Former Joint Chiefs chair: Time to end DADT
posted at 12:55 pm on June 19, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Barack Obama has taken a firestorm of criticism for his reversal, at least thus far, on ending the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of the American military. Today, a former chair of the Joint Chiefs goes where Obama apparently fears to tread. In a column for the Washington Post, retired General John Shalikasvili explains why an end to DADT is not just inevitable and desirable, but ultimately a wash at worst:
Tradition is a critical military value, and the armed forces have a long-standing tradition of banning gay men and lesbians. Equally important military traditions, however, are learning and adapting — and my colleagues made claims as if no new knowledge has been acquired over past decades, during which time Israel and Britain joined more than 20 other nations to allow openly gay individuals to serve without overall problems. In Britain and Canada, polls had indicated that thousands would resign if gays were allowed to serve, but when the bans were lifted, almost no one left. The British Defense Ministry conducted several assessments of the policy change and called it a “solid achievement.” The flag officers neglected to acknowledge Britain’s experience, instead dismissing the relevance of nations such as “Denmark, the Netherlands and Canada.” While it is true that the U.S. armed forces are unique, it is important that we not marginalize the lessons learned in other countries — particularly those that often conduct joint operations with us.
But it is not just foreign militaries that show service by openly gay individuals works. The U.S. military itself has had successful experiences. Enforcement of the ban was suspended without problems during the Persian Gulf War, and there were no reports of angry departures. A majority of U.S. service members say they know or believe that someone in their unit is gay, according to a 2006 Zogby International poll, and most of those who know of openly gay peers report no detriment to morale or cohesion. A recent study co-authored by Laura Miller of Rand Corp. found no correlation between a unit’s readiness and whether known gays serve in it. And last year, four retired flag and general officers studied all available evidence and found that allowing gays to serve posed no risk to force readiness. …
The officers who oppose lifting the ban argued in The Post that there is “no compelling national security reason” to let openly gay troops serve. They also say, however, that “losses of even a few thousand sergeants, petty officers and experienced mid-grade officers” — those they believe might bolt — are unaffordable. Under current policy, we have lost more than 13,000 of those people, such as the Arabic language speaker featured in the new film “Ask Not.” In addition, researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles have found that nearly 4,000 people leave voluntarily each year because of the ban, and that more than 40,000 recruits might join if the ban is ended.
I have the same position that conservative icon Barry Goldwater took on this question. The only thing that mattered to Goldwater was whether a soldier could shoot straight. As long as a member of the military abides by the regulations governing conduct, sexual orientation should make no difference.
In fact, DADT has proven that correct. The policy presumes that gays can serve effectively in the military unless their orientation becomes public. That means that the problem isn’t with the soldier or sailor, but with the service itself, a rather odd hypocrisy that sometimes gets overlooked. When else do we discriminate on the basis of not what a person is or does, but what others think of it? The sixteen-year experiment of DADT shows that gays serve effectively in the military otherwise, which should be enough for them to have the same access to serving their country as anyone else. It has also not produced a massive exodus of people from the service during that time.
Perhaps the best way to transition from DADT would be to end it one branch at a time. That would allow the Pentagon to work through any potential readiness issues as well as transfer high-value personnel (like translators) into positions where we can continue to use their skills effectively. Eventually, though, we will end the transitional policy of DADT, because in the end, it’s unnecessary and limiting.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
@Professor Blather lol
well I meant it both as a double compliment, one thanks for your service and two thanks for your common sense attitude to repealing DADT. I’m a military brat of an officer and I understand the many dangers to actual unit cohesion. a good officer already has to watch out for soldiers fooling around with either gender so adding out gays to the mix is not really that big a deal, they have to be soldiers regardless of their sexuality. All I am asking for gays is the right to serve openly without the possibility of having your military career destroyed because you are gay. It’s the lying that destroys us over time, and the inability to share our real lives with our friends that causes most of the hangups older gays develop and it needs to stop.
I would have gone to a military academy if i hadn’t been gay, I really wanted to, but i stayed out because i didn’t want to risk everything that entails if i could be discharged just for being myself. If Obama had repeal DADT this year I would have joined too. :-\
Zekecorlain on June 19, 2009 at 3:04 PM
When the lawsuits start, demanding Gay Pride events sponsored by MWR, gay-themed ad campaigns for AAFES merchandise, and accusing military seniors of discriminating against deadbeat juniors “because they’re gay” — remember: I warned you.
J.E. Dyer on June 19, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Damn! Almost 2 years? That sucked. Well, I thought so since that was my first duty station. I was always told that you never wanted Korea as a first duty station.
mizflame98 on June 19, 2009 at 3:05 PM
mizflame98 on June 19, 2009 at 2:59 PM
You miss the point.
It’s not that the military hasn’t been used for social engineering, it’s that it shouldn’t be.
catmman on June 19, 2009 at 3:05 PM
In 1989-91 I was in Camp Mobile, ROK. DongDuChon surrounded both Casey and Mobile. If Camp Hovey was right next to them, was it Camp House that was South of Munson, Gary Owen and just west of R222 valley?
hawkdriver on June 19, 2009 at 3:05 PM
We must have gay marriage now. Might it have negative effects on marriage generally? Who cares? Sodomists must be appeased. Their rights are more important than any other considerations.
We must have gay Boy Scout leaders now. Might it lead to child rape? Who cares? Sodomists must be appeased. Their rights are more important than any other considerations.
We must have anti-discrimination laws for the workplace now. Might it have deleterious effects on worker morale? Who cares? Sodomists must be appeased. Their rights are more important than any other considerations.
We must allow sodomists in the military now. Might it have numerous damaging effects on morale and unit effectiveness? Might it lead to the spread of disease? Who cares? Sodomists must be appeased. Their rights are more important than any other considerations.
Akzed on June 19, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Eh. Sounds more like common sense to me.
I assume there are dudes in my unit that like handcuffs and whips and blow-up dolls. But they don’t tell me about it, do they?
Correction: most of them don’t tell me about it. There are a couple freaks.
Again I go back to the obvious question: what exactly do you think will happen the day DADT is repealed?
I think most people – especially most combat arms soldiers – would just keep it to themselves. And unless there is really a big gay epidemic I don’t know about, I can’t see having to deal with it much. Certainly not on the level of problems caused by the male-female dynamic.
Bottom line: is this about unit effectiveness – or is it about “Oh my God, teh gays are coming!”
If its really about unit effectiveness – let’s get women the hell out of the military. They cause problems.
Professor Blather on June 19, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Never mind. OH58 roomie says he was stationed at Gary Owen and it’s Camp House I’m thinking about.
hawkdriver on June 19, 2009 at 3:09 PM
I was there the same time. HHSC 102MI BN. Signal Platoon. 31C. Not only was that going on but you had the same problems with NCO’s and superior officers sexually assaulting opposite sex soldiers too. Korea was like Sodom and Gomorrah back then for some reason. No one knew how to act.
mizflame98 on June 19, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Yes, there were quite a lot of “incidents” back then. It was a combination of the “Queen for a Year” syndrome and the incoming brief at the Turtle farm. “Welcome to the 2ID troops, you now have a life expectancy of 6 seconds if the North decides to come south. In other words…speed bumps.
Made the drive to live a little…strong. Not unlike what our brethren must be going through now. Errg.
Firefly56 on June 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM
That may be so, but I don’t really see this as a social experiment if there is proof that there is no decline in enlistment, morale, or years of service. It would be a social experiment if we were the first nation to allow gays in the military. Think about it. I have seen a lot of openly gay soldiers. No one had a problem with them because they go their jobs done and served honorably. When they acted like fools and didn’t follow the rules of conduct, that is when it became a problem. They were dealt with then. Even “coming out” wasn’t a guarantee discharge from the military, because of the possibility of someone faking it to get out of the military. Yes, there was a couple of people I knew who tried almost anything and everything to get kicked out.
mizflame98 on June 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM
It’s the lying that destroys us over time…
If Obama had repeal DADT this year I would have joined too. :-\
Zekecorlain on June 19, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Lying about what? The military doesn’t ask you your sexual orintation. So why would you think you’d need to “lie” about anything? Because you can’t talk about your personal life? Give me a break! I’ve been in the service for 22 years and I don’t speak about my sexual exploits to anyone, never have. I’ve never had to “lie” to anyone about my personal life.
And if Obama “repealed” DADT, you’d still not be in the military until such time as the UCMJ were changed by Congress.
catmman on June 19, 2009 at 3:12 PM
I have to laugh at all the people that act like gays aren’t in the military. if you knew how to look most of them don’t hide the fact that well. It’s not destroying the units for them to be there and it’s not destroying the fabric of the universe that they have sex.
You expect them to sacrifice their lives for you but you don’t want their truths. Hell you won’t even allow them to share their lives privately with someone they love. But how many of you would ask your own selves or your children to be celibate just for the right to wear the uniform? If you can’t ask it of yourselves why would you demand that of others?
Zekecorlain on June 19, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Is that you Megain McCain?
Romeo13 on June 19, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Well, they apparently cannot “adjust” — refuse to adjust? — to the DADT standards, so why would I believe that they can “adjust” to Muslim standards.
And that’s nice that *you* leave this up to the military, but the homosexual activist groups are not. Of all the things the military community needs to worry about, do you think DADT is high on their priority list? No. The *only* reason anyone in the military cares about DADT is because the homosexual activists are making it an issue. And they certainly don’t give a darn about the military’s opinion on the matter.
Michael in MI on June 19, 2009 at 3:15 PM
There is no proof. There might be indications or evidence, but there is no proof.
blink on June 19, 2009 at 3:15 PM
I never said that homosexual couples behave because of DADT. I said they keep their misbehaviors out of the public eye because of DADT.
BINGO!
BohicaTwentyTwo on June 19, 2009 at 3:16 PM
I suppose, but I have to tell you, the radar guys when they came down from the sites were far less barbaric than the ones who were constantly at the post and didn’t get to party down town every weekend. Maybe they were probably more steely than some us REMFs.
mizflame98 on June 19, 2009 at 3:17 PM
That’s why I said IF.
mizflame98 on June 19, 2009 at 3:18 PM
The one thing that bothers me about this whole discussion is that officers don’t feel that they can be honest when answering questions about what it takes for cohesion. The powers that be aren’t looking for real answers they are looking for answers that are either politically correct or that endorse the “inevitable”. I guess this is just another example of the military making it work and work well no matter how much their civilian leaders try to muck it up.
Cindy Munford on June 19, 2009 at 3:19 PM
greggriffith on June 19, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Yep, that is pretty much how many people anticipate things going. And there is no reason to think otherwise, given the homosexual activists’ behavior over the years thus far.
Michael in MI on June 19, 2009 at 3:19 PM
@catmman bullshit, i’m talking about being forced to lie to fit in, “what did you do all weekend?”, Where are you going for the holidays, got anyone waiting for you after work?”
Try playing the pronoun game for awhile, switch the gender pronoun every time you speak of someone you hang out with or are dating, do this with the expectation that one slip will cost you your job. Go try doing that for 20 years and than tell me how much you know or trust the people around you. Try leaving your military benefits to someone that the gov’t doesn’t count as important, tell your bf that if you die he might never know. Pile those all on someone and than you know what every gay service member has to go thru when the VOLUNTEER to do just that when they enlist. Now what about people who didn’t realize they were gay until they got older and understood their real feelings? Should they loose everything too?
Zekecorlain on June 19, 2009 at 3:19 PM
It won’t work.
We aren’t any other nations military.
Just because some other country allowed it, it doesn’t mean it won’t have all the diasterous effects we in the Armed Forces are so fearful of. Take my word for it, 90 precent of the military would not only not accept it, a vast majority would be willing to take steps openly to oppose it.
Big mistake.
hawkdriver on June 19, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Right. And women won’t be able to complain about men staring at them in the unisex showers after that transition is made.
blink on June 19, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Huh? Many people in this thread have acknowledged there are gay people serving in the military. It doesn’t matter whether you’re gay or straight–there are rules and guidelines for all military’s members personal lives. Break the rules–gay or straight–and there are consequences. DADT is a guideline and a useful one. It does not control one’s sexual orientation or personal activity outside of duty, rather it says, “Follow the rules” and “Don’t make it an issue.”
conservative pilgrim on June 19, 2009 at 3:20 PM
I do trained monkey work and I would pay people not to tell me about their personal lives./
Cindy Munford on June 19, 2009 at 3:21 PM
How is it a strawman?
Several people have commented that my view would be different the day DADT disappears. So answer the question: as a platoon leader or company commander, what EXACTLY will happen to me on that day?
Seriously. I just don’t see much happening. So explain.
And please understand: I’m not looking at this from a grand societal perspective. I care about one thing: my platoon, my company, my unit, my missions. The rest, for me, is academic.
While my comments about women are (mostly) tongue-in-cheek, the reality – as anyone who has served knows – is that women do indeed cause a great deal of drama and dischord in mixed gender units. In fact, its the same kind of dischord some of you expect teh gays to cause …
So my point is obvious: if this is about unit effectiveness, let’s get women out of the military altogether. The combat arms/combat support distinction really doesn’t help in the current environment.
No gays. And no women. Or explain why the latter is fine … but the former is a horrible horror.
Professor Blather on June 19, 2009 at 3:21 PM
The military in general wants the same thing that the vast majority of Americans want; Americans at their best, doing their job / duty. Character always trumps color and/or sexual orientation.
Most people I run into just aren’t interested in my genital preference. If I insist on telling them, I’ve tagged myself as one who expects a different set of standards than everyone else.
Like Goldwater said…Who cares as long as you can shoot straight (And take orders)?
scr00s on June 19, 2009 at 3:23 PM
A Clinton appointee and Kerry supporter, AND he’s plastered his “Didn’t Ask, Do Tell” opinion once before, where’s the news in this?!
Come on Ed, a little research before posting the other side’s “talking points”, please.
Sailfish on June 19, 2009 at 3:24 PM
you obviously are unaware that being gay off duty is also grounds for discharge if anyone reports it.
Zekecorlain on June 19, 2009 at 3:25 PM
would be interesting to see if STDs and AIDS increase as a result of the change…that there will be a good indicator. Certainly not PC though, so it won’t matter.
kirkill on June 19, 2009 at 3:27 PM
And I addressed your IF. There is no proof. So, there is no IF.
blink on June 19, 2009 at 3:27 PM
The tension of military life.
conservative pilgrim on June 19, 2009 at 3:28 PM
I barely missed having Shalikasvili as my boss back in 1988 as his change of command occurred just days before my arriving at that next to last post. From what I heard, I did not miss much.
Sergeant Tim on June 19, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Professor Blather on June 19, 2009 at 3:08 PM
I don’t think anything will happen if DADT is repealed because the day it is, a strict ban on homosexual activity will go back into effect as the UCMJ states.
I’m not one of those who goes on abut “unit effectiveness” and I also don’t get myself wrapped around sexual orientation.
It is a matter of law my firned, simply put. All the other stuff people are getting hung up on is emantics. DADT was a way for a cowardly democrat president to skirt the issue and DADT is what he came up with to appease the LGBT voting block. If anyone were serious about this, we would be ammending the UCMJ, not talking about repealing a executive order.
It is common sense. Gays for centuries served. Gays serve now. this is not the question, or the answer. That gays serve now and wish to circumvent the LAW is what the issue is to me. If you abide by the law and the DADT policy, you won’t have to worry about a damn thing. If you decide your sexual orientation takes precedence over your country, then you should suffer the consequences; just as a hetero who commits adultery can be presecuted and discharged for violating the UCMJ, so go gays.
I do have to disagree about the male-female dynamic. Your right about it, but you don’t think you would be effectively doubling your problems if gays (as a block) all of a sudden started bringing their personal relationship problems to the workplace/unit? Please.
catmman on June 19, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Coffin nails to the once greatest nation on this planet.
“sigh”
Night all!
hawkdriver on June 19, 2009 at 3:30 PM
This is the heart of it. A critical institution will be pressured to change to satisfy the idiosyncrasies of a few. Isn’t that a negation of the military spirit?
They’re just a subset of leftists and leftists wreck everything. This compulsion of nominal conservatives to compromise only leads to more liberalism. This problem is what destroyed the Republican Party and left Main Street conservatives with no representation.
Leftists can never be appeased. They’ll get what they want, get people killed, deny any responsibility, and move on to the next grievance. That is the nature of the beast.
Doing this to the military toys needlessly with the institution we depend on for our very survival, and it is disappointing to see some who served fall into the trap.
Feedie on June 19, 2009 at 3:32 PM
It has got to be so annoying to take an organization with such a critical job and have those clowns in Washington constantly changing things.
Cindy Munford on June 19, 2009 at 3:33 PM
I expect adulterers to sacrifice my life for me, too. But if they’re caught, then they’re prosecuted according to the UCMJ.
So what’s your point?
blink on June 19, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Good night!! Civilian order, take the best care of yourself.
Cindy Munford on June 19, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Sorry, I meant that I expect adulterers to sacrifice their life for me, too.
blink on June 19, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Keep it as it is, we have two wars going on and tons of other shit to worry about. I am sick of all this gay crap. Why do you need to announce your sexual orientation to your fellow soldiers anyway. Just shut the hell up.
echosyst on June 19, 2009 at 3:34 PM
True for the most part; you could always tell when the boys were coming off the hill. The cases of OB were stacked deep at the “T” Club downrange. I think their priorities were a bit different. Gotta love radar people!
Firefly56 on June 19, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Sorry, Hawk, missed your post.
Am I wrong? Could be. As I’ve said above, I may feel differently when I’ve had to deal with it.
But I served active duty Marine Corps for 5 years, I’ve deployed, and I’ve served in some pretty intense field and training environments. I’ve had plenty of those 30-dudes-in-a-shower-built-for-5 moments. Which, ironically, always struck me as really, really gay.
And I still can’t quite picture what horrible thing is going to happen when DADT is repealed.
Here’s one concession for you: just because *I* could deal with it doesn’t mean my guys can deal with it … and if my straight soldiers have problems because of one gay soldier, then we all have problems.
But I think I’m very right in that there are many, many issues that are far more important than this one.
Professor Blather on June 19, 2009 at 3:35 PM
There are a lot of things people do on their off-duty times that can be grounds for discharge. Not everything is enforced, UNLESS it becomes an issue.
I know of two females living together and not just as roommates, but there was no dismissal because of DADT.
conservative pilgrim on June 19, 2009 at 3:38 PM
So you don’t care who protects you you just want them all arrested when it’s done?? Also if they could sleep outside, that would be great, cause you don’t want them leaving stains on the rug? So basically your just a legalist with no sense of decency towards those who do the dirty work of life.
Zekecorlain on June 19, 2009 at 3:38 PM
So many headaches because of politics. Vince Flynn’s books blur the line between reality and fiction very well.
conservative pilgrim on June 19, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Zekecorlain on June 19, 2009 at 3:19 PM
You know what is BS? A gay saying that they can’t live their life because of DADT.
If you are that insecure in your sexual preferance (whichever way you go), if you are that insecure with who you are that you can’t keep your sexual life to yourself, then you have a bigger problem with how you live than DADT.
Your outburst is revealing though. To you (as with many others) it isn’t about “equality” or “rights” or any of that nonsense. It’s about being able to “tell the world” how you live.
I don’t care how you live. The military doesn’t care how you live. You can stick your business in a knothole in a fence for all I care. But the law is tha law, contrary to how you feel the law should be to accomodate your lifestyle. Why do you feel the need to tell me how you live?
Where I’m going for the holidays and what I do on the weekends and what I do after work is no ones business. I don’t make it an issue to advertise my personal life out of some need to receive acceptance from anyone else. Why would you?
catmman on June 19, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Yes, we need Hollywood to help.
Cindy Munford on June 19, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Its not… its part and parcel of the same set of problems…
But isn’t it interesting that they don’t put Women in what are supposed to be front line units?
And yet, once DADT is gone you WILL have outwardly Gay Men in Front line units.
Romeo13 on June 19, 2009 at 3:45 PM
… and your post brings up one thing I do care about: getting good soldiers under my command.
As the Goldwater quote notes – there are things more important than sexual orientation in a soldier. Honor and courage and skill and determination and strength and knowledge and nobility – those things matter to me.
And I truly hate the idea that my country could lose a good soldier who exemplifies all of those things … just because of who he loves or how he gets his kicks on the weekends.
I’d be righteously pissed to lose a high-value soldier who might keep me and my men alive … to some policy. At the very least, I wish they’d let the commander on the ground make the call on that.
Good discussion, gents. Food for thought.
Have a good day.
Professor Blather on June 19, 2009 at 3:46 PM
@conservative pilgrim
than go hear if you want to find out what happens cause of DADT to gay and lesbian service members
http://www.sldn.org the “activists” that so many are worried about are mostly just gay military members that love(d) their job and their country and wanted to serve
Zekecorlain on June 19, 2009 at 3:46 PM
It’s about “Oh my God, teh gays are coming!” Conservatives hate gays, and they’re not going to let anything like facts or logic change their minds.
hicsuget on June 19, 2009 at 3:53 PM
This guy was one of Clinton’s flaming liberals when he was on active duty and nothing has changed his outlook on life.
rplat on June 19, 2009 at 3:55 PM
@catmman “outburst?” speaking my mind is an Outburst now? am I screaming and yelling that the world is ending? no I’m saying the policy destroys lives, honor, and discipline and asks to much of gay service members.
The law is malleable, it’s not written in stone and it’s not sacrosanct. How many service members are told to lie about past offenses when they take the oath? How many rules and orders are bent every day just to make things work? How many missions are run by hungover men and women barely able to keep from puking? The premise of DADT is a lie as well, they may not ask you if you are gay but gay sex even in private is prohibited by the Code of Conduct. so they don’t mind if you break the law, they just want you to hide the fact.
Zekecorlain on June 19, 2009 at 3:55 PM
People should be viewed according to ability, not gender, sexual orientation, nor skin color. There are great women leaders and performers who can the same job as men and perform even better (AND vice-versa). But excluding women wholesale simply because of their gender and your personal misogynist views would not accomplish the mission and remove a good portion of the armed forces.
You say your comments about women are “tongue-in-cheek.” How about demeaning and disturbing?
conservative pilgrim on June 19, 2009 at 4:01 PM
I’m with you on this Ed. Pretty much everyone knows who around them is gay in the military as it is, and they have for decades. Nobody really cares. Nobody should be forbidden from serving their country.
Immolate on June 19, 2009 at 4:01 PM
They aren’t forced
Speedwagon82 on June 19, 2009 at 4:04 PM
No, but we are not thinking of getting rid of the regulations about drunkenness and ‘rowdiness’, even when I bet there are a lot of good military members who are discharged from the military based on those regulations. Does this mean we should get rid of those regulations, because good military members are getting discharged? No. Same here. There’s no reason to change DADT simply based on the reason that “good members are lost”. So what. Good members are lost from being discharged for adultery and breaking other regulations.
A regulation is a regulation. Should we deem it acceptable for our military members to protest the regulations about drinking alcohol, by deliberately breaking that regulation and getting themselves kicked out of the military in order to see that regulation changed?
The plain and simple fact is that the military has rules. If you don’t want to follow them, then don’t join. Period.
Michael in MI on June 19, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Exactly the point I was getting at earlier. Openly serving homosexuals might now be prohibited from certain MOSs in the same way women are prohibited. But, if a homosexual simply kept their homosexuality to themselves, it would leave them open for any MOS they would want.
In other words, homosexuals should be careful what they wish for with wanting to serve openly, because they may get special treatment (denied MOSs) they didn’t want.
Michael in MI on June 19, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Meh. Chalk me up as another serviceman who really doesn’t care whether the guy next to him is gay or not.
I’d like to think that our Army is mature enough to handle openly gay soldiers. The UCMJ applies to all of us at all times, and if someone gets assaulted because he’s gay, the person doing the assaulting will be subject to prosecution under UCMJ. If a homosexual decides to “hit on” a fellow soldier and that behavior is unwanted, it’s sexual harassment along the lines of what we currently call “EO,” or equal opportunity. It’s the same for if a male soldier hits on a female soldier, or vice versa, if it’s unwanted.
Honestly, I don’t see what the big deal is. Goldwater said it best indeed.
Red Cloud on June 19, 2009 at 4:18 PM
The benefits of allowing women in the military outweights the costs. Women make up 50% of the population of the United States. Allowing women in the military doubles the recruit pool.
BohicaTwentyTwo on June 19, 2009 at 4:18 PM
Your statement is factually and logically untrue. But you are willing to claim it anyway.
Loxodonta on June 19, 2009 at 4:20 PM
The law is malleable, it’s not written in stone and it’s not sacrosanct.
Zekecorlain on June 19, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Of course to a lefty the law is malleable. The UCMJ is no such thing. And your other reasoning, though true somewhat, doesn’t make it right, nor does it allow for selective enforcement. So and so gets drunk so I should be able to have gay sex? Huh?
Do you know how many people the military prosecutes, penalizes and discharges for such seemingly ‘meanial” matters as : bouncing checks, finances, substance abuse, adultery, fraternization, all the things you mentioned in your comment, on and on and on?
This is the typical liberal argument about NOT enforcing the law: people break the law anyway, you can never enforce it, so why bother.
And anyone who feels the need to resort to profanity to emphasize a point is guilty of an outburst.
You didn’t answer the question: why do you feel the need to advertise your life’s details?
catmman on June 19, 2009 at 4:21 PM
It’s unfortunate, but not surprising, they pretty much none of those here who disagree with Shalikasvili have actually argued against the points he made. Everyone is just repeating the same old points about how it will be disruptive, no one will tolerate it, it will reduce our readiness, etc.
You can still hold those views, but if you’re trying to convince people to agree with you or if you’re at all interested in a real debate about this, at least address his counterarguments! He specifically talks about this having been enacted in other countries such as Britain and Israel.
So, for example, when you say “there would be a mass exodus” you should also explain why his counterargument (that such an exodus was predicted in other countries and never happened) is wrong. And when you say that these times are already tough and it’s a bad time to disrupt the troops, explain why this wasn’t an issue for Israel, which has always been in much more dire need of a ready and capable army.
tneloms on June 19, 2009 at 4:21 PM
ThackerAgency on June 19, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Well said. Agree 100%.
Michael in MI on June 19, 2009 at 4:22 PM
This “everyone who loves their country has a right to serve” line is garbage. This is just the stupidity that comes from people who have never served or morons like this general who became politicians instead of soldiers(which seems to happen around the o-7 paygrade).
There was an excellent article written a while back:
http://www.northstarwriters.com/gl060.htm
This is exactly true. I’ve been in the military for over 6 years and I can tell you it will do nothing but wreck havoc just for the sake of stupidity. People who are not in the military have no idea what it will do and how many problems it will cause. Homosexuals who speak multiple languages can work for the state department. I can tell you that homosexual translators in military units will not only cause problems within their units, but they will cause them in foreign countries where people are far less PC about homosexuality.
I know plenty of people in the military who, like myself, would strongly consider getting out if this is forced on us. I’m not going to be forced to take a shower with some guy watching my stuff, which is exactly what will happen. I’m not going to be forced to share a bunk with a homosexual, either, which is exactly what’s going to happen. Anyone who says otherwise has no concept of reality or life in the military, and is just trying to apply civilian life to military life or trying to bully people into agreement.
I have known people who got kicked out of the military for being a bit overweight or having other menial problems. They also get kicked out for fraternization and adultery. The idea that the military is supposed to be “fair and open to all” is ridiculous.
TTheoLogan on June 19, 2009 at 4:30 PM
tneloms on June 19, 2009 at 4:21 PM
You need to go back and read the thread comments then to get answers to your own questions.
catmman on June 19, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Professor Blather on June 19, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Great comment. I don’t agree with you on everything, but well said.
Michael in MI on June 19, 2009 at 4:36 PM
@catmman
Cause it turns out that hiding ones life details eventually poisons your entire life, turning you into an introvert with no true friends, no true comradeship, distrustful of all, and usually adds on a healthy dose of erratic behavior conditions caused by intentional suppression.
I understand where your coming from, I used to think the same thing, I was 29 when the consequences of that philosophy finally caught up to me, destroyed half my friendships, almost killed myself out of depression, and ruined a romantic engagement with a great guy. Humans are social creatures, we need acknowledgment and companionship and it’s only fair and just that if equal soldiers have equal relationships than the gov’t owes them the same due.
Zekecorlain on June 19, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Tone deaf much?
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 19, 2009 at 4:49 PM
If that brush gets any broader you’ll be painting acres not inches.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 19, 2009 at 4:51 PM
@TTheoLogan
so you’d rather share a bunk with a hidden homo than one that is out and who you could have judged on his normal behavior? GAYS ARE ALREADY IN THE MILITARY, you bunk with them, you shower with them, and you have probably even laughed at their jokes. But heaven forbid they change the pronouns they use, cause holy crap that’s going to destroy the world. and god forbid that their husband or boyfriend or wife back home be notified if they die, and perhaps get to collect their belongings.
Zekecorlain on June 19, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Zekecorlain on June 19, 2009 at 4:47 PM
So unless you cannot publicly expose the details of your sexual proclivities, your life has no meaning?
Of course a person needs human companionship/friendship, I’m not saying they don’t. I’m also not saying a person shouldn’t live their life the way they want.
What I am saying is: in this instance the DADT policy says “live your life, but don’t advertise it”. That’s it. You and most everyone here admits there are already gays in the military, they don’t seem to be imploding and throwing themselves off of bridges due to the strain on their psyche.
I don’t mean to be condescending, but I am being so to push home my point. By your own admission, DADT works.
Until such time as it is repealed, rescinded and the law is changed, gays should abide by it. If you can’t, then do something else with your life – the policy has been inplace for what, 16 years? Gays who enter military service now, while the policy is in place are doing so with full knowledge of the possible consequences.
With that knowledge, if there is any “damage” it was brought on themself.
catmman on June 19, 2009 at 5:05 PM
I thought I read through most of the comments, and I didn’t see anything that addressed those two points. I saw a lot of what I was paraphrasing instead.
The only one I found that was even close was this:
which I don’t think describes *why* the argument is wrong; it merely states that it’s wrong. “Just because it didn’t happened there doesn’t mean it won’t happen here” is not a very forceful argument. You should explain why the situations are different such that the outcome would be different. And saying “believe me” was a very common, but not very useful, comment throughout this thread.
Absolutely no one has mentioned the words “Israel” or “Britain” in the comments. Can you point me to people who addressed the General’s arguments that I mentioned?
tneloms on June 19, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Sailfish on June 19, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Great links and thanks for reminding us about John M. Shalikashvili, the man at fault with Clinton for mishandling our troops in Somalia and effecting the tail wagging the dog in US=UN Bosnian bombing air strikes killing the native Christian population.
Given the US military situated involvement in Islam today, Obama conducting his Afghan War and our unfinished work in Iraq, promoting open gay rights activists representing our nation there now is more sabotage in the works.
Shalikashvili stated that the huge majority of military personnel can get along with homosexuals. He did not clarify his claim if it was an official poll; and exactly what was stipulated in “getting along.” Was getting along limited to occasional socializing at a bar or at the office, as every tolerant person does regardless of sexuality? Or were these military personnel he claims to quote referencing non-stop 24/7 working and living with gay activists without a break?
The point of joining our US Military is to become part of the cohesion through forfeiture of individual identity. Doing anything to fracture our troops who are already living under the most stressful and demanding of circumstances is unacceptable. Let the military personnel make their own determination on the matter. Who are we to stipulate further impositions on our troops who are already abused and assassinated stateside by our own homegrown Leftist terrorist citizens?
Homosexuals have always served in the US military but not as “gay” troops. DADT provided the formal acceptance based upon keeping private lives private. DADT is tolerance.
maverick muse on June 19, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Maybe because the U.S. isn’t Britain or Israel.
Cindy Munford on June 19, 2009 at 5:17 PM
@catmman
yeah it turns out they are, not all of them but enough that gays learn about it. Most that commit suicide aren’t known as gay so there’s no way to keep statistics. Yes, gays join knowing the price, but until you have lived it you have no idea how heavy it is. Just like I couldn’t know that living my life closeted would be to much in the end. However as I have stated before not everyone realizes they are gay when they join, most are young confused and want to prove something. Being gay is not something that most people just accept, you go thru stages, until you are faced with the stark realization that you are gay and you have a few choices to make.
Being gay is not so much about what kind of sex you have, being gay is about who you can develop deep relationships with.
But every country that has allowed gays to serve openly have not had the doomsday situations occur that you fear, and if every available piece of information points to the fact that their will be no issues and all you fear is fear itself you are than the coward who robs your fellow soldier of his due acknowledgment and the sacrifice of his family and loved ones to the Service.
Zekecorlain on June 19, 2009 at 5:18 PM
tneloms on June 19, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Again, read the thread comments.
I could give you a quick answer, you won’t like or accept it, but it works: The United States isn’t Britain or Israel.
And the good General’s argument is basically “we should do it because they do” which is in itself a pretty weak case to make.
catmman on June 19, 2009 at 5:19 PM
I’m not saying it is. But come on, I even wrote
Why did you respond by just repeating that? I’m earnestly asking for substantive arguments. It would be good to have specific counterarguments to what was quoted in Ed’s post rather than just disagreement over it.
tneloms on June 19, 2009 at 5:20 PM
I thought I did, but I really didn’t see anything that addressed it. Just point me to the ones that did so I can understand the arguments.
As I said in my previous two comments, just saying that the US isn’t those places is not a forceful argument on its own. But you were just giving me the quick version, so that’s okay. I’m curious to see the long version, that’s all.
I don’t think he’s saying we *should* do it because they do it. There are two issues, which partially overlap: whether we should do it, and what the outcome would be if we did do it. I think his references to Israel and Britain only addressed the latter aspect. So all he’s saying there is, *if* we did it here, there wouldn’t be a massive exodus or a weakening of the effectiveness of the army. All comments that I saw on this thread to the contrary simply stated that, yes, there would be a massive exodus and a weakening of effectiveness, citing reasons that were also true in Israel and Britain (e.g., a large number of soldiers in those armies who said they would leave).
tneloms on June 19, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Reminds me of my time with 2AD at Hood. A Tanker friend of mine was a closeted gay, and according to him, there was actually a rest stop past Killeen that was a known hang out for the male gay population of Ft Hood. Took no for an answer easily enough the one time he hit on me. Anyway, he finally decided he wanted out of the Army, and used DADT to get an early discharge.
coyoterex on June 19, 2009 at 5:30 PM
I think those who protect me should observe the laws and rules of this country. Don’t you? Do you think the military and police should be above the law?
Are you mentally insane? Or does this sentence just make it seem that way?
I don’t think it’s dirty work. Do you think it’s dirty? I respect the work done by the military. Don’t you? BTW, I did my share of what you call “dirty work.”
blink on June 19, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Likewise, then females should be perfectly okay showering with hetero-males, after all, as long as the straight guy keeps his mouth shut while checking out her t*ts and *ss, why should she care?
Since when were YOUR sensibilities the only thing that should be taken into consideration?
Your one “valid” concern (which you proceed to flippantly dismiss) ignores concerns like: gay activists using the opportunity to force “unofficial” quotas, increased difficulty in recruiting, the increased medical costs to the military services, the increased risk to all military personnel in combat of being exposed to blood-borne diseases that occur at significantly higher rates among the homosexual community (despite the lying propaganda to the contrary), etc. etc etc
There isn’t a single militarily legitimate reason to allow open gays in the military, let alone to do away with DADT.
Fatal on June 19, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Ok. Dump DADT if you want but remember that being in the service is a lot more than just ‘having a job’. There are a lot of ramifications that have to be considered. One small one, for example, was while overseas, every weekend the base commander expected all of his officers to be sitting at his table in the Officers Club.
Married Officers had to bring their wives and single ones brought their dates. It was just one of the many mandatory social functions required. The CO would have had a fit if I showed up with a date that looked like a em>hooker. I can’t imagine what he would have done if someone had walked in with ‘another guy’.
I don’t care what people do in their personal lives, off base, but it is hard to separate your personal and military life while you are on active duty. It’s like a big family and everyone has to get along.
Uniblogger on June 19, 2009 at 5:45 PM
Cindy Munford on June 19, 2009 at 5:17 PM
the US isn’t Britain or Israel.
At one point at least, every young person was required to serve in the Israeli military, regardless.
Homosexuality, particularly amongst the upper crust of British society men who’d marry for social convenience, has always been prominent in their culture, and is part of what everyone has accepted there as the norm, at least experimentally in their “traditional” all male culture of education. Morons need not imply that I said all British men are gay or that most British men are gay. Obviously NOT. No one can dismiss, however, the huge British male population killed in the 20th Century’s Great War caused by the European Colonial Empires and then the subsequent War against Fascism. Those left behind spawned today’s representation.
maverick muse on June 19, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Right.
Content Warning.
blink on June 19, 2009 at 5:47 PM
So; They’re going to eliminate the N’T?
Cybergeezer on June 19, 2009 at 5:49 PM
Well, gee. Apparent not since non-conservatives control the executive and legislative branch yet DADT isn’t being replaced.
So you do the math, genius.
blink on June 19, 2009 at 5:54 PM
@blink having listened to the stories of my grandparents and my dad, my military friends, and a few significant others, I don’t think military life is so much about following the rules but learning which ones to follow and when. Name one war or engagement that went by the book?
@Fatal
gay military members deserve the right to have their families and loved ones enjoy the same rights, privileges and costs due any other member of the military. They deserve the right to pass on pensions, health care and moving costs, the deserve the right to contact them in their off time, and they deserve the right to receive their loved ones flag should they die. They don’t deserve the fear and ridicule of their fellow citizens and they endure all the same hardships.
as for the military, by having openly serving gays you reduce the ability of outside powers blackmailing them and you have happy well adjusted soldiers that aren’t being weighed down by the cost of their secrets. Happy soldiers make good soldiers.
Zekecorlain on June 19, 2009 at 5:56 PM
Our U.S. military have enough political hot potatos to juggle right now. They should not have to decide what reproductive organs should be used for what reason. 40 years ago everything was pretty much black and white,their jobs are to destroy the enemy not get enmeshed in pastels. They do not need distractions they need our prayers and support. God bless our military, you are in my prayers daily.
fourdeucer on June 19, 2009 at 5:58 PM
@Uniblogger omg your saying what would happen if you brought a guy into a room of guys…gosh I bet they end up having a wild orgy and than get wildly drunk and loot the place.
or maybe he’d just shake his hand and move down the line. Your seriously expecting an officer to showup with some tranny or leather bear and expect to be taken seriously? Grow up
Zekecorlain on June 19, 2009 at 5:59 PM
His last comment aside, it’s obvious that he was making a point about the military dictating his private life and his dates. He couldn’t have brought a scantily clad woman to the O-Club, and I doubt it had anything to do with fears of an orgy.
blink on June 19, 2009 at 6:02 PM
A lively discussion. I’ve seen a few make some of the same arguements I would have made about the open gay lifestyle is counter to good order and discipline of the military. It’s not just another man admiring your “junk” in the shower. The gay pride events aboard military installations that are sure to follow. The demand about gay literature in the PX. The demand about forcing those uncomfortable with the gay lifestyle to live in close quarters. All legit concerns.
I was on active duty when DADT was enacted, and I too thought it was going to affect recruiting and retention, but it didn’t. Because nothing really changed other than the military couldn’t investigate suspected gay activity. I would have prefered a non-gay military, but DADT was a compromise that seemed to work OK.
About those being disharged for violating DADT, I would like more information. Like were they up for another deployment when they came out of the closet? Were they recently passed over for promotion? Were they denied a prefered duty station or get assigned a lackluster duty station?
Maybe they aren’t the sacrificial lambs they are being made out to be. Maybe they are. But we don’t have enough information to make that determination. I personally knew a Marine who spent 20 years in the Corps. Never deployed once. Spent 16 years on limited duty (had physical ailment that prevented deploying) but was magically cured for reenlistment time and once reenlisted was promptly back on limited duty. Was that person a good Marine? As a Marine that missed 5 of my kids first 8 Christmas’ and missed a few more spread out over the years for a grand total of 12 Christmas’ missed because I wasn’t home, I wasn’t impressed with that Marine’s contribution.
Not everyone on active duty is a Sergeant York or Chesty Puller. Assuming violators of DADT are is a mistake.
Hog Wild on June 19, 2009 at 6:07 PM
Wow, you’re really full of crap on this topic. If your soldier got his week-end “kicks” by sleeping with the 9-yr old girl that he “loves” or maybe he gets a thrill out of knocking over convenience stores, or firing up a crack pipe, or beating up openly gay citizens, you would be OK with that as long as they were a good soldier?
Would you be so “righteously pissed” if you lost several “high-value” soldiers who weren’t willing to serve under the circumstances where they were forced into close contact with openly gay people who they believe (rightly or wrongly) are perverted deviants? If not, then you are just being hypocritical in an attempt to justify this.
Having been there, done that, in the Navy, I can tell you women have reduced operational readiness and combat effectiveness by large percentages, but no one is allowed to talk about that. I also have seen the reaction of my troops to a couple of sailors who decided to “come out” and it wasn’t anything that would increase their ability to get the job done. Frankly, if you’re a junior officer, you are suffering from a rather severe lack of imagination, anticipation and foresight.
Fatal on June 19, 2009 at 6:09 PM
You really aren’t very bright. I’m happy that you’re not in the military. You would definitely lower the IQ average.
Regardless of what military life is “so much about.” If you don’t follow laws, rules, and orders, then you risk the consequences. I’m sure the guards of Abu Ghraib thought they had “learned” which rules to follow.
And this matters why? Deviate from the book and you risk the consequences. Period. I didn’t always follow the book, and I never deluded myself into thinking that I wasn’t at risk.
If you don’t like DADT, then get Obama and Congress to change it.
blink on June 19, 2009 at 6:09 PM
Good example. You used the one PC social stigma still in existance. Let’s see if he gets it. He obviously rejected my adultery example.
He thinks that undesired laws should simply be ignored instead of changed.
blink on June 19, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Not at the cost of an effective military they don’t
The military isn’t there to act as some sort of example to society. It isn’t there to somehow fulfill your own personal inner desires or to make you feel “justified”. Its there to defend this country, to kill people and break things, not to be your personal social experiment playground.
Fatal on June 19, 2009 at 6:19 PM
When he said he didn’t care how they got their kicks, he thought it was obvious he wasn’t including behavior that is harmful to others (most of your examples) or that might make him less effective (the drug example).
The reason I wouldn’t want a child rapist in the military is not primarily because I abhor his morals, it’s because I don’t want someone who is willing to harm a child like that doing the duties of the military. Also, obviously, he belongs in jail. Same for your other examples. The reason I don’t want a crack addict in the military is that crack addicts are probably not very effective soldiers.
tneloms on June 19, 2009 at 6:26 PM
Roger that. We aren’t Denmark, England or any of the nations this dim bulb listed. officers live in a different world. Civilians don’t get that.
Many complaints of sexually inappropriate behavior are covered up. Contrary to what some have said the military has an extremely poor record of handling it.
dogsoldier on June 19, 2009 at 6:31 PM
What you want or don’t want is meaningless.
There are laws, rule, and orders in existance to control behaviors in the military. They are all ineffective (even the ones you support) unless they are all (even the ones you don’t support) enforced.
This really isn’t that complicated.
blink on June 19, 2009 at 6:32 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »