Another serviceperson bites the dust. I don’t know what to say about this, except that I hope that “rules are rules” starts to hold less water as more have their careers destroyed for no good reason. Military discipline, indeed.
Two years before he could take his 20? That’s so fucked.
Some commanders never learned when developing selective amnesia is the right thing to do.
Obama’s gonna have to grow a pair soon on this issue.
Fehrenbach said that when the Air Force first made its case against him and moved to have him discharged he just wanted it over with.
“I was devastated, absolutely devastated. The Air Force has been my life. I was born on an Air Force base. I was faced with the end of my life as I knew it,” he said. “I wanted a quick, quiet, fair, honorable discharge.”
But he said he decided to fight the discharge because he believes the policy is wrong, and that his fighting it might help other people.
So was he cool with it before and is now trying to fight it after the fact, or was he trying to fight it and got discharged anyway? I hate it when people do the former (I’m looking at you**, Larry Craig…) and the system sucks because sometimes it seems like the easier route to just quietly plead guilty or whatever.
** Through a peephole.
My first negative reaction was purely to how unjustly Fehrenbach is being treated.
THEN my mind boggled at the amount of taxpayer dollars went into his training. It’s time to take a serious look at defense spending when we’re flushing well trained experienced servicemen down the tubes early for reasons unrelated to their ability to serve. Last I checked we were in a financial crisis and deployed en masse in two foriegn contries (and to a lesser extent in scores of others). We need these guys.
The AF was just jealous over how good he looked in his flight suit. FIERCE!!
“Oh Col. Victor, you’re SO FIERCE!”
It would be nice if the article or interview provided the reason why the AF knew he was gay in the first place. The circumstances of that revelation may or may not be relevant to this particular case, but presumably there was some sort of violation of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy involved.
In general I don’t see why being gay should be an issue in the military, but I do think there are specific circumstances/behaviors that may be a legitimate concern. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was an attempt to deal with that.
Like what? Please, I’m all eyes.
I’d assume kicking him out two years early is going to save taxpayers a bunch on his retirement. From a short-term financial point of view, it’s a good move. Kind of sucks any other way you want to look at it, though.
I’m referring to specific behaviors that should be considered unacceptable regardless of sexual orientation. In other words, a male who aggressively comes onto a female soldier should be considered a problem just as much as a male-male scenario or a female-female scenario.
There are two issues here: “Don’t ask, don’t tell” as a policy, and this specific case in the context of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” My question is whether he violated “don’t ask, don’t tell” in some way, which is relevant in my mind as long as “don’t ask, don’t tell” is still the official policy.
You’ve successfully repeated yourself!
Perhaps I’m not being clear enough. What specific bad behaviors do you believe will result from soldiers coming out about their sexuality?
I can immediately think of two – discrimination and violence against the homosexual minority – that could be an issue. We as a society are mature enough to make an attempt at ending discrimination, and there are already mechanisms in place in both the military and civil society to deal with violent behavior. Neither is a justification for requiring that people actively lie about their sexuality in a governmental organization – especially when there already exists a governmental commitment to providing discrimination free employment.
So what’s the story, morning glory?
OTOH, male female sexual harassment and fraternization is a clearly documented issue with extensive precedents for destroying discipline and good order in commands, particularly during deployments. And yet nobody sees the actual gender identity or sexual identity of the people involved in those as a root problem. So I’m pretty sure (as was made abundantly clear in the bullshit way the good order and discipline charge was used against this light colonel and his deeply closeted status) that it’s a red herring that should be dealt with in terms of actual, material infractions and not just assumed potential infractions. From gay rays. Infecting people.
If there’s one thing worse than homophobic servicemen, it’s civilians that apologize for the homophobic policies of the military. Here’s the thing: I don’t think anybody’s sexuality should be at the fore of their military career. It should be handled discreetly and professionally, and fraternization should be cracked down on along with sexual harassment. But that is not an excuse for allowing the military shut off a vital (in American eyes) form of civic service from virtually any minority group that is willing and able to serve. It’s not some favor they are doing them, it’s the goddamned duty of a republic to allow its citizens to legitimize their role in society by the one way that our occasionally crude culture finds generally unimpeachable.
Obama has treated the sexual orientation vote the way the Democrats have historically treated the black vote (or the way Republicans have treated the middle class rural vote). It’s about time they start shoving these episodes in his face so we can get over what should be a trivial matter.
I’d argue that our society still has problems with discrimination and violence against minorities. But the military operates in a somewhat different circumstance (and closer quarters) then society at large so its not an “apples to apples” comparison. However, even in society at large we haven’t come to terms will all aspects of fully accepting all sexual orientations, as evidence by the relatively small number of states that have legalized gay marriage or civil unions.
As for specifics (other then whats been mentioned), sexual orientation is not the same as racial or other types of differentiation. For example, can or should we expect men and women to shower as a group together? Or bunk together? And yet if you have a gay person showering with people of the same gender, should we expect everyone to not have a problem with it? We’re talking about young people here, who can barely keep their pants on in society as a whole. Sure, this stuff can be overcome with accomodations and other changes, but it’s still an issue in the short-term.
If you have another source for this story I’d be glad to see it. I’m not disagreeing with what you are saying, but until we know how this investigation and charge came about, it’s a bit unfair to act like it was a AF witchhunt looking for gays. What if the guy came onto a fellow serviceman who reported it (i.e. he effectively stated his orientation)? I’m not saying its fair (again, that’s an issue of the fairness of the policy, which I am not arguing in favor of), but if the policy is clear and he violated it, that’s puts this story in a different light.
Sexual harrassment has absolutely nothing to do with DADT. We have completely separate classes on them in the Army for a reason.
If he was guilty of sexual harrassment (or any other non-DADT-related issue) then he should have been discharged for THAT reason. The prosecution shouldn’t be using the DADT umbrella to cover discharges for any other reason.
S-A-M. Statements, Acts, Marriages. Any statement that you are gay (LBGTQ ETC) or any statement to that effect. Committing a homosexual or bisexual act (see sodomy, which is never enforced against heterosexuals unless another violation of regulation is involved). Marrying or attempting to marry another person of the same gender.
Unless LTC Fehrenbach did one of the above things, he should not be discharged. If he committed a related or un-related regulatory offense or crime, that should be dealt with separately.
Let’s not conflate the issues.
Yeah, and? The military was way ahead in race relations too, and not because it’s leadership was particularly enlightened. Because it’s perfect for that, since what makes a good serviceperson has little to do with any of the subcategories civilians put themselves in.
As for specifics (other then whats been mentioned), sexual orientation is not the same as racial or other types of differentiation. For example, can or should we expect men and women to shower as a group together?
I don’t recommend it, no. I think the different facilities approach there has worked reasonably well, but I’m also not sure how much of that is American cultural weirdness and how much of that is actually demanded by reality. We build this awkward, fake wall between genders in the military, and it builds this whole uncomfortable sub culture of crossing that boundary on a regular basis. I’m sure there’s a lot of places we could tackle the relationship between men and women in the military before we need to start worrying about group showers. The fact is it’s dysfunctional and occasionally disgraceful now, but it does the trick. And it will get better.
Or bunk together?
Already happens, for all practical purposes. Deployments.
And yet if you have a gay person showering with people of the same gender, should we expect everyone to not have a problem with it? We’re talking about young people here, who can barely keep their pants on in society as a whole. Sure, this stuff can be overcome with accomodations and other changes, but it’s still an issue in the short-term.
Yeah, you should. You should expect everyone to act like an adult. And if they don’t, you deal with it. The military can be a great engine of tolerance if you let it. As it is right now, servicemen are showering with the GAY all over the place. ALL OVER THE PLACE. And to this date it has not proved contagious, and I don’t think the modicum of secrecy this ridiculous policy has created is the reason for that. I think it’s because too many people like you are projecting their gay porn fantasies onto the military instead of what is actually going on there.
There is absolutely not a trace of any sexual harassment charge on this man’s record. Not one mention, and you can bet the military would have been all over it if it had been. So you can pretty much stop making shit up, right now, because it’s really not doing your artificial veneer of neutrality any favors.
What if he killed someone, just to watch them die? What if he likes to expose himself to children. Children, man! Won’t you think of the children?
Heh, he should have joined the Navy…
(old UK joke. Join the Army, feel a man. Join the Navy, feel lots of men)