Who Is In Those Foxholes?

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.


5 Responses to “Who Is In Those Foxholes?”

  1. May 16, 2010 at 3:39 pm


    Your comments are indeed interesting. I admit that mine were entirely in the context of people I have known personally, and that excludes Muslims. The issue you are raising appears to be the Nature versus Nurture conundrum, and it did cause me to think. What about cannibals? Nurture, or tribal genes gone in a different direction? What about religious cults? There are lots of odd ones. What about the legendary Amazons?

    OK, I retreat, but only to limiting my comments to people I have known. Let the others deal with theirs. Thank God I’m retired from the Navy now.


  2. May 16, 2010 at 8:27 am

    Yay! Jim’s back! And another Jim fella too! It’s double the Jims!

    “It’s not that women can’t be as smart or capable as men, it’s simply that it’s not part of our evolutionary, tribal nature to do it that way. I think it goes to basic instinct that (most) men want to protect women and to procreate with them. Duh.”

    Unlike most animals, we are not completely in thrall to even our basic instincts. I’m defying several basic instincts just by sitting here typing, and I bet you are too.

    And besides, how can one tell if something is a basic instinct, and what is merely a oft-hammered cultural more? That question vexes sociologists the world over. I recall the evolutionary psychologist who claimed that women are “instinctively” drawn to the color pink, not realizing that the “pink is for girls and blue is for boys” trope is actually very recent in Western history. Prior to that, pink was for boys, and blue was for girls!

    I read an article about a woman from a Muslim country (forgot link, again) who noted that in the “immodest” US, she had never seen such respect for women. In her home country, where women have to cover themselves head to toe, they were also physically shoved, insulted and basically treated like garbage, and that was just the women who played by the rules. We tell women we restrict their choices out of respect, but it’s almost always the opposite case.

  3. May 15, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    Jim one,

    Makes sense to me. That sounds like a good way to do it.

    The icon for my blog was posted for the first time Thursday on the Globe’s Community list of bloggers and became operational Friday after some frustrations with whoever at the Globe does that stuff. They initially had one letter wrong in the address and so my user name came up with a pornographic one-sentence post. How does that happen? It took almost a month after I requested it, at Anson’s suggestion, and then they got it wrong and took another full day . . .

    Your comments are not too reassuring about the public arena either, but I’m going to give it a chance. Substantive comment, as you say, gives one a sense of satisfaction. I am finding it with people such as you, Anson and Duane so far.


    Jim too

  4. 4 Jim
    May 15, 2010 at 11:42 am

    Jim too,

    It is refreshing to have a substantive comment. Part of the reason for my blogging hiatus has been a frustration with unproductive dialogue. I created ‘Hey! Get This . . .’ after a period of newspaper editorializing & commenting. That experience was very frustrating. Very few people could offer substantive criticisms and defend their own comments. It was blatant with those whose comments were obvious regurgitations of popular propagandists’ radio & TV rantings.

    My frustration re-appeared in the blogosphere with ‘The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Creation Truth’ and related blogs on ‘Kajed Heat’. A purported ‘expert’ or ‘scientist’ could only respond to my criticisms with taunts (yes – just like a child). His inability or unwillingness to engage in productive dialogue portrayed a public debate (which he eagerly sought) as a wasteful exercise.

    I do retain hope that others can participate as you have. I will defer my response to you to invite others to join in a worthwhile discussion.

    Jim one

  5. May 15, 2010 at 9:05 am


    I can understand your moral indignation on this issue, and even sympathize with it, but you personal animosity towards Inhofe might be misplaced. He is, after all, a politician playing to a constituency which probably feels pretty much the same way. If he did not do this he wouldn’t stay in office long. I think your real issue should be more with Oklahoma culture than with its representative. But it’s kind of hard to attack a culture, and not effective either.

    No doubt the attitude of the nation on the whole has changed on the issue, and I think that’s a good thing. It certainly has regarding women in the workplace and the military as well. I am, I guess, one of those dinosaurs who think that, Demi Moore not withstanding, placing women in combat is a big mistake. It’s not that women can’t be as smart or capable as men, it’s simply that it’s not part of our evolutionary, tribal nature to do it that way. I think it goes to basic instinct that (most) men want to protect women and to procreate with them. Duh.

    As a retired submariner I think the recent decision to open sub duty to women is especially wrong. It’s bad enough to be away from home and family for extended periods without adding extra pressures and temptations, not to mention the hassle of providing separate living arrangements. Putting them on one-year deployments with the Army and USMC boggles my mind, and this comes as the psychological casualties are beginning to outnumber the physical!

    But, the military has long been a stew pot of cultural experimentation, simply because they represent about the only group the Commander In Chief can order how to act. You can’t do it to bust the boundaries of behavior, but you can push them. It certainly worked well for Harry Truman when he desegregated the military.

    Being good sailors with a can-do attitude, the Navy will MAKE it work. They had better – their careers are on the line. Integrating gays is likely to be the same.

    Jim too

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

♥ Help for Haiti ♥


Basic Understanding

A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
- Edward R. Murrow

Intellectual Property Notice

All original material Copyright James R. Stone 2010, except where specifically noted. Some images licensed under Creative Commons, or GNU Free Documentation License, or unlicensed and public domain.

More About . . .

I use Wrinkled brand skin conditioner to keep that worldly-wise, I-have-put-up-with-more-crap-than-you-can-dish-out, old-codger look.

You don't want to ask
about my cologne.

America Held Hostage

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 23 other followers


%d bloggers like this: