As I hope my regular posts on repealing Don’t Ask/Don’t (DADT) have made clear, I believe now is the time to move forward on repeal. Yet, I understand obstacles may emerge. Right now, it appears that with pressure from the president’s base, he is beginning to budge, yet there are signs that he might not be up to the challenge.
Earlier today, Glenn Reynolds linked a post saying that the White House won’t commit to repeal of DADT. At the same time, that prolific blogger also took note of a poll showing that 69% support letting gays serve openly in military — including 62% of Republicans. That poll is consistent with a Gallup poll last year finding that 58% of conservatives thought gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military.
But, we’re hearing some concerns from top military brass:
The top officers of the U.S. Army and Air Force told lawmakers Tuesday that they should go slow in repealing the military’s ban on openly gay service members, parting ways with the nation’s senior uniformed officer who testified earlier that it was “the right thing to do.”
“I do have serious concerns about the impact of repeal of the law on a force that’s fully engaged in two wars and has been at war for 8 1/2 years,” Army Gen. George Casey told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “We just don’t know the impacts on readiness and military effectiveness.”
Across Capitol Hill, Air Force Gen. Norton Schwartz echoed that sentiment. He told the House Armed Services Committee it was his “strong conviction” that “this is not the time to perturb the force that is at the moment stretched by demand in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Given that some generals have concerns about the plan, we see once again the wisdom of the Administration’s go-slow approach, studying the issue to find a means to implement repeal without impacting military morale or unit cohesion.
Let’s hope this study reassures these generals whose chief concern, after all, is the effectiveness of our armed forces. Their concerns might also be allayed by a a new study showing that the transition to allowing gays to serve openly in the military in 25 countries has been “highly successful” with “no negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness.”
Studies show that repealing the ban won’t hurt the effectiveness of our armed forces. The American people support it. All we need now is the will of the Administration to keep moving the ball forward.
This has nothing to do with a serious study on this issue as the brass already knows everything they are going to without actually changing the policy. Instead this is about politics, pure and simple. The brass is stalling, hoping for a DADT-friendly Congress this November while the Obama Administration doesn’t want this to interfere with their Grand Strategy To Save The Dem Majority yet gets to look good in fron of their base (which doesn’t appear to be buying at the moment). Hence why I’m cynical about this effort actually being serious. It’s not. Talk is cheap, repeal the ban. Delay implementation for a year or two if necessary, but put the repeal into place now.
just a point of clarification about the caption you cite above. were schwartz and casey expressing concerns about the repeal of DADT or about imposing a moratorium on discharges? i was under the impression, based on other accounts of this testimony, that they were talking about the proposed moratorium, not about DADT itself.
i think the deliberative approach is wise here. on balance, the information coming out overwhleming supports the repeal of DADT, which will make it harder for people to vote to keep the policy.
and NOW the Navy is going to start allowing women on subs. . .will it ever end?
US navy moves to lift ban on women serving in submarines
• Congress has 30 to days to approve decision
• Opponents cite health risk to embryos
Elaine Donnelly citing her ‘concerns’. again.
It’s an election year. Republicans think they need support from the fundamentalist fringe, so don’t count on them. Dems are running scared in their districts, so don’t count on them. Obama is trying to shore up the gay vote, but I doubt he has any serious intent to move forward.
While we wait for DADT repeal, are we supposed to assume that the people who brought us radar don’t have any gaydar? It’s all silly. Keep military secrets to yourself, but don’t lie about who you are:
http://bit.ly/9YNli3
(satire)
As someone who has had conversations with Elaine Donnelly at CPAC and wants more information on the impact of DADT, I wish this question could have been addressed to Lt. Col Allen West. The goal of the US military is not fairness but to “kill people and break things” when ordered to. Repealling DADT will not result in a flood of gay soldiers but it may result in a decline in enlistments of soldiers who dislike gays. We may dislike their bigotry but they guard us while we sleep and we need them.
Recruitment officers should be asked their opinion on this as well. I think we can all agree that we need a strong military. Does DADT in the 21st Century hurt that goal or help it. In any event, I salute all veterans including lesbian and gays soldiers for their service.
I have often wondered about the fragile heterosexual community. Some think that a few homosexual images will forever change the sexuality of a child. Some think showering next to a gay person will provoke a series of soldiers to not re-enlist.
I also find it interesting that a healthcare overhaul that only 38% of American support and will effect 1/6th of the economy gets rammed through Congress (behind closed doors) with lightening speed and repeal of DADT with a majority of Americans supporting it gets at least one year of intense public scrutiny and baby steps it’s way through Congress. Anyone else see a disconnect here?
Why is it that somehow people want to hang DADT on the republicans. This law was passed under a Clinton Presidency. More importantly, Obama had a fillibuster-proof majority and this would have been an easy piece of legislation to achieve actual bipartisionship because there are plenty of republicans that would have reached across the aisle on that one.
But instead of doing actual legislating, Obama and his Democratic Allies in Congress have been spending their intellectual capital on the massive government programs like cap-and-trade and the health care thing.
Like so many of the other groups that elected Obama, they are finding out that they were used.
TNNs1
They hope by passing health care, they’ll get that 32% to support DADT.
I come from a military family. I was in the Air Force myself. I want gays to be able to serve openly and get married. I would have made the military a career had that been the case. I enlisted when Clinton said he would let gays in the military.
This is going to be long. I’m sorry but I think exploration of some of these issues are going to facilitate more progress than saying repeal should or should not happen. As we’ve seen, most people think repeal should happen. I’m not offering these examples as reasons to not repeal DADT but to ask how can we expect the military to address these issues.
Enlistment issues: Would we see a decline in women enlisting if the sexes were completely integrated in the military? Would we expect any less form men and women with what would have to be complete open integration of gays?
We also have an all volunteer armed forces (as it should be). It’s great that other countries let gays serve openly but do they have an all volunteer service? There is a difference between letting someone serve openly despite being gay and not letting someone out of mandatory military service for being gay. Israel has mandatory service, Mexico works on a lottery basis and Germany has everyone go thru basic training and then get on with their lives. This information was given to me by people from those countries. So what ever the nuts and bolts are, this is how those who live it describe it. I’m sure other countries have other variations. But another country that does not have an all volunteer force is not an applicable comparison.
Also there is the reality of the way the military justice system works. Accusations of racism, sexism, harassment are taken very VERY seriously. My commander would not have a one on one closed door meeting with a woman because in the military, you are largely guilty until proven innocent. He would leave the door open and make sure the desks outside his office was populated.
What happens when some one flaunts their sexuality, then claims harassment or prejudice when they don’t get a promotion or an accommodation or something else they want? How the military personal ignored signs of trouble that allowed things to progress at Ft. Hood is a prime example of how military personal are scared to death of any accusation of prejudice. I don’t think we are going to have gays start shooting people up but how military personal could easily be subjected to false claims that could ruin their lives and career is a very real concern. What happens when someone who flaunts their sexuality claims prejudice when (like everyone else in the military) gets yelled at or doesn’t get something they want. I don’t think every gay person will do this, but it doesn’t take more than one or two instances before military wide policies have to be instated. what would they be? How could someone defend themselves against false accusations of bigotry?
Also, why not have a non-binding secret vote of active duty military to see what they think?
In closing. I wasn’t to re-emphasize these are not arguments against repel but questions that need to be addressed so that normative arguments (it should be this way or this should not happen) don’t supersede actual issues and result in problems for everyone involved.
As the health care debate is showing, no matter how close we think we are, the done deal can be maddeningly elusive. I fear the same with repeal of DADT.
Here’s a recent musical op-ed piece on DADT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfJDBljXYvw
I’m new to this site and I would like to ask a few questions that I’ve never seen addressed in any meaningful way on other forum. While I am aware that the subject is sensitive, I’m addressing it here because over the years (yeah, I’m a lurker) I’ve come to respect the opinions of a few of the regular members that frequent this site. The answer to these questions, while complex, might in fact be the crux of the matter involving DADT as well as other issues involving the gay community.
Gay people insist that being gay is innate (like being Black or left-handed) and in most cases I am prepared to accept that. But, there are other instances where it seems that being gay is not innate but perhaps a result of childhood trauma. Yet, this is never honestly explored. Let me explain. Recently my nephew was discovered attempting to forcibly rape my 4-year-old cousin. We informed Child Protective Services and they found that his grandmother’s boyfriend had been molesting him since he was a baby. Though he is currently in counseling, there is at least some likelihood that my nephew will exhibit homosexual behavior in the future. I mentioned this incident to some trusted co-workers and a few related similar accounts in their own families. In every case their relative later insisted they were gay (and were never told of the molestation, and we probably won’t either).
Also, I few months ago I read that a Duke University researcher had been molesting his 5-year-old adoptive son since infancy (and had probably made him available to other men). I read somewhere that if a child experiences trauma before they are able to speak, they would forever be unable to verbalize it.
Questions:
Should the children mentioned adopt a gay identity in the future would it in fact be a valid one?
It is also conceivable that these children might have no memory of the molestation and will therefore believe that his desire for men was innate? And, if their homosexuality is not innate, might they possibly exhibit psychological dysfunctions or other anti-social behaviors in the future?
If childhood molestation is the cause of ones homosexuality, might reparative therapy then be a valid course of action? My family might be faced with this action in the future.
I realize these might be uncomfortable questions but I am asking in all sincerity. I’m only asking because it seems that it might be at least one of the issues involving sexual orientation that most people are aware of but feel uncomfortable or apprehensive addressing. But, whether we address them or not, people know what they know and no amount of research can invalidate that.
But, back to DADT. Is it also possible that the military is aware of these of these same issues and might it be driving at least some of the resistance to fully being able to incorporate gay soldiers into the military?
Since I have no idea, if, or when, anyone will respond to my question, I will check back periodically. Again, please believe that this is not an attempt to disrespect any member on this site, and, I confess that I am somewhat apprehensive asking it myself, so if the questions seem inappropriate, I apologize.
Carlyle, I am not an expert in this field, but I’ll try to answer your questions. To my knowledge, I have never been molested. But being gay has never been my choice. In fact, when I was, say 13, and I was given that choice, I would have chosen to be straight. There would have been no question about that.
I had an ex who was molested as a child. So that’s my example of someone who I knew personally that was molested. However, I remember hearing of a professional football player who admitted to being molested as a child, and I’m pretty sure he is straight.
The trauma of being molested probably affects different people different ways. So I’m sure it’s possible that it would take persons who would otherwise have been straight, gay. Or vice versa.
I believe that there is a genetic connection to being gay. For example, research has shown that about half of persons whose identical twin is gay are also gay, compared to a much lower percentage for fraternal twins. This shows that this is not completely environmental. The best way I heard it explained is that there is a “gay” gene (or genes), but in order to manifest itself, there is some “switch” that is turned during ones early childhood. Perhaps child molestation is the switch for some persons. But it seems that something more psychological is going on here.
What I would recommend is therapy from a professional therapist. Someone who can help the victims cope with the reality of what happened, and help them move on. And try to have the victim be able to have the sexual identity that is right for them. I would NEVER have the victims go to “reparative” “therapy.” These are not professionals, and do not have any interest in having the victims return to what their otherwise sexual orientation would be, unless it happened to be heterosexual. These people damage lives. That’s the last thing a victim of molestation needs.