Milblogger statement: It’s time to end “don’t ask, don’t tell”

posted at 6:24 pm on May 12, 2010 by Allahpundit

One of the signatories, Mark Seavey of This Ain’t Hell, insists that the statement says no such thing and merely calls on Congress to wait until the military’s review of the policy is finished before acting. [Update: Oops. Not true. See below.] Really? Quote:

The service chiefs are currently studying the impact and consequences of changing the DADT policy, and how to implement it without compromising the morale, order and discipline necessary for the military to function. The study is due to be completed on Dec. 1st. We ask Congress to withhold action until this is finished, but no longer. We urge Congress to listen to the service chiefs and act in accordance with the recommendations of that study.

The US Military is professional and ready to adapt to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell without compromising its mission. Echoing Sec. Def. Gates and ADM Mullen, we welcome open and honorable service, regardless of sexual orientation.

Follow the link up top for the full statement and list of endorsers, which includes the guys at Blackfive and McQ of QandO, who once held a different opinion and changed it after serving with gay soldiers. (Milblog fans will undoubtedly note who’s missing from the roster of signatories.) I think it’s an impressively bold move, not only because they didn’t have to make it but because the bulk of their readership, I assume, comes from vets and hawks, both of which are perceived (fairly or not) as being cooler to repealing DADT than the average joe. But then, as Uncle Jimbo says of those who disagree, “no one’s going to lose their mind over DADT.”

Speaking of gay-rights support from those perceived as hawkish: Dude?

Update: My bad. It was Seavey’s co-blogger, John Lilyea, who wrote the post at This Ain’t Hell, not Seavey. Sorry that I missed the byline.

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2

TABoLK on May 12, 2010 at 8:02 PM

Well, thanks for your service, sir.

Rightwingguy on May 12, 2010 at 8:04 PM

FIFM. Just in case you worked for a living. :-)

Rightwingguy on May 12, 2010 at 8:06 PM

Why is a person ready to drive at age 16 but not 15?

terryannonline on May 12, 2010 at 7:47 PM

Poor example. Some states allow licenses at 15, others at 16. Most states have restrictions on underage drivers, including what hours they can drive and how many passengers they can have. Their license can be suspended for a single ticket, etc. Again, this is a state issue. At 18 these special rules no longer apply to drivers.

GnuBreed on May 12, 2010 at 8:07 PM

John the Libertarian on May 12, 2010 at 6:33 PM

It’s hard not to. I mean, she spoke her opinion but did so saying that she understood why some people would disagree, and I believe her. She could be explaining why TARP was a good deal, and I still don’t think I could hate her.

Esthier on May 12, 2010 at 8:15 PM

Rightwingguy on May 12, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Oh, I know!!! A permit to carry a concealed handgun. Yes, that is right, my son can’t carry a gun (well, actually he does for his job, but that is beside the point) concealed…the thing is, he can own the handgun at 18.

Think about that. An 18 year old, in Tennessee can vote, get married, have sex, buy cigarettes, sign a legal contract, join the military, own a handgun…but can’t drink a beer.

ladyingray on May 12, 2010 at 8:15 PM

GnuBreed on May 12, 2010 at 8:07 PM

Since a motorized vehicle can be used to commit manslaughter, or even homicide, it makes sense to require that any unsupervised driver be old enough to be tried as an adult.

RBMN on May 12, 2010 at 8:18 PM

I’m calling it a night folks. So we don’t agree on the drinking age. Meh.

terryannonline on May 12, 2010 at 8:20 PM

No not because just because of some government imposed “legal” age. Because thousands of Americans die each year due to drunk driving and other alcoholic related deaths.

terryannonline on May 12, 2010 at 7:05 PM

Then just say you’re for prohibition and get it over with so we can dismiss your banal opinion.

Why not explain how age isn’t arbitrarily determined concerning the case we’re discussing?

Bee on May 12, 2010 at 7:41 PM

You’re chasing your own tail. You’ve bumped into someone who is emotional over the misuse of a substance by others, and is discarding any and all rights and logic to demonize it.

ridiculous… I demand to shower with the women if this happens…

Kaptain Amerika on May 12, 2010 at 6:38 PM

Soldiers have been showering with gay soldiers since the armed forces of the United States started showering together. That statement doesn’t really make any sense.

If you think gays should be kept out because relationships have no place in the military, I assume you’re also against women in the military?

MadisonConservative on May 12, 2010 at 8:25 PM

Rightwingguy on May 12, 2010 at 7:30 PM

I joined the Army at 17 yrs of age in 1975. I was still in Basic Training when I turned 18, so it didn’t make a difference. But 18 was still the legal drinking age then. I don’t recall anyone in my battalion or any of the ones nearby having a fatal drunk driving wreck. Might have happened, but I don’t remember it.

We still had beer machines in the day room. It was usually Shlitz, Coors or Schmidts. I don’t think they had to refill very often.

TugboatPhil on May 12, 2010 at 8:27 PM

ladyingray on May 12, 2010 at 8:15 PM

It doesn’t really make sense. Then again few things do.

Rightwingguy on May 12, 2010 at 8:28 PM

Think about that. An 18 year old, in Tennessee can vote, get married, have sex, buy cigarettes, sign a legal contract, join the military, own a handgun…but can’t drink a beer.

ladyingray on May 12, 2010 at 8:15 PM

Oh, but you see, there are alcoholics, drunk drivers, and domestic abuse because of alcohol. So, see, my defense is accusing anyone under 21 pre-emptively of committing these crimes if they go near a beer. I know best, because MADD told me so over, and over, and over…

MadisonConservative on May 12, 2010 at 8:28 PM

Then just say you’re for prohibition and get it over with so we can dismiss your banal opinion

Never said I was for prohibition. Please don’t tag with a policy position I do not support.

terryannonline on May 12, 2010 at 8:29 PM

Poor example. Some states allow licenses at 15, others at 16. Most states have restrictions on underage drivers, including what hours they can drive and how many passengers they can have. Their license can be suspended for a single ticket, etc. Again, this is a state issue. At 18 these special rules no longer apply to drivers.

GnuBreed on May 12, 2010 at 8:07 PM

Some states also allow parents to give their children alcohol. Not sure why others don’t. So, apparently, it isn’t because the alcohol is harmful to them. It truly is an arbitrary number pushed for by neo-temperance groups who want to see booze against the law once more, so they can feel good about having controlled people’s lives.

MadisonConservative on May 12, 2010 at 8:30 PM

Never said I was for prohibition. Please don’t tag with a policy position I do not support.

terryannonline on May 12, 2010 at 8:29 PM

You argued for the age limit by citing deaths from drunk driving and other alcohol-related reasons. Those tragedies occur to people from 12 to 100, so it’s in no way a sufficient reason to limit the age of people who can drink, if the same tragedy can happen to them at 21. If that’s your argument, then you are arguing for total illegality of alcohol in order to avoid those tragedies.

MadisonConservative on May 12, 2010 at 8:33 PM

Since a motorized vehicle can be used to commit manslaughter, or even homicide, it makes sense to require that any unsupervised driver be old enough to be tried as an adult.

RBMN on May 12, 2010 at 8:18 PM

An underage person can already be declared legally an adult for trial on crimes committed, especially crimes like homicide.

If your point is that those under 18 should not drive at all, petition your state legislature to get it enacted. I will not be signing your petition though.

GnuBreed on May 12, 2010 at 8:36 PM

Since a motorized vehicle can be used to commit manslaughter, or even homicide, it makes sense to require that any unsupervised driver be old enough to be tried as an adult.

RBMN on May 12, 2010 at 8:18 PM

I’m not sure I understand the logic. So many things can be used to commit murder. Rat poison, plastic bags, steak knives, rope, jumper cables, peanuts, shell fish, pillows, saws, axes, bricks, bleach, wood, broken glass, and even my own bare hands, and yet, there’s no age requirement on any of these.

This isn’t to say I think age restrictions with driving are wrong. They’re not. Teens are more than twice as likely as really old people to get into accidents. I just don’t at all see your logic.

Esthier on May 12, 2010 at 8:36 PM

If that’s your argument, then you are arguing for total illegality of alcohol in order to avoid those tragedies.

MadisonConservative on May 12, 2010 at 8:33 PM

Thanks for telling me what I believe. You are making my life so much simpler. Whew!

terryannonline on May 12, 2010 at 8:36 PM

O/T: So while we are discussing alcohol, can someone please explain to me why pot is “safer” than alcohol. I’m not seeing it.

terryannonline on May 12, 2010 at 8:36 PM

Oh that’s nothing. I’ve had people evaluate my entire character and personality based on 50-100 words that i wrote that they don’t agree with.

Rightwingguy on May 12, 2010 at 8:39 PM

Esthier on May 12, 2010 at 8:36 PM

Rat poison is over-rated, and should be avoided. Most of the rest of your list are good choices though.

exception on May 12, 2010 at 8:41 PM

That statement doesn’t really make any sense.

MadisonConservative on May 12, 2010 at 8:25 PM

Maybe it doesn’t, but if we’re assuming gay troops can be professional even in these close quarters, I don’t quite understand why we don’t have the same faith in heterosexual relationships. I suppose the difference is that gays aren’t really looking at anything they don’t themselves have, but I also understand the argument that even those same parts take on new meeting when you’re attracted to them.

It truly is an arbitrary number pushed for by neo-temperance groups who want to see booze against the law once more, so they can feel good about having controlled people’s lives.

MadisonConservative on May 12, 2010 at 8:30 PM

Just asking. Do you support an age limit at all?

Esthier on May 12, 2010 at 8:42 PM

Rat poison is over-rated, and should be avoided. Most of the rest of your list are good choices though.

exception on May 12, 2010 at 8:41 PM

Good to know.

Esthier on May 12, 2010 at 8:43 PM

You guys just keep shoving your Gay crap down on us, why dont you just go marry your lover already and leave us alone.

WoosterOh on May 12, 2010 at 8:53 PM

Gay marriage isn’t a generational issue. It’s a God issue. It will always be a God issue regardless of how corrupt a generation becomes.
Also, one must feel such a release to just give in and quit. Let it all down and just confess “I don’t care about moral issues any more. I give up. I quit. I’m not one of them. I want to be reasonable. I want to be liked.”

JellyToast on May 12, 2010 at 9:00 PM

You guys just keep shoving your Gay crap down on us, why dont you just go marry your lover already and leave us alone.

WoosterOh on May 12, 2010 at 8:53 PM

Gay. Crap. Down throats. Um.

Sounds like a movie. ;)

Bee on May 12, 2010 at 9:07 PM

Just asking. Do you support an age limit at all?

Esthier on May 12, 2010 at 8:42 PM

Frankly, not really. I’d leave it up to bars and liquor stores to refuse service if they feel like it, and make them immune from age discrimination lawsuits.

MadisonConservative on May 12, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Never quite understood why a soldier/sailor/Marine/airman can be trusted to fight but not trusted with a beer.

Well, sailors should NEVER be trusted with alcohol…

Thanks for your son’s service and your sacrifice, btw.

Rightwingguy on May 12, 2010 at 7:08 PM

As a Navy Vet I thank you for the funniest bit of humor I’ve heard all day!

Gang-of-One on May 12, 2010 at 10:11 PM

The military is not a sexual-social experimentational tool for progressive idealists to fundamentally change the mores of our nation.

It is a complex device constructed to defend the nation by killing our enemies and intimidating potential threats.

If it is doing its job as is, leave it the hell alone.

It is an all-volunteer force.

It gays can’t stand serving under the current regs, then don’t join.

profitsbeard on May 12, 2010 at 10:12 PM

Gang-of-One on May 12, 2010 at 10:11 PM

LOL. I do what I can. Thank you for your service, sir.

Rightwingguy on May 12, 2010 at 10:30 PM

We’ll lose up to 23% of active duty troops and piss off a majority of the military because Democrats and milbloggers think a policy that won’t effect most of them should be changed?

amerpundit on May 12, 2010 at 6:43 PM

I was waiting for this one. This is an issue that civilians like me just don’t feel equipped to comment on. Both sides seem to have powerful points, but when it comes down to it, this should be all about having the best military defense.

And if 1/10 of the tiny minority of gay people in this country want to serve in the military, but it costs us 20+% of our soldiers? Then it won’t be a very good idea, no matter what some bloggers think.

Jaibones on May 12, 2010 at 10:52 PM

These “milblogger” people are very America I think.

Any soldiers what are skeered of homos probably don’t need to be in the military I don’t think.

Or anywhere what has spiders.

happyfeet on May 12, 2010 at 11:12 PM

3-4 % of our population taking over in our country-God help us!!

Bullhead on May 12, 2010 at 11:20 PM

The military is the most anti-narcissistic organization I can think of. The same cannot be said of the radicals who demand attention at the expense of everyone else.

Potentially excellent young warriors will avoid the military because of this crap. The same people who support this thing will wail at the lack of excellence in the future. Where did all the brave men go?

The mil-bloggers are too smart and mature for the good of the military they love. Did they forget what adolescence was like? The paranoid-sounding obsessions of some of the other boys? These phobias seem to arise as an instinct — perhaps part of our tribal past in survival mode. When stupid wants pleasure, all kinds of disruptive experiments can occur. Our great wealth and safety gave rise to tolerance and appropriate curbs on primitive instincts, but we did not deny their existence, and certainly not in the military.

Face facts. Straight young men are the back-bone, the heart-and-soul of any fighting force. They deserve priority for their own cohesion and numbers. All these social experiments drive some away and distract those who enter service. Denying human nature deprives them of the unity and focus needed for the nation’s and their own survival.

And that is evil.

Feedie on May 13, 2010 at 2:31 AM

3-4 % of our population taking over in our country-God help us!!

Bullhead on May 12, 2010 at 11:20 PM

I think that’s pretty high, maybe more like 1-2%.

The Race Card on May 13, 2010 at 5:00 AM

The individuals who want to pass this are incredibly short-sighted. Repealing DADT is going to unleash a torrent of problems for the military.

1. Where do you billet openly homosexual personnel? Will male homosexuals billet with heterosexual males? Wouldn’t that be just like billeting heterosexual men and women together?
2. Given the impact of point one, where (and at times with whom) will openly homosexual personnel shower in the barracks and in the field? Again, why not just let heterosexual males and females shower together (Starship Troopers style) if you’re all for homosexual males and heterosexual males showering at the same place and time in the field or in the barracks?
3. I see the refusal of some heterosexual personnel to rooming/showering with homosexual individuals as leading to a sort of reverse discrimination within the military. In their quest to be wholly PC, military officials will likely punish and/or threaten heterosexual soldiers who do not merely go with the PC flow. I can see potential military cases now where heterosexual soldiers are punished/threatened for not wanting to room with a homosexual soldier of the same sex. This WILL happen, have no doubts about it. And when it does you know which side the top brass will take.
4. If homosexual personnel will not be billeted or share bathroom facilities with personnel of the same sex, then where will they stay? What will be the costs involved with setting up their own special billets?

These are the sort of nitty-gritty questions people who want to be known as “PC” and “open-minded” never get around to answering, or even asking. There are many more of these questions that could be asked, but I thought I’d list a few that crossed the mind of this former soldier.

matthewbit07 on May 13, 2010 at 7:20 AM

Only a fool supports this without contemplating the destructive results. Lawyers and our enemies will profit, we lose. We will have two gay men on a ship want to get married and adopt kids. We will have marital benefits for gay couples driving up costs. In an environment where the weak get teased, the weak will be protected, coddled and socially promoted. People getting harrassed by homosexuals will be called homophobes. We will end up with massive medical bills for aids and other diseases that come with risky lifestyles.

And as a minor point, the Christian white middle class that makes up the bulk of the military will choose to do other things. We will end up with a bunch of women, minorities and homosexuals fighting over affirmative action spoils while other nations become stronger.

Spartacus on May 13, 2010 at 4:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2