Congressional Hearing on Military Readiness and Homosexuals

The House Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel will be conducting a hearing on the issue of homosexuals in the military. Among the witnesses who will offer testimony will be Brian Jones, a highly-decorated former Sergeant Major of the US Army’s elite Delta Force, who served with the Department of Defense in Iraq in 2004.

Sgt. Maj. Jones will testify in support of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible for military service. The law passed Congress with veto-proof majorities in 1993 and has been upheld as constitutional several times.

The hearing will take place in Room 2118 of the House Rayburn Office Building, at 2:00 PM on Wednesday, 23 July .

John Howland from USNA-at-Large sends this along from Allan Slaff,

I am delighted that…Sergeant Major Jones will be on hand to testify before the House Armed Service Committee on Personnel on 23 July in regards to gays in the military.

I am confident that…he will do a superb job. I have a concern…on the unique sociological problems that would be generated by permitting openly practicing gays to serve in the ships of the fleet. These unsolvable problems make it absolutely impossible to permit that to happen.

Let me summarize here:

The habitability standards under which our enlisted personnel serve in the ships of the fleet afford almost no possibilities for human privacy. I examined the habitability standards afforded our bluejackets at sea for the Secretary of the Navy many years ago and found that the habitability standards afforded our enlisted personal in the ships of the fleet were less than 50% of the habitability standards allowed our federal prisoners.

Other than a privacy curtain which may be pulled across a man’s berth, there is none. Outside that small space of stacked berths the remainder of the compartment is completely open; thus public nakedness is the norm. The same applies to the heads, washrooms and showers.

These ships deploy for normally 9 months at a time and sometimes much longer. Unlike our air force and army personnel there is no leaving the base after normal working hours except on very restricted liberties when in foreign ports from time to time.

That compartment is our bluejackets’ home 24/7 as long as the ship is deployed. It would create a truly impossible sociological situation to permit openly gay personnel to live in such an environment.

It would most assuredly wreak havoc with the good order and discipline of the ships company Requiring gays to abstain for long periods would be akin to berthing two heterosexual men in a compartment of essentially naked women for long periods; especially when those young men were being driven by an absolute rush off hormones. Impossible!

There is another issue. Homosexuals are as intellectually capable as heterosexuals. Therefore, eventually the gay will win advancement in rate. He will then be in a powerful position to bring exquisite sexual pressure on the non-rated personnel under his control.

As you know, I am also opposed to women serving in the combatant ships of the fleet. I base my opposition not on any failure of intelligence, courage, patriotism or ability of women.

It is based solely on the absolute impossibility of eliminating the powerful drive of sexuality. At least, however, in the case of the women, they may be isolated into their own living accommodations on board ship.

Instead of establishing my qualifications to speak with authority on this vitally important issue, I shall send along an abbreviated curriculum vitae. Please note the enormous experience I have had in serving in eleven ships of the fleet and commanding four of our very best.

Under a B. Hussein Obama administration, homosexuals will be allowed to openly serve in the armed forces. As Allan notes, this will destroy unit cohesion and hurt our military readiness.

Military Readiness will not matter under Obama anyhoo. He will simply surrender to the jihadists making our military power moot.

Voting for John McCain is important. He knows how to run the military.

B. Hussein Obama is an accomplished community organizer.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Update: Alert Reader CourtneyMD comments below on the need for the presentation of a compelling argument rather than two homosexuals pictured enjoying a cruise. This may help:

CourtneyMD, You are close: I’m not 14, but this is an argument any 14-year-old understands. Even My 15-year-old daughter.

We all may not have the reasoning power of a 14-year-old, but let us attempt a review.

The arguments are simple to comprehend, especially for those few that have served in the armed forces.

Close quarters, intimate surroundings strip away modesty. It does not promote good order and discipline in a military unit to enable sexual attraction. The military mission does not have the margin of error to tolerant the distraction caused by having a girlfriend or boyfriend in arm’s reach in harm’s way 24/7.

See close quarters — men and women — on a submarine.

This is different than the soft civilian life most people enjoy, even in dangerous occupations. Females and homosexual firefighters and police-persons can go off-duty.

Can’t really go off-duty on a submarine.

In the absence of privacy, no person — whatever they may tell the pollsters — does not want other service members lusting after their bodies.

A sailor wants his buddy to watch his back — not covet his backside.

As requested, see a compelling argument for unit cohesion.

And let’s not forget B. Hussein Obama’s other sugar stick women in combat.

B. Hussein Obama and Jesus.

Double standards for women in the military.

And thank you for noticing the repetition of B. Hussein Obama — and thank you for repeating it back. Perhaps you are trainable.

Repeating back a negative is something even the professionals have trouble with. See the Bimbo Awards with the late Tony Snow.

Your Business Blogger(R) works at teaching business sense. Here, we are reduced to teaching common sense.

Thank you for commenting,

Jack

See Dana Milbank from the WaPo. Your Business Blogger(R) is not related to the Cynthia Yost mentioned in the Milbank article