Now there's a POV.
May. 12th, 2009 12:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Dear Generation Kill people:
I don't know if the name Tom Ricks [1] rings any bells, but it should, because he's the WSJ [2] war correspondent that pretty much convinced Nate (yes, that Nate) to join the Marines [3]. Anyway, Tom writes this blog called The Best Defense [4], which I've been reading for a while, because I like listening to educated people talk about the shit they're educated about and have experience with, which is not the same as listening to some ignorant blowhard tell you about his "theories". [5]
Today, Tom had a post about Obama rescinding 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and how he definitely thinks it's going to happen (GO TEAM BARACK!), but what really caught my attention was the last line of Tom's blog, which is this: The funny thing is, I am pretty sure I have met many openly gay people in the military.
And I read that, and you know, it makes you wonder. Because if I trust Tom Ricks about anything it's military policy, and if he's saying it's not all as under the covers as they're making it out to be... how would that play out, for, oh, say Nate*. Or Brad.
*FYI: Ricks is also a member of Harvard's Senior Advisory Council on the Project on U.S. Civil-Military Relations. How much do we want to bet that Nate's on there in some capacity?
[1] Tom Ricks
[2]Wall Street Journal
[3]Nate says so in One Bullet Away
[4] I've also created a feed
tomricks, because I like making my life easier.
[5] But that's a story for another day.
I don't know if the name Tom Ricks [1] rings any bells, but it should, because he's the WSJ [2] war correspondent that pretty much convinced Nate (yes, that Nate) to join the Marines [3]. Anyway, Tom writes this blog called The Best Defense [4], which I've been reading for a while, because I like listening to educated people talk about the shit they're educated about and have experience with, which is not the same as listening to some ignorant blowhard tell you about his "theories". [5]
Today, Tom had a post about Obama rescinding 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and how he definitely thinks it's going to happen (GO TEAM BARACK!), but what really caught my attention was the last line of Tom's blog, which is this: The funny thing is, I am pretty sure I have met many openly gay people in the military.
And I read that, and you know, it makes you wonder. Because if I trust Tom Ricks about anything it's military policy, and if he's saying it's not all as under the covers as they're making it out to be... how would that play out, for, oh, say Nate*. Or Brad.
*FYI: Ricks is also a member of Harvard's Senior Advisory Council on the Project on U.S. Civil-Military Relations. How much do we want to bet that Nate's on there in some capacity?
[1] Tom Ricks
[2]Wall Street Journal
[3]Nate says so in One Bullet Away
[4] I've also created a feed
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-syndicated.gif)
[5] But that's a story for another day.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-12 07:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-12 08:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-12 09:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-12 07:17 pm (UTC)Also, currently he sits right down the hall from Nate. They both work at CNAS.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-12 08:33 pm (UTC){makes high-pitched noise)
no subject
Date: 2009-05-12 09:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-12 11:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-13 12:11 am (UTC)There's something so... great about Tom and Nate sitting a few offices away from each other. (And then of course in my mind Brad is not far off, either, but you know, that's just in my mind.)
no subject
Date: 2009-05-13 12:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-13 12:32 am (UTC)...What?
no subject
Date: 2009-05-13 01:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-13 03:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-13 04:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-13 11:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-13 11:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-12 07:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-12 08:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-12 08:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-12 08:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-12 09:06 pm (UTC)Oh, yes, I'm sure this exists. My suspicion is there's a difference between combat units vs. everybody else. They're so very precious about combat units, you know. No women, they're too much of a distraction, etc. I also suspect there would be differences between officers and enlisted, especially if officers wanted to make a career out of the military. In fact, I bet you even if DADT were rescinded, many gay officers still wouldn't serve openly for fear of not being able to advance. But this is all speculation.
It's encouraging that there are some people who can serve openly but, ya know, it'd be nice to remove the constant threat to the career of everyone else. As you well know.
Thank you for that feed. I love feeds.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-12 11:56 pm (UTC)Yes, the whole business makes me very tired. Also, apparently Nate now works down the hall from Tom Ricks. Way to mentor, Mr. Ricks!
no subject
Date: 2009-05-13 10:29 am (UTC)Which, aside from the whole policy being fundamentally (and factually) wrong, makes it an easy way to apply pressure to people who would otherwise disagree with you or oppose you-- it potentially puts people on your own side in a position to effectively blackmail you, or at least to make you compliant. And any disagreement could cost you your job-- because it means that any one person with a grudge has as much power over your career as everyone else in your division combined. Doesn't matter if 99% of the people you work with are okay with it (or at least, value your practical worth over any prejudices), all it takes is 1% to make a fuss.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-13 07:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-12 09:24 pm (UTC)I was looking at pictures and I still can't help but marvel that Stark and Alex kinda look like Nate and Brad without really looking like them...and then again, it could be like the Person dichotomy where in an alternate universe, a bear totally looks like the twink that James is.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-12 10:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-12 11:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-13 12:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-13 01:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-13 05:37 am (UTC)