really).

Then, after being prompted by somebody else, she started telling me how she escaped from Vietnam:

In 1976, because of her father's association with C.I.A. and the general horror inflicted upon South Vietnam by the North- re-education camps, confiscation, execution- she fled from Vietnam on a raft. Everybody had to stand on the tiny hand-made freedom square as there was no room to lie down. When hunger set in, people died. The survivors sliced off pieces of those who weren't and ate them.

The survivors eventually landed in Malaysia and burned the raft. The Malaysian authorities found them and separated the men from the women. The policemen stripped the men and boys of their clothes and beat them with fish skeletons. The Malaysians asked the survivors if they worked with pigs (Malaysia is a Muslim country). The raft survivors quickly learned to say "no" after the authorities punished those who had.

The Vietnamese refugees contacted the American embassy and arrived in the United States a few weeks later. That little girl is now serving our country in the military.

Her uncle wasn't so lucky. The North Vietnamese captured and placed him in a prison where they fed him tablespoons of soup a day. Twenty-five years later, he reunited with his faithful wife. The sergeant said that her aunt was afraid of him for years after because he'd get up at night and "go crazy."

By the end of the sergeant's short story, I had alternately felt gratitude, pride, and humility, although for brief moments I may have felt all at the same time.

Anyways, isn't it funny how the most unrelated things tie together?

Who says that Barack Obama's bad for business:

NEW YORK - The election of President Obama and a Democratically controlled Congress has been a boon to U.S. handgun makers, with sales of one pistol manufacturer climbing enough that an analyst Wednesday upgraded its stock to "Strong Buy" from "Accumulate."

CL King & Assoc. analyst Jim Barrett upgraded shares of Sturm, Ruger & Co. after the Southport, Conn.-based company reported its firearm revenue soared 81 percent in the fourth quarter.

"We are raising our rating, recognizing that sales are benefiting from what is clearly a one-time surge in gun sales due to the arrival of the new Democratic administration," Barrett said.

Since President Obama's Nov. 3, 2008, election, Sturm's shares have climbed more than 20 percent. And shares of rival Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., based in Springfield, Mass., have shot up about 40 percent.

Why would people buy guns at this time? How about the prospect of social unrest (S/T corner):

Read more »

The beginning of my blog coincided with the purchase of a Springfield Arms 1911 Loaded, and that 1911 had the honor, therefore, of being the subject of my first post. Well, the 1911 is no more, traded in for a Ruger GP100 revolver with a four inch barrel. I liked the 1911 except for the fact that one batch of re-manufactured ammo gave it fits, but my wife had trouble with the slide so I sought-out an easier-to-use weapon. When I saw a used Lady Smith and Wesson 357 with a three inch barrel, I purchased it immediately. It was the perfect gun for my wife-medium sized and relatively easy to handle (the gun, not my wife). "This is so much easier. Why would anybody want the other kind?" she asked after comparing the two guns.

"Well," I began to explain and then I couldn't think of anything to say, "I don't know."

At first I thought about keeping the 1911 for myself, but I felt two guns were overkill at the time and I chose, instead, to give it to my father. Alas, my father also had trouble working the slide. I finally decided to sell the 1911 back to the store and purchase my dad a revolver, the GP100 you see below. My father was much happier and he too asked, "Why use an automatic?"

Here's the point of this story: I'm not a super-expert on guns, but I've come to the conclusion that in almost every instance, it's better to have a revolver than an automatic. Here's my take:

1. Revolvers are easier to use. An automatic pistol needs to be loaded and cocked before use. You just pick up a revolver and squeeze the trigger. To an experienced user, an automatic isn't a big deal, but as I pointed out above, for some, that one action causes great frustration.

2. Ammunition use and storage is easier with revolvers. If you keep the rounds in an automatic's clip for a great length of time, the clip's spring begins to deteriorate. The clip may also become damaged if you drop it or bang it against something hard. For a revolver, you just keep the rounds in the gun or on a speed loader and you're all set. In addition, it's much easier to slide the bullets into a revolver's wheel than into an automatic's clip.

3. Revolvers are easier to maintain. After practicing with an automatic I don't look forward to taking it apart, wiping it down, lubricating it, and then putting it back together. I'd rather spend that hour doing something else. In contrast, after using a revolver, you usually only have to clean the barrel and grease the moving parts.

4. Revolvers are more reliable. Revolvers have only one sensitive part, the wheel, and as long as that works, you're in good shape. An automatic, on the other hand, can malfunction with certain ammunition even if you do your best to maintain it.

So why do automatics exist? In combat situations, automatics are easier to reload and, because they're thinner, easier to conceal, but I don't anticipate reloading in a self-defense scenario, and I live in California where concealed weapons permits are nearly impossible to get.

Read more »