So I have a feeling ody is going to politely correct me on this , but as a civilian who closely watches politics I think there is a lot wrong with the military establishment in the organizational sense (and I want to draw a distinction here between the bureaucracy and the individuals who are serving). The question of gays serving in the military is a part of it (this is a bureaucratic decision), and certain once one accepts the premise of gays openly serving what that means to the larger military culture and structure. But I suspect there are a lot of issues facing the military organization these days -- everything from issues protecting women who are serving, to budgetary matters (especially between branches), to rules of engagement, to care for veterans. And in the largest sense, questions about when a military response at all should be taken at the highest levels as opposed to diplomatic responses.
So personally, I think in the 21st century, the biggest question I see is "what is the specific purpose of the military as an agent of the United States federal government." I'm not sure we've had a good answer since Reagan. Under Bush 41 it seemed to be about global strategic interests, under Clinton it was for PR purposes -- Clinton's military served as a global ambassador, Bush 43 was nation building and Obama is ???. But I don't think National Defense has been a serious consideration since Reagan. So what are we doing?
So really, the issue of gays and everything like this that comes with it... I care, but I don't really. Because, again speaking as a civilian, what I'm really worried about is what the government primarily wants the military to do, and I'm afraid without a clear answer to that we'll just be wasting soldier's lives and wasting taxpayer money. I think the matter of gays openly serving is a symptom of that, but it's not really about that.
Last edited by m00; 04-09-2012 at 07:29 PM.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|