Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
See my response to Rex in the main.

Perhaps you should start with Report of the Somalia Commission of Inquiry. Then start to read through stuff which is available on the Net. You say you are serving so you should be able to lay your hands on material which is not open source. I suggest (with some sadness) that there were and still remain serious problems within the Canadian military which can't be wished away.

BTW who told you the modern Canadian army is better than it was in the past?
Rex has already done a good job of detailing the irrelevance of your reference to the Somalia inquiry. I'll not duplicate his effort.

Of course there are problems- there always are. No military is exempt from that. We have far too large a bureaucracy for the combat force we have. We've recently sent one man to jail for screwing around with his weapon over in KAF and accidentally shooting a section mate dead. We've just cashiered one of our captains for putting two rounds into a Taliban who was bleeding to death. We have a navy and an air force plagued by old equipment. We have infantry battalions that are undermanned because the headquarters bloat and the growth of CANSOFCOM has eaten into our authorized manning levels. We have a field army out in the bases that values fitness, and a uniformed bureaucracy here in Ottawa that seems to wedge some of the fattest sacks of crap imaginable into (tailored) uniforms while the really *good* officers sent on headquarters postings do their best to get out of Ottawa and back to their units ASAP, despite the good they could do in reforming the bureaucracy if they were given more ability to do so against an inert, entrenched, very political system.

None of this is attributable to an outbreak of 'the gay' in the C.F. You've not listened to what I've said; this is not a social experiment. It's simple: every Canadian has the opportunity to volunteer to serve, so long as they're fit enough, smart/educated enough, have a clean enough history, and aren't drug users. Gender, sexual preference, race, colour, religion etc don't matter so long as an individual can do the job.

There is no argument I've seen yet raised objecting to homosexuals in the military that stands the test of reason. Most of the same arguments have been used in the past to exclude coloured people from combat units. The white soldiers wouldn't feel comfortable, or whatever other nonsense has been brought up. The only novel argument against gays in the forces is 'ew, icky', although few will come right out and say it- it's always some 'other' soldiers who might be uncomfortable by the thought of having to go to ground next to someone who might be homosexual.

To try to pass those of us with relatively short spans of service under our belts (seven years in my case) as 'unthinkingly going along' with something imposed is, frankly, bull#### and a bit pathetic. It's a transparent attempt to simply negate my views on the subject by casting me as someone who 'doesn't know' because I've not been in enough or am not applying a critical enough eye to the issue.

You're wrong. We think very much about everything that affects our efficacy. Perhaps you're not able to conceive of the fact that, well, a lot of us just really don't care. Maybe it's a generational thing, but someone being gay doesn't bother me, nor many of my peers. Some might find it a bit uncomfortable, but it doesn't affect the ability of either party to do the job. There are any number of reasons I may not want to work with another soldier- they might not be as fit as I think they should be. They could be the really awkward social reject who's annoying to hang out with. They might just be assholes or otherwise disgusting people. I'm professional enough to shelve all that and do the job, and I expect the same of my troops.

There is nothing about homosexuality that makes it any more inherently objectionable to a person who applies their sense of reason to their professional interactions with others.

You refer to a 'constitutional inclusion of these groups and minorities'. That's incorrect. There's no quota system- I don't get assigned my token gay, chick, and minority when I take command of my section. What it is, is a refusal to [i]ex[i/]clude people on grounds that have no rational connection to their ability to do the job. Our constitution provides, in effect, equality of opportunity, not necessarily equality of result. Any person (subject to limitations based on bona fide occupational requirements, such as those detailed earlier) can volunteer to serve, and if they've got what it takes to get in and to make it.

A test of overwhelming support is only proven through a secret ballot. Was one held? Doubt it.
We exist to protect democracy, not practice it. My troops don't get a say in the orders I write. We don't pick the missions we deploy on. We don't staff our military by referendum, and bona fide occupational requirements aren't dictated by the shallow preferences of other soldiers. Again- at one point in time I've no doubt that a majority of soldiers would have secretly voted against letting women in. Earlier still, against blacks or natives. Preferences of that nature are irrelevant to the question at hand. You either accept that your fellow Canadian is a professional serving their country, or you don't. If not, you'd best be able to point to why that's the case- and if you fail to do so, the problem probably isn't him (or her).

The proof, of course, is ultimately in the pudding- and our years of fighting with distinction in Kanadahar seems to suggest things are going quite well overall. Had any substantial issues arisen to have indicated that there were significant problems with women or homosexuals serving, you wouldn't have had to go as far back as the Somalia inquiry to dredge up a link that you can argue supports your view now, would you?