Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military

NY Times ^ | 2 January 2007 | JOHN M. SHALIKASHVILI

[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

[wintertime]

What is an "Ivan"?

[Steel Wolf]

What is an "Ivan"?

A green plastic dummy, roughly in the form of a head and torso, used for target practice.

[wintertime]

A green plastic dummy, roughly in the form of a head and torso, used for target practice.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

what about women support?

Nurses, physicians ( not surgeons),dentists, pharmacists, flying supply planes, commissary duties, translators?

[Democratshavenobrains]

Does this mean Mark Foley and Ted Haggard would enlist?

[Lucky Dog]

<Or some other idiot pet project on them.…

Your observation is rather interesting.

Apparently, misguided liberals do not view the military as an essential element of national defense and international policy. Rather, it appears that liberals view the military as convenient place to conduct social engineering experiments until it can be completely dismantled or otherwise rendered impotent.

If placed in positions of power over the military, these liberals attempt to “issue orders” to mandate implementation of their world view regardless of how such might detrimentally impact the performance of military functions and missions. It would seem that they view ordering the military to adopt abnormal social conventions in the same light as they view judges ordering the rest of society to do the same.

The ardor of a “true believer” in the liberal cause will never be tempered by reality. This is the primary reason that “real liberals” (in contrast with those individuals who are merely power-mad and masquerading as liberals) must never be allowed to be in power in any significant capacity in our republic or its military.

Power-mad politicians who merely pander to liberals for votes are potentially amenable to the reality of retaining their power. Consequently, it is possible to control these dunderheads under the threat of loss of power. However, even those power-mad individuals who are masquerading as liberals must be kept in check for fear that in an attempt to gain, or retain, power, they will pander to much to “real liberals” and implement liberal foolishness.

The "penetration, however slight" clause always got me scratching my head for some reason...

This a legal requirement to complete the definition of a crime: the existence of both the intent and the action.

[HamiltonJay]

4% my ass.... practicing homosexuals are about 1-2% of the population tops.

[Steel Wolf]

what about women support? Nurses, physicians ( not surgeons),dentists, pharmacists, flying supply planes, commissary duties, translators?

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.

[wintertime]

Ok...that makes sense.

[stevie_d_64]

We're basically on the same page here...

This a legal requirement to complete the definition of a crime: the existence of both the intent and the action.

Definitions to a liberal are so black and white...But, when it doesn't suit their purpose...They will always cry "GRAY!" when we pull the rug out from under them and set their agenda back...Its always been like that, and for some reason they still tend to win out on things...Very aggravating...

My question to you has an answer, depending on the issue, and who is arguing the point...Lets say I am the liberal in an argument and you are the conservative...

Who is going to win the day in an argument over an emotional issue???

And who will win on a conservative issue???

Doesn't need to be defined just yet, just remember whom are the arguing parties...

[MortMan]

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.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

My husband served in the Navy for 9 and 1/2 years, and he was routinely tested for AIDS. Just par for the course.

He was a submariner, and he did know of one submariner who was gay. No one had an issue with it, truly. The man kept things mostly to himself. My husband was one not to kiss and tell about his life as a heterosexual... and the same was true of the gay sailor.

I often think in life that discussing sexual preferences is uncouth... not because of a distain for homosexuals. But because I have never found a need in life to continually pontificate on the issue that I am heterosexual. I don't discuss it with others. My personal life is my own and off limits to discussion.

Isn't this a more civilized way of handling ourselves as human beings?

[harrowup]

The 'General' is being more than disingenuous. He deliberately sabotaged SECDOD Aspin's attempt to deal with the problem. Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) would serve military order and discipline far better as just Don't Do regardless of whether we know or don't.

I know of no credible studies which would buttress this blowhard's opinion.

[little jeremiah]

More like around 2.5 at most. And less for women.

[little jeremiah]

Later pingout.

[cookcounty]

"Example two: the Episcopal Church, which has lost all sight of Christianity in its attempt to raise buggery to a sacrament)."

How'd you like that Episcopal priest putting words in Jerry Ford's mouth at the funeral yesterday? Words he is unknown to have uttered to anyone else?

For me it won the prize in the cock-eyed "proof that Ford was a secret flaming liberal" contest that the Dems and press (but I repeat myself) were engaging in yesterday.