Since when does the US military get an opinion on social matters?

[underpants]

I know that the US military has an incredibly progressive record when it comes to race issues and equality of pay but the brilliant organization of our military always insures that civilians are at the top of the chain, always. As the saying goes "any civilian outranks a General".

Unlike many third world countries our press traditionally hasn't gone to the President/Prime Minister and then to members of the legislature and THEN to the military. This happens all the time in lands where coups are in the realm of possibilities on a daily basis. Oh and Isreal too (just to be complete). Not here though.

Not until recently anyway. I doubt that it is any accident that it seems like we go to work to pay taxes so we can have a military to protect us or at least that it seems at times but that is not the case.

Now we have General throwing out opinions on matters that is for civilians to decide and for them to consider once the decision has been made.

This is a disturbing trend in my opinion.

[Parisle]

1. For that matter,.....

--- What fool deemed George W Bush a competent military strategist? Who made him a general?

[baldguy]

2. The military is progressive in racial issues only because they were ordered to be.

[BOSSHOG]

3. Using Pace's logic

the military condones spouse abuse, alcoholism and financial mismanagement.

I'm constantly amazed at why straight Marines and Soldiers not wanting to shower with gay Marines and Soldiers. Would some brilliant conservative scholar check in and explain it to me.

[underpants]

4. "Women don't find you attractive what makes you think gay men would?"

That was my line whenever someone got the heebiejeebies about gays being in the military when I was in the Army.

[Sparkly]

5. I don't think it was the opinion of "the military," but only of Pace himself

Social issues are relevent in the military insofaras they concern the people in the military, and Pace's statement shows that gays in the military still face this kind of judgmental thinking. But it wasn't an official stance or statement of "the military."

And, I'm not sure why he felt any need to voice his own (backwards) opinion, so I agree it was stupid on several levels.

John Shalikashvili, the retired Army general who was Joint Chiefs chairman when the policy was adopted, said in January that he has changed his mind on the issue since meeting with gay servicemen.

"These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers," Shalikashvili wrote in a newspaper opinion piece.

He also cited a new Zogby poll, commissioned by the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara, of 545 U.S. troops who served in
Iraq and
Afghanistan. Three quarters said they were comfortable around gay men and lesbians; 37 percent opposed allowing gays to serve openly; 26 percent said they should be allowed, and 37 percent were unsure or neutral.

Of those who said they were certain that a member of their unit was gay or lesbian, two-thirds did not believe it hurt morale, according to the poll published in December.

Shalikashvili said he expected fierce debate over gays in the military this year as Congress considers President Bush's call for expanding the size of the Army, which is stretched thin by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_gays;_ylt=Aq515v4G6mQJKSKm9zR6p_6s0NUE

Maybe they'll bring back all the gay translators they fired, too. :eyes:

[Zenlitened]

6. I wonder... is he just trying to draw attention away from the VA hospital scandal?

Kind of a tinfoil hat-ish idea, I admit. But with this gang of creeps, anything seems possible these days.

Maybe, instead of shooting the breeze with newspaper execs in Chicago, Gen. Pace ought to focus attention on the real crises within America's military -- from the hospitals, to the troop training cuts, to the supply shortages.

[underpants]

7. Very good points

:thumbsup: