I gather you are a big fan of repealing don't ask don't tell, women in combat, drafting little Suzy and transgender sensitivity training. I say this as someone that enlisted (USMC) in time of war, I would not enlist in todays' military.
How you put asking about who has a basic understanding of the order of battle, capability, and deployment of us forces, conventional and strategic, into somehow me supposedly approving of the social experimentation being conducted in today's military, I frankly don't know.
As far as Jumping to Conclusions, that broke an Olympic record.
My attitude toward homosexuality is simple. Put it back in the closet. Let Arlo Guthrie and his pal get out of the draft. (from
Alice's Restaurant, in case you don't get the reference).
Nothing which adversely affects military unit cohesion and capability is okay with me. The purpose of our armed forces is to project policy as power, and that means either intimidating an enemy, or actually breaking things and killing people. That doesn't mean playing grabass, with either sex.
If someone is confused about which sex they are, I don't want them in control of a weapons system or involved with operational support for that on our behalf. If they can't keep something that fundamental straight, find other employment, maybe with the State Department. There is no room for confusion in the armed forces we depend on for our defense.
I am not in favor of women in combat, although any in 'support units' should know how to fight, just in case they have to. I am adamantly opposed to lowering qualifications standards to permit anyone to be in combat arms. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and interdependency for combat effectiveness is vital.