No surprise: Long-awaited Pentagon review sees little risk from repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell”

posted at 5:01 pm on November 30, 2010 by Allahpundit

Believe it or not, there may be greater support for repeal within military families than within the general population. In a Pew poll taken earlier this month, 58 percent of Americans said they support letting gays serve openly. That’s not precisely the same question the Pentagon asked in its survey of troops, but it’s close:

A majority — about 55 percent — of respondents to a survey sent to 400,000 servicemembers in the active and reserve components said allowing gays to serve openly would have either no effect or a balance of positive and negative effects on the military, and between 15 and 20 percent said such a change would have only positive effects.

About 30 percent of respondents said overturning the law would have a mostly negative impact, and those respondents mostly were part of the warfighting specialties, Ham said.

Fully 69 percent of troops surveyed said they’d already served with someone they believed to be gay, and of that number, 92 percent said the experience had been either good or neutral. (Among combat troops, 89 percent of Army soldiers and 84 percent of Marines had good/neutral experiences.) The full report’s available on the DOD’s website along with press releases emphasizing that Gates and Mullen endorse the findings. Although Gates, very shrewdly, added this caveat:

Gates said the military needs time to prepare for such an adjustment, even though he said he didn’t envision any changes to housing or other personnel policies. He said a sudden, court-issued mandate would significantly increase the risk of disruption.

“Given the present circumstances, those that choose not to act legislatively are rolling the dice that this policy will not be abruptly overturned by the courts,” Gates told reporters.

He’s couching that in terms of readiness but I’ve made the same point before in terms of political saleability: Americans don’t like big policy shifts “imposed immediately by judicial fiat,” in Gates’s words, so this transition is likely to be smoother if it gets the official congressional democratic seal of approval. Which it probably will: In the Pew poll linked above, conservative Republicans oppose repeal but practically every other demographic is in favor, including Republicans overall if you include leaners. Reid’s not going to get DeMint voting for this but Lugar, Murkowski, Collins, and a few others? Sure, why not?

The one notable caveat to the findings: Combat troops are decidedly less enthusiastic about this than the rest of the military.

However, the survey said that 48 percent of Army combat troops and 58 percent of Marines in combat units feared the change would affect their ability to fight, though the report said those statistics were contradicted when service members were asked about their actual experience.

“The percentage distinctions between warfighting units and the entire military are almost non-existent when asked about the actual experience of serving in a unit with someone believed to be gay,” the report found.

As you’ll see, Gates is vowing to focus first and foremost on minimizing the disruption to combat units if the law is repealed. And according to the results of the survey, it may be that relatively few gay troops will actually take advantage of the new policy to come out. Just 15 percent of those who identified as gay said they’d want everyone in their unit to know.


Related Posts:

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

Believe it or not, there may be greater support for repeal within military families than within the general population. In a Pew poll taken earlier this month, 58 percent of Americans said they support letting gays serve openly.

Keep recounting the votes until you get the results you want… Then declare the issue closed.

It’s the leftists way.

Skywise on November 30, 2010 at 5:05 PM

Gay thread of the night!

OmahaConservative on November 30, 2010 at 5:05 PM

I disagree. the poll is rigged. I didn’t get it. The results are invalid and the law should stand.

ted c on November 30, 2010 at 5:06 PM

Good thing we’ve got our priorities straightened out.

/s

aquaviva on November 30, 2010 at 5:06 PM

I fully support the military dictating their own policies regarding who they choose to let join. Outside meddling either way will hurt readiness.

redshirt on November 30, 2010 at 5:07 PM

The one notable caveat to the findings: Combat troops are decidedly less enthusiastic about this than the rest of the military.

Well, of course they are. Who wants another dude lusting after you in your foxhole?

OmahaConservative on November 30, 2010 at 5:07 PM

So can we call them queers again?

tarpon on November 30, 2010 at 5:08 PM

So can we call them queers again?

tarpon on November 30, 2010 at 5:08 PM

They do, so why can’t we?

OmahaConservative on November 30, 2010 at 5:08 PM

Meanwhile, as Gates worries that in some barracks somewhere someone’s gaydar is asking “What’s the frequency, Kenneth?”, our state secrets are being splashed all over the newpapers.

Could there be more pressing matters in the military, like say, protecting the US and our sensitive documents? Fighting our wars? Securing our borders?

Lily on November 30, 2010 at 5:11 PM

Glad I retired……

and yeah I think the poll is BS too.

RealMc on November 30, 2010 at 5:11 PM

though the report said those statistics were contradicted when service members were asked about their actual experience.

Homosexuals have been on their best behavior for fear of being kicked out. With the repeal of DADT, homosexuals will be free to misbehave (stare, proposition, make provocative comments, be flamboyant, etc).
It will never be a good thing to force guys to shower with & sleep with people who are sexually attracted to them.
Some people won’t be satisfied until there are coed dorms. What’s the difference?

jgapinoy on November 30, 2010 at 5:13 PM

Yeah, more Bradley Mannings are just what the US Military needs /s

Norwegian on November 30, 2010 at 5:13 PM

Combat troops are decidedly less enthusiastic about this than the rest of the military.

Well, since the military’s job is either combat or prepare for combat … perhaps more weight should be given to combat troops.

darwin on November 30, 2010 at 5:13 PM

Ap, as a Marine Corps Veteran, I can tell you that you have no clue what you’re talking about. Your best bet is to simply say “I have no clue why, but I just think gays should be allowed to serve openly.” That would be far closer to the truth then the spun results of a push poll that surveyed only 115,000 service members.

You can be assured that the poll is heavily weighted toward officers who wouldn’t be subjected to the same conditions as enlisted, and I’d be very surprised to learn that it sampled more than 15% Marines. This poll got the results it was seeking.

No repeal. Ever.

BKeyser on November 30, 2010 at 5:14 PM

Little risk unless the total breakdown of society doesn’t mean anything.

Connie on November 30, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Once again, it should only matter what the Soldiers serving think. They are the ones that have to live with it, not their families.

jawkneemusic on November 30, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Cool.

It’s about damn time we started Askin’.

Thune on November 30, 2010 at 5:18 PM

No repeal. Ever.

BKeyser on November 30, 2010 at 5:14 PM

My husband’s also former USMC and he(and I) agree with you.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 30, 2010 at 5:18 PM

Glad I retired……

and yeah I think the poll is BS too.

RealMc on November 30, 2010 at 5:11 PM

Yeah, me too.

I was wondering something, though. DADT has been around for 17 years, since 1993. Anyone who entered active duty at that time would only be a few years from retirement eligibility (20 years).

In 17 years, they managed to live with the ‘duality’ of being a homosexual and being in the service. There must be some, right? Any over five years? Ten?

But DADT doesn’t work?

catmman on November 30, 2010 at 5:19 PM

Oh, DADT.

I was hoping to see the F35B finally killed off….

pseudonominus on November 30, 2010 at 5:21 PM

The thing is that the ones with the purse strings are holding the military hostage over this issue. Gates knows it, Mullen knows it, and we know it.

fourdeucer on November 30, 2010 at 5:21 PM

Once again, it should only matter what the Soldiers serving think.

jawkneemusic on November 30, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Not to be too much of a wet blanket, but I hope we never get to a place where military policy is routinely decided based on polls of serving troops.

If the Administration believes it is right to change the policy, then they should change it and let those of us who serve manage those policy decisions.

That’s what they used to call “leadership.”

Otis B on November 30, 2010 at 5:21 PM

I work with a handfull of Vets from Iraqi Freedom and Afghanistan, and none of them say they would care if the guy or gal next to them in a firefight and covering their backs was gay. “That shidt don’t matter to the troop on the ground”. was the sentiment.

44Magnum on November 30, 2010 at 5:22 PM

Instead of demanding more gays in the military, maybe there should be more gays working at HotAir? Either you or Ed is going to have to come out of the closet, or, Salem has to higher an openly gay writer.

Blake on November 30, 2010 at 5:22 PM

“Believe it or not, there may be greater support for repeal within military families than within the general population.” Which means nothing. Absolutely nothing.

sbvft contributor on November 30, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Didn’t a general say during the Civil War that he wanted only single men because of their single minded devotion to the job at hand- which was killing people and breaking things.
People who want to mainstream an abnormal human condition ( yeah, abnormal-look it up in a dictionary) into the military are whistling past the graveyard of future generations.

jjshaka on November 30, 2010 at 5:24 PM

Combat Marines are against it. If we are gonna listen to anyone it should be the guys serving on the front lines. I am sure this poll was given to desk jockeys and people whose morale wouldn’t be affected by it. Do a poll of strictly combat troops who live with each other in close quarters for months. See how that poll looks. I think that is the poll that should really matter.

I’m fine with gays serving non-combat roles.

The Notorious G.O.P on November 30, 2010 at 5:26 PM

1st repeal, then the accommodation lawsuits…

I honestly think this will be must more disruptive than people think… but I want it repealed so I’m proven right.

ninjapirate on November 30, 2010 at 5:26 PM

And this from the Headlines thread I posted earlier:

I will never believe that allowing homosexuals to openly serve is for any reason other than forcing the issue of acceptance on the greater public and government at large.

Homosexuals represent too small a percentage of the overall population and that population wanting to serve in the military is smaller still to be for any reason other than activism. That’s how I see it.

How do I know this? Homosexuals can already serve if they so chose, they just have to keep their business to themselves.

If your ‘call to serve’ isn’t strong enough for you to keep a lid on your sexual proclivities, then I submit it ain’t got nothing to do with Service.

And this as a response to someone who thought my logic was flawed:

Listen, Skippy.

I just retired last year from active duty after twenty-two years. I think I might know a little bit about who and how people get ‘drummed out’ of the service.

DADT allows homosexuals to serve and prohibits the military from actively pursuing investigations into homosexuals. Any homosexuals who do get drummed out are removed because they violated the policy. Under DADT, suspicion of homosexual activity is not grounds for investigation or removal. So spare the crocodile tears about people being unfairly targeted and persecuted for their sexuality.

There is something many of you people don’t understand, and I stated it in my earlier comment. If your sexual proclivities are that important to you, if your lifestyle is that important to you, then get out of the service and live your life. If you can’t keep your desires in your pants for a few years, then don’t join the military in the first damn place.

The military boots people all the time because they can’t govern their passions – adulterers, gamblers, spend-thrifts, alcoholics, drug users. Substance abusers do have avenues they can go if they self-identify and are then allowed to get treatment, but if not, your gone.

Their ain’t a damn thing wrong with my logic. It happens to have the benefit of almost two and a half decades of military experience, not to mention common sense behind it.

People like you just get my goat. Get off the damn high horse about ‘stress’ and not being able to be ‘true to yourself”. The military is not an encounter group. It is voluntary service; there are conditions to enter and remain in said service. If you can’t abide, then get out or don’t go in.

I will say this: Shite or get off the pot already. Change the policy or leave it the hell alone. Get it done or STFU. I’m tired of hearing about it.

catmman on November 30, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Repeal of DADT is only phase 1 of a liberal plan to demoralize and break down the US military.

When have liberals ever been satisfied? Just wait till the discrimination lawsuits begin and then the demand to be given special privileges… Any disciplinary action taken will be contested in the name of discrimination. Pretty soon, those who genuinely want to serve will decline because of a breakdown in morale and then mission achieved!

TheRightMan on November 30, 2010 at 5:27 PM

I fully support the military dictating their own policies regarding who they choose to let join. Outside meddling either way will hurt readiness.

redshirt on November 30, 2010 at 5:07 PM

Military commanders bear ultimate responsibility for good order and discipline in the ranks. If the Pentagon says allowing gays to openly serve will not reduce combat readiness, then fine, repeal DADT. I have to assume the Pentagon will do what’s right for their services and the troops under their command.

If it’s later revealed that the military brass goosed the study to support a politically correct decision and troop morale, readiness, and retention is compromised, then fire the generals and re-institute DADT. Then, when the court challenges again rear their ugly heads, you’ll at least have hard evidence to back the conclusion that DADT has real costs.

Outlander on November 30, 2010 at 5:27 PM

I honestly think this will be must more

um “much more”…

ninjapirate on November 30, 2010 at 5:30 PM

he didn’t envision any changes to housing or other personnel policies.

Why are men and women still separated then? Nobody has ever been able to answer that in this debate.

scotash on November 30, 2010 at 5:31 PM

I’ll re-ask a question I asked earlier…

Why do homosexuals want to serve in the military to begin with? I always saw gay culture as being self-centered and counter-cultural, which is pretty much the exact opposite of military culture–especially in a time of war.

Outlander on November 30, 2010 at 5:33 PM

Outlander on November 30, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Is that your wordy way of agreeing with me? :)

redshirt on November 30, 2010 at 5:34 PM

However, the survey said that 48 percent of Army combat troops and 58 percent of Marines in combat units feared the change would affect their ability to fight, though the report said those statistics were contradicted when service members were asked about their actual experience.

I don’t care whether it’s been their experience or not, it’s about what instills confidence in them. If they are demoralized by the notion of DADT being repealed, DON’T DO IT. Lives are on the line here. Stop playing social engineering when lives are at stake. When we’re out of Iraq and Afghanistan, then you can dabble.

MadisonConservative on November 30, 2010 at 5:34 PM

So active combat troops and “those respondents…of the warfighting specialties” aren’t happy about it.

Also, 40% of the United States Marine Corps.

What could possibly go wrong? Don’t worry, I’m sure the LGBT community is totally going to run out and enlist the second this policy is repealed.

They totally won’t left the military to clean up the mess while the aforementioned activists move on to the next “injustice”.

amerpundit on November 30, 2010 at 5:38 PM

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. As a retired USAF senior NCO, I know for a fact that this entire report is total BS. The sample base must have been general officers currently serving in the Pentagon.

This is just the lib’s latest effort to gut the military by using it for social experimentation

rmgraha on November 30, 2010 at 5:39 PM

MadisonConservative on November 30, 2010 at 5:34 PM

We stopped placing national security and effectiveness over being nice long ago.

See: airport security, Wikileaks, civilian trials for terrorists.

amerpundit on November 30, 2010 at 5:41 PM

For every openly gay recruit going in, there are going to be ten regular guys who won’t join because of it. Meanwhile, reenlistments will go down, critical NCOs and officers will leave, combat readiness and effectiveness will go down.

But hey, wrecking the military so that a tiny few can flaunt their personally chosen behavior, that’s got to be worth something, right?

Rebar on November 30, 2010 at 5:45 PM

44Magnum on November 30, 2010 at 5:22 PM

My son doesn’t give a damn, either.

ladyingray on November 30, 2010 at 5:47 PM

Wasn’t the number of returned questionnaires relatively small? I’m sure there were those who were afraid to answer because they wouldn’t want to go on record as being against changing the policy.

Rose on November 30, 2010 at 5:47 PM

I disagree. the poll is rigged. I didn’t get it.
ted c on November 30, 2010 at 5:06 PM

Fascinating.

IU_Conservative on November 30, 2010 at 5:53 PM

I think 99% of gays that are serving are serving because they want to serve their country. But just watch for that 1% who have an agenda. This will get interesting.

Sue on November 30, 2010 at 5:56 PM

Why do homosexuals want to serve in the military to begin with? I always saw gay culture as being self-centered and counter-cultural, which is pretty much the exact opposite of military culture–especially in a time of war.

Outlander on November 30, 2010 at 5:33 PM

So maybe it’s time to re-evaluate how you see [so-called] “gay culture?”

IU_Conservative on November 30, 2010 at 5:57 PM

I think 99% of gays that are serving are serving because they want to serve their country. But just watch for that 1% who have an agenda. This will get interesting.

Sue on November 30, 2010 at 5:56 PM

And those 99% seemingly have no (or few) problems adapting their ‘lifestyle’ to current policy. But we must remove a policy which clearly works for the sake of the 1%.

Lunacy.

catmman on November 30, 2010 at 5:58 PM

Catmman,

Yep. So it seems.

Sue on November 30, 2010 at 5:59 PM

The survey is BS. The level of respondent self-identification is off the chart. It appears 256,000 out of 400,000 soldiers and spouses refused to answer the poll … gee, I wonder why they didn’t respond?

David in ATL on November 30, 2010 at 5:59 PM

Since when is the military run by polls and bare majority opinion? What is going to be the impact on recruitment and reenlistments? What percentage of those opposed to the change in the law are so opposed that they would not have enlisted or will not reenlist?

About half of the warrior class is opposed. If half of those opposed decided to pursue another career path, we would lose 25% of our warriors. Is the West Hollywood brigade prepared to fill the gap?

tommylotto on November 30, 2010 at 6:01 PM

Making broadbrush statements about what the military thinks based on a survey sent to 400K members and returned by 100+K of them seems a little questionable.

katiejane on November 30, 2010 at 6:02 PM

Every time AP puts up one of these ‘teh ghey™’ threads, it reminds me of someone poking the tigers in the cage at the zoo, reminding them that prices on hot dogs at the zoo concession stand are going down by a quarter, even though they predicted it will make the penguins revolt, and spell havoc for the entire park.

And the tigers can do nothing except spit and snarl.

Wind Rider on November 30, 2010 at 6:03 PM

How does the polling of service members based upon their experience serving with deeply closeted gays have any bearing on what service life would be like with gays serving openly?

That’s the difference between those field guys saying yeah, it’s pretty much okay right now, but when I think about what you’re proposing, not so much.

TexasDan on November 30, 2010 at 6:04 PM

aquaviva on November 30, 2010 at 5:06 PM

See, that’s the thing…for people like you, I’m guessing that “wow, is this really a priority” will be your answer no matter what is going on in the country. That’s just a silly excuse so there never has to be any progress made.

If you really find the end of DADT such a minor thing, why not just quickly vote to end it and get it out of the way?

It's Vintage, Duh on November 30, 2010 at 6:05 PM

Questions asked of the military should be much different than that asked the public. The question is not one of approval, the question is, -will you be more or less likely to sign up for another term of service if DADT is repealed?

That will reveal whether or not this repeal would put our nation in danger from a weakened military service.

slickwillie2001 on November 30, 2010 at 6:05 PM

That’s just a silly excuse so there never has to be any progress made.

It’s Vintage, Duh on November 30, 2010 at 6:05 PM

So, to you any change is “progress”, eh?

You must be a Progressive, then.

pseudonominus on November 30, 2010 at 6:10 PM

Gates said the military needs time to prepare for such an adjustment, even though he said he didn’t envision any changes to housing or other personnel policies. He said a sudden, court-issued mandate would significantly increase the risk of disruption.

Gates is a fool. 1st, it was recognition. Then, “equality before the law.” We want our gay partners (in those states recognizing gay marriage) to receive the same benefits as straight couples. Our partners are ENTITLED to allotment checks and military housing and medical benefits.

Then those gays in states that don’t recognize gay marriage will also scream for ‘equality before the law’. We want what other gays are getting in other (recognition) states.

As I said, Gates is a fool. This is only the beginning.

GarandFan on November 30, 2010 at 6:10 PM

Why do homosexuals want to serve in the military to begin with? I always saw gay culture as being self-centered and counter-cultural, which is pretty much the exact opposite of military culture–especially in a time of war.

Outlander on November 30, 2010 at 5:33 PM

Well maybe they care about freedom and their country just like everyone else.

lexhamfox on November 30, 2010 at 6:11 PM

Thoughts of many HotAir commenters seem to be along these lines:

We need to listen to the generals! Wait…the generals want repeal of DADT? Then…um…we need to listen to the troops! Yeah! Oh….you say they largely don’t care? Hmmm….Well, it’s not the right time! We have other things on the table we need to get to first!

Pathetic excuse after pathetic excuse.

It's Vintage, Duh on November 30, 2010 at 6:13 PM

I dont get it…I’m an ARMY dad and no one ever asked my opinion. Then again, I never heard from Michelle O. Anyone have any ideas?

Rick554 on November 30, 2010 at 6:18 PM

MadisonConservative on November 30, 2010 at 5:34 PM

So when America is no longer involved in any military conflict, that will be the time to repeal? What a convenient way to never have to repeal DADT.

It's Vintage, Duh on November 30, 2010 at 6:24 PM

Why do homosexuals want to serve in the military to begin with? I always saw gay culture as being self-centered and counter-cultural, which is pretty much the exact opposite of military culture–especially in a time of war.

Man, how can I argue with that laser-precise assessment of what gays do and do not think about the military.

Jeddite on November 30, 2010 at 6:25 PM

Thoughts of many HotAir commenters seem to be along these lines:

We need to listen to the generals! Wait…the generals want repeal of DADT? Then…um…we need to listen to the troops! Yeah! Oh….you say they largely don’t care? Hmmm….Well, it’s not the right time! We have other things on the table we need to get to first!

Pathetic excuse after pathetic excuse.

Yeah, but that’s going to happen either way.

General/Top Brass oppose the repeal of DADT? ZOMG HAX’D POLLS, LYING LIARS, DONT BELIEVE A WORD OF IT!!!

General/Top Brass support the repeal of DADT? ZOMG HAX’D POLLS, LYING LIARS, DONT BELIEVE A WORD OF IT!!!

Both sides claim to want to leave the decision to the soldiers/brass until the results arent what either side wants or expects.

Jeddite on November 30, 2010 at 6:28 PM

Little risk unless the total breakdown of society doesn’t mean anything.

Connie on November 30, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Ah, I was waiting to see when someone would come in and comment about how this will supposedly lead to the total destruction of our society.

Good to see Hotair doesn’t disappoint.

Vyce on November 30, 2010 at 6:36 PM

Well, of course they are. Who wants another dude lusting after you in your foxhole?

OmahaConservative on November 30, 2010 at 5:07 PM

Riiiiiiight, because gays just can’t help themselves, yeah? I mean, they’d be in a foxhole, bullets whizzing by and mortar shells exploding, and all they’d be interested in playing grab-ass instead of doing their duty, right?

Vyce on November 30, 2010 at 6:39 PM

Then, “equality before the law.” We want our gay partners (in those states recognizing gay marriage) to receive the same benefits as straight couples. Our partners are ENTITLED to allotment checks and military housing and medical benefits.

Then those gays in states that don’t recognize gay marriage will also scream for ‘equality before the law’. We want what other gays are getting in other (recognition) states.

As I said, Gates is a fool. This is only the beginning.

GarandFan on November 30, 2010 at 6:10 PM

How DARE those homosexuals to demand equal rights and equal protection under the law, instead of permanent second-class citizen status. Who do they think they are, demanding equality? Where in the Constitution does it say to protect the QUEERS, am I right? Rotten bastards!

Vyce on November 30, 2010 at 6:41 PM

Thoughts of many HotAir commenters seem to be along these lines:

We need to listen to the generals! Wait…the generals want repeal of DADT? Then…um…we need to listen to the troops! Yeah! Oh….you say they largely don’t care? Hmmm….Well, it’s not the right time! We have other things on the table we need to get to first!

Pathetic excuse after pathetic excuse.

It’s Vintage, Duh on November 30, 2010 at 6:13 PM

No here is what I say:

Generals (and officers in general who make up MANY MANY of my friends) DO NOT SEE COMBAT. Once you are past O-3 (Captain in the USA/USMC/USAF and Lieutenant in the USN/USCG) you generally do not ever see combat or if you do it is very rarely.

Secondly that poll was sent not to every man and women openly serving but a SELECTION of men and women many of whom did NOT take the time to fill out the survey for whatever reason. (Actually the reason can probably be summarized in a simple phrase “If it’s not an order-f*** it”)

Thirdly of those who filled out the survey a large number of them were probably NON-COMBAT servicemen. Note I don’t say servicewomen because no woman is currently allowed to serve in a Combat MOS/Selection Field.

Now my best friend is a very straight guy who is currently serving as a 35F (intelligence analyst-enlisted). Which is currently classed as a NON-COMBAT ROLE. He said that he did do the survey but didn’t see much problem with it IN HIS ROLE. This also took place after he had served 13 months in Iraq while taking IDF (InDirect Fire-i.e. mortars, rockets, etc) rather frequently at his FOB (Forward Operating Base)

So here’s a grand compromise in the name of getting this damn issue OFF THE TABLE.

Let HOMOSEXUALS serve-but in a NON-COMBAT role because that is really who was polled, deskjockeys (now adays they’re called “FOBbits”, officers who aren’t likely to see combat and women.

If the shit hits the fan in that role via discrimination lawsuits, quartering issues, shared bathing facilities whatever, then DADT can be put back in. If it doesn’t than perhaps in 20 years we will be having a conversation about woman and homosexuals being allowed to serve in combat.

SgtSVJones on November 30, 2010 at 6:44 PM

Err whoops I should have said “honorably serving” and not “openly serving”

Secondly that poll was sent not to every man and women openly honorably serving but a SELECTION of men and women many of whom did NOT take the time to fill out the survey for whatever reason. (Actually the reason can probably be summarized in a simple phrase “If it’s not an order-f*** it”)

WTB edit function for posts

SgtSVJones on November 30, 2010 at 6:47 PM

How DARE those homosexuals to demand equal rights and equal protection under the law, instead of permanent second-class citizen status. Who do they think they are, demanding equality? Where in the Constitution does it say to protect the QUEERS, am I right? Rotten bastards!

Vyce on November 30, 2010 at 6:41 PM

You ever been in the military?

darwin on November 30, 2010 at 6:48 PM

darwin you know its answer.

-

CWforFreedom on November 30, 2010 at 6:51 PM

Lots of civilian arm-chair military experts in this thread. There are a lot of gay troops already serving. Thats not a secret to any of us who have served. Nor is it a secret who in the military is gay. For the junior enlisted, its as simple as checking out their Facebook or Myspace profile. I served as an infantryman in combat and never really saw it become an issue. In fact, for one Soldier that stood out his liberal ideology was the problem, not his sexual orientation.

Logboy on November 30, 2010 at 6:52 PM

Lots of civilian arm-chair military experts in this thread.

Logboy on November 30, 2010 at 6:52 PM

really? please list them.

CWforFreedom on November 30, 2010 at 6:55 PM

darwin on November 30, 2010 at 6:48 PM

And where, exactly, does this type of reasoning lead us in other debates. Should only women, or, better yet, women who have had abortions be able to have an opinion on abortion?

It's Vintage, Duh on November 30, 2010 at 6:59 PM

I’ll re-ask a question I asked earlier…

Why do homosexuals want to serve in the military to begin with? I always saw gay culture as being self-centered and counter-cultural, which is pretty much the exact opposite of military culture–especially in a time of war.

Outlander on November 30, 2010 at 5:33 PM

Because classifying all gays under that same old stereotype is simply ridiculous. And if the military decides to end DADT and gays can finally serve openly, nothing detrimental will happen, as it hasn’t happened with other militaries around the world, Israel included.

JetBoy on November 30, 2010 at 6:59 PM

Logboy are these the people you refer to?

Glad I retired……

and yeah I think the poll is BS too.

RealMc on November 30, 2010 at 5:11 PM

No repeal. Ever.

BKeyser on November 30, 2010 at 5:14 PM

My husband’s also former USMC and he(and I) agree with you.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 30, 2010 at 5:18 PM

If the shit hits the fan in that role via discrimination lawsuits, quartering issues, shared bathing facilities whatever, then DADT can be put back in. If it doesn’t than perhaps in 20 years we will be having a conversation about woman and homosexuals being allowed to serve in combat.

SgtSVJones on November 30, 2010 at 6:44 PM

CWforFreedom on November 30, 2010 at 7:01 PM

Shemp Smith of course leads his 7pm news show with this story.

slickwillie2001 on November 30, 2010 at 7:01 PM

Should only women, or, better yet, women who have had abortions be able to have an opinion on abortion?

It’s Vintage, Duh on November 30, 2010 at 6:59 PM

I don’t think that is what he meant. I suspect Darwin was simply wondering if the guy has served so he would know the real results of such a change. He was not telling him to shut up .

CWforFreedom on November 30, 2010 at 7:02 PM

really? please list them.

CWforFreedom on November 30, 2010 at 6:55 PM

Do your own homework. They’re easy to spot, they usually say something like “I never served, but I think…”

Logboy on November 30, 2010 at 7:03 PM

CWforFreedom on November 30, 2010 at 7:02 PM

Well, would it matter to Darwin even if he *had* served? Because pro-DADT people tend to make up excuses a lot. “Hmmm, so you DID serve? And you still want repeal? [Insert another way to justify ignoring any argument against a blatantly discriminatory law here.]“

It's Vintage, Duh on November 30, 2010 at 7:06 PM

Logboy…i knew your answer would be lame. I DID MY WORK aszhole. If so easy show me. I went through this entire page of posts. You know you are just full of shidt you lying dimwit. Pukes like you are a joke.

CWforFreedom on November 30, 2010 at 7:07 PM

Logboy .. … tell me about the posts that I copied for you… DO THOSE COUNT?

CWforFreedom on November 30, 2010 at 7:09 PM

And where, exactly, does this type of reasoning lead us in other debates. Should only women, or, better yet, women who have had abortions be able to have an opinion on abortion?

It’s Vintage, Duh on November 30, 2010 at 6:59 PM

I wanted to know his frame of reference. Is that a problem? It was a simple question.

People in the military are bombarded with endless “training sessions” on whatever the politically correct item of the day is. You know, diversity, sexual harrassment, race, this, that … all kinds of sensitivity training. I was wondering if this training will now include gays and if Vyce had been in the military he’d know what I was talking about.

darwin on November 30, 2010 at 7:09 PM

Logboy…btw your word was “lots” . Now this should be easy. I laugh at idiots like you.

CWforFreedom on November 30, 2010 at 7:09 PM

Now I know that nobody explicity asked my opinion, but I’d just like to offer this up:

* Homogay
* Has never served
* Parents are USAF retired
* Not a screech-liberal activist

As for me, should DADT be repealed, would I haul my butt to the nearest recruitment office? The answer is no. I do not have the physique necessary to be a member of the military.
Were I a heterosexual, my physique would not change. Were I to train my physique to be suitable for military service, I would still be homosexual.

So for my own part, one dudesmoocher among millions, DADT is not the sole reason that I am not wearing the uniform (as many days I do wish I could). I still reserve the right to hold my own opinion of DADT and military service, which is based on my own life experiences as an American citizen, military brat, dudebanger, and all round not-a-terrible person. =]

Jeddite on November 30, 2010 at 7:10 PM

Logboy you know you were just blowing BS. Now that you are called on it you come back with: Do your own homework

You’re a mental midget.

CWforFreedom on November 30, 2010 at 7:11 PM

Logboy…i knew your answer would be lame. I DID MY WORK aszhole. If so easy show me. I went through this entire page of posts. You know you are just full of shidt you lying dimwit. Pukes like you are a joke.

CWforFreedom on November 30, 2010 at 7:07 PM

Wow. You are one sorry human being to lash out in such a way. You might want to find out who you’re talking to. Google me. J.R. Salzman. I do not have to defend my record to you or anyone else. You deserve to be banned for attacking people.

Logboy on November 30, 2010 at 7:12 PM

Jeddite on November 30, 2010 at 7:10 PM

Who said you could not have an opinion?

CWforFreedom on November 30, 2010 at 7:12 PM

Logboy on November 30, 2010 at 7:12 PM

I see I busted your dishonest arse.

You came back with that lame response and now get upset like the little lady you are ? Seriously, show me the LOTs. Remember it should be easy smarty.

CWforFreedom on November 30, 2010 at 7:13 PM

Repeatedly, we heard Service members express the view that “open” homosexuality would lead to widespread and overt displays of effeminacy among men, homosexual promiscuity, harassment and unwelcome advances within units, invasions of personal privacy, and an overall erosion of standards of conduct, unit cohesion, and morality. Based on our review, however, we conclude that these concerns about gay and lesbian Service members who are permitted to be “open” about their sexual orientation are exaggerated, and not consistent with the reported experiences of many Service members.

What experiences do they mean? Gays can’t be open now so how would there be that many experiences of openly gay service members to evaluate?

JellyToast on November 30, 2010 at 7:13 PM

Logboy…. come on now. It is easy.

Just admit you had nothing to back up your statement. We both know it is true. Now just admit it.

CWforFreedom on November 30, 2010 at 7:14 PM

Logboy fools like you use any excuse to run away from their dishonesty. PROVE ME WRONG.

CWforFreedom on November 30, 2010 at 7:17 PM

Lots of civilian arm-chair military experts in this thread.

Logboy on November 30, 2010 at 6:52 PM

really? please list them.

CWforFreedom on November 30, 2010 at 6:55 PM

Weird how such a simple EASY question could not be answered. Remember the word LOTS was used.

CWforFreedom on November 30, 2010 at 7:19 PM

Dishonesty runs.

CWforFreedom on November 30, 2010 at 7:19 PM

Logboy wait a minute I found the LOTS

here are lies, damn lies, and statistics. As a retired USAF senior NCO, I know for a fact that this entire report is total BS. The sample base must have been general officers currently serving in the Pentagon.

This is just the lib’s latest effort to gut the military by using it for social experimentation

rmgraha on November 30, 2010 at 5:39 PM

OOPs that is not it. In fact I found NONE. Hmmm.

CWforFreedom on November 30, 2010 at 7:23 PM

Political cover. Cooking the books on military surveys is the easiest thing in the world.

Generals and Admirals residing in the 5-sided puzzle palace are politicians in military garb. Most likely using this as leverage with OhBambi to mitigate cuts to their fiefdoms.

Open homosexuality in the military is deleterious to esprit de corps and readiness.

MCPO Airdale on November 30, 2010 at 7:23 PM

The questions I want asked of combat troops are these:

1) If homosexuals had been permitted to serve openly in the military at the time that you enlisted would that have made it more or less likely that you would have enlisted, or would it have had no impact whatsoever?

2) If homosexuals are permitted to serve openly in the military will that make it more or less likely that you will reenlist, or will it have no impact whatsoever?

Don’t you think the impact on the recruitment of our warrior class might be something we would want to know before we embark on a social experiment in the government organization primarily responsible for our national defense?

tommylotto on November 30, 2010 at 7:30 PM

I think the problem is less what soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines do with their private lives. I think the potential for trouble comes when a gay servicemember is subject to military discipline for something like fraternization. Experience shows that it is likely the servicemember in question would squeal that they were targeted by a homophobic commanding officer, and that the gay rights movement would in ignorance back him or her to the hilt.

Sekhmet on November 30, 2010 at 7:31 PM

Sorry, we’ve got a Marxist thug in the WH. Sure, he’s an incompetent Marxist thug, but still a thug. Anything coming from the Pentagon right now has Obama stamped on it. Service members cannot speak freely. A President can pick up that phone and order a General to say anything he wants that General to say.

For me, it is not whether there are gays openly serving or not. It is all the other baggage that will have to come with it. Sensitivity trainings, a new victim class status in the military and the attack on Biblical values that will have to follow.
All you have to do is look at what gay activists are demanding in society to know how much they will demand in and of the military!

JellyToast on November 30, 2010 at 7:33 PM

The 2nd and 3rd order effects of this will be unbearable for most leaders. You see, the youngins who see no problem with this are not the ones who will have to address and deal with the many problems this will cause, as if they aren’t already saddled with enough to do. I’m glad I’m not a First Sergeant and I’m glad I’m retiring before this social experiment will go into effect. Just because there are good intentions behind something, doesn’t make it a good idea. Lots of folks are denied entry into the Military every week for various reasons, where is the line drawn now?

gator70 on November 30, 2010 at 7:35 PM

I see I busted your dishonest arse.

You did? Where? That I didnt serve in the military? The account of my experience didnt happen? That I didnt serve in Iraq? And yet I see no proof of your military record.

Personally I’m flattered you have devoted so much attention to me. I go off to eat dinner and come back to see 6 posts directed at me from you. Sounds like someone has a little crush on me. For the record CW, I’m married (to a woman). Sorry to give you the impression that we might someday become an item, but I dont swing that way.

Logboy on November 30, 2010 at 7:36 PM

Had it been left solely up the military, the Marines would probably still not allow black enlistees. The Marines were forced to admit black soldiers over their objections in 1942. The Army and Navy at the time allowed black soldiers to serve only in non-combat roles, but were forced over their objections to allow blacks into combat.

The same arguments about combat readiness, etc were made then. However, the military adapted and thrived. They’ll do so again after DADT is repealed.

AngusMc on November 30, 2010 at 7:37 PM

Comment pages: 1 2