Unanswered Questions About Repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
In the President’s State of the Union, just like he did as a candidate and on multiple occasions during his first year as President, Obama promised to work towards ending the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. The Obama Administration has said it does not have the power to end DADT through executive order and that the only constitutional way to repeal the policy is through Congress. I don’t think this is even going to be a priority for the administration and Congress, with the obvious focus being on jobs, healthcare, and of course the 2010 election which are now only about nine months away. However, I am bothered by the way politicians and media discuss DADT, just like I am bothered by the shallow way that most issues involving the military are discussed. It is implied that all that needs to happen with DADT is that Congress and the President need to wave a magic wand and gays can serve openly the next day without a hitch. I’m pretty sure that most readers of this blog and anybody who has served in the military knows that this is not the case. There are serious policy, operational, logistical, and of course fiscal issues that the repeal of DADT poses to our military, which is in the middle of a very kinetic fight in Afghanistan and massive drawdown in Iraq.
Lets go over some of the questions that nobody in the Obama administration or Congress has addressed in regards to repealing DADT:
1. Will there be seperate barracks, berthing, and living quarters for homosexuals?
With the Army and Marine Corps having expanded over the past three years and with the Navy changing its policies on living on ship while in port, there is a severe shortage of housing for both single and married military personnel. Not to mention that on naval vessels there is already limited berthing spaces for sailors/Marines. Mandating that homosexuals have their own living quarters (like some colleges and universities do) will require new construction of barracks and a complete rearrangement and reconfiguring of hundreds of naval vessels. On the other hand, allowing homosexuals to live with heterosexuals, will cause a whole different set of headaches for military commanders.
2. Will homosexuals be allowed to serve in combat arms units?
Women are forbidden by Congress to serve in combat arms units (infantry, arty, tanks, etc.). Some of the same issues surrounding women serving in combat units are present in the debate over gays serving openly in these same units.
3. Will people discharged under DADT be allowed to reenlist/recommission in the military if the policy is repealed?
I don’t know how many people who were discharged under DADT would want to reenter the military, but there are even more questions that need to be answered if they are allowed to reenter. Will they retain their same rank/billet regardless how long they have been out? Will they get retroactive promotions?
4. If homosexuals are allowed to serve openly in the military, will the military recognize and award benefits to gay marriages or civil unions?
5. Will each service be allowed to craft its own policies regarding homosexuals?
Each service has its own operational needs and missions. Will the DoD have an across the board policy or like with women will each service be given some degree of freedom to craft its own policies?
And finally…
6. How much money is repealing DADT going to cost?
Everytime the military changes a policy, it costs money. A major policy change like this one is going to cost that Defense Department a lot of money to implement and the amount depends a lot on the answers to the questions that I have posed. Thats money that can be spent on things like body armor, new vehicles, new guns, or any number of things that are important to an effective military.
If anybody has any links to the Obama administration addressing these issues in writing or on video, I would greatly appreciate it if you provided the links in the comment sections.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Media, Military issues, Politics
Good write up Devil Dog,
This is the EXACT argument I bring up with those who are unfamiliar with the military trying to pushing the repeal of DADT.
It’s not really about being for or against DADT. It’s about how we logistically traverse through the ridiculous minefield if you repeal it. I contend, that until there is a way to logically solve these problems, I think it’s better to keep it the way it is. I personally don’t have anything against the gheys. I served with a few (even though they didn’t officially come out. I mean it was pretty obvious) but no one really cared. As long he provide us with hajiis with 2 to the chest and one to the face, no one really gave a shit.
And that’s the main thing that rabid anti-military, rainbow power poofs, dandys, gingers, and liberals don’t understand. For most, it isn’t a social conservative issue. It’s a logistical one.
You bring up some interesting questions.
The logistics on this thing are going to be a stone cold cluster f for years to come. Never mind the attitude adjustment that will be required by everyone from the top down.
The military has been used as an instrument of social change, it played a big part in desegregation. Something that I think we a can be glad about.
When I joined I had never met a gay person, had a very low opinion of them, if not outright hatred. Serving under a Platoon Leader that was gay changed my views entirely. Without a doubt the best LT I ever worked for. He and his husband still come to my house for Thanksgiving every year.
The military makes you what they need. 0300 is interchangeable with another 0300. If you show up to formation on time, hump your share of the gear, I don’t think anyone has a right to tell you who you can fall in love or lust with.
Interesting debate over a heated issue no doubt. Have to take issue with #2. This alleged concern seems to be based on a rather silly stereotype that all gay people are wussy, limp-wristed effeminate girly-men that won’t “measure up” in combat situations. This is utter BS. There are gay men that can and will kick some serious ass. Equating gay men = women is totally disingenuous. The gay men who fit the stereotype would never enlist to begin with nor would straight men who are not of the necessary physical and mental caliber that it takes to pass BCT, AIT, and further training. With regard to #3, if they were good soldiers who were discharged against their will under the DADT policy, then why wouldn’t you want them to come back if they want to come back? Would the military not want the discharged Arabic linguists famously discharged to come back and offer their skills to the military that they were obviously trained and willing to offer before they were discharged? The military spends so much time, money, and effort to confront issues like sexual harassment, would it really require that many resources to add sexual orientation into the non-harassment policy? I met guys in BCT and AIT who were obviously gay. They kept their mouths shut and they trained. Nobody harassed them. Nobody really gave a shit. Soldiers were more concerned about the guys who were shitbags, buddy fuckers, and lousy soldiers than the guys who seemed a little on the effeminate side but were rock-solid battle buddies. I often wonder what the Israeli Defense Forces think about our policy regarding gay members of the military. I’m sure they find it rather silly and amusing. In the military, like in society in general, you are not going to stamp out prejudice based on race, gender, or sexual orientation by mandate. If someone has a problem with someone because of religious conviction or gutter level racism, you’re really not going to change them by force. But denying someone the right to put themselves in harm’s way because they have a… Read more »
Hey SPC,
I agree with you wholeheartedly. But again, it leaves the logistics issue, which is the whole reason why Clinton came up with the DADT policy. Is it wrong? As a person who disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle and believes it promotes a destructive lifestyle that regardless how you try to shape it, is more about immediate sexual gratification rather than anything else, I’ll still say yes, the policy is inherently discriminatory and should be eventually repealed. But equally wrong would be just to open the flood gates with no plan and letting hell run amok.
The problem is our inability to have a real dialogue of what a real solution should look like because the vocal idiots who demand immediate action don’t have any clue of how handling this issue in an non nuanced manner could essentially create a REAL and actual backlash against the gays in the military because any and all failures for this to go smoothly will be blamed solely on them.
Hey, just ’cause I shaved my head and took showers with men for twenty years don’t make me no ‘person of different sexual orintation then the majority’!
I’ve still, yet to figure out how come homosexuals get more considerations then the rest of us perverts out there! Hell, if I want to have sexual relations with my TA-50, I’ll get branded a nutjob and cycled out but we have to make special rules regarding them thar preverts that get off on hairy butts? Somethang’ just aint right with that picture!
I still have a problem with the whole central premise of this conversation. No one has a RIGHT to defend this country. No where is it enumerated in any of our founding documents that everyone has a right to be in the armed forces. When I got stuck on recruiting duty we said No all day to people because they weren’t in compliance with 601-210. If you have a right to serve then we wouldn’t have these regs establishing metrics for qualification to serve.
And the last thing I need to do is worry about the ghey guys feelings when I’ve got a 1,000 others things to worry about to include haji trying to put metal objects in my fraking body.
Operator Dan,
More questions:
1. What about chaplains and their relationships to these soldiers? This is not just a logistical issue to them and it’s far more than a sexual purity issue. Based on the research, (read James Dobson’s Bringing Up Boys, Healing the Masculine Soul by Dalby or just listen to Howard Stern interview a stripper) most folks whom enter that world do so b/c of intensly abusive circumstances.
2. What about the resulting $ costs? It’s no secret that the rate of sexually transmitted disease infection is exponentially higher in those circles.
3. Is there not some inherent approval of that lifestyle from all levels of command once it becomes policy? If I am so morally and spiritually opposed to it, can I opt out of commanding those Soldiers?
4. Let’s say my moral and spiritual convictions are such that I, with a spirit of humility and love for the heart and soul of my soldier, confront him/her and talk about his/her circumstance. Is that grounds for a hate crime?
5. How much more cultural training will we need to give our 18-20 y/o infantry privates from BFE? Two to three hours of indoctrination to recondition them from believing what the Bible and their parents taught, to condoning this lifestyle?
Love the sinner, hate the sin. Regardless of the sin.
6. Do they have the votes? I pray not.
ATW!
SPC Jack, I pretty sure you are making some poor assumptions regarding number 2, so I am going to ignore your stereotype strawman argument. As an former Air Defense officer, I’ve had to serve in both co-ed PATRIOT units and a male only unit (granted it was an AIT training unit). The bottom line is that co-ed units have a large assortment of problems related to fraternization and sexual misconduct while male only units have none of those problems. Since co-ed units already deal with these sort of issues on a day by day basis, it could be said that repealing DADT will have only a marginal effect on them. However, male only combat units have never had to deal with these sort of SGT X has been sleeping with PFC Y sort of issues. Repealing DADT will cause problems where previously there were no problems.
It may not make the most sense, but I would almost say from my personal opinion that I would support lifting DADT for co-ed Combat Support and Service Support units only while leaving DADT in place for combat units. This would allow high speed combat units to continue to operate as the do now, without all of the soap opera drama. As for co-ed CS and CSS units, well they are already all messed up.
Two more questions…
Will soldiers with religious objections to homosexual behavior be gagged? In other words, will religious people have to live in the closet?
And, most importantly–HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL NOT ENLIST/RE-ENLIST because of this policy change? We have a clue. The MilitaryTimes did a poll and found that ten percent of the armed services would defintely not re-enlist, another fourteen percent (in addition to the ten percent) would consider not re-enlisting. (A majority oppose the change in policy)
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/12/122908_military_poll_DADT/
I know that if I had to do it all over again, and I knew how the military works, and this policy of BAGAYWTB (Be as gay as you want to be) were the law of the land–I would not have joined.
Ironically, the Left is cloaking this ridiculous plan in terms of MILITARY READINESS! I mean, we can’t just kick out perfectly good soliders! They love to point out these two sodomoites who were cavorting about at the Defense Language Institute a few years back as the poster boys for their campaign. “How can we kick out Arabic linguists in the middle of a war?” they ask.
I don’t know, but I wonder how many Arabic linguists they would lose if they changed the policy. (10%-24%) Not to mention the number of infantrymen, artillerymen, mechanics, cooks, commo guys, etc.
Ben,
Excellent points. Further, we all know that the Islamic faith is among the most tolerant of homosexuality, so how will the policy reversal be viewed amongst the Saudi Arabias, AFG, IRQ, Yemenis, etc?
Not that I am overly concerned but it is a consideration.
Prediction: if DoD leaves it to the services to decide this will be the decisions:
1. USMC: hell no.
2. USN: no.
3. USAF (non-specops): sure, why not.
4. Army: yes for all but Title 11 dudes…
Ben,
To further your question on closeting the religiously convicted, specifically the Evangelical Christian.
Based on what we know about our existing military demographics – overwhelmingly Judeo-Christian, straight, etc – which type of person (reflecting what kind of character, behavior, tendencies, and value systems) does DoD want to continue to draw to its serve?
When you join the service, you abrogate a great deal of your civil liberties. I know, I was reprimanded at the BDE level by a now 3-star for a newspaper editorial I wrote in reply to Clinton’s admission of adultery.
YOU join the military and IT tells you how you will be (LDRSHIP). Contrary to GEN Casey’s ridiculous statements to the contrary it is our commitment to our similarities, not our diversity, that makes this the greatest fraternity on earth.
Do we want this much diversity?
Forget about gays openly serving for a minute. Who is going to draft the uniform and housing regulations for the transgenders? Don’t ever forget that this isn’t just about gays. It’s about the LGBT community, and that stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender. Every single shemale that wants to join up is going to demand they get female uniforms and female housing assignments. Are the straight females going to be cool with that? Are the men going to be able to deal with that? The Military has been used as a fucking social-engineering petri dish for far too long, and this needs to stop NOW. I served with two gay men. never bothered me. Both were consummate professionals, and I could trust my life to them, and they to me. I even had one as a roommate one deploymen. Not a problem. Of course, neither one a militant about his sexuality, nor looking for attention, etc. Both just wanted to do their jobs, and retire. I considered both to be excellent shipmates, and excellent crewmen on my flight crews. The problem now is that the folks that want this change are the militant types, the one’s with a poor opinion of themselves, who crave attention and demand reinforcement of their personal views of themselves. I also harbor no illusions that many are hoping for some sort of “confrontation” about this issue in order to get more facetime, and hopefully gain a big payday from Uncle Sam because they were “discriminated against”. The bottom line is that we are talking about spending billions of dollars to adapt a military to support folks with a different lifestyle choice. Let’s be clear about that: No one is born gay. It has always been, and continues to be, a lifestyle choice, right up there with being Goth, Country, Gansta or hippie. There are NO scientific studies that show that being gay is a physical thing, that5 folks are born gay. There have been plenty of attempts to prove that, but none have proven it to date. So what’s next after gays and transgenders… Read more »
Hey guys, great discussion, and I appreciate the points and counterpoints that have been made by everyone other than Cdat.
Bohica, I went back and reread the point made in #2, and I see your point.
On the topic of religious objection: I was in basic training with a guys who was a racist jerk. He dropped the N-word and had white power music on his iPod. Is my objection to his “lifestyle” as valid as a Christian’s objection to a gay person’s lifestyle?
I’m frankly not a fan of any fundamentalist religious belief system, Christianity included. Reading anon quote James Dobson and makes statements like “I’m sure…” and use the classic dodge of “Love the sinner…” frankly makes me cringe. Would I be allowed to opt out of being under his command because I find his views repugnant?
I don’t like the fact that on every book rack in every facility you can help yourself to a stack of New Testaments. I was in AIT with a lot of guys who were Mormon and I frankly found the lot of them to be sanctimonious, self-righteous, holy than thou, a-holes. I’ve also met a lot of gay people who are in long-term, monogamous relationships, and live very regular average lives.
Are my opinions prejudiced, misguided, or narrow-minded? If you say so. Did I live “in the closet” with regard to those beliefs. Yep. My opinions about other people’s religious beliefs are mine and mine only. I really don’t care, when it comes to the mission, what the person next to me believes or who they sleep with. My concern is competence on the job.
Tim, excellent points.
Mentally challenged? We already have a place for them *cough* Marines *cough*….
FWIW, friend of mine with some decent ties to DC thinks the Senate will not vote for this.
“They love to point out these two sodomoites who were cavorting about at the Defense Language Institute a few years back as the poster boys for their campaign.”
LOL. Maybe you should raise your hand in the air, babble in “tongues” and yell “I cast thee out!” to “save” these sodomites from their eternity of hellfire or whatever it is Evangelical Christians seem to think everyone but themselves are condemned to!
When I try to think about this issue, I try to think about it from the other side. What is homosexuality were the norm, and heterosexuality was the fringe view? What if I had people questioning me about my preferences? What if I had people suggesting that I was ‘only in it for the sexual gratification’ because of my sexual and emotional attachment to men? What if everyone told me that I should just shut up and find a nice girl just like me to partner with? What is people tried to tell me that loving a man was unnatural and wrong? Or said that because of the chance of pregnancy, it would hurt readiness if I didn’t just go with girls instead? Yes, it will cause logistical issues, just like it caused logistical issues when they desegregated, and when they let women in. But these logistical issues are solveable, and have often already been implemented. I think the integration of women was probably the biggest logistical hurdle. The military more than any other body loves to practice segregation. There is junior enlisted male quarters, junior enlisted female quarters, NCO quarters for both male and female, officer quarters for male and female. When black people first came in the service and we had WACs, it went: black enlisted quarters, white enlisted quarters, black officer quarters..it has in fact been more segregated in the past than now. I have to say though that I had a roommate who was gay and it never affected me. I didn’t cover up any more. I didn’t assume she was going to assault me. I would much rather shower with a gay woman than with a straight man-and would feel a lot safer doing so. I’ve never been harassed or assaulted by a lesbian. I don’t think I’m so super sexy that anyone is going to desperately lust for me and dream of the chance of converting me to gay. Seems like a lot of work. As for the question of the religious thing, the Army had Mormons in it during desegregation who thought black… Read more »
Hell, just make the military like “Starship Troopers.” No seperate berthing, heads or showers for anyone and women in combat arms. Also, sex between superiors and juniors is okay. What a great progressive military that would be. End of sarcasm.
Cdat: Marines are not mentally challenged, we’re just “Special” according to my wife.
“As for the question of the religious thing, the Army had Mormons in it during desegregation who thought black people were decreed by god to be the inferior race. They had to suck it up, as did the ones who thought women were created to be subservient to man. Why can’t the anti-gay ones cool it too?”
Race and sexual orientation are clearly not analogous. Ask the blacks around if you still believe that is. One is a decision, the other not.
Good debate going on here.
Oh yeah-and what if people told me ‘no one is born straight, it is just your choice’? Told me I was ‘choosing’ to lead a ‘deviant lifestyle’, and therefore I had to hide my partner because he happened to be a man instead of a woman? How much would I hurt? What if I got shot, and was begging for my partner, but no one would let him visit me because he is a man? Because somehow being only with the same sex is ‘purer’?
I would rather serve with tolerant people who reflect the diversity of our nation than intolerant ones who couldn’t extend the hand of compassion to other Americans in a tough situation.
I will never understand why some posts get moderated and some don’t.
Army Sergeant, I don’t know what you’re talking about. There is one person who is moderated (*cough*Peskoff*cough*) at TAH – nothing else about this forum is moderated. You have to understand that commenting is the same technology as emailing and sometimes it takes time for comments to be posted. Sometimes you might hit on a moderated term by accident and end up in the moderation queue. For some reason, Yankeemom and 509thBob always end up in moderation, and I can’t fix it. But they don’t complain or think they’re in dutch with me.
“My opinions about other people’s religious beliefs are mine and mine only. I really don’t care, when it comes to the mission, what the person next to me believes or who they sleep with. My concern is competence on the job.”
Wrong. If you’re a leader in the military it’s absolutely your business to know what your folks believe.
Hello, Line 2, it’s MAJ Hasan, he wants to connect with some Jihadi leadership to assist him in some “doctoral research.”
I have a couple of drinking buddies who are black. They got batshit whenever some gay starts talking about “civil rights”.
It’s almost a given that the entire “eliminate DADT” will end badly for everyone.
“I would rather serve with tolerant people who reflect the diversity of our nation than intolerant ones who couldn’t extend the hand of compassion to other Americans in a tough situation.”
What does this mean?
An excellent discussion.
“I would rather serve with tolerant people who reflect the diversity of our nation than intolerant ones who couldn’t extend the hand of compassion to other Americans in a tough situation.”
Sorry but intolerance is what the military is all about. Politicians point and we blow the crap out of the other guy which is sort of intolerant. Not allot of room for compassion there either. The Army isn’t a club its a mechanism.
No worries, Jack. There are many good arguments against repealing DADT, but the argument that gays are physically or mentally incapable of being in the military is NOT one of them. I find it interesting that you will find the best debates regarding DADT on milblogs like this one or on right leaning sites like HotAir. Any time that I’ve looked through a DADT discussion threads on HuffPo, for example, all I see is one person saying ‘Fundie rednecks hate what they don’t understand and are probably latently homosexuals anyway’ and 100 other posts agreeing with that one.
#24 Point well taken, but I think that’s a big leap. In the specific instance you give that’s a matter of someone expressing views akin to those of the enemy. If someone you are serving with or is in your command is clearly expressing a belief in and support for the ideology of the enemy, then clearly there is a problem.
If we were at war with Canada and my roommate was constantly talking about the superiority of the Toronto Blue Jays, secretly dressed in a Mountie uniform while singing O, Canada!, and never stopped watching Strange Brew on his DVD player, then I’d have a problem with him for so many reasons, not least of which being that I’m still pissed off at Joe Carter for the ’93 Series.
AS, as a society we do make choices about what is a deviant lifestyle. Look at how we judge incest even between consenting adults or sex with animals. I’m not really trying to compare homosexuals with the previous, just making a point. The military has issues with women and men serving together as it is and having openly homosexual troops would probably open up even more issues such as those being discussed. This doesn’t mean that I believe homosexuals should be treated by society as they were when I was growing up, but that the military is not an affirmative action program.
SPC Jack Klompous:
I’m a Christian and believe homosexuality to be a sin, but I’ve also committed acts that are considered sins. I believe God loves someone that is a homosexual, just as much as he loves me.
I’ve seen the problems with religious intolerance on the point of chaplains already. I had a soldier once with a really nontraditional faith. There were no chaplains with his faith in the Army, and I needed to get a religious accomodation for him. I called up the local chaplain to ask how. The chaplain, no shit, told me I shouldn’t try to help the soldier as he would be “burning in hell anyway”.
I don’t believe sexual orientation is a choice. I could never fall in love with a woman no matter how hard I try-and you guys who believe it is, does that mean that you personally could ‘choose’ to fall in love with and long and lust for men?
Gay rights is civil rights, whether black people that some know get pissed off by the term or not.
#28 I laugh at echo chambers like HuffPo and KOS that laud themselves as bastions of enlightened thought. Their regulars are so completely lacking in self-awareness that they fail to see the irony of their own one-dimensional, lockstep thinking, and gutter-level, juvenile intolerance for opposing viewpoints.
I think what makes people on the left so transparently miserable and frustrated with institutions like the military is knowing that it is by its nature a diverse meritocracy. Competence and team work to attain a goal and complete a task period. Black? White? Christian? Jew? Southern? Urban? WHO CARES?! Accomplish the mission.
And it’s my opinion that your sexual orientation is up there as well. I’m not equating it with your race. In my opinion it’s not a choice, however. Do straight people choose to be straight? And what about religion? You actually do choose that part of your life.
I think that there are probably a lot of gay people in the military who are quietly serving with the understanding that that is part of their lives that they cannot openly discuss if they wish to remain part of the military. The problem is, I agree with AW, the vocal activist who wants to use the military as an excuse to remain and justify being an “activist” regardless of giving the issue any well-thought out consideration to logistics and consequences, which, ironically, the military seems to do in intelligent and thoughtful debates such as this one.
Someone didn’t like my earlier post. ‘Someone’ don’t have any sense of humor. Queers have always been in the Army and they’ll always be there. No big friggin’ deal. Until some puke assed civilian decides to make it their agenda to push it onto others. That is what is wrong.
I knew a medic that won a Silver Star and he was about as gay as it gets. No one ever thought of messing with him. A couple of reasons for that. He was damn good at his job and he kept his private life private. Also, he could kick your ass if he wanted too. He was one big kid.
Anyhow, I couldn’t do some sexual stuff in the military because it was against the rules when I served. I couldn’t have oral or anal sex with a WOMAN because it was against the rules! Laugh if you want to. Look it up. I never went on a rant about the injustice of it all. I just didn’t tell anyone IF I had ever did it. Not that I did….ever…Scouts honor!
Yat Yas: Fair enough. I’m agnostic at most and respect your belief system even if I disagree with it.
AS: I would imagine that that chaplain would have to be a rare instance. If I knew a chaplain were to say such a thing about a soldier’s beliefs I’d report him to his chain of command. When I was in BCT they accommodated everyone including the Wiccans and when I was in AIT they actually accepted this one shit-bag’s claim of following some type of pagan belief system which he was clearly using to milk free time. I think accommodation is way, way, way, more the rule than the exception.
Army Sergeant, sorry to read about your soldier being abandoned by the chaplain. If true, what he said and did is clearly not Christian (if the chaplain in question was Christian).
To echo Debra Clark, this is a great discussion but the personal and, ultimately, inconclusive nature of this discussion is another reason I am against the repeal.
This controversy will be replayed tirelessly, daily in every orderly room, commander’s office and IG office for generations to come, if DADT is repealed.
How many training hours will it suck up?
DADT, while imperfect, might just be the best solution.
Listineing to Dennis Prager’s show a while back he recalled a story wherein he told a gay family member that he did indeed love and accept him/her individually but rejected his/her choice b/c of x, y, and z.
I would echo that here: if I was required to lead gay soldiers, I would say something similar. I love you and will train you to be the Soldier this Army needs. However, I do not love nor condone this choice of yours.
anon: And would you find out about all of the other “choices” that your soldiers make and if you object to them would you chide them in a similar manner, or is it just the sexuality thing that you are fixated on?
Chide? Did I use that word?
I said I would tell him I loved him, as in the general love (dignity and respect, love neighbor as self) to fellow man concept.
Nope, not sexual only. I approached a peer of mine in Korea about his drinking – tough thing to do but I did it.
If I discovered that a Soldier was making a decision or serious of decisions that stood to hurt him, his family, his performance, his ability to be a good Soldier at risk, I would engage him. Absolutely. Chide? Probably not.
SPC Jack Klompous:
Without a doubt every group has its extremists even Christians. Frankly, I believe that we were given a free will and respect others beliefs or non-beliefs in the majority of cases. If we can get those Muslims that don’t respect free will to be more open to the beliefs or non-beliefs of others, we’ll win the war.
Poor choice of words from me, anon. Apologies from here.
I think your point about the open-ended nature of the discussion and debate is true in that I find myself volleying back with a belief that I don’t think that being gay would in and of itself affect his or her performance as a soldier. So square one on the topic returns perhaps?
I think that there is a rather self-imposed, general “DADT” among soldiers when it comes to a lot of things about their lives and I think it’s a good “policy” to keep in mind as you have to work with a lot of different people whom you may find distasteful for many reasons.
I enlisted in my late 30s and at reception battalion I had an 18 year old gung-ho Army brat battle buddy who I absolutely loathed. I cannot adequately express how much I despised this sniveling little know-it-all jerk. I tuned him out and dealt with him and reminded myself that he was really just basically a sheltered kid. If I ran into him again down range I would have to put aside my feelings a serve with him no questions asked.
Army Sergeant, when I post from a certain computer, I always wind up in the moderation queue, too, but never from any other computer. Hmmm, strange.
Klompus (great handle),
I agree, being gay would not limit a Soldiers ability to perform at all.
There’s no doubt that we COULD repeal DADT and implement policies that attempt to protect gays, etc.
The larger question is SHOULD we.
At the strategic level, what is the cost/benefit analysis?
To me, it’s too costly.
YY: I think the issue in Afghanistan is beyond simply changing the beliefs of Muslims. At the fundamental core, that’s not going to happen. Afghanistan has always been a pious Islamic nation. I agree that the brand of Islam that the Taliban promote is a sick, barbarous ideology that should be defeated.
Afghanistan has a pretty rich history of respecting a variety of Islamic beliefs including both Sunni, Shi’a, and Sufi, and small communities of Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians have always played a role in their communities there.
The years of civil war where Pashtuns, Hazaras, Tajiks, Uzbeks, and every other tribal and ethnic group played off one another, double crossed one another, shifted loyalties, and in some cases flat out slaughtered one and another caused such a huge rift between people. Even if the forces of the Taliban were to be decisively defeated on the battlefield there are still huge chasms between people that will make national unity a challenging task at best for years to come.
Anon,
And that gets to the crux of the matter. The “Leadership” in Congress, POTUS, the JCS, etc has to come to a conclusion on the issue. The main question, the one that over-rides everything, is this: Is it in the best interests of the United States to allow homosexuals to openly serve in the Military?
If the answer is YES, then arrangements will have to be made in order to accomplish that goal.
If the answer is NO, then the question is settled, and DADT ought to remain in force.
I also would have no doubt that SCOTUS would support the exclusion of homosexuals serving openly if the case was presented to them. I base that upon history, and the fact that military service is NOT a right, but MAY be an OBLIGATION in time of national emergency. We already exclude many types of folks from the military based on their past history, mental state, physical conditions, etc.
respects,
anon: I agree with your sober, logical concerns from a strategic POV 100%. Too many activists want to cram their cause with all deliberate speed down the throats of individuals and institutions with little regard for the consequences that other people will have to suffer as a result thereof. When I hear gay activists demand immediate repeal of DADT and the legalization of gay marriage, all I think is how counterproductive their actions are to their cause, a cause for which I actually have some degree of sympathy. It may not be what people want to hear but often times slow and steady wins the race.
Debra: I went to your blog and like what you have to say. I think you and I are on the same page with a lot of issues!
Klompus, thanks brother, good debate.
ATW!
OUT.
Jonn:
Oh, I didn’t think it was a conspiracy. I just figured I was accidentally using some term or whatever, so wanted to know what term was killing some comments so I could stop using it.
I have always looked at it this way. If there isn’t a problem then there isn’t a problem. If a soldier is gay and it doesn’t effect their performance I don’t give a shit. If a soldier isn’t gay and it effects their performance I’ve got a problem. If the order comes down that gays are allowed to serve openly we will follow that order. It is not our job to decide if it is morally right or not. I don’t think it is going to happen, because the president and congress are a bunch of pussies. Hell if big O wanted to he could have issued an executive order just like Truman did.
The way I see it is this.
1. If someone wants to serve their country, they should be able to as the person they are.
2. If people have a problem with homosexuality because it’s a “sin,” then they should just as big of a problem with adulterers, those who “take the Lord’s name in vain,” and the myriad of other sinners that exist in the military.
3. I’m sure people had similar arguments against women and blacks serving in the military when the aforementioned were “integrated.”
4. From an economical perspective, allowing homosexuals to freely serve increases the pool of potential enlistees, which will automatically drive up standards to join.
Anyone who is worried about the cost of repealing DADT, should take a long look at #4. Having a higher quality and more productive military will more than likely negate the cost of the policy change.
Jesse:
1. No, they must conform who they are to the standards of DoD.
2. You assume that they don’t.
3. Not analogous. Skin color is not a choice.
4. Really? Prove it with some research.
Just curious anon, when did you choose to be straight?