Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

McChrystal's Social Liberalism and the Integration of Gays in the Military

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
pinboy3niner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 02:54 PM
Original message
McChrystal's Social Liberalism and the Integration of Gays in the Military
Source: The Atlantic


McChrystal's Social Liberalism and the Integration of Gays in the Military
By Marc Ambinder

The fact, revealed in Rolling Stone, that Gen. Stanley McChrystal voted for President Obama may well have been a planted nugget designed to show how receptive McChrystal was to Obama's worldview. But several people who worked for, and continue to work for, Gen. McChrystal say that it's true. McChrystal told his subordinates about his ballot choice in November of 2008. More surprisingly, this choice did not surprise them. McChrystal was a hard core operator, aggressive as hell, a JSOC ninja -- but he was also a social liberal who tolerated, nay, welcomed gay people into his inner circle, who disdained Fox News, and who grew increasingly frustrated with his reputation as Dick Cheney's hired assassin.


Maybe McChrystal is unique in the special forces (SOF) community, but I tend to think not. In fact, having spent quite a bit of time recently with current and former special forces soldiers, I find that McChrystal's views on gays seem to be the rule rather than the exception. Given the traditional outline of the gays-in-the-military debate, one might think that the special forces soldiers, guys from traditional military families who spend unusual amounts of time in close quarters, would be the most opposed to having gays serve openly. My admittedly limited experience suggests that this is not the case. As one former member of a special missions unit put it to me recently, "It's really about competence. If you're competent, it doesn't matter who you are." And then, switching instantly from an analytical posture to a machismo mode, he said, "If a guy saves my ass, he sure as hell can look at it."
<snip>

But the two cultures can co-exist. It seems as if they already do, informally. People who are gay, and who are competent, and who have been tabbed, are accepted. And no one is toning down their language; discipline and morale aren't suffering. It's the lesson from South Park: there's "gay," and then there's gay. Outside of the military, we are more careful with such language, and that's probably a good thing -- it certainly is for younger kids.

No doubt there will be genuine anxiety among many soldiers about the prospect of serving with gays. No doubt that gays will be genuinely anxious about the prospect of facing real bigotry. But in the special forces community, a model of acceptance seems to already exist.


Read more:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/mcchrystals-social-liberalism-and-the-integration-of-gays-in-the-military/58663/


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
1. Makes sense to me

Special Forces have clear intellectual guidelines beyond the obvious physical ones.

SF need to be culturally flexible in order to engage and negotiate with factions in the enemies constituencies in order to create division.

I would expect SF candidates to be screened out for bias against Islam as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
2. all those dead children and their dead mothers will be glad to know this nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
3. Interestng
Reading, "grew increasingly frustrated with his reputation as Dick Cheney's hired assassin" made me wonder:

Because it was true or because it was untrue or because he didn't like Cheney.

I've come to be of the opinion lately that politics can lead to slander (sounds crazy, I know!)

If the charge was true he would be upset at having it divulged. If untrue then the chafing speaks for itself. If he disliked Cheney he may well be an assassin but he simply didn't like being Cheney's assassin.

Still, reading about how the super-soldier special forces groups are the most tolerant seems very intriguing (truth be told the idea of SF scares the bejebus out of me). If those who are mission-first mindset are more accepting then what excuse do the other troops have?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinboy3niner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. There's a misperception about the Army's Special Forces
Unlike commando units like Rangers and Seals, they don't have a direct combat attack role. Their mission is to work with the indigenous population, organizing, training and advising popular forces. They ARE cross-trained in offensive weapons and tactics, but that's to support their advisory role.

SF is organized into small teams that insert as advisors to aid the local resistance, not to serve as U.S. combat units.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC