BREAKING NEWS: BLUE RIBBON PANEL SEZ DADT HAS COST TAXPAYERS $360 MILLION
This afternoon in Washington, DC, a blue ribbon panel, commissioned by the University of California, will release its financial analysis of the cost of the government implementing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for US armed forces. I received an advanced copy last evening to read. It is astounding.
First, let me note that there were two notable members of the panel to me: former Clinton Defense Secretary William Perry — the man who first began implementing DADT, and Dr. Lawrence Korb who served under President Reagan as Asst. Defense Secretary to Casper Weinberger. These two names alone give this exhaustive study the legitimacy it deserves.
The panel’s charge was to determine if the 2005 General Accounting Office’s study (called “Financial Costs and Loss of Critical Skills Due to DOD’s Homosexual Conduct Policy Cannot Be Completely Estimated”) was accurate. The Perry-Korb panel says not just no… but Hell, No!
Total cost of implementing DADT found to be $363.8 Million between Fiscal Years 1994 and 2003.
The Commission’s financial determinations were 91 percent higher than 2005 GAO study which determined costs of DADT implementation to be $173.3 Million.The Commission found several errors in the GAO study.
This is perhaps the first groundbreaking data-driven, not emotional, argument against DADT that will appeal to fiscal conservatives (Republican and Democrat alike) in Congress. In this new season of ending special interest “earmarks” that cost taxpayers billions, there is now a compelling and tax-saving reason to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
Though I have no idea who or whether any of these Commission members are gay or lesbian Americans, there is no doubt that they are true heroes to our community. I guess I didn’t have to wait long
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
74 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
And Thank You Democrats, for having given us DADT.
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2006 @ 12:05 pm - February 14, 2006
Bruce, the GAO study didn’t include the Marines, Coast Guard or Nat’l Guard personnel in their analysis –nor did the GAO study take into consideration the effects of career military personnel not re-upping or retiring early ’cause of DADT. It was a fault of the study; well documented when its findings were released.
This study did –as you know.
While the U of C’s study appears interesting, it’s hardly worth noting the panel participants as being “heroes”. Heroes? We need to get some frickin’ standards for what constitutes hero. Or was that “hero” provided some of the panelists were gay?
With all we know about the Pentagon and all things-DOD, is it any wonder that the $190+m estimate of DADT by the GAO would rise to $364+m? Come on, it involves DOD! I’m surprised it’s only a 90% increase… usually anything dealing with DOD rises by factors of 2x, 3x, or 4x the original estimate –not under 2x.
I gotta ask, if DADT was repealed or rescinded, do you think tolerance would begin its slow march through the ranks of the military? Would gay rights be any better for military personnel? Would the military be better? I just don’t know.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 14, 2006 @ 12:34 pm - February 14, 2006
DADT says, in effect, that we must lie to serve. That is wrong.
DADT also has the effect of getting rid of critically needed skills.
My impression is that tolerance has already marched through the ranks of the military, and we are merely entering the phase now where the law (Congress) is finally being expected to catch up.
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2006 @ 12:45 pm - February 14, 2006
Capt. Ed at Captain’s Quarters has posted a very gay-supportive view on this study entitled “The Cost of Silliness”. I recently wrote my Representative and both Senators as well as the Secretary of Defense regarding my views–as a former service member–about the need to remove the ban on service in the armed forces because of one’s sexual orientation. This would be a good time for other readers of this site to make their voices heard on this subject.
Comment by Scott — February 14, 2006 @ 1:03 pm - February 14, 2006
Calarato, is it “lie to serve” or is it more like not being able to be open, candid and public in the personnels’ off-base and on-base lives?
And aren’t those “critically needed skills” utilized elsewhere by others… and can’t we say that gay personnel with those skills (like middle eastern language fluency, etc) can be replaced? Is that wrong? I appreciate it’s at a cost –a fairly high cost by the estimations of the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at UC-SB… but if it promotes harmony in the ranks… and that’s a big IF.
As for the march of tolerance throughout the military ranks… the two colonels (US Army) and two Captians (Marines) that I know personally would argue the military rank & file is about as tolerant of gay men and women as the local Union Hall is of gays or the GOPers.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 14, 2006 @ 1:09 pm - February 14, 2006
You’d think this would be a slam dunk. Repeal of DADT will get nowhere with this Congress. I wish I was wrong. It wont even get a vote. They are too busy with FMA, I suppose.
DADT is better than the pre-Clinton policy. Before Clinton, witchhunts were common and it was completely arbitrary. Now its just unfair. Clinton and the Dems tried to repeal all of it in 1993, but it was outrage from the GOP that forced him to back down. I’m not happy with him for doing so (or with Barney Frank for giving him coverage when he did it), but the GOP is at least as responsible for DADT as Clinton. The GOP is completely responsible for blocking any vote on repeal now. Clinton tried but he made a calculation (a disappointing one) that the cost to his Administration was too high.
Clinton tried when it was unpopular and gave up.
The current GOP blocks it when it is much more popular.
Blame Clinton (and Frank) for DADT, but give the GOP their props on this too.
Comment by Tom in Utrecht — February 14, 2006 @ 1:18 pm - February 14, 2006
I’m waiting for VtheK and North Dallas Thirty to weigh in again on why the support DADT. They certainly would disagree with Bruce (VERY well-written post, btw Bruce).
Comment by Jeremy — February 14, 2006 @ 1:34 pm - February 14, 2006
Matt, listen to yourself. Being required to “not be candid” is being required to lie. When Clinton was asked about Monica, he gave answers that were “not candid”. (And lies; i.e., they are semantically identical.)
As for your Colonel friends – OK, they’re legitimate data points. There are others. They might be a 25% minority where, in 1993, they would have probably been a 75% majority. We shall see.
#7 – Can I ask why you would think (or say) that? Have you seen them give praise to DADT in previous threads?
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2006 @ 1:43 pm - February 14, 2006
Calarato, fair enough on your point that not being candid is tantamount to a lie… the father of DADTDPDH, Pres Clinton, was the preeminent lie telling POTUS of the 20thC. Seems ironic.
I hate to offer this, but the march of tolerance ain’t going to get any traction until someone can figure out how str8 guys can accomodate gay men in daily routine exercises which require nakedness. ‘Cause that is what it all comes down to… an unwillingness on the part of the majority of military personnel to allow gays to cohabit their quarters in a combat situation. I just don’t see all that alpha-male silliness getting abated in the march of tolerance.
And a sidenote, I wonder how much of the costs ascribed to DADT by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at UC-SB were from guys seeking 6 month discharges based on DADT but were really for other reasons -like I hate the military life, let me out now? Hmm.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 14, 2006 @ 1:59 pm - February 14, 2006
Off Topic, for Bruce: Anything coming up on Al Whore’s recent vicious bashing America to a Saudi audience, on Saudi soil?
It’s ironic for SO many reasons. Fahrenheit 9-11, anybody?
Which party is REALLY in bed with the Saudis, or seeking to kiss their asses? Oh yeah, the DEMOCRATS. (As under Clinton.)
And which party truly threatens the Saudis – admittedly not by invading them, as so many Lefty commentors called for during our Iraq war discussions, but certainly by promoting real democratic reform in the Middle East? Oh yeah, the REPUBLICANS.
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2006 @ 2:01 pm - February 14, 2006
#9 – “…the march of tolerance ain’t going to get any traction until someone can figure out how str8 guys can accomodate gay men in daily routine exercises which require nakedness.”
But they already are!
The solution is for (1) the gay guys to NOT stare or contribute to any ‘vibe’ of predation; and (2) the straight guys to get over it. My sources claim it’s been figured out and is in practice today.
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2006 @ 2:05 pm - February 14, 2006
#9 – “I wonder how much of the costs ascribed to DADT by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at UC-SB were from guys seeking 6 month discharges based on DADT…”
Another reason to get rid of it.
Not only does it require honorable gays to lie; it encourages dishonorable straights in their lying.
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2006 @ 2:10 pm - February 14, 2006
Its great that the study was released, but it is not a ground-breaking moment in any sense. There have been a lot of studies over the years, some commissioned by the Pentagon itself that have all said the policy and law is costly and unnecessary.
Bruce, you think a “non-emotional argument”, is the key to defeating DADT but I think you are wrong. That is because in spite of the babble about unit cohesion and morale, the reasons for the policy are emotion-based, on the “gays are icky” factor, not on sound policy.
Logic and reason have been brought to bear every time the issue has come up to no avail. While sound facts are very helpful, I think you also need to make morally based arguments as well. The policy is simply wrong, as in “right and wrong”. You shouldn’t shy from taking a moral stand. An appeal to traditional military cultural values, such has honor, and “no soldier is as important as the one next to you” will also resonate to some degree. And the more it seems as if the impetus for change is coming from within the ranks, rather than being forced by civilians on the outside, the better. This is why it’s very important that gay and lesbian veterans speak up and are active.
As far as unit cohesion and morale goes, there has never been a claim that all members of the military are going to welcome gays and lesbians with open arms. Although many of them already do. When the military integrated blacks into the service, they had a great number of unit cohesion and morale problems. The military overcame them and is stronger for it. It even helped to break down some of the class-based divisions as well, although they still exist to a degree.
But if you compare the sheer numbers of personnel involved with integrating blacks as apposed to integrating gays and lesbians, who only make up about 2% of the general American population, the few problems you are going to have simply don’t out-weigh the benefits of not throwing these people (and the money) away.
By the way, the bill in the House to remove DADT and replace it with something sensible is: H.R. 1059, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act. It currently has over a hundred sponsors, mostly Democrats but with some GOP support, even from a few very conservative GOP Reps.
Its chances for passing in an election year are non-existent however. Bill Frist has already announced that one of the first Senate votes will be the DOM amendment. And the House leadership recently said in a retreat that marriage is number one on the agenda. I think that makes it plain that the GOP plans to once again to use anti-gay sentiment as a fund-raising tool and vote getter this year. After all, it works.
Of course, it might change if the President were to come out in support of the removal of DADT. Chances for that are?……crickets chirping
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — February 14, 2006 @ 2:11 pm - February 14, 2006
-
As for the march of tolerance throughout the military ranks… the two colonels (US Army) and two Captians (Marines) that I know personally would argue the military rank & file is about as tolerant of gay men and women as the local Union Hall is of gays or the GOPers. -
I don’t think that “the military is intolerant” is the best reason to encourage keeping this ban. The military in many other countries was probably intolerant before their ban was lifted, and the sky has not fallen in those countries. Look at Australia, which has a very macho, aggressive mentality. They have had openly gay soldiers for years, with no negative repercussions.
Comment by Carl — February 14, 2006 @ 2:14 pm - February 14, 2006
In defense of Matt’s point – the U.S. is the best, and we need it to be, and we better be damn careful in messing with that.
Having said that: yeah Carl, I basically agree with you. Add the Israelis to the list. If the sky hasn’t fallen on them or the Australians, OK, it probably won’t on us.
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2006 @ 2:19 pm - February 14, 2006
Just to toss in other views… there’s a civilized, weighted, and thought filled discussion on Black5′s site… as well as Capt 1/4ters.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/11/lively_discussi.html
And Calarato, with all due respect, to offer that one of the answers is for “str8 guys to get over it” is like.. well, like… ‘xpecting Ricky to speak the Queen’s English to Lucy… it just ain’t happening. Upticks in metrosexual purchasing habits by non-military civies, tolerance for men kissing on ExtremeDateMakeover, or progress on gay unions in Blue States doesn’t change the fundamental character of the men enlisting in the military.
I know we should be all-about gays’ expansion of rights… but I side with the majority of str8 military personnel on this one… non combat service posts can be filled by gay personnel, otherwise it’s a no-go. DADT is just an uneasy compromise that’s inherently flawed.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 14, 2006 @ 2:23 pm - February 14, 2006
Okay, okay, kids.
Before we get too carried away about all this, let’s put this in perspective:
First of all, I have to disagree with my esteemed colleague’s interpretation of the CSSMM as legitimate. This is a very advocative group, run by the University of California (not historically a fan of the military, if you’ll recall) whose past conclusions have been roundly rejected by many military experts.
I haven’t read this report yet, but one thing that jumps out at me from the beginning is the usual lack of perspective in such arguments.
First of all, the USDoD budget in 2004 was $390 billion. Now, that’s only one year out of the 10 this study is concerned with. To pay less than one tenth of one percent of one year out of ten years’ budgets on this program is hardly damning.
Furthermore, I’d also be interested in how much it used to cost to kick gay members out of the military. Consider that before DADT, members weren’t kicked out via what they call “Administrative Discharge” (this is how they’re done these days). Back then, it was a Dishonorable Discharge, because the member was guilty of False Enlistment. It certainly is much cheaper to remove a member via AD than all the work it used to take for a Dishonorable Discharge, or even worse, a Court-Martial.
I’m sorry, Bruce, but this is far from the “slam dunk” the “community” might want. But it’ll probably be enough to embarrass Presidnet Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, and the military in general. And after all, for advocacy groups such as the CSSMM, that’s much more important than national security. It’s just a shame that sometimes folks who otherwise would sensibly address such issues will be wooed by these sorts of distorted pictures.
Oh, and I’m sure the press will have a fully balanced view of this issue, too.
On the other hand, the military itself is conducting several studies into the issue and some are bearing fruit. Luckily (hopefully), the military’s policy will be based on studies whose primary objective is National Defense, not gay advocacy.
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — February 14, 2006 @ 2:33 pm - February 14, 2006
#16 – Sorry Matt, I’m told it is reasonable to expect and is happening.
Remember, gays already serve in the military and are known to their compatriots (DADT or not). Also, the Israeli & Australian examples (thanks Carl).
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2006 @ 2:35 pm - February 14, 2006
#17 – It seems like we, as a country, should continue to discuss and debate this. The study is a contribution to that.
I do respect the people involved in the study. Accusing them of being “advocative” is a rather backhanded way of saying something that should be said more straightforwardly: that they sincerely believe the claims they’re making and have been persistent over time.
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2006 @ 2:41 pm - February 14, 2006
Calorato (#19): Straighforward? Okay, how’s this: I don’t trust a study on this issue that comes from the University of California.
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — February 14, 2006 @ 2:43 pm - February 14, 2006
Oh, and to that point (that I made in #20), I disagree. This study does not serve as a contribution to an honest debate because it will not be used honestly by advocates such as SLDN and CSSMM. It is, in fact, harming the debate as it seems to be a distortion and selective use of the facts.
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — February 14, 2006 @ 2:45 pm - February 14, 2006
Colorado Patriot – while I appreciate your service, you are in violation of DADT if Bruce knows your real name. You should be discharged immediately some on here would argue.
Comment by Jeremy — February 14, 2006 @ 2:46 pm - February 14, 2006
Off Topic – going to CP’s link: http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/
- What is it about gay guys, where they do look different from straight guys? I don’t mean that pejoratively at all. But, looking at the pictures of the 2 Royal Navy officers… something about their features and the look in their eyes looks a tad ‘feminized’ to me, though I’m sure they very skilled and tough in personality. I would expect the uniforms and training to have erased any gay-straight difference.
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2006 @ 2:47 pm - February 14, 2006
I hear you Calarato… I just disagree though, simple as that.
How would you feel if I offered “Gays just have to get over this base need for validation and acceptance of their chosen behavoir”. I’d get bitch slapped all the way to SoHo. Offering “that str8 men just have to get over it” fails to comprehend the character of the people enlisting or serving.
If we want to engage in social engineering experiments, do it in higher education with affirmative action, do it in k-12 education with busing, do it in govt contracting with minority set asides… but leave the military alone. They’re protecting my and your ass –this isn’t the playground.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 14, 2006 @ 2:48 pm - February 14, 2006
What is it about gay guys, where they do look different from straight guys?
I’ve pondered this. The best answer I can get to is that gay guys try to look a certain way, and put more effort into looking a certain way, than straight guys do. It’s in the details. Straight guys are just more natural looking.
Comment by V the K — February 14, 2006 @ 2:50 pm - February 14, 2006
#20 – #21 – Perhaps true, but neither point deals with the substance.
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2006 @ 2:51 pm - February 14, 2006
#24 – “How would you feel if I offered “Gays just have to get over this base need for validation and acceptance of their chosen behavoir”. I’d get bitch slapped…”
If we were talking about something like, say, Kevin not being able to thank his Republican Marine brother for his service, you’d be absolutely right.
We’re talking about something different, though. We’re talking about what’s (a) morally right and (b) pragmatically best for America. (In my worldview there is no separation between them – the moral IS the practical – but I list them separately out of deference to others’ worldviews.) Validation of gays doesn’t enter it.
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2006 @ 2:55 pm - February 14, 2006
P.S. And DADT itself is a social engineering experiment, is it not? In the same sense (no more and no less) than its abolishment would be.
Again, we’re both talking about what’s best for America. I’m fine with us disagreeing on the substance. I’m just arguing now with your (mis)characterization of my position. My position is simply, abolish DADT because it will be BETTER (both morally and practically)… gayness be damned. You’ve brought it up, I haven’t.
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2006 @ 2:58 pm - February 14, 2006
#19 Calarato, boy, we could head down a slippery slope on that premise: like when the US Chamber of Commerce announces a study saying that Right2Work states have better job provider climates… the unions ought to say “Oh, this will help focus the debate”? Or when the NEA announces that teachers are underpaid, we should all get out our checkbooks and send a little something extra beyond the outrageous taxes we already pay to k-12 education?
Come on! No one seriously thinks that the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at UC-SB is unbiased or policy neutral? When I see a group promote their “Blue Ribbon Commission” and “conservative analytical tools” –I know one should be suspect of the conclusions.
Heroes? I doubt it. They are advocates; they have a definite agenda; and they’re no friend of the military despite their “stellar military consultants” and advisers.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 14, 2006 @ 3:02 pm - February 14, 2006
#29 – Matt I think you’re kinda losing it.
Who brought in the word “heroes”??
And are we now to disregard studies from Heritage or Cato, say, because they’re also “advocates” or “biased”? That’s a leftist argument.
When people study an issue, and come to a really firm conclusion about it, and they think it’s an important issue, they say “You know I am going to found a center to spread the word about this. And I won’t even make all my pieces agit-prop; I’ll get real information together to show why I’ve reached the conclusion I’ve reached, rationally.” That’s something to be respected, whether or not we find them persuasive.
Either they have put out a good study (drawing rational conclusions from relevant facts), or they have not. Evaluate them on that, i.e., the substance. Please don’t give me all this mistrust / dark accusations about them.
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2006 @ 3:06 pm - February 14, 2006
Calarato… nawh, you’re not losing it… it’s the ending salvo by Bruce in his post.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 14, 2006 @ 3:13 pm - February 14, 2006
So:
1) Their study’s assertion is that DADT costs us hundreds of millions a year, rather higher than the GAO estimate.
2) Are they right about that? Have they done a decent study, purely on the facts?
3) If Yes: so what? Does it have any significance, one way or the other, for keeping or abolishing DADT? Why should we keep – or abolish – DADT?
Those are the substantive questions I’d prefer to stick to.
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2006 @ 3:15 pm - February 14, 2006
#31 – Oh yes, you’re right. Bruce brought in the word “heroes”. My mistake.
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2006 @ 3:15 pm - February 14, 2006
Calarato… final point for now: the last number I saw on an estimate of the number of active duty gay personnel in our military was by the Urban Institute — they pegged the number to be about 65,000 in 2005.
We have 1.4m in the service. For roughly 5% of the entire service, we’re hazarding their workplace and unit cohesion?
And that’s “morally right” and “pragmatically best for America”? Again, this is the military… it isn’t the playground. And DADTDHDP wasn’t social engineering –it was a political compromise. Pure and simple.
And, I agree with you, it doesn’t work in many ways… but as a ban on the previous ban, it works fine for me.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 14, 2006 @ 3:18 pm - February 14, 2006
It seems to me that the military is all over the place on this issue. Some areas of the military pretty much ignore it, while others harp on it.
I think the problem is with a few military leaders. If the troops are led properly, they’ll behave properly. Without missing a beat.
Comment by Tom in Utrecht — February 14, 2006 @ 3:19 pm - February 14, 2006
#34 – Matt, your premise is that abolishing DADT is “hazarding the military’s workplace and unit cohesion.”
That’s the premise we disagree on. I see the example of the Australian and Israeli militaries, and the U.S. military which already has gays.
As I leave your premise aside, I then turn to the fact that (1) requiring people to lie is morally wrong, and (2) the moral wrongness in there costs us pragmatically, e.g., loss of critically needed skills.
OK? So we disagree, I’m fine with our disagreement, but please stop mischaracterizing my position as wanting (or being somehow willing) to destroy unit cohesion.
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2006 @ 3:26 pm - February 14, 2006
Michigan Matt,
Why are the members of the panel not friends of the military?
Comment by Tom in Utrecht — February 14, 2006 @ 3:29 pm - February 14, 2006
I would like to point out that you should be under no delusion that there aren’t openly gays and lesbians serving in our military. There are a lot. It really just depends on the open-mindedness of their chain of command.
Also, in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans, etc. where our troops are serving alongside troops from other nations such as Australia, England, etc., they are sharing quarters and missions with openly gay and lesbian military personnel.
Lastly, I remember reading a newspaper article last year that quoted a Pentagon spokeswoman as saying that a soldier who is bound for Iraq, and who is discovered to be gay is stop-lossed, and then sent to Iraq for a year or more and then discharged when he comes home.
Openly gay and lesbians soldiers are being sent into a combat zone where they serve along side straight troops every day for over a year.
The Military itself does not believe that the unit cohesion and morale issues are a significant enough problem to prevent openly gay and lesbian soldiers from serving alongside their straight counterparts. Not if they are willing to send them, of all places, to a combat zone.
There is no justification for the policy other than prejudice.
And Michigan Matt, you keep endlessly repeating junk from old anti-gay press releases. You can tell by your use of phrases such as “social experimentation”, etc. Why don’t you try researching the issue a bit better and forming your own opinions instead of parroting others. Just because they may agree with your pre-conceived prejudices is no reason to assume they are correct.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — February 14, 2006 @ 3:49 pm - February 14, 2006
Clinton could have changed the military policy with a mere executive order. However, Clinton had no principles, morals or ethics — he governed by the polls, and instead of taking a stand, he wanted “consensus.”
DADT was the result of a cowardly, unprincipled President. Nothing more, nothing less.
Comment by rightwingprof — February 14, 2006 @ 4:00 pm - February 14, 2006
I may have been hasty to discredit the report simply due to its source. It remains to be seen how statistically accurate this report is (although I’m sure no media outlet will ever broach the validity of the conclusions). Regardless, even if we are to accept the results of this report without a critical eye, the “cost” as described in the post is a mere 1/100 of 1% (0.001%) of the entire 10-year budget.
Further, it’d be necessary (for the sake of perspective and also honest reporting) to compare this dollar value (in constant dollars) with the costs of the Less-Than-Honorable Discharges and Courts Martial that used to be used (pre-DADT) for these servicemembers. Clearly the Administrative Discharges they’re using nowadays for DADT cost tons less than the previous methods.
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — February 14, 2006 @ 4:31 pm - February 14, 2006
#38 Patrick, gee thank you for pointing out all non-conforming arguments to your enlightened world view can be reduced to “junk from old anti-gay press releases” –kind of like the endless recitation of talking points from the GayLeft, I suppose? You’d know.
No, playing around with the parameters of military service for the benefit of acceptable social or political policy is social experimentation akin to the instances I suggested at #24. Just like, when here in Michigan in the 1990, we got rid of general assistance welfare benefits and that sparked a national flash fire of other states ending the govt trough. We were experimenting with govt policies and assumptions… it worked, but it was wrong and risky. Something better left to those outside govt.
Come on, we all know that social experimentation with OTHER PEOPLE’S LIVES is the hallmark of progressive, LeftLiberal policies. In this case, it’s aimed at an institution that the Left has long demeaned, distrusted, and disrespected –the military. And for who? The 5%? Or are we going to play fiction writers and offer it’s 11% of the military by including bisexuals?
So Pat, next time you want to play JoeMcCarthy and try to tarnish fair policy debate by categorizing it as being “from old anti-gay press releases” –get a clue Gramps. People can research issues, think about them, ponder them and still not march lockstep with your world vision of gay ascendancy of the Left. It’s still ok to differ on public policy; last time I checked you guys hadn’t made the US into an intolerant, bigoted land of single-thinking oldsters.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 14, 2006 @ 4:36 pm - February 14, 2006
(woops, I meant “0.01%”)…and so who am I to question someone’s statistical conclusions?!
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — February 14, 2006 @ 4:36 pm - February 14, 2006
#40 – Yeah but here’s a better comparison: How about comparing it with the cost of making no discharges under DADT? (whether gay witch-hunt discharges, or the hetero “cheater discharges”)
If you want, keep DADT in the UCMJ, but stop the enforcement. You know, per Clinton, it was always supposed to be DADTDP (Don’t Pursue).
#41 – Ah, now Matt’s in his element… He found someone who does seem to want to change DADT from social engineering motives
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2006 @ 4:43 pm - February 14, 2006
P.S. You’d still enforce DADT in a really egregious case – where some sick, genuinely gay guy was going out of his way to make others uncomforable.
You’d only drop the “hetero cheater” enforcements. And any witch hunts (looking for gays to discharge). I bet those are 95% of all existing enforcements.
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2006 @ 4:46 pm - February 14, 2006
#3) “My impression is that tolerance has already marched through the ranks of the military, and we are merely entering the phase now where the law (Congress) is finally being expected to catch up.”
I will 2nd that, and that’s coming from an honorably discharged veteran discharged for being gay before DADT. Even then, *cough* 14 years ago *cough*, the attitudes of most personel were pretty progressive. It was a relatively common topic of discussion even then. A lot of guys thought the anti-gay policy was ridiculous and were brave enough to say so. There was a lot of playful ribbing about making fun of someone (possibly) being gay, but very rare was it outright hateful. In fact, I am pretty sure most of my shipmates knew I was gay. They would make jokes but they were still very friendly with me. It was the older, higher ranking officers that seemed to have a problem with it, and those are gradually being phased out as they retire and new people take their places.
Comment by Dale in L.A. — February 14, 2006 @ 4:47 pm - February 14, 2006
Calarato, you argue DADT is wrong for the two points well stated. I think it’s better than going back to the days of a ban.
What would you allow in its place? And I mean it as a serious question. Does it automatically reduce that to end DADT the military would go back to practices of the era prior to DADT?
I’ll skip GrampaGryph’s and Tom’s taunts today.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 14, 2006 @ 4:49 pm - February 14, 2006
Dale, thanks for your service, and I’m sorry you had to put up with that other stuff.
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2006 @ 4:50 pm - February 14, 2006
First step: stop most discharges under it, as in #43-44. Going to your captain and saying “Sir, I’m gay” should not be a way for you to get out early. Nor should honorably serving gays be sought out for discharge, ever.
Second step: Get rid of the longstanding (pre-DADT) UCMJ provision that says “Homosexuality is incompatible with military service” (which, I claim, we now know it isn’t). Have a gender-neutral sexual harassment code where leering is verboten.
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2006 @ 4:55 pm - February 14, 2006
(#48 cont – a certain natural minimum of leering would always happen anyway; but by having the policy on the books, you could punish cases that ever did threaten unit cohesion)
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2006 @ 4:59 pm - February 14, 2006
Two points
One, US$363million over ten years–the cost of DADT cited in the post–means US$36.3million per year. That is a drop in the bucket for large government agencies.
Two, the chief architect of DADT, Charles Moskos, sociology professor at Northwestern University, in Jan 2003 opined that, if a draft is reinstated, open gays should also be subjected to the draft. His primary basis for architecting DADT in 1993 (or so) was the assertion that allowing gay people to serve openly was detrimental to unit cohesion. It strikes me as a bit odd to believe that there would be any less of a problem with unit cohesion if openly gay people were to serve in the presence of a draft.
Moskos’s rationale regarding drafting openly gay people stems from his belief that having a policy of not drafting openly gay people would make it too easy for people who are straight to get out of the draft by claiming to be gay. But, query, which is more important? Unit cohesion or the fear that some straight people might claim to be gay to get out of the draft?
BTW, it was reported that, during the run-up to Gulf War I, some people tried to get out of the call-up by claiming to be gay. This was obviously before DADT. I don’t recall whether they were regular military, reservists, or National Guard, or some combination of the three. The military responded by calling them up anyway, and indicated that they would deal with the issue after the end of the conflict. So much for “unit cohesion” as an argument for DADT.
Comment by raj — February 14, 2006 @ 5:09 pm - February 14, 2006
Calarato, thanks for the answer. I anticipated it wouldn’t be a return to the pre-DADT days. I assumed part of the replacement policy would be tolerance –given your contention that str8 guys in the military just have to get over it… meaning opposition to “open” rather than closeted gays serving.
Thanks for the answer; we just disagree.
I value the military (not that you don’t by inference) and I think it’s a higher priority to insure a strong, cohesive force of the best & the brighest serving than to press a social agenda on the service –frankly, if the majority of those serving don’t have the same sensibilities as Dale’s experience and shipmates indicate, we’ll be in for some rough sledding on recruitment if DADT ended.
I hope Dale’s experience with his fellow service personnel has improved since he left and progress has been made… of the men I know now serving –it hasn’t… 2 of the 4 officers are military school graduates… and Wolverines. They see it as an honor issue, a personal privacy issue and, heck, they generally reject most of contemporary society’s opinions gays in the military.
We’ll just respectfully disagree.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 14, 2006 @ 5:27 pm - February 14, 2006
Thanks Matt.
“I’ll skip GrampaGryph’s and Tom’s taunts today” – Just had to say, I love the alliteration in that!
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2006 @ 5:34 pm - February 14, 2006
There are two separate issues here. There is the issues of gays serving in the military, and there is the issue of changing military culture. The latter is the real problem.
Look at what has happened with women in the military, the pressure to change the military culture. It’s a disaster. “Sensitivity” has no place in the military, and if gays are going to serve, they have to do so with no intent of emasculating the military culture, as women have been trying to do.
Comment by rightwingprof — February 14, 2006 @ 5:37 pm - February 14, 2006
#10, if I get a moment this week, I have something planned on Algore. It may not be as timely as the posts that Michelle Malkin and Glenn Reynolds have linked, but I was thinking of titling it, “Thank you, Florida!”
Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 14, 2006 @ 6:13 pm - February 14, 2006
This is factually incorrect, although Clinton did mess it up. Clinton COULD have made the change as prior to DADT it was an administrative policy, -not a formal part of the UCMJ. However at the time he proposed this there were objections in Congress from “conservative” Democrats and Republicans, and an in-house revolt of upper ranking military and civilian leadership in the Pentagon, including Colin Powell.
So Congress made clear it was going to enact the ban into law, which it eventually did. So Clinton did not have any longer the option of changing the policy “with a stroke of the pen”.
What he did do however was create the administrative policy that in theory prevents the military from asking if you are gay. He called it an “honorable compromise”. Of which it was neither. That policy is still in existence today, although it has been modified a few times. Bush, to his credit, has not revoked it. (Although to his detriment, he has not called for a repeal of the law either.)
If you want to blame Clinton, thats fine with me, but there is plenty of blame to go around. I’d start with Sam Nunn myself. I think Clinton flubbed more in the timing and manner that he presented the change, and for what he was willing to settle for, not so much with intent.
An interesting side-angle on this is whether the Congress, in enacting the ban into law, actually usurped power that should be reserved for the Office of the President, the Commander in Chief.
And “michigan-matt” I challenge you to go back to my first statement and actually respond to the points I’ve made, instead of endlessly repeating the same tired “old chestnuts” as Grandpa-Cheney might say.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — February 14, 2006 @ 6:55 pm - February 14, 2006
Thought you might get a laugh out of this: EVIL REPUBLICANS HATE F*GS!!!
And of the three pictures accompanying the article, two are of the Phelps family. The remaining picture is of Frankenstein’s monster, who to my knowledge is not registered with either party.
Warning – site is not safe for work. I forgive him for his moonbattiness because he has such great eye candy.
Comment by Frank IBC — February 14, 2006 @ 8:30 pm - February 14, 2006
Bruce, that was a great post and I’ve been intrigued by the comments.
I applaud Michigan Matt for giving a lot of thought to his very articulate arguments. But on this issue, I say ditto, ditto, ditto to everything Calarato has posted.
I know dozens of colonels and generals, most of them retired, and have found it not worth even discussing the issue with those of my generation. I’m guessing most of them preferred the pre-DADT system.
If we join Britain, Israel, Australia, and others, in letting openly gay personnel serve in the military, it will be young captains who have to make it work in the officer corps, not colonels and generals, and senior NCOs who have to make it work among the enlisted men and women. At the time I ended a 35-year association with the Air Force I found that the young generation of junior officiers and senior NCOs — with the exception of many of those who grew up in the rural South — was generally willing to try to make it work if it ever comes about.
The late Barry Goldwater once said, in regard to this issue, that the only important thing is whether a soldier can shoot straight. I agree that that ought to be our goal, especially when I look at the most recent figures on the difficulty the Air Force is having in filing some skilled positions (USAF, for example, is short almost half the linquists it needs).
Scott, #$, I agree with the plea to write our senators. I would, except I’m “represented” (?) in the U. S. Senate by Sam Brownback, a bozo who brags about his anti-gay positions.
Comment by Jack Allen — February 14, 2006 @ 9:55 pm - February 14, 2006
I don’t want to ruin Calarato day, but I will say that I too agree with everything he’s said.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — February 14, 2006 @ 11:11 pm - February 14, 2006
Jeremy:
I’m waiting for VtheK and North Dallas Thirty to weigh in again on why the support DADT.
Coupled with that:
You should be discharged immediately some on here would argue.
Go ahead and just say it: “V the K and North Dallas Thirty say you should be discharged immediately.”
Now, I could go into details on what my feelings on DADT are. However, by your making those two statements, you’ve demonstrated you weren’t listening in the past when I did.
Given that, I shall not bother correcting or amending you. Those people here who actually read my posts know what is true; allowing you to persist with your groundless argument does far more damage than getting angry over it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 15, 2006 @ 12:39 am - February 15, 2006
-Come on, we all know that social experimentation with OTHER PEOPLE’S LIVES is the hallmark of progressive, LeftLiberal policies. In this case, it’s aimed at an institution that the Left has long demeaned, distrusted, and disrespected –the military. And for who? The 5%? Or are we going to play fiction writers and offer it’s 11% of the military by including bisexuals?-
So these policies which were supported and enacted by liberals like Clinton and Barney Frank should be kept because liberals don’t like the military?
The only argument which you’ve used to keep this ban is that bad things will happen if the ban is lifted. Has there ever been 1 country where lifting a ban on gay soldiers caused the destruction of that country’s military?
These policies hurt the entire miltiary, including the straight soldiers who supposedly need to be protected.
Comment by Carl — February 15, 2006 @ 2:02 am - February 15, 2006
The late Barry Goldwater once said, in regard to this issue, that the only important thing is whether a soldier can shoot straight.
Would that be “straight” or “merrily forward”, as a friend of mine used to say?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 15, 2006 @ 4:26 am - February 15, 2006
Why all this aversion to “social experimentation?” It is because many of us in the Sixties challenged the dominant paradigm as the ONLY paradigm that most, if not all, GLBT achievements have subsequently been made. Was integration of the races “social experimentation?” You bet. It was, and remains, the right thing to do. DADT is just another barrier based on unjustified prejudice. It’s another wrong that needs to be righted. Reading “Mortal Conflict” offers significant insight into this whole mess. That some queers can actually defend the military’s solitary paradigm shows just how constipated and stereotyped their thinking is.
Comment by Stephen — February 15, 2006 @ 4:34 am - February 15, 2006
Repeal of DADT/UCMJ prohibitions isn’t about social experimentation. LGB persons already serve in the military. Some are pretty open about it. This isn’t an experiment. Its reality.
This won’t be anywhere near as controversial as incorporating women into the military. It won’t hurt recruiting, it wont hurt training, it won’t hurt morale, and it wont hurt unit cohesion.
Is there any evidence that allowing Gays to serve without lying will do any harm to our military? Any at all?
My guess is that those that are so torqued up to keep the policy are the kind of soldiers that ruin morale for everyone else too.
Comment by Tom in Utrecht — February 15, 2006 @ 6:46 am - February 15, 2006
#62
You’re an experiment, of some sort, that went horribly wrong.
“Frankenfurter, it’s all over. Your mission is a failure, you’re lifestyle’s too extreme. I’m your new commander, you now are my prisoner. We’ll return to Transylvania. Prepare the transit beam!!”
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 15, 2006 @ 6:52 am - February 15, 2006
#62 Stephen, “you in the Sixities” gave us everything we have today? Right. You did a great job on the PR front back then because, today, the GL community can get just about everything it wants on the political, social and economic front. Right. Oh you laid a great, stable foundation for us to be able to advance social change. Thanks.
I see the 60′s and the leaders back then a whole lot different than you do if you think that was the height of social progress for gays and lesbians –very differently. And integration of the races? Oh yeah, head into any public high school cafeteria at lunchtime in a mixed neighborhood and show me how well that “integration of the races” really worked, will ya? Are you that disconnected from real life?
But then we’re seriously OT on the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at UC-SB report if we start assessing the true value of the GL in the 60s or how far the “races have integrated”.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 15, 2006 @ 7:30 am - February 15, 2006
No, it is factually correct. Clinton could have changed the police with an executive order, no matter what anyone thought about it — had he actually had principles, and believed in changing the policy to reflect them.
Comment by rightwingprof — February 15, 2006 @ 10:32 am - February 15, 2006
Which is why I’m suspicious of this study, and the motives of those who want to ditch DADT. Don’t misunderstand: It’s an unethical policy and it should be ditched. But leave the military culture alone. That means women have to put up with remarks and getting their butts pinched, and gay men have to put up with fag jokes.
Anyone with the balls, er, whatever to serve wouldn’t whine about either.
And this comparison to other militaries that allow gays is specious. What military would you compre the US military to? By comparison, all other military forces, or nearly all, are failures.
Comment by rightwingprof — February 15, 2006 @ 10:40 am - February 15, 2006
rightwingprof, the military culture of today is kicking someone out if they’re discovered to be gay, so that’s a far cry from just fag jokes. And I’ve never heard anyone who somehow assumes that the military is going to become a mecca for gay rights. But these policies shouldn’t be justified with some vague defense of the military culture, as if that’s immune from change. At one of the major military academies a few years ago, anti-Semitism was so rampant that they had to have diversity courses and other attempts to clear up the problem. They didn’t just say that the culture supported anti-Semitism.
-By comparison, all other military forces, or nearly all, are failures.-
Then why did America appeal to countries like the UK and Australia for help in the war on terrorism? And is there any evidence that these militaries are failures because of gay soldiers?
-And integration of the races? Oh yeah, head into any public high school cafeteria at lunchtime in a mixed neighborhood and show me how well that “integration of the races” really worked, will ya? Are you that disconnected from real life?-
I think that the blacks who grew up with segregation in first half of the 20th century might not have been quite as blase about it.
Comment by Carl — February 15, 2006 @ 10:56 am - February 15, 2006
Carl, fair enuff on the perspective of blacks who grew up in the 1st half of the 20thC… but more integration has occurred because of a growing middle class in the black community than due to “race integration” in the 60s. Go into a public high school in a mixed neighborhood today and show me the “integration”… there’s greater integration of white kids adopting black culture traits because of what constitutes “cool” –not because of social engineering to promote racial integration.
The role of social engineers in America’s cultural experience is only rated well by the engineers who sought to impact the culture.
But now we’re waaaaay off topic.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 15, 2006 @ 11:31 am - February 15, 2006
rightwingprof, not to belabor the point on comparing national militaries and gay service –but I think Israel has a pretty good military… and conscription of gays. And I don’t think the UK is too shabby, either ecept they are volunteer based.
Now some of the others –like Thailand and Estonia and the Swiss (do they wear the same outrageous but sexy uniforms that their counterparts in the Vatican wear and carry those pikes?) might tickle the failure meter… but not the Israeli or Brits. Granted, the French and Itals may have a well deserved reputation for holding up the surrender flag a little early in conflicts… but not the Israeli or Brits.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 15, 2006 @ 11:38 am - February 15, 2006
DADT is social engineering, and a very bad type of it. Repealing it would be going from active social engineering to not having written policy against a specific group of people. It’s quite ridiculous if you really think about it.
The fears people have about gay people in showers is still comical to me. I shower after swim practice with about a dozen gay men; some of them quite easy on the eye, so to speak. There has yet to be a single case of an orgy breaking out. We’re adults and we behave appropriately. It’s the minimum expectation. We have a couple of straight members who shower with us as well. I showered with men when I was in the Navy. Gay and straight men are showering together all the time in public gym locker rooms. I have the sense to know that staring at someone is rude and will likely make them uncomfortable. I also know that there are a few insecure people out there who could get outright violent over it. I’m an adult and I respect others’ space bubbles. This issue is blown way out of proportion. I don’t pinch anyone’s butt and I don’t think men should be doing it to women either, in any workspace.
A little ribbing always happens in the military. I think it can actually be a bonding experience if the tone is playful. I think any case of true harassment ought to be investigated, regardless of who’s doing it or who is the recipient of it. Jokingly calling a teammate “fag” probably falls under playful ribbing. Repeatedly doing it and with a clearly negative tone is bad for morale in a situation where it’s crucial that people function as a team and should not be tolerated, regardless of whether the recipient is actually gay, and they may not be.
Comment by Dale in L.A. — February 15, 2006 @ 2:18 pm - February 15, 2006
-
The role of social engineers in America’s cultural experience is only rated well by the engineers who sought to impact the culture.-
The problem is that social engineering is such a broad term. If we take away any form of social engineering then we would not have unemployment benefits, we wouldn’t have the minimum wage, we wouldn’t have salaries, on and on.
Comment by Carl — February 15, 2006 @ 5:24 pm - February 15, 2006
That would be a good thing.
That would be even better.
You ran off the tracks there. I take it you have some sort of mental process that led you to this very bizarre conclusion?
Comment by rightwingprof — February 16, 2006 @ 1:34 pm - February 16, 2006
RWP expressed my thoughts precisely in #73. I also got lost on the the third one.
Speaking of the minimum wage, I came up with a great alternative. How about a policy that employers can’t make people work for a wage that’s lower than what they’re willing to work for? For instance, if someone offers you a job and you don’t think the wage is sufficient, it would be illegal for them to force you to take the job. What do you think?
Comment by Dale in L.A. — February 17, 2006 @ 12:50 pm - February 17, 2006