Combat Readiness

Given the insane eagerness with which the U.S. government gets embroiled in ruinous land wars in Asia, I’ve decided that I support the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. If the Army is kicking out gay soldiers, that will make the Army weaker, and a weak U.S. military is clearly a good thing — the weaker, the better!

The rationale of the policy is that having gay soldiers will weaken a unit’s combat readiness. I’m not sure why anybody thinks this. Maybe they’re worried that a gay soldier will respond to an enemy mortar attack by baking muffins or putting up new drapes in the barracks. The reality, of course, is that when the Army starts kicking out specialists of all kinds, from translators to computer technicians, the Army’s ability to run its operations is damaged.

In the interest of limiting the ability of the U.S. to invade other countries, I don’t think the policy goes nearly far enough. I feel the Army should start discharging soldiers who are too intelligent. They ask far too many inconvenient questions, especially about policy. And obviously we can’t have any atheists in the Army — an atheist will turn his fellow soldiers into cowards by pointing out that when you’re dead, you’re dead. Muslims, I don’t even need to explain that. Kick ’em all out.

And what about Hispanics and Filipinos? Their accents make them hard to understand, and in a dangerous combat situation, that could be fatal! Imagine talking on the radio with a Hispanic soldier, and having to say, “What? What? Speak more slowly!” while under small arms fire from insurgents.

If we work it right, we should be able to pare down the U.S. military by about 90%. We’ll end up with a lean, mean fighting force that will be too weak to invade any other countries — and that’s exactly what we need.

This entry was posted in politics, random musings. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Combat Readiness

  1. Conrad Cook says:

    I sense a certain degree of sarcasm in your text. However, I also support banning gays from the military, for the reason that someone who is drafted can plead homosexuality, to get out of being forced to kill people.

    Since the draft was explained to me when I was a little kid, I had a horror of the idea. Although actually, at some point I talked to a recruiter. I needed a job badly, and had some notion of getting a technical job.

    But in the end, I decided that maintaining satellites so that *other* people could kill more effectively was really no different than pulling the trigger myself.

    Governments probably need to have strong armies (regrettably); but I think, all joking aside, we should do our best to see they don’t get used.


  2. Harry Palmer says:

    As one of the former intelligent soldiers I have to disagree. In fact, I posit to you that with other militaries allowing gays, we need to up the number we have in the service so that we can achieve gay parity, if not dominance. We can not afford a “gay gap” in our defenses.
    My second point is, the U.S. military has never declared war or randomly invaded any country other than the South. We need to weaken the Executive and Legistlative branches of government to achieve your goal. Fortunatley, they have already taken one of your ideas and eliminated all the intelligence politicians.
    Say hi to Bob

    • midiguru says:

      It’s true that in the U.S. the military is more subject to civilian oversight than in some other countries — and that’s a good thing! Even in the Civil War, I have the impression that Lincoln was in charge of the invasion.

      I was being sarcastic in my original post, of course. I’m delighted that DADT is being repealed, as it’s a milestone in tolerance that will have a widespread positive effect.

      Conrad is probably right that governments need strong armies. On the other hand, who is going to invade the U.S.? China is going to bring the U.S. to its knees without firing a shot! For all practical purposes, China owns the U.S. already.

      Future battles will not be waged on the battlefield. But there will be winners and losers, and the losers will continue to pay a heavy price — not dismemberment, just grinding poverty. Welcome to the 22nd century.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s