Gay Patriot Header Image

Pentagon Report Favors gradual implementation of DADT Repeal

Unlike Bruce Kesler, I lack the time to read the entire Pentagon Study on repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Would it that it would come out after I defend my dissertation just over a week from now.  Joined by Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates today urged the Senate to repeal the so-called ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law this year“:

Gates said any change causes short-term disruptions, but that the military can handle longer-term impacts. He added that he’s recommending repeal of the law after fully studying the potential impact on military readiness, including the impact on unit cohesion, recruiting and retention, and other issues critical to the performance of the force.

To be sure, some troops in combat units raised concerns, but substantial majorities of servicemembers overall have no issues about serving with gay people, with 69 percent of those who responded to the survey believing “they had already served alongside a gay person.  Of those who believed that, 92 percent said their units were able to work together and 8 percent said the units functioned poorly as a result.

Kesler points out that “the report calls for gradual implementation” which is, as it should be.  Mullen said

. . . he agreed with Gates that “this is a policy change that we can make and we can do it in a relatively low-risk fashion,” given time to prepare forces and leaders for new rules and expectations.

Given this report and the military brass’s commitment to implement repeal, consistent with the legislation before the Senate in this gradual manner, which all the various services to develop a policy for implementing the new policy, it’s imperative that the Senate act swiftly on repeal, so that the military brass can do their job and put that policy in place as quickly as possible.

For an opposing view, check out what this McCain has to say.

Share

38 Comments

  1. [...] consequences — if any — will be far outweighed by the benefits.UPDATE: Welcome, Gay Patriot readers. You may be interested in my August post about the San Francisco v. Schwarzenegger court [...]

    Pingback by Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and Don’t Go Messing With the U.S. Marine Corps : The Other McCain — December 1, 2010 @ 7:21 am - December 1, 2010

  2. A caller to Rusty Humphries, last night, was saying that the poll had some pretty convoluted questions. From what he was saying, it sounded like those pre-employment exams where you’re not quite sure that if you say X, they will read it that you said Y.

    Another fellow said that their post commander told them all to answer truthfully as there would be no recrimination while their company commander told them to be careful because they would be reading the responses.

    While these were anecdotal, and I haven’t seen the questions myself, it sounds like the questionnaire was very straightforward nor does it sound like there wasn’t any pressure put on those who answered.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 1, 2010 @ 7:26 am - December 1, 2010

  3. B. Daniel, here’s your and GOProud’s chance to be consistent with you call for the GOP to ignore gay issues. You and GOProud should demand that Senate Republicans–and House Republicans, too–not vote in favor of repeal. Of course, you won’t do that because your clamor for GOP silence on social, and specifically gay, issues was just a strategy to defeat social conservatism in the ongoing culture war.

    There’s no real reason to repeal DADT other than to social engineer the military. Supporters of repeal don’t give a rat’s ass about military readiness. If they did they wouldn’t keep pushing for repeal since DADT itself hasn’t harmed the military’s ability to do its job. But if repeal is inevitable I have a challenge for you, B. Daniel. Why don’t you and other gay “conservatives” urge that the ONLY effect of repealing DADT should be to allow gay servicemen to be verbally open about their sexuality without being discharged. Period. Urge that repeal legislation specify that the military is NOT endorsing homosexuality nor giving any special consideration to the relationships of gay soldiers. How about that? Of course, I know you won’t do it, but if you and other gay “conservatives” did it would at least give you some cover to claim that you’re not using the military simply to advance the cause of legitimizing homosexuality.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — December 1, 2010 @ 7:35 am - December 1, 2010

  4. Seane-Anna,

    I’ve posted reasons why the policy is obsolete. You may chose to ignore them, but it doesn’t make them less ‘real’.

    This issue is that we have people who are physically able and willing to serve. If they can handle basic training/AIT and can conduct themselves with the UCMJ, they should be allowed to serve. While I doubt anyone has a unique skillset, it would increase the size of the talent pool our armed forces can draw from. I don’t feel this is a social issue (like repealing DOMA) it’s an effectiveness issue.

    I’m all for including in the repeal legislation charges of treason for Bradley Manning. Call it bi-partisan outreach.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 1, 2010 @ 8:34 am - December 1, 2010

  5. Would it that it [the Pentagon's DADT study] would come out after I defend my dissertation just over a week from now.

    So, what–your dissertation is more important than this!?

    Break a leg on your defense. Hope it goes smoothly and favorably.

    Eric Hines

    Comment by E Hines — December 1, 2010 @ 8:42 am - December 1, 2010

  6. Yea, it is imperative that this happen, but it won’t. Republicans are already committed to blocking it. Holding the bill hostage until they get there 700 billion dollar tax cuts approved. Politics as usual. Until this huge partisan divide in Washington is resolved, I don’t envision much getting done period.

    Comment by AJ — December 1, 2010 @ 12:00 pm - December 1, 2010

  7. @Sean Anna, this isn’t about “social engineering”. It’s about recognizing that all Americans, regardless of their sexuality, have inherent rights as Americans to serve their country on an equal basis with their fellow countrymen. Our call to the Republican party to stand firm on fiscal and economic matters is not inconsistant with our belief that our Constitution requires equal treatment of all Americans. Gay Americans have much to offer our country in service.

    Comment by man — December 1, 2010 @ 12:18 pm - December 1, 2010

  8. I should amend my previous #7 post, ” It’s about recognizing that all Americans WHO ARE OTHERWISE PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY ABLE, regardless of their sexuality, have inherent rights as Americans to serve their country on an equal basis with their fellow countrymen. ”

    As a former Naval Aviator, I recall the arguments at the time of my service that females were neither physically nor psychologically able, and their presence would be disruptive of the overall combat readiness. In addition, opponents argued that females killed in combat would be an unacceptable psychological blow to their male counterparts.

    Somehow our combat readiness improved, as it will with the full acceptance and inclusion of gay servicemembers. I suspect Secy. Gates understands this.

    Comment by man — December 1, 2010 @ 12:33 pm - December 1, 2010

  9. man, good point about social engineering, but I disagree about there being an inherent right to serve. If that were the case, the military could place no limits on those who wish to serve.

    The issue here is whether it makes military sense to exclude gay people. And study after study after study confirms that it does not.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 1, 2010 @ 12:53 pm - December 1, 2010

  10. it’s imperative that the Senate act swiftly on repeal, so that the military brass can do their job

    That might be a little strong. I’d like to see it go forward, as you describe. But I also agree with what McConnell has said about the Senate agenda. Referring to fiscal matters (e.g. tax cuts) as a priority, he said:

    “Republicans have pleaded with Democrats to put aside their wish-list to focus on the things Americans want us to focus on. They’ve ignored us. The voters repudiated their agenda at the polls. They’ve ignored them. Time is running out. They’re ignoring that,” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said in remarks on the Senate floor. “The election was a month ago. It’s time to get serious. It’s time to focus on priorities.”

    In other words, tax cuts first. My (slight) objection is to your use of the word “imperative”; if several things are imperative, then none of them are.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 1, 2010 @ 1:45 pm - December 1, 2010

  11. Dan, my argument is that all other things being equal, being gay should be not be a disqualification from serving. Merely to disqualify a gay person from serving his country when there’s a need for his abilities and willingness to serve is inherently wrong. Having said that, I would not want the military to adopt an “affirmative action” program for gays either. Ever since we have had a military service, gays have proved our willingness and ability on the battlefield along our straight comrades. My sexualiity in the Airdale Navy never compromised my abilities. It was never an issue.

    Comment by man — December 1, 2010 @ 1:46 pm - December 1, 2010

  12. man, seems we’re just quibbling over semantics then. :-)

    Does seem we agree on this point. Thanks for the clarification!

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 1, 2010 @ 1:54 pm - December 1, 2010

  13. all other things being equal, being gay should be not be a disqualification from serving

    Agreed here also. “All other things being equal” would include adhering to the revised rules, respecting one’s comrades, doing one’s job, etc.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 1, 2010 @ 1:58 pm - December 1, 2010

  14. I see the GOP quickly pivoted from “fiscal sanity” to the ‘billionaires are people too’ social policy. I wonder how they can justify that given the tax cuts of the 90′s and 2000′s why repealing a provisional tax cut that no longer makes sense. Sure we don’t want to over tax the rich, it doesn’t make sense to when they can hide their money, but maybe a more targeted tax incentive should be offered instead of a blank check paid for with borrowed money.
    How do they justify borrowing money for the rich but not for the unemployed? I pay almost 30k in taxes a year and have for the past 5 years, I’m not anywhere near the cut off line for the 250k level but even i could chip in a bit more if it’s going to go to paying for the services I use or helping the poor. I don’t want my share of government debt to go up because the millionaires can’t afford a 3rd home without some help from Uncle Sam.

    Comment by Tim — December 1, 2010 @ 2:12 pm - December 1, 2010

  15. I wonder how they can justify that given the tax cuts of the 90′s and 2000′s

    Tim, obviously you have not heard of Hauser’s Law – and much else.

    Here’s the gist. Raising tax rates does not actually raise Federal revenues. It shrinks the pie from which taxes are raised. It weakens or destroys incentives to save and invest – *which is where jobs come from, and why Obama isn’t creating them*. And it creates inefficiency by forcing people to play more games to avoid taxes.

    As raising taxes will thus NOT SOLVE our fiscal dilemma – it will only weaken the overall economy, destroying hope and opportunity for millions (not just the rich) – our one and only choice to solve the deficit is to CUT SPENDING.

    CUT. SPENDING. Just reversing spending (including Federal employee salaries and benefits) to 2006 levels, would save several hundreds of billions. Can anyone seriously argue that in 2006, government wasn’t big enough? government wasn’t doing enough?

    I don’t want my share of government debt to go up

    Then *CUT SPENDING*. If you try to solve it by raising taxes, it won’t work and your share of debt will only continue to go up.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 1, 2010 @ 2:36 pm - December 1, 2010

  16. Here’s another thought . . . further to the premise that gays from the founding of our republic have honorably and courageously served in our military, I wonder if memoirs or other records exist of these men and women? I’d especially be interested in the early years of our nation.

    Comment by man — December 1, 2010 @ 3:55 pm - December 1, 2010

  17. How do they justify borrowing money for the rich but not for the unemployed?

    With the tax cuts, the percentage of taxes paid by the “rich” went up, employment increased, revenues increased, GDP increased etc. Even the “poor” have gotten richer over the past 30 years. How do you justify slamming the brakes on any of that which may be happening?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 1, 2010 @ 4:21 pm - December 1, 2010

  18. So Tim, if you want to pay more taxes, go ahead.

    Indeed, I challenge you. Take no deductions this year, use no credits, and report everything as regular income subject to the highest tax.

    After all, that’s what you are demanding other people who make more than you do. And since you clearly make more than other people, why don’t you do it too? After all, why should their share of government debt go up so you can afford a bigger TV, newer car, or nicer clothes? You don’t “need” those things; why shouldn’t you fork over the money you spend on them to the government?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 1, 2010 @ 4:29 pm - December 1, 2010

  19. I’m not sure I understand the gradual part. How would you gradually implement DADT repeal?

    Comment by Nathan — December 1, 2010 @ 4:49 pm - December 1, 2010

  20. [...] Welcome, Gay Patriot readers. You may be interested in my August post about the San Francisco v. Schwarzenegger court [...]

    Pingback by Combat Troops Have Enough on Their Plate | ZION'S TRUMPET — December 1, 2010 @ 4:58 pm - December 1, 2010

  21. man: Conduct Unbecoming by Randy Shilts

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 1, 2010 @ 7:12 pm - December 1, 2010

  22. This Pentagon report is disturbing. Not because it apparently recommends the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, but because it does so not BECAUSE of their findings, but does so IN SPITE of their findings. Which means this is a politically-motivated report that set out to figure out HOW to repeal DADT, not a best-policy motivated report which should have set out to determine what’s best for the military.

    In other words, CONTRARY to what everyone is reporting, this report absolutely DOES NOT say that DADT should be repealed. Indeed, their findings are that it WILL harm readiness and it WILL harm recruitment. IN fact the report specifically says that it DOES NOT answer the question of whether DADT should be repealed or not, and that determination should be left to congress:

    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.

    Indeed, over and over and over again, the report admits that repeal of DADT will cause problems, BIG problems, that they believe they can minimize IF the entire military undergoes massive new training and a drastic change in atmosphere.

    It says specifically (as specifically as you can get in a political report) that this report only determines whether or not it CAN be done, not whether or not it SHOULD be done, or whether or not it will make the job of the military harder, and especially not whether it will make the military better or more effective. Their finding s make clear that it WILL harm unit cohesion and their ability to recruit (see below), which inherently means that it will HARM the military.

    All this report concludes is that IF congress decides to go ahead with repeal, they believe the military MAY be able to compensate in the long term, IF they retrain everyone in the entire million-plus force, change policies, change the entire military atmosphere at vast expense, upheaval and yes, damage to short term readiness, effectiveness and recruitment.

    For example, the report says:

    We are mindful that, during this time of war, these same survey results reveal a significant minority—around 30%, and in some cases as high as 40–60% in warfighting units—that predict negative effects.

    The report further says that one-third of all combat troops would leave early or consider leaving early if gays are allowed to serve openly.

    The report further says that most gays in the military say they would not want to serve openly, so that all this admitted upheaval, loss of effectiveness, recruiting ability, unit cohesion at vast cost in time, effort and money is being done for a tiny minority WITHIN a tiny minority.

    So we risk losing a third of our combat troops for no good reason, spending hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars to retrain everyone in our over one-million military personnel and all the massive disruption and re-organization that entails, only to placate the hysterical emotions of a teeny tiny minority within a minority of military men and women.

    I’ve just finished listening to a military expert describing how allowing gays to serve openly HAS compromised foreign militaries, contrary to what we are told, because like our military, their fighting forces were opposed to it, and as a result, the numbers of those troops HAVE decreased, negatively effecting their ability to defend themselves, and to disguise those losses, they have increased the number of troops in non-combat roles.

    If you actually look at the findings of the report, the facts themselves are decidedly AGAINST repeal. When 40-60% of fighting forces say it would have negative effects, and 30% say they would leave or consider leaving — one has to wonder where the new forces to replace them are going to come from?

    The report never says one way or another whether DADT should be repealed. It never says, at least not outright, whether repeal would be good for the military or bad for the military. Actually, it DOES say it would be bad and would cause problems, but instead of then concluding the obvious, that DADT would be negative, it simply concludes that, well, they can maybe minimize the impact:

    Based on all we saw and heard, our assessment is that, when coupled with the prompt
    implementation of the recommendations we offer below
    , the risk of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to overall military effectiveness is low. We conclude that, while a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell 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, and can be adequately addressed by the recommendations we offer below. Longer term, with a continued and sustained commitment to our core values of leadership, professionalism, and respect for all, we are convinced that the U.S. military can adjust and accommodate this change[emphasis mine]

    Translation: “YES, it will disrupt unit cohesion and cause people to leave the military, particularly FIGHTING forces, especially in the Marines, buuuuut, in the long term, we THINK we can compensate”

    We are able to maintain an all-volunteer military primarily BECAUSE the call to duty is so high amongst Christian conservatives, who are vastly OVER-represented in the military. If significant numbers of them leave, maintaining an all-volunteer army — without political manipulations of numbers — will become very difficult.

    The conclusions of this report are being, as usual, completely distorted. It makes it very clear that it WILL be disruptive, it WILL harm unit cohesion — particularly in warfighting units — it WILL cause recruitment and retention problems and the ONLY justification they offer for doing so are

    1. That its not their place to make that determination, and,
    2. as they claimed, with only the email from one political activist as evidence…it’s supposedly inevitable. No polls to back that one up, no research to back it up, just one anecdotal emailed opinion.

    Sorry, this report is chock full of evidence that DADT should NOT be repealed and only reports how they believe they can minimize the damage it would do. It is NOT an endorsement, it is a political answer to a political order, but the FACTS presented withing the report are a direct REPUDIATION of the proposed change.

    Not that anyone cares what the report actually says.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 1, 2010 @ 9:37 pm - December 1, 2010

  23. The issue here is whether it makes military sense to exclude gay people. And study after study after study confirms that it does not.

    Dan, the above comment was not written to you, rather to the ether, but you should look at it, and look at the Pentagon report. It doesn;t say anything of the kind.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 2, 2010 @ 5:22 am - December 2, 2010

  24. Oh, and happy Hanukkah :)

    Comment by American Elephant — December 2, 2010 @ 5:23 am - December 2, 2010

  25. American Elephant, in your long comment there was one thing that jumped out at me. The part where you wrote that Christian conservatives are overrepresented in the military. BINGO!!!! That’s why, contrary to the opinion of most commenters here, repeal of DADT IS about social engineering.

    Gay activists, “conservative” and liberal both want, ABOVE ALL ELSE, approval of their sexuality. Making it so gays can serve openly in the military is part of that agenda. Gay activists want Christians to change their beliefs about homosexuality or, at the very least, be made to censor their beliefs. Having open homosexuality in an institution that’s heavily Christian is a strategy toward that goal, imo.

    Also, having gays serve openly in the military will almost certainly come with more demands for “equality” for gay servicemen, e.g. forcing military chaplains to perform gay weddings, allowing gay couples to live in base housing, etc., Indeed, openly gay servicemen could be a catalyst for imposing legalized gay marriage on all states. How? Well, the military sends people all over the country. If a gay couple is married in, say, Massachusetts, and the military then sends the couple to, say, Texas where gay marriage is illegal, what then? Can the military refuse to treat the couple as married while they’re living in Texas? Or, as most likely would happen, will there be a lawsuit demanding that military gay couples must be treated as married no matter in which state they live? See where this is going? Social engineering IS what repeal is all about.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — December 2, 2010 @ 7:34 am - December 2, 2010

  26. The Oh SO CUTE Thomas Roberts (and openly gay) reporter had Tony Perkins and a Sgt Fricke on yesterday.

    Roberts closing at the end of the interview. . .the is a list of countries that haven’t had any enlistment or retention issues. HMMMMM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jLNBawrUck

    Wiki list of countries allowing the MO’s to serve.

    Countries that allow homosexuals to serve in the military
    Albania
    Argentina
    Australia
    Austria
    Belgium
    Canada
    Colombia
    Czech Republic
    Denmark
    Estonia
    Finland
    France
    Germany
    Ireland
    Israel
    Italy
    Japan
    Lithuania
    Luxembourg
    Malta
    The Netherlands
    New Zealand
    Norway
    Peru
    Philippines
    Poland
    Romania
    Russia
    Serbia
    Slovenia
    South Africa
    Spain
    Sweden
    Switzerland
    Taiwan
    United Kingdom
    Bermuda
    Uruguay

    Comment by rusty — December 2, 2010 @ 8:35 am - December 2, 2010

  27. Dan, I’ve read all of your posts on the the repeal of DADT and the evolution of your logic supporting repeal –but it still strikes me as an effort in twisting the knot to argue repeal isn’t about social engineering.

    The efforts of some gay activists to argue a parallel with racial integration really demonstrated how much it was, indeed, about social engineering.

    It’s kind of like finally allowing Navy women to serve onboard submarines… a policy which went into effect just this year… at some point, all the arguments fall and the agitators will get what they want.

    It’s all about social engineering in the end. Sigh.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 2, 2010 @ 10:23 am - December 2, 2010

  28. M-M, we disagree. The social changes are already underway. If it were the purpose of repeal to effect social change, as one could have argued in 1993, then one might be able to call it social engineering.

    Recall that I only support repeal consistent with a plan determined by the military brass – not a judge without military experience — to enact it.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 2, 2010 @ 12:05 pm - December 2, 2010

  29. M-M, we disagree. The social changes are already underway. If it were the purpose of repeal to effect social change, as one could have argued in 1993, then one might be able to call it social engineering.

    Recall that I only support repeal consistent with a plan determined by the military brass – not a judge without military experience — to enact it.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 2, 2010 @ 12:05 pm - December 2, 2010

  30. I do and you’ve been incredibly consistent on that point even with an evolving, enlightening course of logic in your arguments.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 2, 2010 @ 2:12 pm - December 2, 2010

  31. Interesting, how Bradley Manning has become the poster child for social conservatives wishing to keep all gays out of the military.

    In this, they reveal that they do, indeed, think more like liberals than they do like anybody philosophically recognizable as a conservative.

    Conservatives think in terms of the individual. They would say that the individual, Bradley Manning, chose to betray his country. They would not therefore creatively extrapolate into making a generalization about ALL gays. Therefore they would recommend punishments administered to individuals — regardless of sexual orientation — for transgressions that have happened in fact, rather than vague prohibitions administered against broad groups of people — for transgressions imagined to possibly take place in the future.

    Big government statists, both Left and Right, prefer to see human individuals only as they can be conveniently lumped into groups. It is easier to control them that way, and control is always what statists are about. Statism annihilates individualism in the name of collectivism. This is always, always, the case.

    One of the great contributions of the Tea Party movement has been its willingness to intelligently remember what conservatism has traditionally been about. Let’s hope they don’t forget that now.

    Comment by Lori Heine — December 2, 2010 @ 4:59 pm - December 2, 2010

  32. American Elephant, in your long comment

    Yes, I apologize for it being so long, but after I had a good deal already written, I opened up the PDF report, and for some reason that slowed my computer down so much that it couldnt even keep up with my typing. So I couldnt go back and edit out all the repetition.

    Gay activists, “conservative” and liberal both want, ABOVE ALL ELSE, approval of their sexuality.

    People in hell want icewater. So what? Just because gays want to be able to serve openly doesn’t mean that the government approves of them. It makes the government neutral. Homosexuality isnt against the law, Seane Anna — much to your chagrin, I’m sure. As I’ve said before. The purpose of the military is no more to validate your religious values than it is to validate leftist gays’ values. The purpose is to kill people and protect Americans and American interests.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 2, 2010 @ 5:19 pm - December 2, 2010

  33. Countries that allow homosexuals to serve in the military
    Albania
    Argentina
    Australia
    Austria
    Belgium
    Canada
    Colombia
    Czech Republic
    Denmark
    Estonia
    Finland
    France
    Germany
    Ireland
    Israel
    Italy
    Japan
    Lithuania
    Luxembourg
    Malta
    The Netherlands
    New Zealand
    Norway
    Peru
    Philippines
    Poland
    Romania
    Russia
    Serbia
    Slovenia
    South Africa
    Spain
    Sweden
    Switzerland
    Taiwan
    United Kingdom
    Bermuda
    Uruguay

    Um, you forgot one: The United States ALLOWS gays to serve in the military. There are just rules for their conduct.

    Also, I would add:

    Countries that rely on the United States for their own defense:
    Albania
    Argentina
    Australia
    Austria
    Belgium
    Canada
    Colombia
    Czech Republic
    Denmark
    Estonia
    Finland
    France
    Germany
    Ireland
    Israel
    Italy
    Japan
    Lithuania
    Luxembourg
    Malta
    The Netherlands
    New Zealand
    Norway
    Peru
    Philippines
    Poland
    Romania
    Serbia
    Slovenia
    South Africa
    Spain
    Sweden
    Switzerland
    Taiwan
    United Kingdom
    Bermuda
    Uruguay

    Comment by American Elephant — December 2, 2010 @ 5:33 pm - December 2, 2010

  34. Recall that I only support repeal consistent with a plan determined by the military brass – not a judge without military experience — to enact it.

    Dan,
    the military brass in charge of the Marine Corps does not support repealing DADT. The other joint chiefs, to my knowledge, have not said one way or the other whether they support repeal, but ALL of them opposed the last effort, just last summer, to repeal DADT:

    The heads of the Army, Marines, Air Force, and Navy oppose the current amendment to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

    Neither did they say they would support repeal once the report had concluded, but only that the process already in place should go forward.

    Do you support the military brass, the head of the Marines, who is the only one I know of on record, and who does NOT support repeal?

    Comment by American Elephant — December 2, 2010 @ 5:45 pm - December 2, 2010

  35. Hello all, here is my latest take on this issue:

    http://colorfulconservative.blogspot.com/2010/12/smackdown-on-those-pentagon-dadt.html

    Let me state for the record, for what it’s worth — I served in the US Army and saw firsthand the type of situations in which gay enlisted Soldiers (not officers or people with cushy jobs), especially gay men, would be exposed to, if their privacy were taken away, which would happen de facto with the repeal of DADT.

    The survey did not say 70% of troops support repeal. FAR FROM IT. It said only 15-20% of troops of a small percentage who responded to the survey think it’s even remotely a good idea.

    The countries that allow homosexuals to serve, as listed above, do not deal with the intense strain placed on combat units and infantry, plus the Marines.

    Currently the US Army is grappling with a high suicide rate, some of which is attributable to people with sexual orientation issues who get abused or ostracized and humiliated, and take their own life. I have witnessed that happening.

    The court case earlier this year, in combination with Sec. Gates’ changes to the rules 2 years ago, already protect people from being kicked out of the military if they want their job, merely for being openly gay.

    Repealing the whole DADT chapter now would basically do something totally different — it would prevent gays who want to get out, from getting out. 85% of gays in the military don’t want to be public. Most people in the military signed up for economic reasons, went through the enlisted ranks, and are not passionate about holding down their job if it means being brutalized.

    The fight to repeal DADT is being led by people who have interest whatsoever in the safety and well-being of gays serving in the military. This is a travesty. At this point I am praying that McCain and others in Congress will stand up to the tidal wave of fallacies and propaganda, and do the right thing, which is leave a chapter in place to keep homosexuals out of life-threatening situations, and gradually reform the UCMJ, the EO codes, and all of the military’s regulations so that homosexuality will be less life-threatening of an issues. This must happen after the troops are all back from Iraq and Afghanistan, some time around 2016.

    Everybody SLOW DOWN.

    Comment by Robert Oscar Lopez — December 2, 2010 @ 7:05 pm - December 2, 2010

  36. wow AE. I forgot that we do support so many of those countries.

    according to a wiki post: For the 2010 fiscal year, the president’s base budget of the Department of Defense rose to $533.8 billion. Adding spending on “overseas contingency operations” brings the sum to $663.8 billion.

    Guess will just have to see what happens to the DADT hearings, if the there is a repeal and how the armed services will handle the MO’s in the military in years to come, with or without repeal. Maybe DADT will just be one of those things left on the books, but not necessarily employed to discharge gay folk.

    Comment by rusty — December 2, 2010 @ 7:10 pm - December 2, 2010

  37. Not sure if ‘employed’ is what I should use. Anyway, the kerfluffle over DADT certainly has raised awareness of the MO’s in the military and just offers more opportunities for folk to reflect on GLBT issues at dining room tables and water coolers.

    I guess it will be interesting if the Military will initiate investigation of gay folk in the future.

    Comment by rusty — December 2, 2010 @ 7:16 pm - December 2, 2010

  38. The Art Of War…

    …A post I read a while ago over at…

    Trackback by The Art Of War — December 6, 2010 @ 8:16 am - December 6, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.