Skip to main content

Are Marines too prejudiced against gays to fight effectively?

"Mistakes and inattention or distractions cost Marines lives," he said. "That's the currency of this fight."

"I take that very, very seriously," he added. "I don't want to lose any Marines to the distraction. I don't want to have any Marines that I'm visiting at Bethesda [National Naval Medical Center, in Maryland] with no legs be the result of any type of distraction."

That's Marine Commandant Gen. James Amos, discussing his opposition to repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell.

As others have noted, though, there are certainly gay men and women serving in the Marines -- DADT only prohibits them from being *openly* gay. So it's certainly the case that gay troops have *already* demonstrated the discipline not (as some have inferred from Amos' remarks) to come onto their comrades-in-arms in a combat situation.

I'm not sure that was what Amos is trying to imply, though. It seems to me that what he's really saying is that his own Marines are simply far too prejudiced to be able to fight effectively with an openly gay colleague at their side. That seems an uncharitable judgment, to say the least -- "I'd like to take aim at this Taliban member with the machine gun, but Tony likes dudes!" -- and moreover, it would seem to reflect an extremely poor assessment of the commanders (like Amos) whose job it is to instill discipline and battle-readiness in those Marines.

And not to let my Mennonite background shine through too clearly here, but that's astonishing when you think about it. The Marines can teach young men and women to put aside thousands of years of civilization and lifetimes of moral training so that they can *kill other human beings* -- which is a huge, huge training challenge -- but their commanders don't trust them to simply *be cool and professional* around gay colleagues who share a commitment to defending the country. Are our armed forces really that fragile? I don't think so.


Popular posts from this blog


I've been making some life changes lately — trying to use the time I have, now that I'm back in Kansas, to improve my health and lifestyle. Among the changes: More exercise. 30 minutes a day on the treadmill. Doesn't sound like a lot, but some is more than none, and I know from experience that getting overambitious early leads to failure. So. Thirty minutes a day.

One other thing: Yoga, a couple of times a week. It's nothing huge — a 15-minute flexibility routine downloaded from an iPhone app. But I've noticed that I'm increasingly limber.

Tonight, friends, I noticed a piece of trash on the floor. I bent over at the waist and picked it up, and threw it away.

Then I wept. I literally could not remember the last time I'd tried to pick something off the floor without grunting and bracing myself. I just did it.

Small victories, people. Small victories.

Liberals: We're overthinking this. Hillary didn't lose. This is what it should mean.

Nate Cohn of the New York Times estimates that when every vote is tallied, some 63.4 million Americans will have voted for Clinton and 61.2 million for Trump. That means Clinton will have turned out more supporters than any presidential candidate in history except for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And as David Wasserman of Cook Political Report notes, the total vote count—including third party votes—has already crossed 127 million, and will “easily beat” the 129 million total from 2012. The idea that voters stayed home in 2016 because they hated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is a myth. We already know the Electoral College can produce undemocratic results, but what we don't know is why — aside from how it serves entrenched interests — it benefits the American people to have their preference for national executive overturned because of archaic rules designed, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. 

A form of choosing the national leader that — as has happened in …

I'm not cutting off my pro-Trump friends

Here and there on Facebook, I've seen a few of my friends declare they no longer wish the friendship of Trump supporters — and vowing to cut them out of their social media lives entirely.

I'm not going to do that.

To cut ourselves off from people who have made what we think was a grievous error in their vote is to give up on persuading them, to give up on understanding why they voted, to give up on understanding them in any but the most cartoonish stereotypes.

As a matter of idealism, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on democracy. As a matter of tactics, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on ever again winning in a democratic process.

And as a long-term issues, confining ourselves to echo chambers is part of our national problem.

Don't get me wrong: I expect a Trumpian presidency is a disaster, particularly for people of color. And in total honesty: My own relationships have been tested by this campaign season. There's probably some damage…