In three separate letters Monday to both chambers of Congress and the Department of Defense, the American Bar Association [ABA] called for an end to DADT and offered legal assistance in drafting a new policy. . . .
[ABA President Carolyn] Lamm notes that Americans don’t have a fundamental right to serve in the military, but writes that “there is no sufficient reason in our view to continue to deprive these men and women of the opportunity to serve their country and to deprive the nation of their talent and skill.”
Very well said, Ms. Lamm. Nice to see her acknowledge that this is not an issue of fundamental rights. And while I agree these gay men and women who want to serve and are otherwise qualified to do so should have the opportunity to serve, I also think we need point out the national security aspect of repeal, that by limiting the pool from which military recruiters can draw, we limit the number of able bodied Americans who can serve.
Simply put, the ban deprives the military of thousands of men and women eager to serve, to risk their lives to defend the nation that we all love.
Mr. President, with the ABA coming out for repeal, it’s clear a consensus is building for you to keep your campaign promise. Please tell us your press secretary misspoke when he said the Administration had no intention to push DAT repeal this year. The time for action is now.
Fascinating.
A group of lawyers, who admit there is no right to serve in the military — and therefore absolutely no reason whatsoever for them to inject themselves — are nonetheless injecting themselves, and telling the military what it should do in the middle of TWO wars without ever even acknowledging that the country is at war in not one, but two wars (three if you count the
Global War on Terror“Overseas Contingency Operation”)I’m sorry Dan, but these letters are a complete train-wreck on so many levels, I have to rip them apart.
1. They admit that the issue is not a legal one, and therefore their professional expertise is irrelevant.
2. Professional ethics requires that since it is not a legal issue, and not a matter for the Judicial branch to decide, that they maintain impartiality and stay out of it, and let the branches of government whose business it IS to decide the matter — the Executive and the Legislative — handle it.
3. They butt in anyway. (which just goes to show you how prevalent judicial activism has become, that they felt comfortable weighing in on a matter they have no ethical business butting in to.)
4. Since there is no legal argument at issue for them to offer their expertise on, they instead offer their opinions on matters that have nothing to do with their expertise — fairness and military readiness. (When rights are not in question — as they admit they are not, then what is fair and not fair is up to the people and the Legislative branch to decide, not the judicial. And military readiness is of course up to the executive and legislative branches.)
and what is their considered, inexpert opinion?
I can think of at least two reasons:
1. The Iraq War
2. The War in Afghanistan
No, scratch that, I can think of a whole bunch of reasons:
1. Iraq
2. Afghanistan
3. The Global War on Terror
4. Iran may announce they have nuclear weapons at any moment
5. Israel may go to war with Iran at any moment. (God protect them)
And the very simple fact that garners absolutely no mention whatsoever in either the letters or this post, that the one and ONLY appropriate consideration that is relevant as to whether “now is the time” to repeal DADT or not, is how it will affect our military while we are in not one, not two, but three wars with perhaps a few more just around the corner.
And why would it be a problem to introduce drastic new social experimentation into the military during the midst of three wars?
Well, they ADMIT two reasons why that could be a problem right in their letters themselves. Number one:
It’s not? Says who? And why not? They just admitted it may happen and they’ve already admitted its not a matter of rights, so on what basis did they come to this determination? Apparently because “More than 13,000 men and women have been dismissed” in the 17 years since the law went into effect, or roughly around 770 per year.
Well, yes, that sounds mean. And it MAY harm military effectiveness, but what they dont mention is that there are currently over 1.1 MILLION active duty service members in the military, and when you subtract the 770 gays and lesbians dismissed over the past year, that still leaves 1,099,233 service members who have to deal with the upheaval.
A great percentage of whom are fundamentalist Christians, Blacks, Hispanics, and other groups in which many members might be very uncomfortable serving with open homosexuals.
Yes, yes, I know, “but they’re big bad bigots!” Stay with me, dont fly off the handle yet.
How many of those would leave the military or not reenlist? How many from those groups that make up a highly disproportionate percentage of the military would not enlist in the first place if they worried about having to share barracks, berth and shower with out and proud gay guys?
yes, yes, I know, how awful to suggest that its OK for anyone to discriminate like that. But what I am saying has nothing to do with whether its right or not. Only that it may be the case. Only cold hard facts.
So if that number who would leave, out of almost 1.1 Million servicemen is greater than the 770 gays and lesbians who are dismissed every year, then such a policy automatically has a NEGATIVE effect on military readiness (assuming the skills of the troops in question are similar)
Sorry, this is not about whats fair, life isn’t fair, and the military isn’t about being fair — its about being a better killing machine than any enemy they come up against.
SECONDLY, they admit:
Which is a diplomatic way of saying it will cause all sorts of upheaval.
And since they and everyone else seems to have forgotten, WE’RE AT WAR. When you are at least ostensibly trying to win wars, you do not handicap yourself by introducing massive new unnecessary policy changes and social upheaval. Sorry. Thats how you lose wars, not how you win them.
What happens to the people who dont like the policy change? What if they say something offensive? Will they be punished? Court marshalled? Will they have to go through sensitivity training? Oh you can BET there will be new mandatory sensativity training courses for everyone. And isn’t that JUST what the military needs to be focused on right now? Not to mention all sorts of new rules and regulations, with new procedures and punishments. Once the policy is implemented, there will be unforeseen circumstances that will have to be dealt with with new policies and procedures….
I’m sorry Dan, the time for repeal is NOT now. The time for repeal is
1. When the military says it will make our forces more effective, not less, or at least have a neutral effect, and
2. Like Harry Truman did with integration, when our country is NOT AT WAR, and it will not be a huge distraction from the only thing the military should be focused on — winning the wars.
And to those who will reflexively reject all of the above since it is not what they want to hear, I ask, are you prepared to enlist, or be drafted if enlistment goes down?
Wonderfully written, AE. I’d like to see DADT repealed, but I feel that now is not the time. Ignoring the political aspects of it, the point is this-if you don’t like the military’s rules, don’t join the military.
Wow–repeal an unjust law! What an idea! If I list groups that support the overthrowing of the AZ immigration law, would that make you change your mind?
I disagree, AE. You say that the military is full of those who who might leave if they found out that gays and lesbians are serving along side of them. I have faith in our military that they’ll adapt to any situation.
I was talking to a candidate for the open Senate seat in Indiana running in the GOP primary. He and I disagree on a lot, but he’s the only candidate in the lot who has actually served in the military. And coincidentally, he’s the only one who said he’d vote for a DADT repeal. He said that he served with gay men and women, and these were people he’d trust his life with.
You say why change this policy in a time of war. I say why not. In a time of war, we shouldn’t be turning away able bodied people.
I guess I’d also argue that we aren’t in a time of war because Congress never authorized and voted for a declaration of war as per our Constitution…but I suppose that’s another topic.
Just because some of us respectfully disagree with your position does not mean we “reflexively reject” it as something we don’t want to hear. I, for one, am willing to hear it and even actively listen; I just simply disagree.
But to answer your question: Yes. I’m prepared for them to recall me to duty any time the military decides it needs me. It’s what I signed up for then and what I’m ready for now, with or without the ban. (I’m too old now to volunteer. I think.) Either way I figured you deserved an answer. 🙂
Pelosi today promised a vote on DADT this year. I’m not sure it’s going to happen. Democrats are nervous that the GOP will use it as an election issue in the fall, which, of course, they will.
And that ASSertion is based on…..what?
Not quite what I said. I said there may be a good number of people who might leave. Small distinction, but an important one. But, I simply dont know. But it is important that we have a good idea what will happen before we do it, especially in war time, not blindly demand change. The military can fairly easily predict what will happen by polling their ranks and asking them. Who knows, they may already have done so. Yet no one demanding the repeal of DADT has bothered to show any concern for this much more important consideration.
And I answered my own question with the Bar Association’s own admissions that
1. others may react negatively, in ways which may be worse for military readiness than turning away able bodied people, such as more people leaving than are turned away, or deterioration of “unit cohesion”. And
2. by the Bar’s own admission, implementing a policy of this nature means major upheaval. All sorts of new rules and regulations about what troops can and cannot do. Sensitivity training courses. Other courses on how to deal with situations this policy change may bring up. Disciplinary action for those who break the rules, animosity over soldiers being punished for stuff they didnt used to get punished for. Perhaps court marshals. And plenty of unforseen consequences that will require yet MORE upheaval and MORE new rules and regulations and training…
…ALL of which distracts the military from their number one job, winning the wars we are in.
I dont know about you, but Ive worked for corporations when major policy changes were directed, I had to put my entire department through sexual harassment courses, and it was ENORMOUSLY disruptive. Work suffered in both quality and quantity as time and attention was taken away from the departments function.
But that department wasnt at war. We planned the changes to take place during the slowest time of year so as to disrupt business the least, and unlike DADT, the changes were NECESSARY, to protect the company from lawsuit. The Bar Association has already admitted that these changes are NOT necessary from a legal standpoint.
So the reason we should not repeal DADT is that we should not unnecessarily handicap and distract our military in wartime. When we are war, the priority needs to be winning the war, not how gays feel about their NON-right to talk about their sexuality at work.
They didn’t? What language does the Constitution require them to use? “1-2-3-4, I declare we are at war?”. Where does it dictate what words must be used? Citations please. The congress authorized the use of any and all military force necessary in Iraq, Afghanistan, and where ever else necessary. Moreover, if you are correct, than almost every war the United States has been in has been illegal. But yes, that is another topic altogether. And if you dont believe we are at war, then I would hope you wouldn’t want to distract the military with unnecessary upheaval when they are in harms way.
Then you aren’t reflexively disagreeing, you are thoughtfully disagreeing, and my comment wasnt directed at you.
I’m glad you are ready to re-up, because frankly I dont think many people who advocate these changes have even bothered to consider that enlistment could suffer as a result, and wouldn’t particularly care if it did. Not based on any polls or anything, only based on the arguments and priorities I have seen and heard people espouse.
The American Bar Association’s opinions on this matter are bound to have a great impact. Not.
I’m heterosexual and served as an enlisted soldier. I disagree with American Elephant that a DADT repeal will lead to “all sorts of upheaval”. The mass exodus from the Army that AE implies would happen is hyperbolic at least. I also believe there wouldn’t be a large increase of openly gay people joining the military after DADT is repealed. The military is highly self-selective. I believe the change would mostly affect the gays soldiers already serving and gay people who would have joined or seriously considered joining the military despite DADT.