Gays in the Military: The Wall Street Journal and the Israel Defense Forces
Feb 10th, 2010 | 34 responses
In a recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens lists some “excellent arguments for ending the U.S. military’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy” and some “lousy ones.”
As some of the “lousy ones” Stephens dismissively—even contemptuously—mentions the support of U.S. Defense Secretary Bob Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen to end DADT; the comparisons often made between repealing don’t ask, don’t tell and other civil-rights causes of our time; and the moral equivalence many make to ending the military’s pre-1948 policy of racial segregation.
But to the Journal’s credit, it lists as one of the weakest arguments:
[T]he notion that having openly gay service members will lead to some pandemic of escapades in a military that already forbids and punishes sexual liaisons of any variety except between married couples. Even less persuasive is that the erotic attachments of service members will adversely affect military decision making. If that were true, the military would not allow women to serve, nor would it permit husband-and-wife teams to deploy together. Yet the U.S. military allows both.
According to Stephens, the “best” argument against lifting the DADT policy is that doing so will have an adverse impact on military effectiveness. However, immediately, he asks, “But does ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ contribute to military effectiveness?”
His reply: “Probably not,” and proceeds to explain that “by demanding that gay and lesbian service members keep their sexuality a secret, it makes them uniquely susceptible to blackmail.”
The article also discusses the fact that the policy has resulted in the dismissal of more than 13,000 American service members since it was implemented:
Assume that the presence of openly gay people in uniform poses real if intangible risks to morale or capability. It’s still worth pondering whether those risks outweigh what amounts to the loss of an entire division of war-fighters.
Finally the article mentions something that is often used by opponents of having gays and lesbians serve openly in our military: The allegation that in those countries were such rights have been granted, the effectiveness of their military has been negatively affected.
While I have not seen concrete proof of such claims, I especially cringe when one of the military forces included in such a category is the Israeli military.
In my opinion, the Israel Defense Forces are one of the finest fighting forces in the world. Agree with the government’s policies or not, the professionalism, discipline, bravery of the IDF troops are legendary.
Gays and lesbians have served openly, bravely and honorably in the IDF since 1993, including in its elite Special Forces units.
Even the Wall Street Journal, when “pondering” the experience of countries where gays and lesbians serve openly, has this to say:
A better comparison is the Israeli military, which hasn’t yet been deemed incompetent or pusillanimous even by those who otherwise routinely defame it
In “Asking and Telling in Israel,” in the latest Newsweek, Yoni Schoenfeld, a gay major with more than 16 years of combat service in the IDF tells a compelling story about his proud service in the Israeli Army, including his service in a special-forces unit, “and a damn good one, at that.”
Please read his story here.
But, should you decide not to read it, I would like to leave you with these thoughts and words by Major Schoenfeld:
As Israelis, we are taught from a young age to admire the United States. The American dream offers an alternative to the somewhat harsh reality of life in the Middle East. But that dream has been betrayed by the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that governs gay and lesbian service in the U.S. military. Repealing it will help America fall in line with what many other countries have already accepted—that, in the 21st century, sexual preferences should not be a matter of shame or secrecy, not even in the military. The thought of living a lie while serving—of not being able to share one’s personal life with fellow fighters and commanders—is hard to bear. (And it’s ridiculous: if Israel, a nation that is forever on high alert, can defend itself just fine with open homosexuals in its defense forces, then any other nation’s army should also be able to integrate.)
(Emphasis mine)
34 Responses to “Gays in the Military: The Wall Street Journal and the Israel Defense Forces”
There are always going to be those whom advocate for other people what they in “appearance” enjoy for themselves. Fact remains that there is anti-gay dissent within the Israeli military. Gays are not “loved and accepted” universally.
[As Israelis, we are taught from a young age to admire the United States]–
This is simply not true. There is no such formality. Israel is sovereign and teaches its independent sovereignty. There have been a multitude of examples of Israeli disrespect for the United States, (and the same sentiments expressed by Americans toward Israel). Its a common occurrence every time our government takes a stand that is unpopular in Israel!
Why should people whom freely choose a sexual proclivity be given special considerations and special legal protections?
Why should people whom choose a sub-cultural lifestyle be allowed to openly and freely proliferate that sub-culture within the U.S. military?
Why should people whom choose to behave in a certain manor, be given the same special civil rights considerations as people whom cannot choose to be what they in fact are, such as race?
What about the people in the military? They entered into a contract expecting not to have to serve while enduring gay sexual sub-culture in everyday life. They never had to put up with it in civilian life. If this gay sexuality is forced upon them they should have the opportunity to leave the military immediately with honor and benefit! Anything less is inhumane and un-American.
There have already been Democrat congressmen dissenting this promotion, so with a united Republican minority, I truly doubt this “open gay sex proclamation” will ever become law. We do not need gay service people. Because of their extreme minority, doing without their service will make no difference at all.
No gay sub-culture allowed in the military please.
Danny Kaplan, professor of gender studies at Bar Ilan University in Israel, writing this week in Foreign Policy, in regard to Gays in the military, states that:
“Regardless of sexual orientation, soldiers' erotic tensions are managed, controlled, and then channeled and used as an aggressive driving force to strike the enemy”
Providing the 'enemy' does not include children, women and other non-combatants, as in Gaza, most of us have no interest in how soldiers' erotic tensions are managed. However, sex was intended for pro-creation not the opposite.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/0…
.
“Regardless of sexual orientation, soldiers' erotic tensions are managed, controlled, and then channeled and used as an aggressive driving force to strike the enemy”
**********
Then in the interest of equality and non-descrimination, coed living should be enacted. There is no reason to believe that male heterosexuals would be less capable of restraining themselves sexually around the objects of their sexual fantasies than would, say a lesbian. Anything less than coed would be a preferential treatment of gays over heteros. If everyone in the military is professional, this shouldn't be a problem.
Then there is the issue of recruitment. In a volunteer military, the overwhelming majority of potential recruits are heterosexual. While not all of them will balk at an openly gay military, some youngsters who are already inexperienced sexually or underexperienced sexually and not confident in themselves will most definitely opt out of a situation that seems bizarre to everything they've ever been taught about human sexuality and the reason for it.
So many will opt out. One of the outfalls of openly gay people in the military might actually be needing a draft. No, really.
And then there's the issue of WHY gays feel COMPELLED to advertise their sexuality. If they are as professional as they claim to be, advertising what they do in their bedrooms would serve what purpose exactly to enhance their careers? No, really, what purpose is served by their advertising their sexuality if not to make it known to other enlisted? The reason it is important for them to alert other enlisted as to their sexual bent is why? No, really?
[However, sex was intended for pro-creation not the opposite]–
You are correct. Gays cannot procreate. Their energies are inconsistent with natural selection. This mental abnormality should not be legitimized socially through government social acceptance programs like open “gay” military service.
What I find surprising is that every homophobe who posts here is so obsessed with sex. Arguments of its abnormal, or its not natural, and on and on while forgetting there is much more to a loving relationship between two individuals than just sex. Makes me wonder how they do in their relationships if they find sex (judging by the views expressed here) as the only important aspect of a relationship.
I always find the belief by those people that homosexuality is something freely chosen to be astonishing. Why? Do heterosexuals choose? Of course not. I certainly can't understand how someone could believe that a person would consciously choose a sexual orientation that ostracizes them from society, especially when that “choice” would often be made at an age when peer acceptance is often the most highly prized achievement one could hope for? I've never understood it and I can't think of a single gay person I know who says they chose their orientation.
Sil asks, “If they are as professional as they claim to be, advertising what they do in their bedrooms would serve what purpose exactly…?”
I answer your question with a question. What purpose, exactly, does it serve for heterosexuals to talk about their relationships? Heterosexuals constantly talk about their marriages, wives, husbands, dates, girlfriends, boyfriends and sex. Why precisely do you believe heterosexuals should be allowed, in the military or anywhere else, to talk about their sexuality, but that homosexuals should be required to live in forced silence about theirs?
Are you recommending, in the interest of equality, that DADT be extended to heterosexuals (If they are “as professional as they claim to be”)?
This red herring is quite often used by those who would deny gays equal rights to justify their prejudice(s) when ending DADT is compared to the end of racial segregation in the military because, allegedly, people “choose” to be gay.
The question arises, as ridiculous as it may seem: If people could “choose” their race, their color, would racial segregation and discrimination on the basis of race or color then be justified against those who “choose” to be, say, black?
To answer your question tidbits, you have to return to what the military actually is. It isnt' a democracy, nor is it a democratic unit at all. It is run on unfairness, on heirarchies and only allows power and authority to those at the top who have earned their way by trial of fire to reach those positions. Let me repeat: the military isn't about fairness. It cannot be. It's function is like that of a machine. The machine runs on voluntary recruitment currently that draws on a pool of young, predominantly heterosexual neophytes who are coerced via recruiters to join up. They entice them with promises of benefits in return for service to their country. This is how the machine runs. If the pool they draw from sees the military as predatory [which is how many young hetero men and women view homosexuality, like it or not] they won't sign up for love nor money. So the remedy would be the draft to keep the machine running.
If you think it's a stretch, think again. This has been the underlying “secret” of why brass knows DADT is a good thing. They're running a volunteer machine.
Again, let me reiterate. The military isn't about fairness. That's why they have a separate and non-fair judicial system that treads the fenceline between recruits' rights and how the machine is inherantly unfair. Otherwise we'd try all military cases and infractions in civil courts. Get it?
And again, we who are opposed to gay marriage know that the attempt to repeal DADT, since no homosexual needs to advertise their private deviant lifestyles [like hetero people shouldn't feel compelled to discuss other deviant activities they do at home], is really about getting federal recognition as a minority group and therefore rights with SCOTUS, having a federal precident, to be allowed to marry in all 50 states. DADT is a civil rights issue alright. It's not a military-rights issue. You sign those away on the dotted line when you join the machine.
Just to be clear, Sil, I support returning to the draft. That has nothing to do with issues of sexuality. I believe the military should reflect society and that the sons and daughters of the wealthy should be as much at risk as those of the poor and disadvantaged who “join” the military now in disporportionate numbers. Let the wealthy and the powerful think twice that their son or daughter may be in harm's way next time there is a war or an invasion to consider.
On the subject of the thread, saying that the military is inherently unfair doesn't answer my question. It's a bit like saying the military gets to discriminate based on religion because the military is unfair, e.g. Christians can talk about their faith, but Jews can't. That the military has a command structue does not justify allowing one group of enlistees to talk about a particular subject, but denying that right to another group of enlistees. What would your position be if tomorrow the Joint Chiefs announced a DADT policy regarding Judaism, or allowed Republican servicemen/women to discuss their political affiliation but imposed DADT on Democrats? Would it be justified because the military is inherently unfair?
Predatory? Sil you cannot be serious. If you can cite something to back up this assertion, I'll leave you alone, but if you're just drawing this conclusion based on what a couple of your neighbors say, I'm calling B.S. Like it or not. And where did all of your knowledge of how the military “works” come from? I've never served, so I'll be the first to defer to those who have.
The rest of your comment is your typical screed against the “deviants”. Because you seem to have absolutely no interest in discussing this issue honestly and without tarring people who are different than you, I'll let someone else try.
You didn't answer tidbit's question. Let's be more specific: If a straight man and a gay man are in the military — let's say they're both from Massachusettes, just for argument's sake — why can the straight man say “my wife and I went to a BBQ this weekend”, but the gay man cannot say “my husband and I went to a BBQ too”. No talk of sex, nothing gross, just a simple statement about what they did over the weekend with their spouse.
Saying “the military isn't fair” can work both ways, you know. For all those saying that straight men will feel “uncomfortable” with gay men in their presence, well, tough, the military isn't a democracy.
Once again, this issue needs to be studied. There are serious issues raised by repeal of DADT, and simply calling everyone who expresses concern a bigot is not a reasonable response.
There are bigots on both sides of this issue. Some lash out and attack homosexuals. Some lash out and attack Christians. But the real issue is military effectiveness. We have a military for a reason. It's not a game, nor is it a course in gender sensitivity in college. It is to defend the nation and project power.
What will the impact be on recruitment and retention if DADT is repealed? What will the impact be on small unit morale and cohesion? On discipline? On costs and litigation? Obviously some would prefer to only consider one sided off the cuff ideological answers to these questions.
Troops oppose repeal of ‘don’t ask’
But most troops would stay in if ban ends
By Brendan McGarry
Posted : Monday Dec 29, 2008 9:37:59 EST
Most active-duty service members continue to oppose President-elect Barack Obama’s campaign pledge to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy to allow gays to serve openly in the military, a Military Times survey shows.
Moreover, if the policy was repealed, nearly 10 percent of respondents said they would not re-enlist or extend their service, and 14 percent said they would consider terminating their careers after serving their obligated tours.
http://militarytimes.com/news/2008/12/122908_mi…>
DaMav,
Thanks for the information. A couple of comments.
1. That less than 10% say they would not re-enlist is a) not a huge number and b) of those who say they would not re-enlist, how many do not intend to re-enlist anyway or might reconsider prior to that time?
2. It would be interesting to see a re-survey now, after the testimony of the Secretary of Defense, Chair of the Joint Chiefs and statements by Colin Powell. A poll from fall of '08 isn't ancient, but there have been significant events in the interim.
3. It would be interesting to see polls from the '91-'93 time frame about gays serving in the military at all. Prior to DADT they were discharged for being gay whether open or not. DADT, as I recall, was as controversial then as its repeal is now.
No argument about having the facts. That's always a good starting point, but I admit to being a tad surprised that less than 10% say they would not reup if DADT were repealed. To hear some whose comments appear here, one would expect that number to be in the 30% range.
Final (very minor) quibble. Projecting power is not part of the constitutional duty of the military, though I understand that it has become gospel in some quarters.
Come on DaMav, do you honestly want to tell us that its OK to toss terms around like Sil and F_T continue to do? Its one thing to be against the repeal of this policy, its quite another to lace into hateful screeds and hide behind the guise of psychology, science, or “ewwww, gross!!” nonsense. If you want to study the issue, that's fine, but if you have a problem with some of the heat thrown at Sil and F_T for their never ending tirades against (to put it mildly) anything and everything gay, perhaps you haven't been reading what they say. I said in my previous comment that because I did not serve, I will be happy to defer to those who have. You've cited a Military Times poll; I'll do the same and cite one that was actually posted today:
‘Don’t ask’ survey published
Honestly, I don't have any answers for you with regard to the questions you ask. There are others much more qualified, however, to tell you about their experiences. I just think that having two different sets of rules isn't right.
Come on DaMav, do you honestly want to tell us that its OK to toss terms around like Sil and F_T continue to do?>
I don't speak for them; they don't speak for me. All you have to do to be the recipient of odious ad hominem attacks on this issue is disagree with the other side, whichever it is.
What I have called for, repeatedly, on this issue is a careful and objective study of the impact of repealing DADT. For that I have been attacked with every name in the book on other threads. I'm not whining about it, just pointing it out in the context of your comment to me.
DaMav:
Jchem:
Here are some of those comments Jchem is referring to (And these are some of the more “mild” ones that were left after our moderator stepped in):
Gays are not a “people”, they are persons practicing abnormal sexual behavior by choice.
Crimes Against Nature, such as homosexuality
abnormal, unnatural and abhorrent!
Same sex coupling is abnormal, serves no biological purpose and is considered by most a mental illness.
Unfortunately for you, “gay”, is nothing more than an abnormality of that which is beautifully designed by nature. Even if you achieve every political goal you think you deserve, you will never be anything but an abnormality. Face this fact openly and you can find peace. You can rejoin humanity.
This gay crap is not a natural phenomenon.
These people are sick.
It is a disgusting sub-culture based on a mental illness and will never be normalized
Heterosexual is normal. Homosexual is abnormal…Why do you want to have the legal right to freak people out and drive them away?
Well as long as “your friends” kept their mouths shut and other orifices while serving then there is no problem
Sickos
sexual sickos
sexually sick and obsessed
sexual freakshow selfish jerks
In anycase I'd frag him the first day and if this goes through I'm sure that asian gay loudmouth will be fragged right away should he be allowed back in
Personally I think troops will be capping gays in the field. Especially officers.
I have also left out the comments–”the science”– comparing human sexuality to animal sexuality.
I am absolutely aware that feelings about homosexuality are changing over time. In 20 years this might not even be an issue. Or, the pendulum may swing back and acceptance might diminish. It's always difficult to predict the future. Still, despite the general increase in acceptability, there is not a single state that has passed a bill recognizing homosexual marriage by popular vote, i.e. recognition that was not court driven. That says something about the acceptance of homosexuality as well.
We are agreed that more recent information would be helpful. Also, I'm not comfortable with simply using a poll like I posted to draw conclusions. Some might just be blowing smoke. Others might be inhibited about revealing their true feelings, even if the poll is ostensibly anonymous. To an extent I agree with you that 10% isn't that large a number; but then we keep hearing about a handful of translators as a reason to repeal DADT.
I accept your most interesting observation on 'projecting power'. As always, thanks for your thoughtful input.
DaMav, I truly thank you for your well-reasoned response and I apologize if I implied that you spoke for others; that wasn't my intention. This name-calling thing from both sides just poisons the well and does nothing to actually help us consider what will happen if the policy is repealed. I may disagree with you on this specific policy, but at least we can be civil about it.
None of the comments you listed were made by me. In fact I believe they were made by two of the more left wing posters on TMV on most issues. I respect everyone's right to have an opinion on these issues, even those on the left. If you want to complain about left wing posters' opinions, you are coming to the wrong guy.
I may disagree with you on this specific policy, but at least we can be civil about it.
Indeed, and thank you. I'm no saint, but I try to at least be a reasonably well behaved sinner.
I do not believe I said that you made those comments. I was just following up on your comment on calling people names.
Thank you
A majority of Americans believe gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military, according to a new Quinnipiac poll out Wednesday, February 10, 2010.
Fifty-seven percent of the 2,617 registered voters surveyed nationwide said they support a repeal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Thirty-six percent back the current policy.
Even more, 66 percent, said the policy banning gays from serving openly in the military is “discrimination.”
And 82 percent think the military should “stop pursuing disciplinary action against gays who are outed against their will,” while 65 percent do not believe that ending the policy will be “divisive” in military ranks or hinder any ability to fight effectively.
“By a solid margin, American voters say go ahead and allow gays to openly serve in the military,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
DaMav (understanding that Dorian is following and will see this),
I take your point that there are those on both sides who show intolerance and attack any who disagree, sometimes in personal and verbally abusive ways. I do agree that the comments Dorian cites below are real and reflect intolerance and closed-mindedness. I do not put you in that group because I view the questions and concerns you express as going more to practical implementation issues than anti-homosexual bias…and, I say that sincerely knowing that I do not share your concerns on the implementation issues.
On the other side are a few (but only a few) advocates of repealing DADT and/or who advocate gay marriage who call any who oppose them, even on conscienable grounds, “evil”, call for their elimination and argue that it is right to “hate” and even justifiable to do violence to any who disagree with them.
Comments based on legitimate concerns have my respect, though I may disagree. Those comments that rise from a basis of hatred or bias or speak the language of hatred or bias, from whichever side, do not. To Dorian's credit, as expressed on a prior thread a week or so ago, he agrees, I believe, with that sentiment (and can tell me I'm full of it if he does not).
Hi tidbits:
You have a nack for putting things into perspective and into context, and you have done it again.
Totally agree with you.
At the risk of being redundant, let me just say that there are those who, because of hate/prejudice, denigrate not only gays, but also those who support equal rights for gays ( I have been the recipient of the latter)
But, there are also those (both gays and those who support gays) who accuse anyone who does not agree with them, of being bigots, homophobes, etc.
Neither phenomenom is good.
I personally find myself reacting more strongly to those who demonize gays than to those who insult those who have issues with homosexuality, for whatever reason.
That is wrong, too, and I have “made a note of that to myself”
Again, tidbits, thanks for your sensitivity and discernemnt
Dorian
“Neither phenomenom is good.”
Is it ok to call someone a bigot if they use the terrible derogatory terms used in that box? You know, if they're being a bigot? I know I have done so…
“I personally find myself reacting more strongly to those who demonize gays than to those who insult those who have issues with homosexuality, for whatever reason.”
Yep. I wouldn't project my reason onto you, but I can tell you what it is for me: Someone who is using such derogatory terms for LGBT people is dehumanizing and disparaging entire classes of people that the accuser doesn't even know; these classes of people include many that I love dearly. Someone who is calling another person a bigot is generally doing so based on what that person said or did. Then there's the matter of privilege — gay people are in a vulnerable position and straight people are not (all other things equal, of course). It's the same reason it's funny to see (for example) a pro football player trip and scrape his knee, but it's not funny to see a child with leg braces trip — there's a clear and palpable disconnect in power. Calling someone a jerk for laughing at the kid tripping feels more…justified.
You think reinstating the draft will bring the sons and daughters of the wealthy? They always get special treament and cushy service jobs while the poor die on the front lines. Plllleasse. That's common knowledge.
Your question has been answered in that the machine [cold, unflinching military strategy] has looked at the issue and seen that advertising deviant sexuality to people who are the objects of sexual desire of that deviance is to be looked upon as advertising or cruising. There is zero need for gays to come out apart from notifying others. And their reason for notifying others? There can be only be non-professional reasons for this.
You have deftly stepped around, as many others have, the issue of coed living and how not having it if DADT is removed would be descriminatory towards heterosexuals. Why are homosexuals to be trusted in close quarters when heteros aren't? I need specifics to be satisfied.
You see, it's not so easy as you think to roll back DADT. Their are reams of legal issues and potential lawsuits just waiting to burst forth. As to another poster saying that young inexperienced hetero potential recruits won't see open gayness in the military as a deterrant for signing up, that's open for debate and certainly isn't a closed issue as you would have people think. As long as it is possible that an openly gay military would deter recruitment in our volunteer service, it is a hot issue to talk about.
I got you, roro.
When I said “But, there are also those (both gays and those who support gays) who accuse anyone who does not agree with them, of being bigots, homophobes, etc.”, I could have expressed myself better (as tidbits did).
When I say “who does not agree with them,” I am talking about those who have sincere, albeit unfounded, concerns about–for example–how repealing DADT may reduce military effectiveness, morale,etc.
By no stretch of the imagination, am I including in this categroy those who clearly hate homosexuals; those who are clearly bigots and hompohobes and who clearly express such feelings .
To those, have at it, roro..,but with dignity.
“To those, have at it, roro”
Yay!
“…but with dignity.”
Ah, shucks.
Also, since I am in a good mood, I thought some of the folks on this thread would greatly enjoy Eddie Izzard's take on DADT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPML-n1kRnY
Start at 3:40 for the specific DADT stuff. Or, you know, just watch the whole thing, 'cause Eddie's awesome. Probably NSFW for language.
Roro80, with respect to
As one who also has a person whom I love dearly, who happens to be gay, I believe that I understand such emotions.
and as to:
I like your sense of humor. Sometimes that's what one has to have to be able to wither the onslaught.
Keep your head high , and your dignity
Dorian
roro,
I can't disagree with calling out bigotry and bias when it occurs, accompanied by an explanation of why it is bigotry and bias. When I said that hatred exists and is expressed on both sides I had very specific instances in mind. Among those who agree with you and I on these issues have been two individuals, one who specifically called for violent beatings of those who did not agree with hir position, the other advocated hatred as a virtue and called anyone who disagreed, even if the disagreement was in good faith, “evil”.
Yesterday, you were on a thread defending patriotism against some anti-American rants. At one point you referred to one of the debaters as “attacking” you. I don't know what s/he said because I scroll past that individuals comments and will not read them (the only person I do that to). It is one of the individuals I mentioned in my first paragraph, and that same individual has told me to engage in a specific act of self mutilation on another thread. It is that kind of hatred and personal attack against anyone who disagrees that I refer to.
Now on the other side are those who denigrate classes. And, they are bigoted and deserve, my view, being ignored as well. Example. Sil just wrote something to me laced with words like deviant and filled with false assumptions and stereotypical anti-homosexual musings,e.g. they only speak about their sexuality for sexual recruitment purposes. As you pointed out, people (gay and straight) speak about relationships for many reasons. Because of the stereotypical, almost cartoonish, bias evident in that communication, I am choosing not to honor it with a reply.
That you are edgier than I and choose to call them out is up to you (or perhaps I just have in Sil's case). My objection is to inherent hatred whether expressed by someone I agree with on an issue or someone I disagree with on that issue.
DdW and tidbits –
You are both lovely. Thanks.
That is all.