Triaxiansilk.com

I would certainly hope the modern military has rules against nepotism, too.

Actually, that always bothered me about Ent -- all that focus on Henry Archer made it seem possible that Jon only got to be captain because of Daddy. That's part of the reason I really like that flashback episode in which A.G. beat him out of a position.

I'm pretty sure there are rules that prohibit serving directly under the command of your family members now. Although I could be wrong. However, it would be a dreadful mistake to believe that family connections do not serve people well in the military. Even if Daddy's or Mommy is a Big-Wig in DC or even retired, and nowhere near your billet family can and does use influence for it's members. Especially, if military service goes back generations.

Oh, well, it's clear that being related to big wigs helps. Actually, it's true practically everywhere, including where I work now, but my dad always had a thing about it. I can fairly clearly remember the guy at the employment office where I went for help finding a summer job saying, "But your dad is the newspaper publisher. Why can't he get you a job?"

Dad didn't believe in that, even though all the owners of the company plugged their relatives in wherever they wanted. So I picked tobacco that summer.

Which reminds me of a song those little girls liked to sing:

Oh I wish I were a CCC tobacco barn,
That is what I'd really like to be,
'Cause if I were a CCC tobacco barn,
All the guys would be inside of me.

WarpGirl wrote:How is it Apples and Oranges...

Apples = 'No-frat' regs prohibit sexual relationships in a unit or on the ship. [fanfic world]
Oranges = Regs prohibit relationships (sexual OR non-sexual) that are or appear to be abusive, coercive, exploitive, impartial, or unfair. [real world]

The two are not the same. In fact, the first doesn't even exist.

WarpGirl wrote:Militaries have *always* needed clear chain of commands and disciplined units to be successful.

Exactly! And maintaining disciplined units is the *precise* purpose of the Army's regs on interpersonal relations. I repost the exact language of the reg (from earlier in this thread):
Relationships between soldiers of different rank are prohibited if they:
(1) Compromise, or appear to compromise, the integrity of supervisory authority or the chain of command.
(2) Cause actual or perceived partiality or unfairness.
(3) Involve, or appear to involve, the improper use of rank or position for personal gain.
(4) Are, or are perceived to be, exploitative or coercive in nature.
(5) Create an actual or clearly predictable adverse impact on discipline, authority, morale, or the ability of the command to accomplish its mission.

WarpGirl wrote:I will agree the reasons are fine, however they don't prohibit ALL favoritism. They just prohibit favoritism based on sex.

No, they prohibit favoritism based on ANY type of relationship, which I think would include all the other types of favoritism you might have had in mind.

WarpGirl wrote:Where's the ban on serving with your best friend? Your Mother's best friend's son or daughter? Where's the regs that state that nepotisim is prohibited? If you're going to ban sex than ban everything else too.

You can *serve* with your best friend, but if you're the platoon leader and he's a squad leader in your platoon, then you'd best rethink any plans you might have about going out for beers with him every night! That would constitute a relationship which could be construed as an example of (1), (2), or (5) above. So you see, it's really not about the sex.

WarpGirl wrote:No women? So What? The Thebeans (the Greek ones) were considered the greatest fighting force of their day. On par with the most elite fighting force of the country of your choice. They were required to pair off into relationships that ecompassed everything that there is to do in life. And believe me, it worked, they almost defeated Alexander. The only thing that saved his behind was his nifty new Phalanx. To say that those relationships don't count because women couldn't fight is erronious for 2 reasons.

You're countering an argument I don't think I made. What I was trying to say (in my long-winded, roundabout way) is that since there were no women in Alexander's army, any sexual relations that the rank and file were expected or encouraged to participate in would have absolutely nothing to do with fraternization of the sort we're discussing here.

On a closer re-reading, it seems you might have meant that the men were encouraged to have sex with each other, which still misses the mark. What two hoplites do in the privacy of their own tent is not the kind of thing proscribed by the regs in question here. Your argument seems to be "Alexander's men were encouraged to love each other and he conquered the known world, so the Army's regs on interpersonal relationships are wrong." My response is that the Army's regs on interpersonal relationships have nothing to do with the sort of behavior you describe.

WarpGirl wrote:While it is true that the ancient world was more brutal and less just, you're mistaken to think that the common soldiers had no rights or that the officers didn't have to worry about being thought of as fair.

You're probably correct; I really don't know what rights a common grunt in Alexander's army may or may not have had. I will also concede your point that officers, at least the EFFECTIVE ones, strived to be fair in their dealings with their men. After all, a cohesive, disciplined unit will always defeat a demoralized and undisciplined one (all else being equal). But isn't that the point I've been trying to make? The fraternization regs do not prohibit sexual relationships in general, they only prohibit relationships of any kind that might lower morale or undermine discipline.

WarpGirl wrote:I still say that if fraternization is debilitating to a military's ability to do it's job, then the world powers of the ancient world should never have gotten off the ground.

I can't speak for Alexander's army, but I can state with certainty that permitting the kind of relationships listed in points (1) through (5) above WOULD be debilitating to today's Army. You may think the regs are wrong (and hence not needed), but if so, you need to explain how the ship's captain dating a life support technition is *not* going to cause problems among the other life support techs. (I believe I've already given numerous examples of how it *would* cause problems earlier in this thread).

Alelou wrote:Oh, well, it's clear that being related to big wigs helps.

It's not what you know, it's who you know!

There's a difference between thinking such rules are wrong, and thinking such rules are impractical and cause more problems then they solve. I happen to believe the latter. I think the idea of the regs is all well and good. The problem is that you can't account for every eventuality. You said it yourself, "it's not what you know it's who you know."

Look, I must have said it a million times I have a very Military family, Air Force and Navy primarily. And the fact is like every other part of life the military isn't fair. And yeah I can say that, my aunt is on a first name basis with all the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and she tells stories of who got screwed over for Admiral so-and-so's Best friend, son, ect. All the rules in the world are not going to make it fair.

While you're right that the regs aren't meant to just cover sexual relationships, it's those relationships that get the most attention. And they are covered by those regs.

What my point is, is that these regs are unncecessary to have an effective military. From the beginning of time, miltaries had no frat regs be it sex or any other type of relationship and actively ecouraged their members to beccome as close as possible. Then after the age of Chivalry the social mores changed. But to say that an army can't work without frat regs is false. History proves that.

Whose to say in 150yrs it can't go back to that way again.

Well, at one time in Europe military positions and rank were purchased. Daddy bought the youngest son a position in a regiment or whatever and his rank. common as hell. Most of the 'Officers" were untrained and were poor commanders but that didn't stop the practice. Good way to dump a youngest son as the eldest always inherited everything: lands titles, etc.

There wasn't anything like a "Mustang" and man who came up from the ranks to become an Officer. Didn't happen.

Problem was that good Officer material was never used.

Had a bit of that in the U.S.: At the start of WWII we had Sergeant pilots (as did all European countries) when it was learned that the Sergeants would receive a commission other Officers objected that the Sergeants did not have a college degree. Many of these Sergeants were excellent pilots and aces but were not allowed to be pilots as they did not receive a commision due o the lack of a college degree. Hell of a waste.

European counties continued to use Sergeant pilots all during WII. England made wide use of them.

Still used in some countries today.

SB

Interesting opinion piece in the Washington Post today about sex and the military: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... tid=pm_pop

I had no idea that a combat zone would be such a sexually charged environment. Blame it on amped-up testosterone pouring out of aggressive, athletic men. Or blame it on combat stripping even the strongest of men and women down to their core, raw emotions. Combine that with forming special bonds with comrades who promise to do whatever it takes to ensure your safe return home, including sacrificing their life for yours. What do you think happens?

That has been one of te arguments against having Gays in the miliitary. Risking having one in a Fox hole with you. Who knows what they might do. Doubt if anything, both men would be so scared and trying to keep their heads down they would have no time for anything like that.

That argument was also used to say that having a gay n a barracks could lead to trouble as the gay might try to crawl in to bed with someone.

SB

Well, rape is a significant issue in the military, though of course we only hear about it affecting women. I don't see that used as an argument against having women in the services, though, nor would I hope to. (I DO remember all the arguments that women would serve as a terrible distraction to our fighting men and an ongoing incitement to adultery, but that seems to have faded now.) With gays or straights we can only hope that the people who either never had a moral compass or lose it get weeded out before they do too much damage (or get promoted). I may be wrong about this, but I would tend to think that having some women around moderates the general macho craziness of a bunch of young guys. There was certainly a lot less mayhem in the coed dorms than in the all-male dorms at the universities I attended.

Maybe I am wrong, though. Seems like many young women today can be just as prone to mayhem as anyone.

One of my students from last year is currently serving as a nurse in Afghanistan in a forward surgical unit; judging from the pictures she sent me back of their Halloween party recently, they definitely have to blow off some morbid steam once in awhile (I was particularly struck by the gruesome saw decorations on the wall behind them). But knowing her, I would think things are generally calmer for her being there.