The repeal of DADT and new annual training requirements still won’t quiet the left’s demands
Today’s military is full of annual training requirements; Anti-Terrorism training, Information Awareness, Trafficking in Persons, Code of Conduct, When “No” means “No” – there are about five others, all necessary to complete to stay on command’s good side. Not to mention keeping the CO’s CO off his/her backside. Unit’s Mission Readiness is measured in no small part by it’s member’s completion of all mandatory courses. Most are online, some are classroom only, and all must be completed every calendar year.
Now, another requirement has been added, gay sensitivity training;
American combat troops will get sensitivity training directly on the battlefield about the military’s new policy on gays instead of waiting until they return to home base in the United States, the senior enlisted man inAfghanistan said Thursday.
The Pentagon is launching an extensive force-wide program to ease the process of integrating open homosexuals into the ranks, including into close-knit fighting units.
Army Command Sgt. Maj. Marvin Hill, the top enlisted man inAfghanistan where 100,000 U.S. troops are deployed, said that the sessions on respecting gays’ rights will go right down to the forward operating bases, where troops fight Taliban militants.
“We will take our directions from the Department of Defense, from the secretary of defense, the chairman, as well as the service chiefs of each service. Our plan is to take their direction, and we’re going to execute that training right here on the battlefield.”
No unit is exempted, he said.
Orders are orders, it will be complied with. That said, did anyone think to ask what exactly the LGBT community thinks about having one segment of it’s community excluded from being integrated into the armed forces? In LGBT, the “T” stands for “Transgender”. It’s already being used as an excuse to prevent ROTC training onto college campuses, as written about in USA Today, and at a Stanford University liberal blog.
Recently, at Columbia University, the protest against the military (because DADT’s repeal doesn’t go far enough) took a more hateful turn, as a wounded vet asked to speak there was heckled and booed by protesters;
“It doesn’t matter how you feel about the war,” Columbia University freshman Anthony Maschek told classmates last week. “It doesn’t matter how you feel about fighting. There are bad men out there plotting to kill you.”
Maschek knows this too well. In 2008, the Army staff sergeant got shot eleven times in a fight in Kirkuk, Iraq. Before arriving at Columbia last August, Maschek had spent two years rehabilitating at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. His road from Idaho to Columbia via Iraq was certainly the one less travelled.
Such a story awes and inspires the rest of America. At Columbia, Maschek got heckled. “Racist!” one student reportedly jeered, while others booed and laughed at the disabled veteran, according to the New York Post.
Needless to say, transgender veteran’s groups (yes, they exist), are outraged;
The Transgender American Veterans Association has heard over and over and over that when DADT gets brought up, transgender people have to be left out. When this first came up, the excuse we heard was, “DADT only covers sexual orientation.” TAVA knew that transgender people had been targeted and discharged under DADT, but without any proof, the ones protecting the integrity of the wording in the Military Readiness Enhancement Act could easily blow us off. The specter of “men in dresses” scares them as much as it does the Bigot Americans.
But, the excuse given to keep us from being covered has now been proven to be nothing more than smoke and mirrors. I have to keep bringing up the TAVA Survey, because the facts can no longer be ignored. We have the proof of what we have been saying all along, but the guardians of the bill still will not listen. Their “baby” has grown up to a whole new world and it needs to reflect that new world.
Whatever you think about allowing gays to serve openly in the US armed forces, adding men wanting to wear women’s uniforms and vice versa has got to sound idiotic (you’d think) even to today’s liberal, possibly even today’s gay soldier. Maybe, maybe not.
What do I think? I thought women in combat was a bad idea, but served with and alongside women in Iraq and saw nothing but dedicated people serving their country. One I called “friend”, and she was brought home in a flag-draped coffin. So I don’t know what to think, maybe the United States military can overcome almost any obstacle put in its path by the feel good forces outside the armed services.
But when will it end? When will enough ever be enough to the military-hating left?