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!