27 November 2012

Military Sex

A former West Point graduate writes frankly about her experience with the drive to copulate in a combat zone.  As a knee jerk reaction some have used her as an example of why women shouldn't be in the military, that her taxpayer funded education was wasted, or other such defamations.  Read the comments at WRSA if you want to get a feel for the most vocal of freedom advocates?

Sometimes telling the truth will not win you any friends.  In Vietnam the 4th Infantry Division set up a brothel, and one historian still has a hand painted sign, "The price of a woman is 400 piastres, if you are charged more report it to the MPs."  People have been screwing in war zones since humanity first discovered the that having a bigger stick than the other guy was a good idea.

Somehow when Kipling writes that single men in barracks don't grow in to plaster saints everyone nods wisely in agreement.  But when a female acknowledges that she desires sex in a war zone it seems that all hell breaks loose.

Near death experiences make you feel alive, in a way that nothing else can.  Sex is one of the ways that we cope with extreme experiences, whether good or bad.  Lose a friend to an IED or mortar attack?  Sex sure won't make your day any worse.  Get your bell rung by an incoming rocket?  Sure as shooting something deep down in your lizard brain wants to try to pass off your genes to the next generation post haste after an event like that.

A good Officer knows not to give an order that won't be obeyed.  General order number 1 is still a punitive order, but it is definitely NOT a deterrent of any sort.

I guess in someone's perfect world we are all warrior monks who calmly go about the business of killing people then reflect quietly in private meditation to achieve some sort of balance.  It doesn't work that way.  People drink to try to process, people have sex to try to process, people get in fights to try to process.  People are not pure platonic ideals, even when they volunteer to put on a uniform and go do stuff that other people don't want to do outside of a video game.

If the Freefor are going to go all puritanical about sex, then good luck winning the hearts and minds.  How can it be that the Freefor are all libertarian about money and taxes, but then get their panties in a bunch over women having a sex drive?  Seems like a sideshow issue at best.

28 comments:

Don said...

I was unaware that females in the military lost their sex drive when the raised their hand. Unlike we males, who are apparently issued a "Drive, sex, extra large, each".

As I recall, the subject of sex was number one in the hit parade. Followed closely by drinking. We referred to R&R as D&F. Not that we got any R&R, just a few days here and there. And we took every opportunity to engage in these activities.

And I very clearly recall that it didn't affect our doing the mission when the time came. Someone explain to me how the females are any different.

Anonymous said...

Gauntlet accepted, AM.

There is nothing women bring to the table of military endeavor that justifies the chaos since the (failed) experiment to integrate them 100%. There is no job description they fill that hasn't been as well-executed (or far better) by hominids with external genitalia for some 6000 years of recorded history, and those they do fulfill better are rarely even as much as ancillary to the actual purpose or support of military function.

What they do bring could be just as easily utilized without putting them within 1000 miles of combat, nor require them to ever don a uniform, whereas the detriment of integrating them could find no clearer expression than the book and author cited.

I didn't and don't argue for asexual troops. And further, I'll happily withdraw what I said, if anywhere in our military's history, you can find a male West Point grad who wrote a book based upon the premise that men are simply unable to control their sexual drives whatsoever, so therefore, the command policy ought to be to turn them completely loose to copulate with whomever they will, particularly each other - the express premise of the excerpts from the book of the Twitette in question.

If the Hudson River School For Boys (Coed) cannot instill to every plebe any better grasp of the most fundamental history, logic, management skills, or common sense minimally required for the most basic understanding of leading troops than that, let alone actual military science (they still make some rudimentary attempt to teach that subject to cadets, don't they?) the only thing closing it would do is finalize the manifest futility of wasting the taxpayer money spent to subsidize it.
(I'd happily throw Annapolis and Colorado Springs' establishments into the bargain, being quite sure the various Alumni Associations could operate them very properly as for-profit private entities along the lines of VMI, the Citadel, Norwich, or the CoC at Texas A&M, without any further federal involvement than student loans. The bulk of serving officers being ROTC grads anyways, it would dilute the strength of the various Graduate Protective Associations in all services. If they went to a policy of requiring enlisted service to select all their candidates, they'd probably be miles ahead.)

I can barely contain my anticipation at the certain pending onslaught of a veritable phalanx of books extolling the newfound delights of butt-sex in fighting positions, with the hearty overthrow of DADT. I haven't checked, but I presume they've expunged the Sodomy article from the UCMJ? Or does Panetta and the Pentagon think that rump rangers are going to serve asexually for their entire careers as well?
How long before medieval proscriptions give way to encouraging gay orgies in basic training, to the point it's renamed Butt Camp? After all, it doesn't make any sense to give orders when you know everyone won't follow them. Just enquire of former lt. Stripperpole. She's a West Point grad.

What next? Bring your sheep to work day? Recruiting necrophiliacs to work graves registration? I don't even want to think who they'll get to work on-base daycare, now that we've decided proclivity trumps command guidance, and dumped our neanderthal adherence to what worked flawlessly for millenia.


And Don,
If nobody's explained to you how females are any different than men, by whatever point in life you've reached now, no post on a blog could undertake to bridge that gap. So I don't think you meant to say exactly what you said.

Best regards,
-Aesop

Weetabix said...

+1 to Aesop.

Contraband is everywhere, so self control becomes valuable and necessary to the mission.

I don't argue that D&F aren't strong drives. But you have to pay attention to your work while you're on duty. There's probably no company in the country that would allow that on company time.

Ryan said...

People only cared about that because it was a chick talking about getting laid. What people do on their off time while deployed shouldn't be an issue unless it causes problems. My thoughts on GO 1 will stay to myself.

Anonymous said...

Sorry but if the empire is going to collapse and what bills itself as its elite want to make it hot, then by all means Mizz Lt. Hotty should be put in charge of road block duty. Road block duty meet Sam, ref. AM's prior work.

Then if Lt is captured, deliver her to me for some name, rank and serial number time. RobRoy

Don said...

Aesop, I was trying to make the point (perhaps badly) that both sexes feel sexual arousal. And try to do something about it as often as possible. Some of the comments that I read at the link, and I think yours above as well, seem to be faulting this soldier for that.


I don't think it's a good idea for men and women to be integrated during initial training, for this and other reasons. Afterwards, if fraternization occurs during working hours, drop the hammer on the offenders. If it interferes with good order and discipline at any time, same thing.

I'm a Marine. In the late 70s and early 80s we tried integrating women into the combat support units. I worked with some excellent Women Marines, and some who sucked big rocks off the ground. We stopped because the majority, good or indifferent, simply couldn't hack it physically. When I retired, WMs were in Supply, Admin, and combat service support units almost exclusively. I'm not sure now, though.

Badger said...

Not the first time female candor has aroused such reactions. From a non-uniformed (now) perspective I could give a rip. If someone can do the mission (first) meeting the standards they need to do that, have at it. I'm not about to waste a resource because of some potential biological drive. (I could also give a rip about GO#1 now, nor do I forward everything I receive from someone who genuflects at the Barnhardt altar.)

In a Freefor environment there will be situations where a male & female in a non-permissive environment don't even get a glance from the OPFOR but an overabundance of 2-legged testerone might. Don't write off part of your force package IF they can meet the mission requirement. Not talking about compromising the standard needed for the mission at hand.

In my humble view the time is long past where we need to be worrying about the .MIL social experiments, which will come to their end in due time. I think WRSA does a disservice parroting everything that Barnhardt tosses under the door. In this instance we need to be driving on and get focused on stuff that matters.

AM said...

All right Aesop, I'll do you one better than a West Pointer.

Former NCO, commissioned, led men in combat, left the Army, came out of the closet, wrote a book about it. http://www.amazon.com/Major-Conflict-Mans-Dont-Ask-Dont-Tell-Military/dp/0767918991/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354161265&sr=1-2&keywords=military+gay+officer

There is no shortage of West Point officers who worked to get policy changed about having butt sex. Dan Choi ring a bell? Heck, head over to knightsout.org and understand that just because people aren't writing books about their sexuality that they aren't actively lobbying for a change in the rules to allow the type of behaviors that we are discussing here.

I think you are "begging the question" here. You don't like the idea of an integrated military, and so a woman speaking frankly about her sexuality as a Soldier becomes "evidence" to your bias.

Obviously repressing sexuality through regulation has not worked out well for us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault_in_the_U.S._military and so your prescription is "get rid of it all and go back to the golden age."

Just a reminder, in the golden age, the 4th Infantry Division ran a brothel. Before that fewer than 50 prostitutes serviced all of military men in Honolulu. People had sex prior to integration.

If two guys can blow off some steam in a combat zone through a boxing match in the gym, what is the real reason you are concerned about two Soldiers blowing off steam in a hootch? Obviously it offends your morality, I got that, but can you point out how it has made our military measurably less effective?

Son of Liberty said...

looking back on my combat tour in Iraq, i say:

1. keep women out of combat arms MOS's.

2. open brothels. NOW.

////////NOTHING FOLLOWS

-Son of Liberty

P.S. in a 4th-5th Gen warfare FreFor environment?
persuasion, seduction, manipulation, deception, morale.....those vag-equipped FreFor operators have an excellent tool in the tool-kit.
we'll need all the help we can get, vag or no-vag.

i hear a bunch of "colonels" who want to grab their m-14 and march off to fight the redcoats.

think outside the "box" (-pun intended) this is asymmetric warfare.

Anonymous said...

Start anywhere. How many female crewmembers got knocked up on the "Love Boat" in GW I? 15? 40? I forget.
How many suddenly decided a baby was preferable to a tour in the sandbox? And still do, every time they come up on rotation?
Every commander in every unit that's coed has to expect to lose a ridiculous number of suddenly non-deployable troops, and everyone picking up the slack pays for the experiment, in peacetime or wartime.

I already noted the AF wench who was boinking a married pilot in a nuke alert squadron. And they both continued to carry on after direct orders to knock it off. So, how ugly d'ya suppose a lover's spat is going to go when both parties are walking around with loaded guns and hauling "special" weapons? Wondering about that probably gives wing commanders ulcers every night.

I'm sure it's great for morale and unit cohesion for all the squadron wives (and husbands) *in every squadron in every service* when a story like that breaks.

The there was the celebrated non-qual F-14 pilot. It only cost us 1 Tomcat ($40M) and her backseater($1M), but shit happens, right? And I'm sure she was the only underqualified female pilot put in a cockpit.

Women who make rank 3x faster than men, and/or claim "sexual harassment" 20x higher than on civvie street if they don't. How many SNCOs and field grade officers have been retired after even 1 allegation? 1000? 10,000? And when male troops and officers see that, what does it do for - hell, anything. Morale, motivation, co-operation, retention, discipline.

This isn't a wistful longing for the misty past. Nor is it an argument from personal morality. This is stuff an atheist could grasp. It's pure utility.

It hasn't worked, and it never will. But the push will always be to keep tinkering with it, throw more standards out, compromise a little more, add another week's work of touchy-feely psychobabble BS classes, because unit training isn't as important as helping Suzy Soldier feel empowered, in an endless quest to finally tweak it just right, just to satisfy @$$hats in Congress who love the idea, hate the military, and don't care what it costs.

If ANY four-star finally had the guts to walk in front of Congress, and say "This policy is horseshit, has been since Day One, it fosters resentment, forces double standards at every level, harms readiness, ruins careers, and far too often, kills people, and you can court martial me or retire me tomorrow for saying it, but if you don't end this retarded social experiment, I swear to Christ I'll run for office tomorrow on a platform of stopping it." he'd win 57 states, and get carried into office on people's shoulders.

I understand, given your position, you can't call settled policy horseshit. I get that.

But I don't take The Man's shilling anymore, so I'm calling it what it is.

There is no irreplaceable benefit in continuing this disastrous experiment. Women make up a fraction of the military. They're already working on carving 10% out of DoD, and if they took the uniformed female 10%, we'd never miss them.

And I'd LOVE to see a response from lt. Stripperpole's Cadet Captain, Tac officers, and the USMA commandant during her tenure, for comments on her assertions.

Of course, I'm sure they'd all agree that the Honor Code is mere window dressing (it isn't like INTEGRITY or MORAL COURAGE are leadership traits or anything), and the only important Army Value is Just Don't Get Caught.

Maybe they can bring Lt. Calley out of witness protection, and he and this bimbo can teach military ethics next year.

What could be the harm for the military in that?

-Aesop

Anonymous said...

And I edited that one down to squeeze it in, but in looking back at comments,

This Is Not About Shock And Outrage About A Female Officer Wanting To Get Laid.

File that news item under "Duh!"

I have yet to meet anyone of military age that lacks that particular urge, self included.

In fact, when I go to the ATM and they're filling it with money, I have the urge to want a sackful of 20s too.

BUT I don't write a book in which I argue that since some people rob banks, and I really struggle with the issue, the rules against robbery should be suspended.

Don't jabber about biological needs. I'll go without sex eons longer than you'll go without money. Swear to Cthulhu.

What chaps my ass is that former lt. Hottotrot never grasped that
A) she's a human, not a baboon with a swollen ass, and therefore expected to rule her urges, not the other way around
B) she was serving in the military, and the concept of the larger mission, and consequent need to follow orders seems to have eluded her, not fleetingly, but for the entire duration of her military career
C) she was evidently sick (or in heat) the day they covered "A cadet does not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do." Which is the only way one can explain her blithe unconcern while covering for the Sisterhood while a cadet. Or she's a sociopath.
D) she was evidently also sick the day they swore her in as a 2nd Lt., and thus missed the key words "reposing special TRUST and confidence in the FIDELITY and ABILIITIES of..." and therefore failed to realize they expected her to show more trustworthiness, faithfulness, and ability than a rabbit in heat in her capacity as a leader of troops. So she betrayed that commission, and was a faithless and untrustworthy representative of her office to her troops, her superiors, and the nation she pledged to serve.

This isn't a hard thing to grasp. She's a douchebag who's using her gonads as an excuse for being a douchebag, and arguing that it's not her fault, it's that pesky STANDARD'S fault.

"Yeah yer honor, I couldn't help going 95, you shouldna put that damn sign there in the first place."

Really?? She's going to use the Sammy Hagar Defense, "I Can't Drive 55", pinned to her vagina?

And not content to just say "I'm a fuckup, and the military was too hard, sorry, not for me" she instead wants to make her particular malfunction the New Gold Standard For The Entire Military.

That's the kind of chutzpah of the Menendez brothers: they shotgunned their parents, then asked for leniency because they were orphans.

That's what offends the hell out of me, and yes, incidentally, offers Item 4,271,642 on the List Of Reasons Why Ovaries Are Incompatible With Uniformed Military Service.

Please, feel free to dispute the point. Tell me all the things we now get by putting women in (some) military jobs and allowing them to (sort of) serve alongside (or actually on a booster seat) of (equally and frequently better-qualified) men, which never before anywhere in recorded military history did we ever get when just men did them, since before Babylonians started writing this shit down on clay tablets just down the road from Baghdad, about 6000 years ago.

Because unless giving birth or breast-feeding have been assigned an MOS and a slot on the TO&E, I'll be damned if I can think of any job the military requires that only a woman can do, or do better than a man.

-Aesop

vetus said...

You missed the 10 ring on this one.

No mission to difficult, no sacrifice to grate, duty first.

What is so hard to understand about this.

She is just one of the Damn Millennial's.

Just piss on this and walk away.

RegT said...

Aesop,

I could be wrong, but I thought I read that both the sodomy _and_ the bestiality punishments have already been removed from the UCMJ.

Not just to protect the butt-rangers, but the muslims pining away for their goats and donkeys, as well.

Chuck said...

@RegT

Dirty little secret: the muslims are also butt rangers (or more accurately, I suppose, pedophiles...just ask any veteran of either of the two sandboxes to explain the term "Man-love Thursday" to you) so I guess that would be a catch-all for all the undesirables we are now actively recruiting into the military.



AM said...

Aesop,

You keep saying these things that just aren't so. You are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.

Casualties are down compared to Vietnam, Korea, or WWII.

The kill to loss ratio is higher than Vietnam, Korea or WWII.

So from a numbers perspective, the integrated military is more effective than the gender segregated military (and racially segregated military before that).

Now, in that oath of an Officer you so blithely quote, nowhere is it stipulated to "obey the orders..." as is included in the enlisted oath.

Officers are expected to question orders. Sometimes we get fired because of it (think GEN Shinseki).

Fidelity is latin for faithfulness, which I expect you to understand as an ex-Marine. A single Soldier is being unfaithful to whom? Do we expect our unmarried Soldiers to be "brides of Uncle Sam" the way a Nun is the "bride of Christ?"

History has shown that people will fuck in a combat zone, whether through the availability of prostitutes or with each other (and this goes back to WWII, when women were a separate branch of the military).

Acknowledging the truth of a situation instead of holding onto a fantasy of "how things should be" is the first step to finding an effective solution.

Don't be like a Democrat and ignore reality and live in a fantasy utopia. That's just crazy right there.

Weetabix said...

"Casualties are down compared to Vietnam, Korea, or WWII."
- TC3

"Acknowledging the truth of a situation instead of holding onto a fantasy of "how things should be" is the first step to finding an effective solution."

Wow. I can't believe you said that. Don't aim for "how things should be" just accept them as they are? Have you looked at out the window at all the examples of the "truths of situations" that are absolutely unacceptable? Government? Public education? Inner cities?

Part of being one of the good guys is to try to get things closer to a state of how they should be. Entropy is everywhere. Accepting things as they are guarantees decay.

To hear you say, "We should give in to our baser impulses because what the hell" adds to my fear for the future of our military and our society.

AM said...

Weetabix,

I can't believe you didn't think your comment through just a tad bit more.

When reality doesn't match theory, do we through out reality and kill as many people as necessary to make the theory work? That is what the Communists have tried time after time.

In theory the ideal Soldiers are well disciplined, smart, tough, independent people who willingly work well together as a team for the greater good of the Republic.

In reality we have the UCMJ because Soldiers are not collectively anywhere near the ideal.

Wasting time, energy, and resources on trying to make people something other than people, is patently stupid (see Communism).

Ask yourself, is this so damn important that it is worth killing for? If the answer is yes, be a Communist and kill as many people as you need to make your Utopia a reality.

If the answer is no, look at the situation, make a compromise that the most people can live with, and move on to something more worthy of your time.

Anonymous said...

AM,
I've seen apples to oranges comparisons, but this is the first time I've had an entired fruit cart thrown at me.

I'm going with casualty decrease and kill ratio increase with having a wee bit more to do with things like NOD, body armor, advanced combat trauma care, logarithmic increases in ordnance lethality and precision, and a monumentally higher concern for casualties when the time of death to when it's reported worldwide is a function of the bandwith available to upload from cellphone to YouTube.

Of which precisely NONE have anything to do with the total number of vaginas packed into uniforms.

On the other hand, rapes, sexual assaults, sexual harassment, NJP, courts martial, and discharges related to having a coed military are through the roof, while morale, retention, and discipline related to same are sucking wind. Not to mention welfare issues like pregnancies, discharges related to same, and decreased deployability and readiness due to the underlying personnel chaos.

Don't believe me, go ask anyone at the PMO, base clinics, the chaplains' offices, or any sergeant major right up to "of the Army". The difference between them and Hotpants is they try to work IN OBEDIENCE TO orders and the chain of command to solve problems, instead of hugely failing to do so and blaming their raging hormones as the culprit.

The faithfulness addressed (and in the case of the twitette, unfaitfulness to same) is to the Constitution, by extension to the UCMJ, and superiors in the chain of command and the orders of same, the latter two towards which she cheerfully and unashamedly admits to deciding to flip the bird.
You can question any orders you like, but you're still responsible to give obedience to them.

So acknowledging the truth that *some* people will fuck in a combat zone doesn't lead inexorably to requiring that women be packed along in the first place. (Rather, it points why we shouldn't have started.) Continuing to shove them everywhere is going to lead to the day a coed couple is fucking in a foxhole or a guardshack, instead of standing to, and it's going to get other people killed. The total dearth of examples of units with no intragender problems points to the futility of continuing this retarded experiment.

You can duck the reality that there's no military job that requires ovaries to perform, and having done so, throw up a smokescreen. But it only demonstrates a lack of candor or inability to address the issues.

Putting women in the mix has been an unbroken chain of compromises which impedes the military services to exactly the degree women are included. I'm unaware of any study showing units with women have fewer blotter entries and discipline problems; if any existed it would have been shouted from the Pentagon rooftop. So much for hunting unicorns.

The only way to solve a problem is by stopping where you are, and going back the way you came to the last point you weren't lost. In this case, undoing all the happy horseshit to let the gals play dress-up as G.I. Jane.

Hotpants' personal failures as an officer stand alone. They don't argue that we should change all the rules, drop standards, or tell troops it's okay to drop their shorts. They argue for holding her "My vagina made me do it" argument to ridicule, and taking military women out of the military as certainly as removing heat from the combustion traingle cools things down.

The escalating drumbeat of nonsense like hers was exactly the reason saner minds argued against a coed military at pretty much every step since it was started.

Amazons, like unicorns, only work in mythology.

Regards,
-Aesop

AM said...

Aesop,

There you go, creating your own facts again.

You can't duck the reality that it requires ovaries to serve on a Female Engagement Team (FET).

You say retention is down? Prove it. You say the military is impeded, prove it. You say that units without women don't have intergender problems? Can you say "logical fallacy?"

You can't duck the reality that there are no military jobs that require a penis to perform.

As far as advances in technology improving the kill/loss ratio, I have no argument with that. However, since the current kill/loss ratio is with an integrated force it becomes clear that your doom and gloom projections of disaster are just hyperbole.

In fact, you seem long on hyperbole and short on facts lately, are you feeling ok?

Anonymous said...

Conceding that technology has allowed the military to triumph and overlooking that such success came despite being integrated rather than because of it begs the question at hand, and argues purely from an efficiency point on spending more money on further technology and less on tampons.

Military realities since the dawn of history are blisteringly clear on who succeeds or fails at warmaking and war-winning. One can only imagine the utter consternation of Caesar, Wellington, Grant, Pershing, or Eisenhower when each realized they'd forgotten to recruit platoons of Amazons for their endeavors. Given such realities, they further underline that no armed force willingly packs women along for the show, given the extreme contraindications of the undertaking, unless they are either back-against-the-wall desperate, or head-up-the-ass stupid.

No amount of facts can help in either instance, as the latter condition usually leads to the former, with all the reliability of gravity.

Happy Landings,
-Aesop

AM said...

Aesop,

You cannot prove that an all male force would be superior to what we have no since you have no basis for comparison.

I can prove that the force we have now is more effective in terms of kill/loss than the gender segregated military of the past.

It is your job to prove your point, that somehow the military is less effective than it was in the past due to gender integration. If you can't do it then you need to shut up about it, as you are arguing from your ass.

It is my job to point out that the current military with the current level of gender integration is in fact more effective than the segregated military of the past. You want to say that this is due solely to technology, not the brave female medics, doctors, and UH-60 pilots who stabilize combat casualties (and non-combat casualties).

You talk about military realities from the beginning of time. Well let me spell it out clearly, "The military force that embraces change will be dominant."

From the phalanx, to the weighted front, to the flying artillery, to the machine gun, to the tank, to the stealth bomber, to the Female Engagement Team. Make history or be history, that is the lesson of military progress.

Anonymous said...

Of course I can prove an all-male force would be superior. Such a force would have men in exactly every billet currently occupied by women with exactly the same outcome as what we have right this minute. Except that all-male force would lack every incident of sexual harassment, fraternization, and every other disciplinary occurence the inclusion of women has occasioned, along with the attendant expense of accomodating them with separate training, facilities, and standards.
QED, I win.

Let's try a harder one, shall we?

Simply state which aspects of the current military's acknowledged superiority over that of 30, 50, 100 years ago, or anyone else's military ever, owes solely and unequivocally to the inclusion of women.

That's the apples to apples comparison upon which you've steadfastly failed to engage.

There problem for you is there is NO aspect of the current military, no common task, no MOS, tactic, formation, tactical nor strategic principle that requires the feminine gender in any way, shape or form. Neither are women, as a group, stronger, smarter, more disciplined, or better at executing any military function than men.

Referencing your example, last I looked, there are male doctors, medics, and medevac pilots in abundance already. Going back at least 3 wars and 60+ years for pilots, and a mere 3000 years for doctors.
So unless the women are BETTER doctors, medics, and medevac pilots than the men, right this minute, (good luck attempting that leap), their contribution solely attributable to their gender is thus precisely ZERO. The improvement therefore is wholly attributable to improvements in casualty treatment doctrine and medical technology, and not to the utterly ancillary inclusion - with abundant negative consequences of exactly that inclusion - of women to the ranks of soldiery.

You're trapped trying to argue, with a horrendous dearth of evidence, that correlation equals causation.

There have been a demonstrable plethora of detriments to women in the military, from the first day they were co-admitted to today, inclusive.

So unless there is some demonstrable and citable improvement that can be directly documented as solely due to their gender's inclusion, any and every sum of the experiment must note with mathematical certainty that the trend line since that inclusion is, and must be, pointed downward. And it's not only a bad idea, it's running out of airspeed.

You can argue with your instruments, but as any UH-60 pilot will tell you, the ground is never at fault in a crash.

-Aesop

Weetabix said...

"When reality doesn't match theory, do we through out reality and kill as many people as necessary to make the theory work? That is what the Communists have tried time after time."

I don't remember having advocated that anywhere.

"Wasting time, energy, and resources on trying to make people something other than people, is patently stupid (see Communism)."

I don't remember having advocated that anywhere.

"Ask yourself, is this so damn important that it is worth killing for? If the answer is yes, be a Communist and kill as many people as you need to make your Utopia a reality."

I don't remember having advocated that anywhere.

"...move on to something more worthy of your time."

There's some advice I can use. I'm not sure who you were responding to with all of that, so I'll just stick to asking questions about gear ilo responding to posts advocating this or that social reform.

AM said...

Weetabix,

You wrote:

Wow. I can't believe you said that. Don't aim for "how things should be" just accept them as they are? Have you looked at out the window at all the examples of the "truths of situations" that are absolutely unacceptable? Government? Public education? Inner cities?

Part of being one of the good guys is to try to get things closer to a state of how they should be. Entropy is everywhere. Accepting things as they are guarantees decay.


That is where you used the same justification that the Communists used.

If you truly believe that you should be working to make things closer to some platonic ideal, at least have the courage to start killing people like the Communists. They may have a shitty ideology, but they really believe in it.

Weetabix said...

AM,

I don't know where you and I went terribly wrong in this conversation, but it's obvious to me that we did. There seem to be three primary issues we're conflating and misunderstanding.

1. Coed Military: I believe that, all other things being equal, a military comprised only of men will be more efficient and more effective than a coed one. You disagree. For me, that's fine. It appears that for you, that makes me a murderous communist who wants to kill any square peg that won't fit in Ms. Cannon's round hole. That I don't get. In a multivariable situation, it's only speculation until you can control for one variable and run some tests. We obviously can't do that. This is just a discussion of opinions. Please don't read more into it than I wrote. Or do. As your comment box indicates - "Live is unfair." I'm OK with that.

2. Having objectives, standards, or goals: I have to admit that I'm really fuzzy on where we're having a problem here. I believe that having goals, then striving for those goals produces better results than having none. I don't see how that's arguable. Do you do PT? Why? To be stronger, right? To be better able to accomplish your mission. Do you spend time on the range? Why? To better hit your targets, right? All goals are not the same. "I want better gas mileage so I get a tuneup" is not the same as "Poor people have it bad, so I'm going to kill all the landowners." You wrote the post on Air Rifle Training. You, too, are "trying to get things closer to a state of how they should be." I'm not going to call you a commie or a Nazi for doing that. I'm going to join you. I don't get why you keep calling me a commie. It doesn't hurt my feelings, but it does confuse me.

3. Military Sex: You appear to believe (I'm basing this on what I've read in your post and in your comments) that General Order No. 1 should eliminate any restrictions on military sex anywhere (e.g. in barracks or in a war zone). I went and read Gen. Order No. 1 just to see what it says. In the Purpose statement, it says "To identify conduct that is prejudicial to the maintenance of good order of all forces..." That seems like a good objective to me. See point 2 above. Did you ever see an episode of {insert teenage high school drama here}? Can you really argue that a military with that going on will focus on its mission? Notice that I have not said to kill anyone who has sex in barracks or in a combat zone. Notice that I have not said that soldiers should be less than human. This next sentence is important: I believe that justice should be tempered with mercy when this rule is honored in the breach (not that there's anything wrong with that). We have speed limits and red lights to maintain good order. Companies prohibit drinking on the job to maintain good order. What's wrong with maintaining good order? Presumably wiser heads than yours or mine have decided this is necessary. Life is unfair. Deal with it.

Platonic ideals? I'm an engineer, not a scientist. I just want something that does what it needs to do with a reasonable factor of safety. I'm all about liberty, and that includes the liberty to place oneself voluntarily in an organization that has known rules.

I've got no beef with you. I think we'd probably get along well over a beer. It's these dang bits and bytes getting stuck in kinks in the intertubes that are the problem.

AM said...

Weetabix,

Point 1. You need to define 'effective' because there is a huge difference between conventional warfare, unconventional warfare, military assistance to civil authorities, and COIN. I agree that the traditional maneuver war is best served by men (in general). It is everything else we need women for, and I don't see a change in mission back to conventional warfare in our future.

Point 2. I haven't argued standards, and I won't start now. Suffice to say that I never felt the tactical need to do a pushup in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Physical conditioning is necessary, but who does the most pushups is not an indicator of who will be most effective at doing anything but pushups. Just like the old Army standard, if you could run then you must be a good leader, obviously not true.

Point 3. Military sex. Back in the 90's the standard was "don't fish in your own pond" and it worked quite well. Then a bunch of deployments under Clinton forced all four services to share conditions, so the DOD directed that the policy needed to be uniform across the board. Since the Navy/USMC had the most restrictive policy, it became the law for the Army and the Air Force. I'm all for punishing acts that are detrimental to good order and discipline, but based on historic Army policy I'm not convinced that sex between Soldiers is detrimental in and of itself.

Weetabix said...

I think you think I'm arguing against things you're arguing, but I think I'm not clearly communicating the things I'm arguing so we're arguing about different things.

I'm going to suggest we agree to think we disagree and seek clearer ground elsewhere.

Like I said, I don't think you and I actually have a meaningful beef. I think it's a failure to define terms clearly before entering the debate.

Best regards.

AM said...

there are a lot of ways to solve problems once you frame it.

what capabilities do you want the .mil to perform?

what force structures can accomplish those tasks?

after that, it is easily refined and executed.