Yesterday, Bruce noted that Rep. Ellen Tauscher of California (who carrys some weight, not only as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, but also as someone whose district includes Travis AFB) introduced legislation to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. At the same time, he noted a legal fight in the works regarding the policy.
Since I returned Stateside a couple months ago, I’ve been considering reposting the series I wrote just over two years ago on the issue. After the Inauguration, and knowing the issue would resurface, I reviewed the series. It still stands up, so if interested, feel free to follow the links below to the six-part series, titled DADT: A Gay Servicemember’s Perspective:
Part I: Not-So-Straight Facts
Part II: What’s Really Important Here?
Part III: What Doesn’t Work
Part IV: A Winning Argument
Part V: How You Gonna Do That?
Part VI: How Do You Really Feel?
-Nick (Colorado Patriot) from TML
Sidebar, but Nick, I can’t tell you how many times crazed leftists on GayPatriot have told us that you, John, and others with an ex- or current-military connection… do not exist.
These are generally the same people who try to tell us that none of us are Bush critics (wrong!), none of us work or have worked for gay rights (wrong again!), blah blah blah.
As you repeatedly point out the key issue is the effect on mission (if any). Given that the normal objection is unit cohesion, presumably on behalf of other military members, are you aware of any data estimating the approval / disapproval rates of those currently serving? Or serving at the time of the survey even if not current?
MJ: Good point. I also point out that it’s not up to the military to defend its policy. Rather, it’s incumbent on those of us who wish it changed to show how that change would positively affect the mission.
As long as we insist (and I’m not sure if that’s what you’re doing with your comment, so no offense meant here) that it’s the military that should defend its current policy, we’re fighting from the wrong perspective.
To that end, while your point is valid, it’s not germane. Unless there is evidence that changing the policy would actually improve morale, simply saying it might not hurt isn’t going to cut it.
Welcome back Nick!
CP – In all likelihood such a policy change will cause improved morale for some but lowered morale for others. If studies show a small number for whom lowered morale is a risk you have a better chance of arguing the net effect is positive. I think this is a very relevant data point, as would any change demonstrated between such studies now and in decades past.
My question is the history of actions for those who violated DADT by “ASKING.” My ex was asked and nothing happened to his CO. Every public story if find was a case of telling under duress from a superior. I have done some research but find NO reports of disciplinary action for violating the “Don’t Ask” part of this. I submit that DADT might work in the presence of equal punishment. Am I missing something?