Gates reports on Pentagon’s DADT study
So we were all treated to Secretary Robert Gates’ report on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell this afternoon. No surprises, I suppose, since we expected the civilian leaders to toe the Obama Administration’s line. The entire study can be summed up in this quote from Gates (Stars & Stripes link);
“While a repeal of DADT will likely, in the short term, bring about some limited and isolated disruption to unit cohesion and retention, we do not believe this disruption will be widespread or long-lasting,” the report states. “We are convinced that the U.S. military can adjust and accommodate this change, just as it has others in history.”
Um, I hate to be the guy who points to the elephant in the room, but, in the short term, we’re still engaged in a war. If the repeal will cause a disruption, why are we doing while we’re fighting a war? Doesn’t a disruption mean that people will be preoccupied with a stupid administrative adjustment while they should be focused on fighting an enemy?
And this has been my concern from the beginning. After we wrap up this war, it’s certain to be followed by a time of relative peace during which we can decide who gets to put what in who – without distracting the force from it’s deadly business.
The ONLY reason this is an issue now is because there’s a Democrat President and a Democrat Senate and the gays sense an opportunity to press towards their political goals. It’s disgusting and it’s not in the interests of our national security. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell doesn’t make us less safe, but the repeal may. I’d rather wait until these wars are through.
Category: Military issues
I took part in the survey and I am not surprised at the results. The survey didn’t really ask the tough questions.
The most glaring defect in the survey was this: What is the definition of openly gay?
I think this is a fatal flaw in the survey and essential nullifies the presumed results.
To be fair, the survey did frankly ask if you would be uncomfortable rooming with or showering with an openly gay person, or whether you thought that gay relationships would have a negative/positive impact upon families living in military housing or attending family events.
They also sent the same survey to my wife regarding family and military life issues.
But it didn’t ask whether the end of DADT would result in gay preferences for promotions, or whether the establishment of Gay Pride Month in the military is a next step, whether there will be MWR gay nights, or rights of gays to refuse certain duty based on sexual orientation.
I’m afraid the really tough questions haven’t been addressed yet.
I don’t see a problem with repeal. The SECDEF supports it, Admiral Mullen supports it, the top military leadership supports it, and the majority of the respondents to the DOD study support it. Britain and Australia already allow their soldiers to serve openly and our soldiers work with them in a deployed capacity regularly. Israel allows soldiers to serve openly. I spent eight years in the Army. I lived in the same tent with British and Australian soldiers in Kuwait. I had no problem with it. I don’t really think the repeal of DADT is going to cause any problems at all.
An interesting section on page 122 that I think gets at much of the concern and stereotypes. ———– In listening to Service members we found a perceptions gap- between the perception of the gay Service member that people know and work with, and the perception of the stereotypical gay individual that people do not know and have never worked with. When Service members talk about a unit member they believe to be gay or lesbian, their assessment of that individual was based on a complete picture and actual experience, including the Service member’s technical and tactical capabilities and other characteristics that contribute to his or her overall effectiveness as a member of the military and as a colleague. By contrast, when asked about serving with the imagined gay Service member who is “open” about his or her sexual orientation, that feature becomes the predominant if not sole characteristic of the individual, and stereotypes fill in the rest of the picture. Stereotypes motivated many of the comments we heard. The most prevalent concern expressed is that gay men will behave in a stereotypically effeminate manner, while lesbian women are stereotypically painted in “masculine” terms. We heard widespread perceptions that, if permitted to be open and honest about their sexual orientation, gay Service members would behave as sexual predators and make unwelcome sexual advances on heterosexuals, gay men would adopt feminine behavior and dress, there would be open and notorious displays of affection in the military environment between same-sex couples, and that repeal would lead to an overall erosion of unit cohesion, morale, and good order and discipline. Based on our review, however, we conclude that these concerns are exaggerated and not consistent with the reported experiences of many Service members. The perceptions gap we note here is also reflected in the survey data. The data reveals that Service members who are currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian are less likely to perceive a negative impact of repeal on the key elements of unit task and social cohesion, and unit effectiveness. Conversely, those who have believe they… Read more »
126-27 “now is not the time”: —————- Change During a Time of War Our assessment also took account of the fact that the Nation is at war on several fronts, and for a period of over nine years, the U.S. military has been fully engaged, and has faced the stress and demands of frequent and lengthy deployments. When it comes to a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, many ask: why now? The question “why now?” is not for us, but for the President, the Secretary of Defense, and Congress, informed by the military advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The question we answer here is “can we now?” We considered the question carefully and conclude that repeal can be implemented now, provided it is done in a manner that minimizes the burden on leaders in deployed areas. Our recommended implementation plan does just that, and it is discussed more fully in the accompanying support plan for implementation. The primary concern is for the added requirement that will be created by the training and education associated with repeal. We are cognizant of these concerns, but note that during this period, the Services have undertaken education and training in deployed areas on a number of important personnel matters. These education and training initiatives have included increased emphasis on sexual assault prevention and response, suicide prevention, and training to detect indications of behavioral health problems. The conduct of these programs in deployed areas indicates that training and education associated with a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell can be accommodated. We assess this to be the case, in large part because our recommendations in this report involve a minimalist approach to changes in policies, plus education and training that reiterates existing policies in a sexual orientation-neutral manner. It is also the case that the results of the survey indicate, though this is a time of war, a solid majority of Service members believe that repeal will have positive, mixed, or no effect. Most of those surveyed joined our military after September 11, 2001, and have known nothing but a military at… Read more »
AP is right, the trouble is in the definitions.
If openly gay simply means you get to admit to being gay and still serve, that is one thing. But if you get to wear a pink bra and matching thong around the barracks, that is a horse of a different color. (And no, I wasn’t talking about TSO.)
Nor did the survey go below the surface of the issue. I can reconcile myself with having a gay soldier in my platoon. It’s not my preference, but that’s the Army for you. But I don’t just deal with soldiers, I also deal with their families and girlfriends. I can handle the circumspect gay soldier, but how do I handle the flamboyant boyfriend?
At least until we are winding down combat operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, this is one change that needs to be postponed.
Imagine the coed shower scene in Starship Troopers (fun, eh?)… only it ain’t coed. That’s a bunch of guys who’re going to keep a firm hold of their soap or just not pick it up if they don’t.
In Post #3, J perfectly underscores my point about the importance of the definition of “openly gay.”
The survey asked about perceptions of gay persons who currently serve under DADT restrictions. In that context, the respondents provided positive perceptions. It’s imperative to note that these are observations of gay service members who currently operate under DADT restrictions.
That’s a very important characteristic: Current personnel who operate under DADT restrictions and don’t make their sexual orientation an open matter.
Naturally, when asked about the stereotypical gay person, the perception changes. That’s because respondents are being asked to evaluate notional people and judge how they will act outside of the current DADT restrictions.
What remains unanswered is what will the new restictions on gay behavior be without DADT? (Which leads to the question of “What is openly gay?’)
(Which leads to the question of “What is openly gay?’)
I think I can answer this question. Openly gay will mean having a protective class within the Military….I could go on and on. Just think what will happen if you make an openly gay mad. Pay back will be hell and it could effectively end your career.
I imagine openly gay means the same thing as openly straight, minus marriage recognition. All the other regs are still in effect.
It seems your concern isn’t action that DADT currently bars, but actions that are barred now and will be barred after repeal.
>I imagine openly gay means the same thing as openly straight, minus marriage recognition
Until the first lawsuit.. and let’s not kid ourselves; there will be lawsuits. “Openly straight” is not a protected class which homosexuals will be. First time an idiot like Dan Choi(who was a Lt. for six years BEFORE he outted himself) doesn’t get promoted- it will be because the Command is homophobic–and then more lawsuits. It isn’t about acceptance, tolerance or even equality- it is about forcing tradtional institutions to legitamize a sexuality.
The Commandant of the Marines is against it as are 48% of Army Combat Troops(read: Combat Arms) 32% of Marines say it will have an effect on whether they stay in or not. So to say it will not be a disruption is entirely false(those are statistics from the report). Barracks,Post Housing,Spousal Benefits and health Care still have to be addressed.
While I agree that this is something that really doesn’t need to be undertaken during a time of war, I don’t think it’s actually going to have much affect on the day to day operations/cohesion of any unit. Maybe its being naive on my part, but do you really think that any gay person who entered the military under DADT is just arbitrarily going to stand up in the DFAC and annouce that he’s gay. I wouldn’t doubt that by now, most of the units that have been through combat know who those that are gay are, and don’t care. In the heat of battle, I would imagine the sexual preference of the guy covering your back isn’t high on the list of concerns. I see this only turning into a circus on the homefront, and mostly by fucktards like Dan Choi who are more interested in snagging headlines than doing anything for gay vets.
What did the report demonstrate? That the authors used every opportunity to find a way to support their conclusions with the statistics.
In each instance of their conclusions/preamble, they lumped undecided or “mixed” results with the pro-LBGT agenda.
Nor did they address the question of why they had so few participants. The Army can get every member to sign an NCOER/OER/Counseling Statement, but only 1/4 of the 1/4 they asked for a survey to do so? Why? Because it required them to sign in with an ID card. Many Troops did not want to be on record as “homophobic.”
Not only was the survey designed to get the response they wanted, but then they “analyzed” the results to support their positions.
Admiral Mullins supports the survey because he supported it before it was conducted. He also supports a 4 year retreat starting hell or highwater in July “based on conditions on the ground and the (future) recommendations of Commanders,” even though neither has occurred.
This report is a farce as was the survey.
I think this issue is does openly gay mean Will Truman gay or Jack McFarland gay. Will it be servicemembers who are gay or will it be gay servicemembers. To which group will their loyalty be? The military or their sexual orientation. IF it’s to the latter, then it will be a problem.
Nor did the survey go below the surface of the issue.
==========
Another below the surface issue is quotas and what melle1228 mentioned about promotions. Now that men and women will no longer be seen as just men and women but rather homosexual/heterosexual men and women, this changes things.
How many times were female military members wondering if they did not get a promotion or were treated differently, because they were a woman and not a man? I can foresee the same thing happening twice as much now that a homosexual man or woman will think they got treated differently, because they were openly homosexual and not heterosexual, even if this were not actually the case. And, of course, the accused will have to prove their innocence instead of the ‘victim’ of the perceived slight.
And I’m not sure if there are quotas in the military for male/female, White/Minority, but if there are, then this adds 2 more quota groups: homosexual male and homosexual female.
Also, this is already starting out badly as they are making homosexuals a protected class within the military, as they are going to force people to go through GLBT training on how to treat homosexuals serving openly. Think homosexuals will be told that they shouldn’t think of themselves as a protected minority? Not a chance.
To which group will their loyalty be? The military or their sexual orientation. IF it’s to the latter, then it will be a problem.
==========
I think we already have the answer to that question. If it were to the military, then there would be no movement to repeal DADT in the first place.
Does repeal of DADT help the military become stronger? No. But it does help the GLBT agenda. Thus, the movement itself to repeal DADT shows that the loyalty is with sexual orientation over the military.
Lets not kid ourselves, this isn’t about combat effectiveness or diversity or equality or any of that high minded stuff. Its simply payback for political support. If it effects a traditionally conservative organization, so what. You don’t like it, so what.
After reading this thread, I now know one person who took the survey and I work on post. But that doesn’t really matter either does it?
LGBT are 6 different types of people which would get different reactions.
Would a Lesbian or Bi-Sexual woman be a problem for an Infantryman? Nope. At worst he’d be upset he didn’t have a chance. At best, he’d be happy to share a group shower and “possibly more” with her.
Would that same infantryman be as ambivalent about a gay or bisexual man? Not likely.
And that’s not even considering the transexuals.
There is a greater percentage of Lesbians than Gays in the military. They are not in line units.
Lumping the questions with “Gay or Lesbian” means that those that have served with “one” skews the “experience” towards a male that felt no threat from a woman that had no desire for him, which is very different than having a man stare at “his junk” in the shower.
I have said this before. If you give credence to a sex preference, then you change the standard of the tradition that the military has long held as having standards that excede those of societal norms. Break that and it does mean you will be treating these soldiers differently. Currently, that is held in check by DADT.
Repealing it means that someone, somewhere will inevitably cry unfair treatment and expect something different…from separate showers, to barracks to being allowed to wear stupid shit that has no military bearing whatsoever. This is what I do not want.
I used to be of the mindset that this would disrupt cohesivenes, combat readiness, foxhole junk. But what would really cause the “us and them” mentality to disrupt completion of the mission or any other task is that everyone will not be treated the same.
And *that* to me is the bottom line. If sex preference gets in the way of the mission, see ya. No ifs, ands or other about it. Gay or straight.
To address some concerns:
First, to those who say “What about their flamboyant boyfriend?”, I would ask: have you been in the service? Do you not recall the hell that is /everyone’s/ significant others? The wives and husbands who are obnoxious and a frustrating problem and command wants to throw up their hands at them? If someone’s gay boyfriend comes to a unit picnic wearing the stereotypical low-cut cocktail dress and makeup, is that really any worse than a straight male’s for-pay girlfriend who comes wearing a see-through shirt and an ultra-miniskirt? Both are inappropriate for the setting. If you’re talking about “flamboyant” meaning “They kiss in front of people” though, I’d point out all those inappropriate hetero displays that we get treated to in the military.
Also, as a comment re: integrating during war. As J pointed out, it’s been done before, and will be done again.
I would like everyone to do one simple visual exercise.
Every time someone says the word “gay” in this thread, replace it with “black” or “women”.
Adirondack Patriot’s comment thus becomes: But it didn’t ask whether the end of segregation would result in black preferences for promotions, or whether the establishment of Black Heritage Month in the military is a next step
Kenny’s statement becomes: “Just think what will happen if you make a woman mad. Pay back will be hell and it could effectively end your career.”
Melle1228 would be: First time an idiot like Dan Choi doesn’t get promoted- it will be because the Command is racist–and then more lawsuits.
Stacey0311 would be: To which group will their loyalty be? The military or their race. IF it’s to the latter, then it will be a problem
Do these statements still sound so okay?
And *that* to me is the bottom line. If sex preference gets in the way of the mission, see ya. No ifs, ands or other about it. Gay or straight. ========== Well, one good thing to probably ask is ‘has integrating females into the military gotten in the way of the mission?’ I’d say that it has, since the only way that females were integrated into the military in the first place was by lowering standards for females. Because of this, are females and males equally treated when it comes time for MOS’s? Are females and males equally treated when it comes to everything in the military? The answer is no. So the military already took the step to be used as a social experiment when it allowed females in its ranks. The next social experiment was DADT. The next step, I believe, was wanting to put females in combat. And now the next social experiment is the movement to repeal DADT. I’ve read a lot of places where people state “The military is not a social experiment”. I wish that were true. But it has been a social experiment ever since they allowed females to serve while lowering standards for them. Had the military refused to lower standards for women, then there’s not really a social experiment, since the goal of the military is to have the best military people to achieve the mission. I’m against the repeal of DADT partially because the repeal has nothing to do with the betterment of the military and partially because I know it has everything to do with the overall GLBT agenda (ie, the creation of ‘same-sex marriage’, etc). However, ignoring how this will be a huge victory and stepping stone for the GLBT agenda, as far as the military is concerned, this seems to be akin to integrating females into the military. That caused unnecessary problems which did not serve for the betterment of the military (lowering standards for women, having to deal with separate living quarters/bathrooms/showers for women, dealing with female health issues while deployed, pregnancies, fraternization, harassment, etc). But,… Read more »
Interestingly enough, I received a reply to a comment I left RE: females in the military over at AoSHQ last night: ========== I’ve read a lot of people state that “the military is not a social experiment”. While I wish that were so, I have to disagree. I think it became a social experiment when they allowed women to serve without requiring them to meet the same standards as men. Had they allowed women to serve only if they could meet the same standards men had to meet, then it would not be a social experiment. But when they lowered standards specifically to make it easier for women to join, that’s when the military became a social experiment. And were women allowed to join for the betterment of the military? No. They were allowed to join, because of the feminist movement saying women could do anything men could do and should be allowed in any men’s organization. In other words, it was done to appease a social activist group. DADT under Clinton was another case of treating the military as a social experiment. Was it enacted for the betterment of the military? No, it was done to appease a social activist group. The same thing is happening now with the effort to allow homosexuals to serve openly. Is it being done for the betterment of the military? No. It is being done to appease the GLBT activist agenda. That said, the fact that the military has, through decades of social experimentation, remained such a successful institution shows how strong it is as its core. Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 01, 2010 02:00 AM Do you know the resentment felt by males about the double standard females receive? They have separate standards for PT. They have separate standards for weight and appearance. They get preferential treatment when they get pregnant – shortened work hours, can’t deploy, light duty for many, many months. There is even a bias towards females when it comes to child care and child issues, though this area isn’t as explicit as the others. The biggest problem… Read more »
So, if this is repealed does that mean there are going to be four sets of barracks and four sets of latrines?…..or are we going totally coed? It may seem like a petty question, but it is the same as men and women showering together.
Templar,
How would you do that? If you put all gays in one shower it’s still a different standard than for straight soldiers.
How would you do that? If you put all gays in one shower it’s still a different standard than for straight soldiers.
==========
Exactly. Which is why the only ‘fair’ solution is going completely ‘sexual orientation’ neutral now. Everyone bunks, shits and showers with everyone else. Period. No segregation based on anything.
If this is all about ‘fairness’, then that’s how it should be. If women don’t like it, tough shit. Isn’t that what people are being told if they don’t like homosexuals serving openly… ‘Tough shit, deal with it’?
Well, then, it’s time the military goes gender-neutral. Don’t like it, well I guess that means you’re a ‘bigot’.
Army Sgt..
You said: Do these statements still sound so okay?
Yes they in fact do. ANY group in the military who gets treated special or different is detrimental to the team. I am not sure what Army you are in, but in the US Army- a cry of racism or sexism can ruin a career and has. A lot of us see homosexuals(who are only different by who they screw) as another group that will get preferential treatment, and can cry foul when they don’t get it.
@ Army Sgt.
You said:If someone’s gay boyfriend comes to a unit picnic wearing the stereotypical low-cut cocktail dress and makeup, is that really any worse than a straight male’s for-pay girlfriend who comes wearing a see-through shirt and an ultra-miniskirt? Both are inappropriate for the setting.
The only difference between the scenarios is that people in the command would have no problem telling the soldier and his “see thru” mini-skirt girlfriend to change if it was at a family function. If someone’s flaming boyfriend-no one is going to say anything, because it is “who he is.” Plus there is that whole homophobic charge.
How does the Israeli military handle it? They have had openly gay soldiers for many years. Do they have different sets of barracks or different showers? The US isn’t breaking new ground here or doing something that has never been done. Almost all of our allies, 28 different nations, allow gays to serve openly. How do they manage these things?
>How does the Israeli military handle it?
Partly because they do not have a litigious gay lobby to deal with..
>Partly because they do not have a litigious gay lobby to deal with..
That definitely makes a difference on some issues (like being passed over for promotion and wanting to sue). But that doesn’t answer the questions of showers, barracks, medical care, etc. Not to mention that thee is a litigious gay lobby in several other allied countries that allow gays to serve openly. I served in the US Army alongside Australian and British troops in Kuwait. They were some of the toughest meanest bastards I’ve ever had the pleasure of working with. I couldn’t understand shit they said most of the time. But they allow gays to serve openly, and we only had one field shower setup. I understand how Canada handles it. They only have like four people.
Old Tanker – I agree with you, but what other solution is there other than totally going coed? I would not be comfortable showering with gay men.
Michael in MI – That would be the only ‘fair’ solution, just don’t think it would go over well.
I don’t think this is the time or place for this kind of change.
Templar1312 – If you are currently in the military, you may already be showering with gay men. There is no law stating that gays cannot join the military. They just can’t divulge that fact. Were repeal to happen you would then be able to know who in the shower is gay, because the “Don’t ask” part would be gone along with the “Don’t tell” part. Also, if you are ever deployed and serve with troops from Israel, Canada, Britain, France, Australia, Italy, Spain, Belgium, or several other countries, you may end up showering with openly gay men. At least then you know why that guy keeps giving you that look.
interesting fact from the report: 115,000 people responded to the survey. So when the press reports “a majority of troops see no problem with repealing DADT” they are full of shit (as usual). The low number of responses to the survey might have had something to do with the methodology of actually responding to the survey (I know I gave up because getting to it on AKO was a major PITA)
>That definitely makes a difference on some issues (like being passed over for promotion and wanting to sue). But that doesn’t answer the questions of showers, barracks, medical care, etc
Medical Care: From the CDC on AIDS:
Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)1 represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s.
And how do you have unit cohesion or even functionality when you are sfraid you are going to be called a homophobe and sued? Line units don’t need this crap or the crap that fraternization bring with it.
Army Sergeant:
One difference, re: the Gays vs. Blacks/Female integration, is that most people can identify Blacks and Females by looking at them. You can’t do that with the gays. If I get into the shower with a woman, I’ll know she’s a woman.
Also, Korea lasted for a whole two years, (NOT QUITE a decade) and not every unit that went was desgregated or segregated while there. Therefore, your ridiculously small sample is unfortuantely not the proof you need–don’t confuse anecdote for data.
I think you are absolutely right that it is a prejudiced society that unfairly discriminates against gays–but it does so with the complicity of the society. If the we use the argument that X% of servicemembers support repeal, then we should repeal, then you should also support the argument that Y% of combat servicemembers are against repeal, so we should limit service to non-combat MOSs. The gays can’t have your cock and eat it, too, I’m afraid.
Sure, the population of closeted by choice currently serving servicemembers aren’t of concern, they’ll likely either stay put in the closet to avoid latent discrimnation, or stay casually integrated, having learned to deal with their sexuality. Of greater concern will be the flood of Cher worshippers and Lillith Fair Smelly Nellies who will enlist to “prove a point,” clamoring to be pioneers and the gay Rosa Parks and will make the instution worse for having to constantly put up with their BS antics.
And just as sure as god made little green apples there will be Homosexual awareness training, rampant claims of discrimination–the vast majority of which will be unfounded, pride/heritage months still waiting on my Caucasian Heritage month,) and yes, Virginia, even a few crimes against homosexuals.
One thing that really bugs me is all the talk about how “most of the polled military personnel have no problem with repealing DADT” as though that broad number matters. Not to bash administrative and support jobs, but I don’t give a rip about their opinion on this. As soon as potential disruption of unit cohesion can cost a cook or forecaster their life, I’ll start caring about their opinions of the potential disruption. Until then, the only groups that should be polled are combat arms in each service. Oh, right; I forgot we don’t care about risking lives as long as we can make it look good politically. Silly me.