Posted on 01/02/2007 5:00:29 AM PST by shrinkermd
TWO weeks ago, President Bush called for a long-term plan to increase the size of the armed forces. As our leaders consider various options for carrying out Mr. Bush’s vision, one issue likely to generate fierce debate is “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the policy that bars openly gay service members from the military. Indeed, leaders in the new Congress are planning to re-introduce a bill to repeal the policy next year.
As was the case in 1993 — the last time the American people thoroughly debated the question of whether openly gay men and lesbians should serve in the military — the issue will give rise to passionate feelings on both sides. The debate must be conducted with sensitivity, but it must also consider the evidence that has emerged over the last 14 years.
When I was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I supported the current policy because I believed that implementing a change in the rules at that time would have been too burdensome for our troops and commanders. I still believe that to have been true. The concern among many in the military was that given the longstanding view that homosexuality was incompatible with service, letting people who were openly gay serve would lower morale, harm recruitment and undermine unit cohesion.
In the early 1990s, large numbers of military personnel were opposed to letting openly gay men and lesbians serve. President Bill Clinton, who promised to lift the ban during his campaign, was overwhelmed by the strength of the opposition, which threatened to overturn any executive action he might take. The compromise that came to be known as “don’t
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I guess statistics was not the General's long suit.
We are going in the wrong direction. We should extend the "don't ask, don't tell" policy to the civilian sector as well.
Don't forget about the female equation in this...There are some "practicing" lesbians serving our country with distinction in the armed services...
We just don't know who they are...
And with that said, from a veterans viewpoint...I would say that it may be a good thing we don't make a big deal out of this...again...
This is another attempt to bring down, from a certain political agenda's efforts, to errode the American military as a cohesive and viable force of this countries policies in the future...
This story was nothing but a bubble being put out there for some to pop...Thats just something to remember here...
Yes, good points worth reflecting on.
Soldier to soldier transfusions are not uncommon in a war.
Just recently a young Iraqi child was saved by walk-in blood donations from soldiers.
What would be the consequence if that child then contracted AIDS.
This is a terrible idea and consideration should be given to removing the don't ask, don't tell provision to outright denial of the ability to serve in our military in any capacity.
Yeah, right, let openly gay people into the military. For evey openly gay man (or woman) you recruit, I bet you'll lose five others. Part of the attraction of the military is that its a macho organization--one of the last places in our society where men can literally be men. Change that, and you will make it a lot less attractive to many--especially the warrior types! Also, people in the military tend to be more Southern and religious than the norm. Watch how fast base housing will empty out when you let homosexual couples live right next door to married ones.
And lastly, there is the small matter of getting hit on by gay members in positions of power. Not that it doesn't happen among straights, but most are programmed to deal with that. People will just bolt when their gay sergeant or Lt puts the screws to 'em to put out.
Will there be enough gay people to fill the ranks to deal with a straight exodus? Of course not--since they are such a small percentage of the population and inclined to...other things. And most of those who join will not be warrior types. So, both quantity and quality will suffer.
The fact is that anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that letting openly gay people serve is a formula for wrecking the Armed Forces. The dishonest, the bad actors, and the MSM will strive to portray it otherwise, however. Unfortunately, it will probably come to pass within the next 20 year--especially if we get a Democratic Congress + President.
Prediction: If openly queer folks are OKd for military service we will have to re-instate the draft.
Not many gay men want to be in the military, but a lot of gay women do. I only served once in a unit with females in it, but almost half of them were lesbians.
Still, one interesting thing about "gay-friendly" organisations is that the more open they are to gays, the fewer straights are interested in them. At some undefined "tipping point" the institution itself becomes "gay" and heteros lose all interest in it (example one: Broadway, which focuses on themes about homophobia and AIDS, neither of which has much interest for the straight community. Example two: the Episcopal Church, which has lost all sight of Christianity in its attempt to raise buggery to a sacrament).
Shalikashvili is a Clinton general, and one who has been a dependable signature on the less extreme set of "generals against the military" letters that some ex-JAG generals are always sending to the all-gay-all-the-time MSM papers like the Times.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Just an observation, but did you ever notice that many butch lesbians gravitate towards the military police corps? One reason I believe is that it is as close as a female can get to a combat arms MOS. Another is that they get a chance to assert their authority over male soldiers. I've seen many a butch female MP, complete with a male "high and tight" hair cut. Something is clearly not right, but because of don't ask don't tell, they are allowed to be as butch as they want to be.
I read of your comments on having homosexual NCO's and Officers in the military and immediately thought of the Fire Chief of Minneapolis. A lesbian herself she harrassed women and promoted other Lesbians , she refused promotions to straight men and she lost over 400,000 for the city in sexual harrassment lawsuits before being fired.
I dont think recruitment into an active homosexual Military would be so easy.
I think they ought to scrap the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy and institute a 'Just Shut Up Already' policy with all possible haste.
I agree 100%
Geesh....what REAL man would go into the military if there were open gays???? NONE!!! What REAL man wants to sleep in CLOSE QUARTERS with QUEERS??? NONE!! That ould END our fine military. Gen. Shalikashivi is a LOSER NUT!
did you ever notice that many butch lesbians gravitate towards the military police corps?
Oddly enough my first wife wound up in the MPs, but I never had a problem with her cheating on me with women, and she wasn't butch. But she got hit on a lot, which did not please her. Another friend was in the medical field, and she got hit on a lot too. The thing is that nobody turns gays in (even before DADT). I tried during my stint in a co-ed intel element, and was told, "if they are proficient in their MOS we don't want to get rid of them no matter how disruptive they are, because we are always shorthanded."
One reason I believe is that it is as close as a female can get to a combat arms MOS.
Yep. Many female officers in MI, also, are wannabee guys. Oddly enough women can serve in ADA, which
Another is that they get a chance to assert their authority over male soldiers. I've seen many a butch female MP, complete with a male "high and tight" hair cut.
Well, any female soldier can assert authority over male soldiers, based on rank. I never knew anybody, male or female, to have a problem with it, and I served in a pretty Neanderthal branch. When an individual gets into a power trip (it happens) and tries to rely on the overt military command structure for support, that individual forfeits respect, which is way more powerful than rank in actually getting things done.
Filth:
Yeah, what ever happened to "the love that dare not speak its name"? Now it's "the love that will not shut its face." I liked (tolerated?) it better before.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
A fag in every (fox)hole, eh? Shalikashvili is an idiot.
That was my second thought as well.
Something that bears repeating. Along with the fact the Hillary only approved their appointments if they looked bad on TV. She didn't want anyone on TV looking better than Bill and herself.
I would be very surprised if the military (even in emergency situations) did not routinely screen collected blood for Hepatitis B, C, HIV (multiple strains) and syphilis, as they do routinely in the Red Cross.
cheeky...
Which raises a point. Gays as a rule are fairly "sissified" and probably would not opt for military life, but I'm all for letting the "butches" in. There are no tougher people on earth. I've seen them fight.
The "penetration, however slight" clause always got me scratching my head for some reason...
You either are, or are not going to complete the offence...
I WANT THE TRUTH!!!
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!
I just can't think of another military force that goes to this great length to keep its cohesive-ness so loose, for lack of a better term...
I don't even think the French military is so liberal...
Seems to me in my experience other countries base their military on a performance template and not on a "people person" template like we do...
Now...Our forces are second to none...But when it comes to tinkering with the makeup and diversity nonsense...We rank right up there with the best of them...(that second part is sarcasm)
Just forces me to believe when some government idiots have nothing else better to do...
"Lets screw with the military some...Let's float the homosexual service issue out there again..."
Or some other idiot pet project on them...
Should I have not said anything, or are you just fed up with the topic???
No, I'm not commenting that the post is not warranted at all. I'm only expressing my feeling that the whole issue of sex deviates in the military is political-correctness gone overboard.
I do not believe the military needs sex deviates in its ranks at all, as the issue is the suitablility of those who are mal-adjusted to societal norms do not fit in military, where DISCIPLINE is expected, including MENTAL discipline, and the inter-dependence on the team members that could mean life or death is not a place for weak-disciplined, morally courageous, and rule-driven mindset are keys to survival in combat.
I believe the military is WRONG to have ever caved into the faggot/dyke agenda and PC-pressure to allow the deviates a forum and a place in the ranks where they clearly don't belong.
Would anyone (other than another sex deviate gay) ever put a gay soldier/sailor forth as a role model for their son?
I'm sure there are plenty of tough butches, but call me old fashioned...when I see a butch to me there seems to be some sort of deep-seeded mental issues going on just below the surface.
Good points.
I agree...I am glad you clarified your position...
I just had that picture of you smacking yer forehead in agony at this issue being raised again...;-)
No prob...
I've got a thread I am going to post here in a minute that in many ways is not that big a surprise, but I figure most here would have to agree with my brief commentary on it...
It'll be up here in a minute...
Example three: the NYT, which has made homosexual advocacy practically a requirement to join the editorial board.
Like some retiring Chief from the Air Force supposedly said at his retirement ceremony,\" When I came in the Air Force, it was unacceptable to be homosexual and remain in service. Later, it was only unacceptable to admit being homosexual. I'm just glad to be getting out before they make it mandatory to be homosexual."
U.S. military personnel are required to have an AIDS/HIV test every 12 months. In practice, due to pre-deployment screenings and other unit functions, they actually get it more often than that. I'd take a blood transfusion from any soldier over any civilian; gay, straight or otherwise. No one is screened better.
Good point. I have never settled in my own mind what to do. Surely, homosexuals have always served, but what is the best policy towards the issue?
That's exactly true. I can count on one hand the number of gay soldiers I've ever run across. As far as lesbian or bisexual ones, I couldn't even give you a good ballpark figure, but it's a lot. In my line of work, we had a pretty egalitarian chain of command that didn't really give a hoot what people did on their off time, so long as it didn't make the papers. Drunk driving was almost a capital offense, whereas no one really cared who you slept with, so long as you were discreet.
Still, you're right about the "gay friendly" problem. The military being what it is, if homosexuals were permitted, the EO regs would be force feeding a lot of gay friendly propaganda down people's throats. It's one thing to ask them to turn a blind eye. Many officers and NCOs are happy to do that, to keep the unit running well. It's another entirely to get them to look what they consider to be immoralitly in the eye, and call it holy.
This a prime example of how wrong-headed that argument is.
A Giuliani-Pelosi-Reid social liberal triumvirate could be expected to make the US armed forces as gay friendly as the British army and navy.
This would not sit well with the conservative Scots-Irish from the southern states that disproportionately make up the core of our current military. As recruitment numbers plunge, the Giuliani-Pelosi-Reid social liberal triumvirate could expected to implement a draft. Thus, we would all be forced to participate in the lunatic left's grand gay social experiment.
Mental issues below the surface? Rosie O'Donuts immediately springs to mind.....
harm recruitment ( from the article)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We may have a situation that now exists in the Catholic Church.
Just as gays are now drawn to the seminaries, and dominating the culture there, gays could be drawn the military. We would not have an effective military if the armed forces become a gay playground that discourages the participation and advancement of straight men and women.
After a brief decade of service, in both mixed and all male units, this is how I generally rate groups as effective soldiers, on a scale of one to five.
1. Straight males.
2. Lesbians.
3. Gay males.
4. Pop up targets (Ivans)
5. Straight women.
Now, given the political delicacies of the issue, forming a policy around these realities is practically impossible. The military already has a rep for being a place for straight guys and lesbian women, but putting that into law might be a little dicey.
The best option would be to keep the military, or at least the Army and Marine Corps, as an all male, non-homosexual work environment. Simply put, the good of the nation should be more important that the career desires of an individual gay or female that always wanted to drive a tank. Let the Air Force and the Navy remain integrated and even allow them to drop the "don't ask, don't tell" restriction. That way, there's still somewhere for everyone to serve, but it's in roles that will facilitate and maximize our available manpower.
If we, as a society, are unwilling to get over our desire to be fair to everyone, then that's fine, but it will come at a cost to our overall effectiveness. While we retain a strong technological advantage now, we permit ourselves weakness as a luxury, so we can feel morally superior. The military, as an organization, is already far more obsessed with fairness and following the rules than it is with victory. Adding another sacred cow to the herd, in the form of gay rights, will only weaken our combat power.
For the record, I served with a lot of people that weren't straight, the vast majority women, and I learned a lot of good technical skills from them. Part of me feels very bad that we can't all just shut up and soldier, because the military would be losing a lot of expertise from them, and they're good people, too. I just don't see a good way around it. The military at it's core either needs to be a killing machine, or a fairness-producing machine. It can't be both for long. One side will eventually win out.
What is an "Ivan"?
A green plastic dummy, roughly in the form of a head and torso, used for target practice.
Does this mean Mark Foley and Ted Haggard would enlist?
4% my ass.... practicing homosexuals are about 1-2% of the population tops.
A little off topic, but straight women, as a rule, make lousy soldiers. Aside from the physical issues, they almost universally have the wrong mindset and emotional makeup for it.
Now, as far as skill based jobs, as you listed above, women do as well as men. No question. A woman can be every bit the dentist or translator that a man is. In my own line of work I learned a lot of technical skills from females. It just seems that lesbian women more often have the right mental wiring to be a soldier than straight ones.
I'm not trying to imply anything beyond that. I certainly don't have anything against women. I'm just saying it like it is, in the interest of the discussion about gays in the military.
How will the miltary handle the influx of requests from straight men and women to co-habitate with their own partners? After all, few straight guys will want to bunk with a gay roomie, which means the gays will have to bunk together - instant karma!
Beyond the social issues, there are some staggering implications for intra-unit fairness and cohesion. (And by fairness, I mean the perceived unearned benefits gained by one soldier over another - one can reqard good behavior/performance, but one is in great trouble when simply being "something" gives one an advantage. Being homosexual in the military will become a plus, except for that whole fighting thing, IMO.)
Complete disclosure: I was an O-3 in the army when I resigned my commission.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.