September 21, 2011
Choi to Re-enlist
Good for him, and good for the country:
More than two years after former infantry officer Daniel Choi came out on a talk show as a gay service member – an event that led to his discharge - the Iraq war veteran says he will re-enlist in the U.S. Army following Tuesday's repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell."Going back to the military will be a vindication," Choi told POLITICO. [I'm] going back because I fought to go back. The seriousness of our claims was not just political theatre – it was really drawn from our lives. I sacrificed so much so I could go back."
I think anyone who is willing to make the sacrifices and serve their nation in the military should be able to, and that's about it. Gays have always been in the military, and I for one am proud to live in a nation where honorable men and women can now openly serve.
Mike Adds:
The problem with this, as well as similarly controversial social dilemmas occurs when people identify themselves primarily by their preferences rather than their duty or nationality. I have far less concern for a soldier who happens to be gay than for a gay soldier. I have no worries about a lawyer who happens to be black, female or gay, but I'm always concerned about a black lawyer or a feminist lawyer or a gay lawyer because they see the law as a means of forcing others to accept their preferences. Similarly, I'm glad to accept any American who happens to be Hispanic, Armenian, etc., but "Hispanic-Americans" or any other hyphenated type, tend to be worrisome.
A soldier who happens to be gay might reasonably never be known to be gay any more than a soldier fond of any other sexual practice. Spare me the "gayness is my identity" meme. If you enlist or accept a commission in the armed services, your identify is that of soldier, sailor, airman or marine. Everything else is secondary.
As Bob has suggested, gay people have indeed served honorably, but they have done so because they have served, first, foremost and always, as soldiers. Being gay was not an issue for them because they were wise enough not to make it an issue so as not to interfere with their--and the military's--mission.
Update (Bob): I should have research more on Choi before commenting on his reenlistment. To put it mildly, his behavior has been controversial and he apparently wasn't a good officer when he did serve.
That now understood, I affirm my support of those who serve... but really wonder if Choi himself should be allowed back in.
I don't think he deserves to go back, Bob. He'll just be a prima donna and turn every perceived slur into a Supreme Court case. Besides, with the military on the verge of a major downsizing, the Army can pick and choose who it keeps, and not go crawling to a shitbird like Choi.
Posted by: Robert at September 21, 2011 09:33 AMCY,
You are wrong on several points.
1. He cannot re-enlist, because he was never enlisted. Nor is his stated desire to get back in a binding obligation on the US Army. I realize here that you are just reprinting what was written in the story and journalists are especially bad at military terms.
2. He was not booted for being gay. He was booted for political activism. DADT only had one condition: keep your mouth shut. Nor is the closed mouth unique to DADT. People who believe that women or members of various races and nationalities are inferior soldiers are also required to keep their opinions to themselves or risk punishment. It goes without saying that service members who commit crimes (robbery, assault, rape) already understand that they should not openly boast about it.
3. There is nothing honorable about fraudulently enlisting (pre-DADT) or about elisting to use the military as a forum for your political activism.
4. There are plenty of other people that the US military does not need or want, no matter how "honorable" they may be. Criminals, the physically and mentally impaired, and the elderly, just to name a few of the more obvious examples. The military also discriminates against certain religious groups (Sihks). people who are too fat, too small and too tall are also excluded. The purpose of the military is to fight and to the extent that recruits can contribute to that purpose, they should be welcomed. To the extent that they are more trouble than they are worth, they should be excluded. The US military is not just another government jobs program where everyone is equal, by declaration.
5. I also don't see any real problem with gays serving openly right along side all the other perverts in the Services but I am very much against catering to the whims of individuals who think the institution needs to bend to accomodate their desires.
Posted by: Professor Hale at September 21, 2011 09:58 AMYou picked the wrong boy toy to carry your banner.
Posted by: 1sttofight at September 21, 2011 11:18 AMOn top of chaining himself to the White House fence while wearing his Army uniform, Choi also struck a subordinate NCO at Fort Drum - probably why he had seven years time in grade as a 1LT. Choi is a POS from the word "Go". Actually, I have a PowerPoint presentation that was leaked to me. It was written by Choi to disparage his leadership and created for his privates' viewing. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't even make a good private.
Posted by: Jonn Lilyea at September 21, 2011 01:08 PMThose of you dumb-sh*ts who thought repealing DADT was all about forcing poor innocent homosexuals to deny who they are will now see that it is all about forcing homosexual acceptance on us- with quotas, gay shipboard marriages and parades, gay couple housing and adoptions, and it will become almost impossible to court martial homosexuals for the worst of military offenses, yet many good people will be busted for hurting their feelings.
Posted by: Smarty at September 21, 2011 06:37 PMI'm sure they'll all be gunning for your sweet, tender ass Smarty.
Posted by: HFierstein at September 21, 2011 10:21 PMI have to agree with Professor Hale - when I was active (I retired 31AUG1990), my prime dictum in dealing with my fellow Navy people was, "Sailors are blue, non-gender-specific. If you want to be something else, then you should be somewhere else."
I have no patience with hyphenated sailors, any more than I do with hyphenated Americans. If you are defined by your sexuality, then perhaps you should find work in a lobbying organization for persons of your particular preference, and leave the military stuff to people who are defined by their desire to serve.
Typical of someone who was defending a drug user. Choi is a criminal who was in violation of the law when he enlisted and when he served.
Letting Lady Gaga dictate the content of the UCMJ will be a disaster. Homosexuals will only act to further their own ends and interests, sort of like the whining Colin Powell types that abound in the officer corps and in certain support cadres.
In any event, after supporting drug use and homosexuality, will CF now be endorsing homosexual marriage? That is just "fair."
I would like to remind all that had anyone suggested that homosexuals serve in the Continental Army, George Washington himself would have participated in that person's tar and feathering.
Homosexuality, the disease of pagans, is an affront to God. Those who claim otherwise risk His dispeasure and eventual punishment.
Our Founders did not sacrifice life, fortune and sacred honor to appease the sodomite. Good Christians all, they would be ashamed, as might I point out would be the Christian gentlemen who led the Confederacy, the purported inspiration of this blog given its title? Can one imagine General Robert E. Lee serving in an Army that condoned sodomy? Clearly no, and it shows how far some supposed conservatives have gone over to the other side. Drug use, sodomy, lies and dishonor are not what the army of Washington, Jackson, Grant, MacArthur, Patton, or Westmoreland served.
Posted by: Federale at September 26, 2011 03:17 PM
