Finally, what does Michael O'Hanlon know about the military, and why is he -- of all people -- being held out as some sort of expert on these matters? He's never been anywhere near the military. He specializes in establishing himself as a "testosterone-laden tough guy" by cheerleading for wars and urging that we send other people off to fight them -- all from the safety and comfort of his Brookings office. Several months ago, over 100 retired Generals and Admirals -- people who, unlike O'Hanlon, actually understand the military first-hand -- called for a repeal of DADT so that gay people can serve openly. Why would anyone believe that someone like Mike O'Hanlon, who relentlessly waves his pom-poms for war while ensuring he never fights them, has anything worthwhile to say on the topic of the military's ability to successfully integrate openly gay service members?And that goes for the entire Village pundit class over the last nine years or so. Why does anyone believe these neo-con rah-rah idiots have any credibility on the military at all, on any subject involving the U.S Military, period? O'Hanlon doesn't. The top brass guys I'm much more likely to believe.
Secondly, O'Hanlon's major premise is in itself obscene: Men charged with the safety of our nation, issue weapons and training in order to be able to take an enemy's life in combat, are too immature to be able to handle having a gay comrade in arms around. Are you kidding me?
People who are sanctioned to kill in the name of the United States are in fact not mature enough to handle homosexuality? That's idiotic on its face. O'Hanlon should be laughed off the national stage for that.
Yet he's a Serious Village Pundit. My God. More than anything else, we need a better pundit class.
No comments:
Post a Comment