From: sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims)
Subject: Re: Rush has no opinion??? (re: Gays in the Military)
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 16:22:16 GMT

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:

>The line between "I don't know" and "I have no opinion" is a pretty thin
>one.  In either case it's rather unique for Rush to take that position on
>any issue being as hotly debated as this one.

Ah, but unlike some other folks, Rush has admitted that since he has not
been in the military, that he is not an expert, and is not qualified to
give a factual response.  He therefore defers to the people who _are_
experts.

>Actually, it's my understanding that the policy makers in the military
	   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>(aside from the CINC) are the highest ranking officers, and that promotion
>is much more often based on field (especially combat) experience than on
>acedemic education.  For this reason I strongly suspect that those top level
					^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>policy makers are defending this policy more on "gut instinct" than on
>"thousands of years of collective experience and wisdom."  This seems to be
>reflected by their limited public defense of the policy.

Well, you've just demonstrated your lack of understanding on the
subject, Greg.  Try being a military member these days and expecting to
be promoted just based on experience.  Promotions are awarded based on
performance, experience, and education, but military and civilian.
That's right!  The military does study the art of war, and it is taught
to officers and enlisted.  And even if promotions were given out based
soley on field experience, doesn't it make sense that they would be
given to the folks who did the best, ie won the most engagements with
fewest casualties?  In short, the ones who knew best how to effectively
work in the military?  You really sell the military leadership short on
common sense, there.

>Most people are more than happy to leave the military to it's own devices. 
>However, when it's policies are aggravating problems that are being felt in
>the society at large, it is fair to expect them to either defend those
>policies or change them.

OK Greg, so just how is the military ban on homosexuals aggravating
problems being felt in society at large?  Because a small minority of
people have been discharged in accordance with established legal
policies of the military?  Boy, do we have a frail society.

>I suppose I'd feel more comfortable with the policy if they were willing to
>debate the issue publicly.  What little I've heard from the brass is a
>superficial version of what has been presented in this forum (basically that
>"it would undermine morale").  This argument has been run up and down on
>this forum and simply hasn't stood up to scrutiny.

But that argument has been proven in the battlefield, where lives are at
stake.  But then, the battlefield isn't the ivory tower, where reality
can be dismissed with the wave of a hand.

>Perhaps the best thing about Clinton's "threat" to lift the ban by executive
>order is that it might just force the brass to enter the public debate and
>share just what aspect of their "thousands of years of experience and
>wisdom" justifies a policy that is widely seen to be detrimental to =both=
>the military and society at large.  

Again, Greg, show me how the ban on homosexuals has been detrimental to
the military and society.  Nice sounding words, but I don't recall any
unit's performance and being lacking due to the absence of homosexuals.

>I think the public can be swayed on the
>issue if a rational, defensible argument is presented.  I know =I= could.

Apparently, you haven't be listening to the news lately.  Public support
for homosexuals has been declining, in spite of the attempts of the
media.

>Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

>greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | "Freedom means sometimes
>Genie: G.BRADT                    |   having to put up with
>Compuserve: 70206,172             |   things that really
>BBS: (303)290 9243                |   piss you off".

                                      Being in the military means
				      sometimes defending people who
				      really piss you off.
John
-- 
John Sims    sims@pogo.den.mmc.com
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11811 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10321 alt.politics.clinton:18801 alt.politics.bush:14659 alt.politics.homosexuality:8089