Sailor speaks out

[Kulindahr]

Wow -- this sure turned into a frenzy!

First off, he wasn't harassed for being gay, but for not being into treating women as depersonalized sex objects who exist for men to exploit. When in college, I knew solid Christian guys in ROTC who got flak, and hazing, from their fellows because they utterly refused to utter any word such as "pussy" which in any way demeaned women. Playing sports, it was the same way: the code was that females were prey, and males were expected to pursue and conquer. Those who failed to do so, suffered. The only reason that they weren't physically attacked was that women had entered the ROTC world, and they stuck by the guys who treated them with respect.

Here's something worth looking at again:

First let's get it straight that there are individuals, not groups, that have a hatred. My point is that hatred works both ways. Certainly there are a lot of individuals in those groups that I mentioned that have a hatred towards gays. There are many gays that have a hatred towards those groups, and not just the individuals. Case in point would be you.

Maintaining groupism maintains the status quo, which depends on groupism. During the Korean conflict, this whole game was played out in terms of integrating the forces: there were COs who believed that blacks just didn't belong in the military, and used them as cannon fodder when they could get away with it; one might have been tempted to say they were a bunch of bigoted Southerners, but that didn't hold true -- and neither do such generalizations hold true now. Those who forge the way ahead have to shatter groupisms hold on them, and not just in some areas but all.


I know two gay ex-marines, honorably discharged, who before their tours were over were serving as who and what they were. Most everyone in their units knew, all the way to the CO, but so long as they kept their hands to themselves no one cared, because they did their jobs well. One got an unrequested transfer from the unit he was loyal to when rumors started about him -- the number two guy shunted him off somewhere else before the CO got wind of it; of course afterward, when it wasn't "his" Marine anymore, the CO no longer cared. At any rate, he landed in a unit that didn't care who or what you were so long as you got the job done.
I relate that to illustrate how unevenly the policy is applied -- from not applied at all on the side of "Who cares?", to not applied at all on the side of "Hunt 'em down!" -- and what sort of maneuvers or mechanisms are employed to deal with it all. Sometimes a mere suspicion will, in spite of the rules, bring an investigation; others, unless the CO stumbles on two guys in the process of having sex, nothing happens. Some have learned how to shunt it off for someone else to deal with; some of learned to move people around to let them serve without being hunted or harassed.

I can believe that all this time Obama has been working with the generals to get things set up for the change: given how badly the policies for DADT(DHDP) have worked, getting things hammered out to be certain repeal works properly has to be done very, very thoroughly, with not just policies but procedures and penalties set out.
Yet even if they spend another year at the job, one thing is certain: there are COs out there who, regardless of the policy or rules, will manage to make life hell for gays if they know -- even to using them for cannon fodder.

 

[Kulindahr]

You made up your mind and I have made up mine. Nothing is a waste here.

Although it seemed like we were on the same page here:

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5537822&postcount=78


But maybe we reached an impasse? Not sure.

I think the problem is that you're holding two positions at once: on the one hand, you're saying what the policy actually says, and what that means (on some points, anyway), but then you're looking at what's actually happening in some instances and asserting that that represents what the policy means.

The fact of the matter is that the policy isn't being followed very well at all. On the one hand, you really do have witch hunts; on the other hand, there are COs who pretend they don't see even when they've been told. On both sides of that fence you'll hear claims that what they do is "for the good of the service", and some of them might even actually believe that -- but what they believe is irrelevant, because they're not following the policy.

Now, for the one direction, that's not a problem when it comes to deciding about rescinding DADT, but on the other it definitely is: if officers are presently violating the policy, and thus their orders, by persecuting gays more than the policy leaves room for, then what in hell makes anyone think they're suddenly going to get enlightened if Congress gets off its ass and drags the law into modern times? They'll just find subtler, or deadlier, ways to not follow policy -- like the COs in Korea who had twice or more the casualty rates among blacks as among whites.

So in discussing this it's important to be clear what the policy is, and what the misbehavior is. That's what some folks here started trying to do early on. For example, the policy does not say that if you're gay, you're out, so being gay does not get you kicked out. What gets you kicked out, under the policy, is being gay and being as open about it as your squadmates are about being straight. The policy doesn't authorize witch hunts, it doesn't authorize prying into personal affairs, it doesn't authorize investigations based on rumor or accusation.

That's the policy. What the COs do is another world entirely. We'd all like to see a military where when matters of justice are set out, all officers follow them. In a world like that, though, it's doubtful we'd even need a military; meanwhile, we deal with what we have -- and what we have fall into a number of categories (considering COs):

1. "If that's what the policy say, that's the Army way". These officers see the rules, see the policy, and go by it, end of story.
2. "I don't case what it says, I liked the good old days". These give lip service to the policy but get around it in whatever ways they can.
3. "What does it say? Well... shit, okay." These officers don't agree with it, but they go along... more or less.
4. "Ain't no way I'm gonna allow no gay". These don't care what the policy is, but do as they please and invent the evidence later or as they go along.
5. "Whatever you say, gay is okay". These last are the kind of officer who sees the injustice and refuses to take part -- to some, they're "On our side".

Now in an idealized militarist's army, all officers would be in #1: let the chain of command do your thinking for you, and just obey orders. In reality, all too many officers have been in a long time, and they don't care to budge just because a new policy comes along; in their minds, they are they Army (Navy, etc.), and no bright-ass politician is gonna tell them how to run things -- and that's #2. Better than they are those in #3: they don't like it, but they understand that their oath means that orders are orders (unless they plainly violate the Constitution), so that's how they do it.

You'd think that in today's military, officers of the #4 variety wouldn't exist, but then you'd think none of our troops would ever have gotten into torture, either. In both cases, their asses are covered by people higher up who happen to agree with them. I wouldn't have believed it, except for stories I've heard from ROTC guys on their cruises of obvious gay bashing that COs listed as accidents.

As for #5, a lot of people would say, "Hey, they're on our side!" I disagree: anyone who doesn't abide by his orders isn't on anyone's side, unless he makes an issue of it and refuses/objects right up the chain of command that to follow those orders would be to violate his oath as an officer. I haven't seen any news stories of anyone doing that (sad). What these people should be doing is not looking the other way, but turning every last instance of knowingly having a gay under their commands into a matter of formal protest, of flat out saying, "These orders violate both my conscience and the Constitution of the United States of America; therefore I cannot obey".


Many probably figure, "What good's it gonna do?" But that way lies acquiescence with evil. Instead, every one ought to ask, "What's the good thing to do?" -- and act.

 

[NickCole]

I think the problem is that you're holding two positions at once: ...

The problem with Elvin's positions, here and elsewhere, is they're not informed by fact, they're informed by truthiness.

 

[NickCole]

I think the problem here is that you have an obsession. The kid is not a quitter. He is a hero. Your hero is the quitter. Dude, I am not changing my mind no matter what you say.

That's funny, you just proved my point. You don't know the difference between truth and truthiness.

You can decide he's your hero but you don't get to decide whether or not he's a quitter.

That's a matter of fact.

He quit the military. That makes him, in this context, a quitter.

 

[NickCole]

You mean Clinton, who signed DADT and DOMA?

You've said that now several times; I've ignored it because it doesn't make sense.

Clinton never quit, he saw it through.

Unfortunately the outcome was not what he or we wanted.

That happens a lot in life. It doesn't make one a quitter.

 

[NickCole]

Clinton did quit...on us. He went along with the rest of the bigots.

You just said it. It was not what he wanted but nonetheless signed it and fucked us.

When we step up and fight for something we run the risk of losing. Losing is disappointing but it's not quitting.

Clinton did what he said he'd do, he used political capital in an effort to grant gays the right to serve openly in the military. Democrat Sam Nunn fought him, as did Republicans. Clinton fought back, negotiated, tried to make it happen for us, and ultimately the best he could do was DADT, which was at least an improvement though fell far short of his and our goal.

Clinton did not quit, he fought the bigots and came out weakened for his effort on our behalf.

It's sad and revealing, though, that you, a Democrat, call the Clintons quitters. This denigrating view of the Clintons is what Obama brought to the Democratic Party. The Clintons are many things but quitters they definitely are not.

And you've already made your point VERY clear that you think Rocha is a "quitter". We all know that already. Move on...it's getting tired.

Again you prove you don't know the difference between truth and truthiness.

I don't THINK Rocha is a quitter, this isn't a matter of what I believe.

Rocha IS a quitter. He said in that interview that he resigned when he was in prep school realizing his dream. "Resigned" means he quit. A man who quits before the end, before the resolution, is a quitter.

It's so sad for you that you can't distinquish between the truth of what happens and your desire to believe something is true.

 

[NickCole]

I wish you made more sense.

"It took two years of unconscionable abuse as a Navy dog handler in Bahrain before Petty Officer Third Class Joseph Rocha spoke out about being harassed. However, his openness about being hazed by his fellow sailors ended up getting him kicked out of the service under “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Since going public with his story in June, the 23-year-old has become an outspoken proponent for the repeal of the military’s ban on openly gay service members. Leading up to the U.S. Senate’s yet-to-be scheduled hearing on repealing the 16-year-old policy, Rocha is finding his voice in fighting the ban — especially because he hopes to rejoin the Navy eventually. Rocha opens up to Advocate.com about the hazing, his decision to tell, and life as a full-time political science major at a Catholic university."

It's really stunning, you actually believe something is true because you want it to be.

You're a prime example of truthiness in action, and how it can totally cripple a person's ability to see reality.

Rocha, in the interview you linked to in the OP of this thread said he resigned.

He was kicked out under DADT because he outed himself.

That's quitting.

 

[NickCole]

Elvin, you justify your position by misrepresenting the facts of the story.

Rocha resigned when he was safe, months and thousands of miles from where the abuse took place. He quit and he outed himself when he didn't have to do either one, it was totally his choice. Someone who quits is a quitter.

I don't condemn him for that but facts are facts. Your truthiness isn't going to change that.

 

[Apollo]

You made up your mind and I have made up mine. Nothing is a waste here.

Although it seemed like we were on the same page here:

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5537822&postcount=78


But maybe we reached an impasse? Not sure.

Yeah, what you said there was totally true, and that is true. But you totally went to a darker place then I was at.

 

[Apollo]

It's cool. I don't expect for us to agree on everything but I won't post just to make nice or to please anyone. I am going to post sincerely in what I believe.

Oh that is your right. I am not mad at you or anything. I just decided to gracefully bow out when we got there.

I certainly don't do much to censor myself half the time on this board.

 

[Kulindahr]

What an amazing and intelligent and thought out post. Thank you.

I still think that you don't have to be all out to be discharged. I find it hard to believe that 13,000+ were flaming or bringing their boyfriends to the bases and showing them off.

That's because in cases 1-4, you've got officers who either go beyond the policy to get gays out, happily stretch the policy to get gays out, dutifully while not caring follow the policy and kick gays out, or regretfully but stuck with the policy kick gays out. Out of the five different attitudes towards the policy, only one results in no gays being kicked out, and the guy there isn't really our friend, either.

I suppose you could slip in another category, the officer who does everything he can to legitimately avoid invoking the rule and kicking someone out, from letting it be known that he isn't interested in hearing anything unless there are photos to show improper/forbidden behavior, to dropping the roof on guys who make a complaint when they don't have anything to stand on, and telling them that if he finds them "pursuing" he will have them up on charges. That guy would be our friend, because he's sticking to what the policy says, and using every weapon in his arsenal to not have to go there (kind of like what an old Army officer friend of my dad's once said, if you have to court-martial a man for attempting to strike an officer, you've already failed).

 

[Kulindahr]

Elvin, you justify your position by misrepresenting the facts of the story.

Rocha resigned when he was safe, months and thousands of miles from where the abuse took place. He quit and he outed himself when he didn't have to do either one, it was totally his choice. Someone who quits is a quitter.

I don't condemn him for that but facts are facts. Your truthiness isn't going to change that.

You're a picker.

You pick at things in a way that allows you to not pay attention to what others are saying. You pick at grammar so you don't have to look at the other person's position.

Yes, he resigned; he wasn't kicked out. If all you're looking it is the issue of how it came about that he's out of the service, then yes, he's a quitter.

Elvin's looking at it in a more strategic matter, not a low-level tactical one: he realized that given the past, given what the service was, given the policy, that if he was going to fight, the best way was to demonstrate that he had the principles an officer was supposed to have, and stand with integrity. Now, I doubt Elvin is seeing it quite that way, but in fact from his perspective what Rocha is, is a starter: instead of just drifting, keeping his head down, and continuing to let the past fade away, he started to fight, and his first move was to resign. That was not the end of something, but the start, the start of a campaign to get rid of the policy under which he could have been kicked out had he not demonstrated the toughness and fortitude to endure.
Indeed, his resignation can be seen as not merely a start, but as a rather telling blow: he was under no duress, no compulsion; he had withstood what the abusers had to throw at him, he'd stuck with the system and followed the policy; he'd followed his chosen path and was doing well, and at that moment, the very moment at which a compromiser would have figured he was gaining ground to be able to fight from within, he struck a blow based on integrity and other military virtues. In essence, he flung down his gauntlet with the declaration that the current policy requires of tough, capable, loyal, patriotic Americans that they be hypocrites, liars, hiders, indeed cowards, and is thus contrary to every virtue not only military but civic, and in so doing showed that in fact it is those who would have forced him out, had they discovered him, those who harassed and hazed him without knowledge, those who looked on and did nothing, who lack the most essential military virtues and are in fact cowardly bullies.

Now, stick to picking at little points instead of applying the gray matter behind your skull, if you please, but it will just make you look as small and petty as the officers who knew and approved of Rocha's mistreatment.

 

[Kulindahr]

Thanks Kuli. I have to agree with you. I have been trying to point out some of what you have just posted. In posts #132, 133, 135...I talked about semantics and technical terms and laws.

The law says one thing that we can all agree on. What other people do with that law and how it is served, applied, and twisted is another. The issue is not all black and white and to me, Rocha was a victim here and they used DADT to kick him out.

He had to come out to report the abuse and he resigned because he would have been kicked out.
He was officially kicked out because he came out so if he's discharged under DADT he can't go back and fight and taken seriously or had a fair hearing.
They would say he deserved it because he had to admit he was gay and that he broke the law.
By resigning he is taking control and not let them make him a victim twice. So he is not a quitter. He is still fighting.

You and Nick talk past each other a lot. You have a weird and often disjointed way of either looking at things or/and expressing things. I took a few volleys between you for me to realize you weren't even looking at the same 'animal'.

He didn't really have to come out to report the abuse; it was abuse no matter what his orientation. I've known hard-core Christians who got abuse and accused of being gays, in the service, because they refused to talk about women the way the typical barracks gutter talk would go. He could have reported it all and just said, "I don't look at women like that", and been perfectly honest.

So he could have skated; they had nothing on him, as evidenced by the fact that he was still there. It was more a crisis of conscience on his part, and a decision that if he was to be true to himself, a real man, honoring the virtues the military itself honors, he had to strike a blow -- by "quitting".

You make two statements that are, on the face of them, contradictory: "he resigned because he would have been kicked out" and "He was officially kicked out". Unless the military is drastically different from other organizations, he either resigned or was kicked out; both can't be true. And from his own account, he was in no danger of being kicked out, until he decided to resign.

Indeed, if he was in danger of being kicked out, and that is why he resigned, then Nick is pretty much on target when he calls Rocha a "quitter": that would mean that in the face of adversity, he backed down. Yet if his account is correct, that's exactly what he didn't do; rather, his decision to resign had nothing to do with any threat or likelihood of being kicked out, but rather with being true to principle. One cannot, honestly, find that one is about to be revealed, and in the face of that pretend to be honorable in deciding to reveal one's self; that is a maneuver easily seen through and quite properly denounced. If that's the case, if he resigned in order to avoid the imminent threat of being booted, then he's no hero, he's just one more guy trying to salvage a situation as best he can.

 

[NickCole]

You're a picker.

You pick at things in a way that allows you to not pay attention to what others are saying. You pick at grammar so you don't have to look at the other person's position.

Elvin said Rocha is not a quitter and Clinton was a quitter proved by DADT.

I paid attention to what he said, I looked at his position, I determined it's wrong and I said so, and why.

 

[Kulindahr]

Elvin said Rocha is not a quitter and Clinton was a quitter proved by DADT.

I paid attention to what he said, I looked at his position, I determined it's wrong and I said so, and why.

No, you didn't. If you'd looked at his position, you'd have seen what he was talking about, and realized that in the context of what he was saying, Rocha was not and is not a quitter. I agree with that: in the big picture of what Rocha is about, he is not a quitter.

 

[Apollo]

No, you didn't. If you'd looked at his position, you'd have seen what he was talking about, and realized that in the context of what he was saying, Rocha was not and is not a quitter. I agree with that: in the big picture of what Rocha is about, he is not a quitter.

there's redneck land in Oregon?!? Aren't yall more libRUAL than Californ-I-A?

 

[NickCole]

No, you didn't. If you'd looked at his position, you'd have seen what he was talking about, and realized that in the context of what he was saying, Rocha was not and is not a quitter. I agree with that: in the big picture of what Rocha is about, he is not a quitter.

Just because you agree with Elvin does not mean I didn't look at his position and legitimately disagree with it.

I understand why Rocha did what he did, or I believe I do. I think he was traumatized and after the crisis events were past the trauma overwhelmed him. But that doesn't change the fact that he was safe and in no danger of being harmed physically or outed by anyone, and it was too late (by his own estimation) to have the authorities hold his attackers accountable by court martial, yet he outed himself and resigned. He quit. And yes that's a quitter. Someone who toughs it out would finish his commitment. Someone who quits is a quitter. That's not just semantics, it's the truth.

I've been traumatized and had to make a choice, stay or leave; and after the events that traumatized were past I still struggled with the depression and fear and anger and damaged self-esteem and confidence that results, and again and again day after day, sometimes hour to hour, had to make a choice, stay or leave. I know what that is and I know it's possible to stay and it's possible to leave. It's a choice. I don't view either as shameful, but one is the choice of a person who sticks it out to the end and the other is the choice of a quitter.

Elvin brought up the Clintons and he's wrong about them as well. Bill Clinton could have resigned when Republicans relentlessly attacked him and ultimately tried to impeach him, but he continued on because he's not a quitter. Hillary Clinton could have quit the race in 2008 when Obama supporters kept saying she was being a spoiler by staying in the race, ridiculing and denigrating her, but she continued on until the last primary and the delegates were determined, because she's not a quitter. And DADT is the result of Bill Clinton's sincere effort to keep his promise to us and, when the going got tough, to stick with it to the end and bring about the best result he could. He never quit.

As I've said, I don't condemn Rocha for his choices. I believe I understand them and I empathize with them. But he did quit, and the kind of person who I hold up as a hero would not have quit. A man I'd call a hero would have turned those abusers in to the authorities when it was happening or held it to himself and finished his commitment before dealing with it publicly. DADT was in place when he signed up, it was part of the deal he commited to. I think outing himself and resigning when he was safe was being a quitter and was not heroic.

Between his estimation of Rocha and the Clintons, Elvin shows he has a very screwed up idea of what it means to demonstrate strong character and see a battle through versus being a quitter.

 

[Kulindahr]

I understand why Rocha did what he did, or I believe I do. I think he was traumatized and after the crisis events were past the trauma overwhelmed him. But that doesn't change the fact that he was safe and in no danger of being harmed physically or outed by anyone, and it was too late (by his own estimation) to have the authorities hold his attackers accountable by court martial, yet he outed himself and resigned. He quit. And yes that's a quitter. Someone who toughs it out would finish his commitment. Someone who quits is a quitter. That's not just semantics, it's the truth.

I've been traumatized and had to make a choice, stay or leave; and after the events that traumatized were past I still struggled with the depression and fear and anger and damaged self-esteem and confidence that results, and again and again day after day, sometimes hour to hour, had to make a choice, stay or leave. I know what that is and I know it's possible to stay and it's possible to leave. It's a choice. I don't view either as shameful, but one is the choice of a person who sticks it out to the end and the other is the choice of a quitter.

You're projecting your own experience and feelings onto Rocha and thereby twisting what he himself said about the whole affair. You're also picking a certain part of it to focus on, which is not what he focused on. So your result is a tidy view that fits comfortably for you, but doesn't fit what really happened.

His resignation was not "quitting", except in a nitpicky semantics way, a conclusion arrived at only by narrowing the question to "How did he leave the military?" But that's not the question; the question is more of what is Rocha doing and aiming at. By his own statements, he's aiming at getting the whole DADT thing abolished, and in that context his resigning wasn't quitting, but was taking a stand.

As I've said, I don't condemn Rocha for his choices. I believe I understand them and I empathize with them. But he did quit, and the kind of person who I hold up as a hero would not have quit. A man I'd call a hero would have turned those abusers in to the authorities when it was happening or held it to himself and finished his commitment before dealing with it publicly. DADT was in place when he signed up, it was part of the deal he commited to. I think outing himself and resigning when he was safe was being a quitter and was not heroic.

Between his estimation of Rocha and the Clintons, Elvin shows he has a very screwed up idea of what it means to demonstrate strong character and see a battle through versus being a quitter.

You take "he quit" as your paradigm. and impose it on the whole thing -- and get wrong results. He didn't resign because it was the easy thing to do, which is what would make him a quitter, but on the basis of principles. From what he said about it all, he came to realize that he had to be true to himself first of all, and that to continue participating in a system that asked him to lie was not honorable. Call it "quitting" if you will, but that "quitting" was a matter of advancing an attack on the battlefield.

- - -

Your whole manner of presentation in this forum has gotten so negative, it seems to me that you attack things or people just for the same of attacking. At this point, it wouldn't surprise me, if at some point you were out in a boat and Jesus came walking across the water to say hello, you'd claim he didn't really walk on water, because you could see that his feet were wet or something.

 

[Kulindahr]

And Clinton was our ally until he signed DOMA. That makes him a quitter.

I thought it made him a traitor -- to the Constitution and the American people.

 

[NickCole]

You're projecting your own experience and feelings onto Rocha and thereby twisting what he himself said about the whole affair. You're also picking a certain part of it to focus on, which is not what he focused on. So your result is a tidy view that fits comfortably for you, but doesn't fit what really happened.

His resignation was not "quitting", except in a nitpicky semantics way, a conclusion arrived at only by narrowing the question to "How did he leave the military?" But that's not the question; the question is more of what is Rocha doing and aiming at. By his own statements, he's aiming at getting the whole DADT thing abolished, and in that context his resigning wasn't quitting, but was taking a stand.


You take "he quit" as your paradigm. and impose it on the whole thing -- and get wrong results. He didn't resign because it was the easy thing to do, which is what would make him a quitter, but on the basis of principles. From what he said about it all, he came to realize that he had to be true to himself first of all, and that to continue participating in a system that asked him to lie was not honorable. Call it "quitting" if you will, but that "quitting" was a matter of advancing an attack on the battlefield.

I haven't twisted anything he said. It's all right there.

This is a perfect example of the reason I saw Obama for who he really is as long ago as the primaries; my predictions turn out to be spot-on because my observations point to the truth while yours get stuck on superficial pretense.

I'll break it down for you. From his interview linked in the OP:

... Having grown up amongst violence and drug abuse, well. not myself ... just growing up in a violent household, I was confident that I wanted to dedicate my life to public service. And then my sophomore year, 9/11 occurred and I kind of decided my direction regarding my public service. I knew then that it would start with military service. ...


What was the final straw that brought you to come out in 2007 to your commanding officer?

Well, when I got to the Naval Academy preparatory school I was on my way to my dream of becoming a Naval Academy graduate and a Marine Corps officer, and at first I was full motivation. I got there and I decided these people weren’t going to take from me my dream and that terrible leadership I lived under was going to be an example or more encouragement to become the kind of leader that fits the core values of the military.

But within three months there it really kind of weighed on me how much service had been rewarded in the Middle East with that kind of abuse, the death of my mentor, her suicide, and more, so I had to reflect on what did a life and a career under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy have to offer me given the way I was treated in the Middle East. That was it. I realized there was no honor or dignity in that policy, and I decided I would resign, not really knowing what would come of that. And with the intent of fighting the policy and civilian world.

First thing in the interview he reveals a disturbed disconnect by telling us he grew up in a violent household, which led to a desire to dedicate himself to public service and that after the violence of 9/11 he decided it would start with the military.

This is something gone very wrong: a violent upbringing that he clearly wanted to "fix" through his first adult choice leads directly to fighting in a war and then his effort to join an elite group that routinely ridicules and violently abuses newcomers with hazing.

He reveals in this a classic set-up for an overwhelmed PTS response. His resulting breakdown would not occur in the midst of violence because that's familiar territory and survival skills established while growing up in violence would kick in. No, the breakdown would occur after the violence ends and he's safe. It's then that he'd feel overwhelmed by the weight of feelings I described, depression, fear, anger, etc.

He tells us that the horrendous abuse he suffered in the Middle East was when he tried to join an elite group of guys who put newcomers through hazing, and his hazing took on a sexual component because he wouldn't join in their sex talk. Point being the abuse that traumatized him had nothing to do with DADT. Nothing. Completely unrelated. If DADT did not exist and gays could serve openly, the exact same thing could happen.

Then he, in describing why he came out to his CO months later, tells us it weighed on him that service was rewarded with abuse -- abuse that by his own description was not connected to DADT. And then out of the blue he suddenly conflates his abuse in the Middle East with DADT (exerpt in his words above bolded by me) and his decision to quit.

And you accept his dissociated leap at face value, ignoring the objective evidence woven throughout the details of what he tells us happened.

You insist he quit because he was taking a stand but that is not what the details of his interview reveal. The objective details reveal he was traumatized and, according to him, the events of that trauma weighed on him, events that had nothing at all to do with DADT, and led to his resignation. He tosses in DADT only as an excuse for quitting, not anywhere as part of the story that led up to the quitting.

Claiming he quit as a stand against DADT flies in the face of reason and is completely illogical. It's what he wants you to believe and you want to believe, but it is not supported by what he tells us himself about the series of events.

He quit, not for a noble cause but because he was suffering PTS over events that had nothing to do with DADT. You've found yourself another hero who's a fake: he did not suffer at all because of DADT, if the unrelated abuse in the ME hadn't happened, if he'd been accepted by those elite guys, he'd have stayed in the military perfectly content with DADT in place, and yet he's presenting himself as a poster boy for the injustice of DADT. He's a quitter and he is no hero.