Change: Colin Powell now opposes “don’t ask, don’t tell”
posted at 9:19 pm on February 3, 2010 by Allahpundit
You know I’m posting this just for the inevitable 300 angry “RINO!” comments, right?
“In the almost 17 years since the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed,” General Powell said in a statement issued by his office. He added: “I fully support the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen.”
Robert M. Gates, the defense secretary, and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers on Tuesday that they supported President Obama’s proposal to repeal the 1993 law forbidding gay men and lesbians to be open about their sexuality while serving in uniform…
When Mr. Clinton tried to end the ban on gay soldiers, General Powell was the Joint Chiefs chairman and opposed the move on the grounds that it would undermine discipline and order in the military but he supported the “don’t ask” compromise. In his statement on Wednesday, General Powell said “the principal issue has always been the effectiveness of the Armed Forces and order and discipline in the ranks.”
Gates, Mullen, Powell, Shalikashvili: Have any top Pentagon brass, current or retired, come out strongly against repeal in the past few weeks as this debate picked up steam? I know that Peter Pace was against repeal as recently as three years ago but he’s been quiet lately. I’m surprised some enterprising lefty reporter hasn’t dialed up Papa Cheney and asked him for his views on the subject. He’s actually to the left of The One on gay marriage (publicly, at least) so presumably he’d be good for a useful “if it’s okay with the generals, it’s okay with me” soundbite. Chop chop, Politico!
Meanwhile, Arizona Republicans ponder the eternal question: WWMD?
McCain spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan pointed out that Mullen repeatedly emphasized that he was speaking for himself and not on behalf of the military leadership during Tuesday’s hearing. She said McCain’s stance remains unchanged and that until the Pentagon team finishes its policy review there will be no official recommendation from military leadership.
“Sen. McCain believes that DADT works. But if the military leadership decided that it would be beneficial to repeal DADT, he would obviously listen to leadership,” Buchanan said. “He respects Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates, but would like to withhold judgment on the repeal by waiting for the conclusion from policy review.”…
If the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell review finds that repealing the policy would be advantageous to the military, Buchanan said McCain would consider it. But first the military must address a host of concerns through the upcoming series of hearings and discussions.
Exit question: With Hayworth looming over his shoulder, is Maverick really going to sign off on repealing DADT? And if he does, what’s Sarahcuda going to say when she’s inevitably asked about it?
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 »
dave–i just had to go outside and laugh so i didn’t wake my wife and kids!
He has to wear his pro mask too!
ted c on February 3, 2010 at 10:52 PM
Just following your lead, Ted! LOL!
David2.0 on February 3, 2010 at 10:52 PM
Gee, Barry wouldn’t be cynical enough to use Don’t Ask as a B.S. distraction while the economy implodes, would he?
RobCon on February 3, 2010 at 10:53 PM
OMG…*pours another whiskey to ward off mind clusterfark..*
lovingmyUSA on February 3, 2010 at 10:53 PM
yeah fins, get bent. Show some respect. If you’ve never had any skin in the game, back off–
ted c on February 3, 2010 at 10:54 PM
Just following your lead, Ted! LOL!
David2.0 on February 3, 2010 at 10:52 PM
dude–you can be my wingman anytime if that’s what you’re bringing. We’ll troll stomp sometime …
ted c on February 3, 2010 at 10:55 PM
Did your sister ever get her dress back from you?
lovingmyUSA on February 3, 2010 at 10:58 PM
Poor me, now you know why I am bi-poler. Beer in one hand, espresso in the other.
Did I spell bipolar right? I don’t want to open another can of worms, no not me.
Geochelone on February 3, 2010 at 10:59 PM
I hear what you are saying, but I’m missing how that is a rebuttal related to my point.
Saltysam on February 3, 2010 at 10:59 PM
ted c on February 3, 2010 at 10:48 PM
Just following your lead, Ted! LOL!
—————————————
David2.0 on February 3, 2010 at 10:52 PM
David2.O: Hey,can you back up a bit,I need to breath!!haha:)
canopfor on February 3, 2010 at 11:01 PM
Dude…
…learn to read.
Saltysam on February 3, 2010 at 11:01 PM
You mean….like….Don’t ask, Don’t tell.
journeyintothewhirlwind on February 3, 2010 at 11:02 PM
you’re full of ‘em tonight, aren’t you? Obama has been dropping in the poles lately hasn’t he….er… I meant the Polish–the missile shield thingy you know…
ohh the wordplay…
ted c on February 3, 2010 at 11:02 PM
Wow. Poignant x 10.
Geochelone on February 3, 2010 at 11:02 PM
Did I spell bipolar right? I don’t want to open another can of worms, no not me.
Geochelone on February 3, 2010 at 10:59 PM
Geochelone: Sh*t Disturber!!!!!!Hahahhahahhaha:)
canopfor on February 3, 2010 at 11:02 PM
I still remember your linky of the Trailer Park Boys and the sh!t blizzard and the sh!tliner. So funny.
Geochelone on February 3, 2010 at 11:07 PM
F*cking with the military for A Great Social Experiment in the middle of the most dangerous War in our history is so !SMART POWER! frikkin insane I’m ready to puke technicolor camo.
Fight the enemy not each other, meddling, preening political morons.
The last thing the services need is another complex, legal witch’s nest of intra-corps sexual identity fiddling while the globally-rising Islamic jihadis perfect their breast implant bombs.
It’s like preposterous plot of a warped sci-fi story.
profitsbeard on February 3, 2010 at 11:08 PM
Harry Reid says “Lay Off Las Vegas”. After looking at Nevada unemployment numbers, seems like the Obama Admin economic policies helped achieve about 15% of that goal.
freemarketer on February 3, 2010 at 11:10 PM
RINO!!
O.k. just kidding.
Rightwingguy on February 3, 2010 at 11:14 PM
Evidently it takes quite a lot to get turds off of this board. There’d be more people who commented here if about 4 people were ditched. Hard for me to get the logic……
di butler on February 3, 2010 at 11:15 PM
Hmmmm – Obamacare- absence of any tort reform
Hmmmm- DADT repeal- opening a legal witch’s nest…
Wonder if that was negotiated with Obama before they sent in their donations.
journeyintothewhirlwind on February 3, 2010 at 11:19 PM
Something liberals have NEVER been able to answer: Why don’t men and women go totally co-ed already if this is ok?
Liberals just don’t think through things. They have ZERO common sense.
Unfortunately officers are rightly afraid if they push back on the gay agenda they won’t get promoted.
scotash on February 3, 2010 at 11:24 PM
This is not about helping gays. This is about destroying the Christian traditions in our military. You will not continue to have a strong Christian tradition while at the same time openly support homosexuality.
Whether we realize it or not, we have grown accustomed to having a military with a strong moral tradition. Demanding our military now openly accept homosexuals will be at direct odds with that moral tradition.
Gays activists are going to demand special rights. They will demand special privileges.
Standing up against gay activists is hard enough as a private citizen. It is going to be nearly impossible to do that as a soldier in uniform.
The problems and conflicts this is going to create are not that hard to imagine, and they will be many. Many!
The openly gay soldier is going to become the victim of all victims! He/she will need protected with a host of new laws, policies and penalties for anyone daring to show the slightest perceived offense or intolerance!
A soldier carrying or reading a Bible. A Bible study on post. Chaplains refusing to agree that homosexuality is ok with God. Gay men wearing make-up in uniform (women can, why can’t a gay man), gay men demanding to wear the female uniform dress?
What about transsexuals? What about gender identity issues?
Maybe I am making too much out of this, but I don’t think so.
I am, however, certain of this, nothing good is going to come from lifting this ban nor is the purpose to help gays. The purpose is to destroy the moral foundation of one of our strongest, perhaps last conservative institution left in America. The United State Military.
JellyToast on February 3, 2010 at 11:36 PM
Really, someone would not comment here because of a few trolls? That’s interesting.
Cindy Munford on February 3, 2010 at 11:37 PM
Ironically, all of these people get their own quarters, showers, etc.
There’s absolutely no basis for separating the genders if you are going to do this. I had to inspect a dormitory of young enlisted a year ago, and for those who don’t know anything about the military, most every A school(technical school after bootcamp) requires cohabitation in very, very intimate quarters.
The rooms these kids were in were no bigger than an average bedroom. The beds are only a few feet apart. A lot of these kids come from conservative families, and they themselves are 17,18 or 19 when they get out of bootcamp. This is going to open a hornet’s nest because they are basically going to force sexual tension on these people. Their parents alone will have a huge problem with it, as well as submitting to an openly homosexual authority.
For doofuses like squid who claims he was in the military but showers/cohabitation was only at bootcamp, this cannot be further from the truth. Some of these tech schools last half a year or more.
1. Are straight people who don’t want an openly homosexual roommate going to be forced to room with one anyway?
2. If it is an option to opt out of a homosexual roommate, will it be recorded? Will that individual later be subject to ridicule and intimidation in the same way we saw those who supported prop 8 in California, however, this time, they have legal authority to do something about it?
3. Is there going to be sensitivity training? What about those who have a religious objection to this? Will they be punished for refusing?
4. Will there be a discrimination punishment for those who express that the lifestyle is sinful?
5. Will everyone be forced to now declare, and openly discuss, their sexuality? As it is now, there are plenty of people who don’t know if I’m straight or gay, and I don’t know if they are, because sexuality is never discussed. That will all change.
6. A good example is someone who is a goth that has lots of piercings, etc. They have to remove all of this when they are on military duty. As soon as they are off duty, they can put it all back on. This is how homosexuality has been treated in the military, and as such, has not caused a problem. This is going to be a massive attack on discipline.
7.Homosexuality has been and always will be a dangerous lifestyle. A supermajority of homosexual men engage in anal sex(whereas a small minority of heterosexuals do), which is physically dangerous and leads to many health problems. not to mention, if we room homosexuals together(we separate male and female specifically to avoid intercourse and sexual tension), who is to say they won’t be engaging in that? this is not civilian society.
I’ve seen the arguments on the internet about “the military is strong enough to deal with this.” This is a ridiculous point. The military is strong enough for our new uniforms to be based on clown suits, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea and won’t cause problems.
The fact that these topheavy military leaders would say the rank and file support this shows how far they are from the grunt and the GI. I have had this conversation countless times with people who are completely opposed to it, know the sensitivity training that will come from it, and would seriously consider leaving the service if it happens.
For dipsticks like squid to say “no one wants to stare at your peeter, big deal” or whatever, tell something like that to a girl before you stick some random guy in a shower with her. “Don’t be uptight, it’s not like he’s going to check you out, because he turned off his sexual attraction switch beforehand.”
And not surprisingly, with zealots like jetboy saying cohabitation is a “straw man,” even the pentagon admits that is one of the thorniest issues they are going to have to figure out. To Jetboy, any valid point is a straw man, because all he cares about is forcing his sexuality on everyone else.
Before we come out with the nonsense about “gays are all friendly and nice, because i know two,” I can name plenty that are aggressive that i have seen, and I have seen be aggressive toward others. The proposition 8 issue showed that if there are non-aggressive homosexuals, they certainly are complacent and in effect supportive of the bullies.
TTheoLogan on February 3, 2010 at 11:54 PM
Not to mention, the current catalyst for this debate, lt choi, is supposedly an arabic translator.
ANYONE who thinks an openly homosexual military translator in arabic would not cause problems in muslim(i.e. EVERY arab country), is completely clueless.
TTheoLogan on February 3, 2010 at 11:56 PM
I’m also seriously interested to know how we are planning to deal with crossdressers. Everyone is segregated by gender in the military. What if a man decides he is a woman? there’s absolutely no reason to think this will not happen because I’ve seen it in civilian workplaces, and if you think it looks ridiculous there, just wait till it happens in the military.
TTheoLogan on February 4, 2010 at 12:00 AM
OK, I’ve never liked Powell.
And he’s wrong on this issue, too.
TBenton on February 4, 2010 at 12:08 AM
Powell has never exhibited any enduring principles it seems which is sad. His goal in life seems to be to go along with what he perceives to be the prevailing mainstream position.
echosyst on February 4, 2010 at 12:13 AM
Well this “rightwinger” is happy to see Don’t ask don’t tell ending. This is one of the reasons I’m a libertarian rather than a republican… at least on paper.
Powell is just another Obama shill now though IMO.
Ampersand on February 4, 2010 at 12:15 AM
I don’t think the aggressive issue matters at all.
Heterosexual men aren’t allowed to shower or cohabitate with female members of the military regardless of their level of aggression.
blink on February 4, 2010 at 12:30 AM
I hate this new gay military idea. The left just hates morality and will do everything and anything to fight against it. My perspective is from a former Infantry and Field Artillery military background. I can imagine few things worse than a couple of gay PFC’s in a platoon on the same squad doing night operations. How about a gay jr. grade officer looking for a little consolation from one of his most highly rated NCO’s.
It’s a horrific idea.
Mojave Mark on February 4, 2010 at 12:31 AM
Get ready for that great sucking sound……..in the barracks.
twodogsfing on February 4, 2010 at 12:32 AM
DADT isn’t a big deal in and of itself, but this is just another Clover-Piven style attempt to weaken the basic framework of our country in order to “fundamentally transform the United States of America”. That anyone could be oblivious to or in denial of that makes me question their common sense, not to mention their ability to connect the dots.
Of course, it’s pretty easy to remain ignorant to that kind of logic if you think Clinton was a great president who was made better by imperfections such as using torture techniques on Americans exercising their constitutional rights.
Sure, Waco was an urban legend and Obama thinks that DADT is an urgent issue. If I didn’t live in Seattle I would find it impossible to believe that people like AnninCA actually exist.
RachDubya on February 4, 2010 at 1:03 AM
Ann, you’re clueless. I’ve served in the military for 33 years and gays serving openly will not work without major modifications and concessions to “all” concerned.
You kid about showers and goof on the “poor rubes” who are scared some gay is going to be staring at his package. Please, let your arguments grown-up. We are past those generalities. I don’t think even if I had to shower with females it would be about the worry over being exposed but the mere fact that it’s wrong. Soldiers who would have the propensity to be attracted to another in a romantic or physical sense have to be segregated in the field.
BTW, you’re the worst stereotyper that comments on this thread. I don’t care what you think the military should do based on your idea of societal norms, it won’t work. And we’re not a Petri dish for your social experiments either.
hawkdriver on February 4, 2010 at 1:13 AM
Why don’t you cut and paste it into a better comment. You’re good at that.
hawkdriver on February 4, 2010 at 1:18 AM
Allah, fyi…Gen. Pace retired in 2007.
CP on February 4, 2010 at 1:18 AM
Wow, famous RINO displays fact that he has no principles like his liberal buddies…I’m shocked, again.
jwp1964 on February 4, 2010 at 1:26 AM
Have you ever seen more dramatic effect outside of a Kubrick film? The same arguments about morale and cohesion were made with regard to desegregation and sending women to war.
The Race Card on February 4, 2010 at 1:47 AM
And no one wants to ask the ones most affected: the current members of the all volunteer army.
Don’t ask, don’t tell is the best way to stay out of the massive propagandizing that will follow if the President has his way
Guaranteed all soldiers will have to undergo sensitivity training, and much of that will run counter to the faiths of many.
Next, an entire body of regulation will be established for all the benefits that will be ascribed, with or without gay marriage, to the reality.
Counselors will be hired, or retrained. Manuals re written.
The army gains free speech extolling gay expression, and criticisms become ‘hate’. Soldiers gain a one sided freedom to agree or be re programmed
For instance, complaints about being pushed into some intimate task with a declared gay, say in a medical setting, could result in discipline for the complainer, and probably sensitivity training until the complainer obeys the new group think
Despite the constant brainwashing of film and entertainment, putting male and female space cadets into the shower and barracks together, there is a level of discomfort with interaction where one is a declared practioner, and the other belongs to the group which is objectified.
That is why the current policy works to defuse a big problem. Because sex is not neutral. Everyone is not under total self control. The largest comfort zone exists where all in the group are directing objectifying interests outside the group. Taking it out of the conversation, takes it out of mind
entagor on February 4, 2010 at 1:50 AM
Maybe Colon Bowel has been promised a gig by Hussain
The new ‘touchy-feely czar ‘ ?
macncheez on February 4, 2010 at 2:06 AM
Yes, I saw and dealt with all of the above… in reality, not on a movie screen. But if you had even the slightest decency to qoute my entire original statement, I want the troops on the ground to decide this DADT issue, not the suits in Washington.
TXUS on February 4, 2010 at 2:20 AM
Race card, I thought you were more intelligent than to use such tired and flawed reasoning. This has nothing to do with segregation or women’s rights. This has everything to do with choices of lifestyle and a majority of military personal having reservation, for very genuine reasons, gays serving openly and coed in a military at war. This has everything to do with the logistics of making even additional accommodations for what, how many other groups. Do we need male, female, gay and lesbian billeting. If you throw them all together, do you have to make accommodations for the ones like me who will not billet with one of the other groups? You have no idea the strain you’d be putting an already worn military under.
hawkdriver on February 4, 2010 at 4:51 AM
Knowing Hussain and his devotees , I’m pretty sure thats exactly their plan
macncheez on February 4, 2010 at 5:14 AM
RINO!!!
Dr. ZhivBlago on February 4, 2010 at 5:52 AM
Is Colin Powell still a registered Republican? Now this is a guy who is properly called a RINO who should be told to get lost. He has already “struck out” as far as I am concerned.
“Strike One”: While Secretary of State, Powell did not tell President Bush and Vice President Cheney that Powell’s man Armitage at State was responsible for telling Bob Novak that Valerie Plame was Joe Wilson’s wife at a time the New York Times and other mainstream media were attacking Bush and Cheney for outing Plame and Fitzgerald was doing his “investigation.”
“Strike Two”: In October 2008, Powell endorsed Barack Obama for President over John McCain and doing so at a critical moment to hurt McCain and giving the country the misimpresson that Obama could handle Commander in Chief responsibilities.
“Strike Three”: In 2009, Powell said that Republicans should support bigger Government and higher taxes.
Why is Powell being given a “Strike Four” with his opposition to “don’t ask, don’t tell”?
Phil Byler on February 4, 2010 at 6:41 AM
I love Anne’s threads. Glad she was hired and kept around. Her way of making every serious issue simple makes life easier. If she didn’t already have this job, I think she’d be an excellent platoon leader in the openly gay military. The transsexuals whose right it is to serve openly next, can begin their integration with her as well. And not to be too effusive, but her brand of traditionalism and conservatism which requires constant change as the fashions do, is refreshing to those of us who thought it meant something else.
Long live Anne. And I hope her son brings home a lovely young man some day and makes her a grandmother. She’s got wisdom to offer the child.
JiangxiDad on February 4, 2010 at 7:02 AM
If you don’t think a lot of gay guys will join now, whats the point of keeping the policy?
Speedwagon82 on February 4, 2010 at 7:21 AM
Another issue to consider….Remember the Fort Hood shooter. He was advanced repeatedly in spite of his superiors feeling he was incompetant. Mainly because he was muslim and it would not have been politically correct for him to be held back. Would the same thing happen with gays openly serving in the military? Will they make rank faster than non-gays because it is the politically correct thing to do and no one will want to be seen as being prejudiced against them?
qballacus on February 4, 2010 at 7:24 AM
Senior Military Leadership is becoming an oxymoron. Don’t ya just love these guys pushing “diversity?” Say, isn’t “diversity” what got innocent soldiers slaughtered at Fort Hood?
olesparkie on February 4, 2010 at 7:29 AM
Totally ignoring the trolls, I have to ask the question;
Why is it that something which was wrong twenty years ago is suddenly alright today? Wrong is wrong, is it not?
OldEnglish on February 4, 2010 at 7:32 AM
How are they gonna work the gang latrines in basic? Heterosexual female showers, heterosexual male showers, homosexual female showers, and homosexual male showers for the recruits? They can’t manage to keep the buildings band-aided as it is, let alone modify them to keep the gays from leering at the non-gays.
olesparkie on February 4, 2010 at 7:34 AM
Colin Powell is irrelevant. He is nothing more than an affirmative action(self admitted)soldier who was always out of his league. He holds ALL responsibility for the war in Iraq. If Bush Sr. had listened to a real General, yeah a real General like Schwarzkopf and gone into Baghdad the first time, the world today would be a different place. Powell is a lefty, always has been and always will be. Affirmative Action is a cancer…….
adamsmith on February 4, 2010 at 7:34 AM
Powell has completed the transformation into a political hack, and thinks his opinion is overly important now.
23 years in the military, and I’ll tell you how this will play out. Good men and women will be forced out of the military when they over react when approached improperly with undesirable sexual advances. It’s going on already, but right now those who are not homosexual have something they can leverage to make it stop, DADT.
DADT works until gay’s come out of the closet and the military is forced to deal with it, usually with discharges. While on the news, affected gays whine about all they wanted to do was serve their country. If they had followed the regulations and DADT, they still would be. They came out of the closet to get out of hardship duty. Don’t be foolish enough to believe anything else.
Hog Wild on February 4, 2010 at 7:38 AM
Yeah, like, we all know how much self control the homosexual community displays in our society already. I mean, it’s not like they have sex in the streets now or anything.
Yeah, homosexuals build freaking parades and festivals around doing it in public and all of a sudden when it comes to the military and showering and sleeping with hundreds of other men, straight men in fact, sort of like virgins, why, hey, it’s ridiculous to suggest gays would be anything but decent and honorable!
Sure, just like your normal average guy would be if he had the opportunity to sleep and shower with a bunch of women all day every day. Why in fact, gays hardly have sex at all. They hardly even think of sex. That’s just a myth! The gay lifestyle is really all about friendship and warm relationships!
JellyToast on February 4, 2010 at 7:40 AM
He supports a ‘new approach’ taken by Gates? This rationale stretches the limits of human logic. What new approach? Either gays openly serve or they don’t. Like being pregnant. Hummmm…. the real sex or artificial insemination?
kens on February 4, 2010 at 8:31 AM
Really…who cares? As military leaders go, Powell was always a good politician.
Extrafishy on February 4, 2010 at 8:32 AM
I forget; Is Powell a Democrat or Republican now? Seems to be different with each news story.
Cybergeezer on February 4, 2010 at 8:49 AM
Just some thoughts on a few of your concerns and I will try to be as polite as I can, lest I be promoted from “dipstick” to “zealot”:
Probably not, but that would be just as douchey as criticising them for whoring around. But of course, you know and I know that most of the guys who would fight this policy change would not be of the actual religious stripe, they would be the type who use religion as a mask to cover the fact that they just dont like Homos.
Incorrect you can not be kicked out for having piercings at home.
There are a couple of thoughts on this. First, I am failing to see how the “dangerous” lifestyle is a factor here. It is inherently dangerous to base jump and ride motorcycles, in fact I would say motorcycle riding is more dangerous that anal sex, but military people do it all the time.
As for cohabitation, it is a bit of a straw man, but that is not to diminish that it will be a thorny issue. The reason for separating the genders is on the basis of mutual attraction. Women are turned on by men, men turned on by women. I would imagine that the proportion of gays in the military would remain fairly low to straights, so except in the unlikely event that the gays are all on the same ship, I dont see any mass orgies in the military’s future and the gays are not going to be trying to ogle your junk, you probably aren’t their type.
Squid Shark on February 4, 2010 at 8:54 AM
They dont think about sex too much with ugly straights I would imagine, so you should be fine.
But in all seriousness, trying to link the gays in the military with the folks who go around having sex in the streets or the trannies is a misnomer.
Squid Shark on February 4, 2010 at 8:57 AM
Powell turned out to be a total piece of shit.
NRA Lifer on February 4, 2010 at 8:58 AM
This is a very simple problem to solve. It has very little to do with politics and defense & a whole lot to do with fairness.
Here is the solution: Co-ed showers and bunks.
That’s right. Men and women and gay women and men will all shower together and sleep in the same barracks…that way everyone can be turned on.
It’s just not fair for gay guys to be the only ones with semi to full wood in the showers. It’s not right that they can roll over and watch their love interest while he sleeps.
Sex up the military for everyone!
Dorvillian on February 4, 2010 at 9:01 AM
Always watch the other hand … DISTRACTION …
tarpon on February 4, 2010 at 9:45 AM
I watched McCain on Greta last night.
I think he makes a great point. We are in the midst of fighting two wars. Now isn’t the time to go making changes like this. What’s not broken shouldn’t be ‘fixed’
bridgetown on February 4, 2010 at 9:56 AM
She’ll consult with her son.
bridgetown on February 4, 2010 at 9:59 AM
It amazes me that people actually think a JCS type military like Powell would openly speak against something the POTUS so dearly wanted. To go against something their CIC supported could be considered career suicide. Powell long ago became a political animal rather than a military representative.
Apparently the Army dismissed less than 500 people under the DADT rule in 2009 and most sources don’t indicate whether those service members had other issues that warrented dismissal or whether the DADT termination was because the member wanted out of the military. So we’re looking at potentially changing a rule for the benefit of 500 people versus 1,000,000+ in the Army?
katiejane on February 4, 2010 at 10:03 AM
fake, phoney, fraud
bill30097 on February 4, 2010 at 10:20 AM
Some of you need to get over all this fairness BS. There is no right to serve in the military and it has never been fair in recruiting. The military discriminates against the physically disabled, athletically untalented (including overweight), mentally deficient (maybe not in Squid Sharks case), emotionally fragile and morally corrupt (arrests, drug use, homosexuality etc.). This is done because of the need to perform to certain standards and the requirement to work as a team. A team that performs on the basis of trust in the most stressful situations imagineable. So forget the rights and fairness business. It’s not about that, it’s about ensuring that we have the best trained, best equipped and smoothest functioning military in the world. Fighting and winning our nations wars and conflicts is too important to take risks with. A social experiment does just that.
SoonerMarine on February 4, 2010 at 10:30 AM
+1000
Allahpundit offers this as an example of “expert military” opinion. But it’s not based on military expertise, just pure political posturing.
Further evidence this guy wasn’t ready to be president. The same brass supporting repeal also signed off on having vets buy their own health care. Because the sitting President smiled on it.
Chris_Balsz on February 4, 2010 at 10:47 AM
I quoted the most irrelevant point which is what I was highlighting albeit mockingly. I stand by my original intention obnoxious-tone notwithstanding.
You put all this melodrama on the table as if that gives credence to the fact that you would rather deny many men and women the opportunity to serve.
The troops on the ground take orders not give them. That chip you carry around that says you will only be able to work well under certain conditions sounds like entitlement not service.
Save any malarkey about me not supporting the troops or understanding what they go through. I’ve never been to war. But I’ve been shot at, I’ve more than one gun pointed at my face. Nothing about facing death
The Race Card on February 4, 2010 at 10:48 AM
classy, adhominen is always the best way to bolster your argument.
As for your “morally corrupt” they should be kicking out all of the jackasses I have seen over the year going out and hiring whores or drinking and fighting. Why do we not keep out alcoholics. Why to we coddle all of these people. If homosexuality is morally corrupt, so are all of these other things.
Calling me mentally deficient is nothing but the indicator of a weak argument. We keep people out of the military for those things because they substantially impact their ability to be good soldiers and sailors. Who you have sex with does not unless that person is a spy and you talk in your sleep.
Squid Shark on February 4, 2010 at 11:15 AM
Very succinct comment even though there are even more reasons why this is such a horrible idea.
Social Liberals tend to see via theories and rarely have they made a decision to “feel” they way they do about a topic based on some serious personal experience that would lend credibility to it.
I’d offer also that none of these so-called Social Liberals on the Left would give up their cars and ride a bus or train. That’s why CA State Senator Lowenthal has to promote “No Free Parking”. Most say it’s the suburbs that cause the problem. I say that an SoCal kid who has to ride the bus is subjected to extreme ridicule. They idea that you have to sit next to some repulsive (as the Obama Admin would say) retard where they may actually rub up against you is a sickening thought. Yet, the very adults and children raised to think this way by these adults are the sane ones who say personal space should NEVER be an issue within the military. Get over yourselves.
I would also offer that a majority of these so-called Social Liberals have spent years watching MTV’s Real World and Road Rules and getting their kicks out watching dumbasses make fools of themselves and enjoying the inevitable fights that break out amongst them. They would love nothing better than providing that kind of entertainment to the military ON TOP of the ALREADY STRESSFUL JOBS they must endure. It’s all just so amusing, isn’t it?
Excuse me if I refuse to laugh!
Sultry Beauty on February 4, 2010 at 11:18 AM
“The troops on the ground take orders not give them.”
Spoken like someone who hasn’t served a day.
They aren’t mindless robots. There will be pushback and we will lose some of our finest servicemembers because of this.
They didn’t sign up for this, to have to tolerate sexual perversion in the ranks.
For what? So a scant 2% of the population can feel good about themselves? Why not let the morbidly obese serve? How about the elderly?
The cost benefit just isn’t there and this is by far the worst possible time to introduce this and we have just the incompetent, corrupt CIC to do it.
NoDonkey on February 4, 2010 at 11:21 AM
“Don’t ask,Don’t tell”….Is that the new unemployment numbers slogan?
Robbya on February 4, 2010 at 11:28 AM
ND, you and I are on the same page alot. However, I have tolerated alot of pretty nasty sexual business in my years in the Navy, as I am sure you have. The people who I have heard say “Ill quit if they let homos in” are not who I would describe as “our finest” (with one exception). The gay servicemembers I have know would all meet that description.
Squid Shark on February 4, 2010 at 11:31 AM
Dear Squid, not an attack on the man, simply an observation based on your previous posting on the subject.
Not sure where you’ve been but alcoholism is grounds for dismissal and has been employed in the past. I had to refer a MGySgt for treatment and when he fell off the wagon it was retire or be thrown out. Just one of many examples. We also throw people out for adultry. I can name, but won’t, several officers that I know this happened to. One as recently as six months ago. To make believe that the military tolerates all sorts of moral turpitude except homosexuality is just BS.
Clearly someones adultry does not affect their ability to shoot or think. What is does do is affect their ability to lead, command respect and function as part of a team. It does so because others recognize their actions as wrong. Homosexuality is the same. It’s wrong. Marines (in general) neither respect nor trust them. It may not be the case in the general population, or maybe it is given the recent votes on Gay marriage. But Marines, and the military, are a self-selected population with a different dynamic.
You cannot focus on the individual in the military but on the impact and affect on the team. So telling the vast majority of the serving members to just get over it is no answer. It ignores and dismisses the problem. You don’t have to agree with it and you don’t have to like it, but if you don’t recognize it you’re a fool.
SoonerMarine on February 4, 2010 at 11:42 AM
Powell, like just about every other politician in general’s clothing, is still running around with his moistened finger in the air.
Politicians in general’s clothing end up as CNO or USA/USAF Chief of Staff…warriors like Hal Moore, Chesty Puller, I.D. White and Ernie Harmon end up with two or three stars, retired and with the love and respect of those who served under them.
TexasEngineer on February 4, 2010 at 11:53 AM
Sultry Beauty on February 4, 2010 at 11:57 AM
Do you kick someone out the first time they get drunk or admit they have a problem? No. I have kicked out people for the same in my day. We only kick them out when it begins to interfere with their job or good order and discipline. Same with sex and adultery. The only time I have EVER seen someone even charged with adultery is when it is coupled with other charges (such as fraternization).
I dont ignore and dismiss the problem, because I dont view homosexuality as any more “wrong” than some of the activities I know damn well servicemembers (including your oh so self righteous Marines) are notorious for. We will figure it out, we always do.
Squid Shark on February 4, 2010 at 12:18 PM
Because it is a positive moral good that men suck each others’ wee wees.
Yep.
spmat on February 4, 2010 at 12:19 PM
If my personal anecdotes are invalid, I submit that yours are too.
Squid Shark on February 4, 2010 at 12:20 PM
Missing the point. Excluding someone because of who they have sex with = illogical.
Squid Shark on February 4, 2010 at 12:21 PM
I am satisfied with DADT. There are a few people I’ve served with who I suspected might be gay, but under the current policy it really doesn’t matter what I suspect. I don’t want to know about their private life and I don’t push my exploits or them. I don’t brag about women I date and I certainly don’t want a fellow male officer going on about men they’ve dated. The current policy of just minding your own business works.
Squid Shark, I respect your opinion, but your reasoning is merely anecdotal. And there isn’t some intrinsic virtue in being gay. There are some very poor officers I’ve had the misfortune to serve with who have utterly disgraced themselves because of their gay behavior.
The first officer was a battalion commander who was weak because his men knew and I think he was just afraid to assert himself. He ended up being caught with a ton of gay and pedophilic pornography on his work computer while deployed right here in Kandahar. That was OEF 8. This time OEF 10-11, my unit, the 82ND CAB, had a young 1LT who worked in the S6 shop for our support battalion. He was sexually harassing a young male and very much married SPC, (Brigade Commander’s Driver). This man, also openly propositioned another officer, a warrant, while in the showers in our tent city, South Park. We had to send him home because he wouldn’t adhere. But they’re both gone and our unit is working fine after having given them the boot. And if there is anyone else, they’re maintaining the decorum like all the rest of the heterosexual troops are adhering to General Oder 1.
(Farg, third rocket attack tonight. Night all, I think I’ll head off to a bunker just in case. It’s freaking raining too)
hawkdriver on February 4, 2010 at 12:27 PM
Squid Shark on February 4, 2010 at 11:31 AM
I just don’t see how it will lead to accomplishing the mission.
This is just one more in a long series of distractions heaped upon us by the politically correct.
I don’t think it would lead to anywhere near the disruption that allowing women to serve on ships etc did and for the record, I believe that decision was a complete disaster and that the women in or near combat areas cause far more problems than they solve.
We’re still dealing with that hit and it can’t be undone, so why foist another problem on us that we can’t walk back?
But it’s just one more thing and this isn’t the time to do it. Homosexuality is a choice and if they want to be open about their choice, they are free to do so in the civilian world.
You can have an effective military or you can have a military that tries to be “fair” to everyone’s lifestyle choice, but you can’t have both, IMOP.
NoDonkey on February 4, 2010 at 12:33 PM
Colin…just go away. You are such a RINO it is embarassing to even think of you as a conservative. Your true colors came out in the 2008 election. Please crawl under the rock you crept out from.
And to think I used to have the utmost respect for you.
MCW on February 4, 2010 at 12:37 PM
The metric for decisions should be ‘what works?’, and it could be there are armed forces of other countries we can look at. Like we look at how nationalized health care works in Canada and Britain.
I have no military experience. My pastor just retired, 30 years as a chaplain, served all over the world. In private conversation, he explained why overt gays in the military just won’t work. He also said putting women in combat doesn’t work, the Israelis tried it, and stopped, because it doesn’t work. Not because women aren’t brave, or gays aren’t brave, but because of simple human realities.
Does any other country have overt gays in the service? Does it work? Deciding to break something that works because of emotion, etc. is not smart.
jodetoad on February 4, 2010 at 12:50 PM
Squid,
You said:
Now you say:
So, first you say that we don’t kick out people for alcoholism and moral turpitude. We coddle them. Then you say well, yeah we do kick them out but only when it interferes. I would submit that untreated alcholism interferes from day one. And, that moral turpitude interferes with leadership and teamwork from day one. Also, if you have never seen someone dismissed for adultery other than that associated with fraternization, then you’ve had very limited experience. And, if I gave the impression that my
are never guilty of any of these things then you misunderstood me. In fact the examples that I referred to were all Marines. And, appropriate action was taken.
Lastly, you seem to miss the point again. That fact that you don’t think homosexuality is wrong doesn’t matter. You are out of the mainstream. Otherwise, how do you explain the recent votes on Gay marriage? Additionally, the Bible states explicitly that it is wrong. Right in the same paragraph with bestiality. That may not matter to you, but it does in a majority Christian country like ours. Finally, there’s little question that the vast majority of military personnel in general think its wrong. And therein lies the problem. If you try and force people to condone and accept something they believe to be wrong it will negatively affect their ability to operate and work as team. So, you are ignoring the problem and just whining about how you disagree with it and how it’s not fair or right. Time to take a big-boy pill and face reality.
SoonerMarine on February 4, 2010 at 12:54 PM
Back in time to read your post. Very well said.
hawkdriver on February 4, 2010 at 1:05 PM
Smaller countries can have a military that is more of a social club than an effective military. If the Belgian Army is incapable of doing its job it doesn’t mean a great deal unless a major war breaks out.
That is not the case with you Americans. If your army is damaged of rendered less effective that has immediate and long term consequences.
sharrukin on February 4, 2010 at 1:14 PM
Gays already are serving in our military, as long as they remain in the closet and no one finds out that they are gay. We certainly don’t want them for them to be able serve with any integrity or honor if they are known to be homosexual.
SC.Charlie on February 4, 2010 at 1:43 PM
Is being “out” the same as being overt? Are you overtly heterosexual or are you heterosexual?
The Race Card on February 4, 2010 at 1:44 PM
You mean like Israel, perhaps the only country that can’t lose one war, or it will be wiped-off the face of the map? The IDF allows gays to serve openly.
SC.Charlie on February 4, 2010 at 1:46 PM
I don’t know that their poor performance in Gaza had anything to do with orientation, but I wouldn’t hold the IDF up as a role model of effectiveness anymore.
Chris_Balsz on February 4, 2010 at 2:13 PM
From a New York Times article…
Homosexuals in Israeli Army: No Official Discrimination, but Keep It Secret
Officially, there is no discrimination against homosexuals in the Israeli armed forces. Virtually all Israeli men and women, except for Arabs and ardently Orthodox Jews, enter the service at the age of 18, and homosexuals are no exception. Conscripts are not asked about sexual orientation, and people who are openly gay are not drummed out of the service because of it.
But as Professor Even’s experience suggests, the Israeli Army may be something less than the model of tolerance and openness supposed by some who cite Israel’s example in advocating an end to the ban on homosexuals in the military in the United States.
By coincidence, at the same time that the United States has been enmeshed in the issue, Israel has recently been engaging in a rare and occasionally intense public debate on attitudes toward homosexuality in its army. Pressure to Hide Homosexuality
Although homosexuals serve with everyone else in the military in Israel, many Israeli homosexuals say that in reality they feel pressures to hide their orientation, both in active service and the reserve duty that most men perform for a month or two each year until the age of 51.
“Israeli society is a macho society, and the army is a mirror of that,” said Rafi Niv, who writes on homosexual issues for a local newspaper in Haifa. “Most gay soldiers I know are in the closet.”
“Soldiers declared or found to be homosexuals will be restricted from serving in highly sensitive units like intelligence,” Reuven Gal, a former Army chief psychologist, said in an interview last week with Israel Radio. “Or they might be excluded from some combat units that are highly condensed or under high stress or may serve for long periods of time in seclusion.”
Functionally they are using the DADT policy.
BTW as Chris_Balsz has pointed out, they didn’t do well in Gaza nor did their incursion into Lebanon against Hezbollah cover them with glory. The Israeli army is becoming less capable than it was before the 1980′s.
sharrukin on February 4, 2010 at 2:21 PM
You have to be kidding, right?
SC.Charlie on February 4, 2010 at 2:24 PM
From Wikipedia: “Israel Defense Forces policies allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly and without discrimination or harassment due to actual or perceived sexual orientation.[13] This was put into effect in 1993 after an IDF reserves officer testified before the Knesset claiming that his rank had been revoked, and that he had been barred from researching sensitive topics in military intelligence, solely because of his sexual identity. Homosexuals serve openly in the military, including special units, without any discrimination.[14][15] Moreover, gays in the IDF have additional rights, such as the right to take a shower alone if they want to. According to a University of California, Santa Barbara study,[16] a brigadier general stated that Israelis show a “great tolerance” for gay soldiers. Consul David Saranga at the Israeli Consulate in New York, who was interviewed by the St. Petersburg Times, said, “It’s a non-issue. You can be a very good officer, a creative one, a brave one, and be gay at the same time.”[14]
SC.Charlie on February 4, 2010 at 2:38 PM
So what you have show here, posting from the always highly accurate Wikipedia, is that they have created an entitled class who have the option of showering alone if they wish. Hey I’m here to tell you, there isn’t a dang troop overseas who doesn’t wish they could have a nice hot lone shower to wash off the day. Most don’t. Privacy is at a premium.
gator70 on February 4, 2010 at 2:43 PM
There is a world of difference between what the political class states and what actually happens. Passing a law doesn’t change reality except in the head of deluded liberals.
The increasingly politically correct attitudes being forced on the US military will have a price. They currently reduce effectiveness, and when gays are forced onto the military that too will carry a price. Training to make the men more ‘sensitive’ is time not used for useful military purposes.
Liberals of course don’t give a damn as they care only that everyone is forced to think or at least pretend to think as they do.
sharrukin on February 4, 2010 at 2:53 PM
Stay safe, HD, I may be over there on reserve activation in about a year.
Squid Shark on February 4, 2010 at 2:59 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »