A few of you have missed me during my hiatus from blogging. You are special people, to be sure. Thanks for being there! Someone has now aroused me from my languor, and that person is the object of my comments. Jim Inhofe, described appropriately on The Huffington Post as “Unfrozen Caveman Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)“, is sensitive to the existence of some (but not all) special people. In particular, he is sensitive to the existence of homosexual people.
Here’s what Senator Unfrozen Caveman said, regarding possible repeal of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell‘ (DADT), on the American Family Association radio show, May 12, 2010:
“INHOFE: For those of us — and I’m one of them — who have gone through the military, gone through basic training, and you stop and think — it just doesn’t make any sense. Second of all, it’s just not working. You have women, men, then you have a third group to deal with, and they’re not equipped to do that.
“And you know — you hear the stories all the time. A military guy — I happen to be Army, and Army and Marines always feel that when we’re out there, we’re not doing it for the flag or the country; we’re doing it for the guy in the next foxhole. And that would dramatically change that.”
Really, Senator Unfrozen Caveman? You must be waaaay ahead of me. I am filled with questions about your statement. Your certainty must indicate that you have things figured out, and that I am a naif, lacking in the clear perception of essential aspects of human relationships. Please bear with my unperceiving questions:
The “third group” is meant by you to be homosexuals, right? So – female and male homosexuals are less identifiable as two groups than are female and male heterosexuals, right? Please either explain this blatant contradiction with a simple man’s experience, or modify your statement to be ‘then you have third and fourth groups to deal with’.
Even four groups seems a bit short of reality. Other than homosexual & heterosexual, gender orientations include asexual, bisexual, ambiguous gender, hermaphroditic, and others. Senator, I suspect that Corporal Joe Six-Pack would be at least as ready to shirk his duty to his foxhole buddy and America if his foxhole buddy were asexual, compared to a foxhole buddy who was homosexual. I mean, if homosexuality is weird or immoral, isn’t it just as weird or immoral to not even be interested in procreating? But then again, many Corporal Joe Six-Packs aren’t actually interested in the procreating part of sexuality.
Wouldn’t soldiers view their foxhole buddies according to other groupings, too? How well would they perform if their foxhole buddy were a rapist, child molester, spouse abuser, or polygamist/polyandrist? The military does already have some number of such people. Are you familiar with the term ‘friendly fire incident‘ ?
Some groupings would be other than by sexuality – a foxhole buddy could be a: sadist, racist, cult member, white supremacist, thief, robber, or plain idiot. Most folks I know would be unmotivated to fight for such a foxhole buddy, yet the military has always included such people.
Is the foxhole buddy really the key to determining the applicability of DADT? People and things other than U.S. military personnel have an influence on our troops’ performance: insurgents (i.e., being attacked), enemy soldiers (i.e., being attacked), hazardous weapons & equipment (i.e., things going very wrong), adverse weather (i.e., God having alternate plans), logistical complications (i.e., normal military operations), etc.
Senator, are you saying that:
DADT preserves the ‘foxhole relationship’?
Our soldiers are insufficiently trained, disciplined, and motivated to perform their jobs regardless?
The U.S., unlike other countries with excellent militaries (Israel, for instance), can’t maintain effectiveness while accomodating all sexual orientations? Many other countries even let wimmin saddle up, ride into battle, and shoot bad guys. Israel has some pretty severe national security problems, and they find females to be an asset. Yeah, even the lesbians.
Senator ‘Unfrozen Caveman’ Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), go to hell.