Posted on 01/02/2007 4:12:33 PM PST by RetiredArmy
General Shalikashvili: Let Gays Serve in Military
The Army general who was Joint Chiefs chairman when the Pentagon adopted its "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays says he no longer opposes allowing them to serve openly.
John Shalikashvili, who retired in 1997 after four years as the nation's top military officer, had argued that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would hurt troop morale and recruitment and undermine the cohesion of combat units. He said he has changed his mind after meeting with gay servicemen.
"These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers," Shalikashvili wrote in an opinion piece in Tuesday's New York Times.
His view could carry weight at a time when advocates of lifting the restriction on gay service members argue that the military - under the strain of fighting two wars - can ill-afford to exclude any qualified volunteers. It's not clear, however, how much enthusiasm Congress will have for pressing the matter. The current policy, based on legislation passed by Congress in 1993 after a firestorm of debate, states that gays and lesbians may serve in the military only if they keep their sexual orientation private.
Commanders may not ask, and gay service members may not tell. Over the years thousands have been dismissed under this policy.
Shalikashvili is not the first former senior military officer to change his mind about gays in the military, though he is perhaps the most prominent. John Hutson, a retired two-star Navy admiral who was the Navy's top lawyer, said Tuesday he thinks the nation has undergone so much cultural change over the past decade that allowing gays to serve openly in the military would enhance rather than weaken the cohesion of fighting units.
"I think it will absolutely happen," Hutson said in a telephone interview, but probably not during the Bush administration.
Shalikashvili said he expects fierce debate over gays in the military this year as Congress considers President Bush's call for expanding the size of the Army, which is stretched thin by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Shalikashvili cautioned, however, against pushing for repeal of the ban early in the new Congress, which he said should be focused on urgent priorities like developing a better strategy in Iraq and healing divisions over the war.
"Fighting early in this Congress to lift the ban on openly gay service members is not likely to add to that healing and it risks alienating people whose support is needed to get this country on the right track," he wrote in the Times article.
In explaining his shift on the issue, Shalikashvili also cited a new Zogby poll, commissioned by the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara, of 545 U.S. troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. It reported that three quarters said they were comfortable around gay men and lesbians.
The poll, published in December, also said 37 percent opposed allowing gays to serve openly, while 26 percent said they should be allowed and 37 percent were unsure or neutral. Of those who said they were certain that a member of their unit was gay or lesbian, two-thirds did not believe it hurt morale.
C. Dixon Osburn, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an advocate for gay rights, called Shalikashvili's article "enormously significant." Osburn said it reflects a growing trend of military leaders supporting repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
In 1978 Lajes Field in the Azores had a big wife swapping ring bust. Half of the base personnel were PCS'ed out.
Thats just an Imam assisting a worshiper assuming the
proper position to pray to Allah.
Or pointing him more directly toward Mecca. It's gotta be one or the other.
Another fact is, most men detest homosexual perverts, and certainly don't desire to have one living amongst them in close, intimate quarters. These perverts tend to make people queezy because of their twisted sexual appetites, and certainly most men do not relate to these bizarre, depraved desires. A military full of homosexual perverts will be a military that many good Christian men will absolutely avoid, and this is not good.
I'm not saying that a homosexual pervert is incapable of being a soldier, I'm saying that that is red herring argument. Good soldiering requires a strong, cohesive unity amongst the guys, something that a flaming homosexual deviant probably will never be able to foster among normal men. He will eventually drift towards other homosexual perverts nearby, and the sick 'trists' amongst them will inevitably occur. These "gays" will be secretly hated by most of the other troops, no matter how many 'equal rights' laws they enact to intimidate people in 'embracing' them.
But hey, if this is what today's Soldiers and Marines want to have, go for it. We seem to be going to Hell in a handbasket anway, and not many seem to want to stop the slide into the pit. I'm just glad I saw a better day, when there was still some light shining on peoples' souls.
"I'm just glad I saw a better day, when there was still some light shining on peoples' souls."
Yes.. Your posts sure do make your soul seem bright. /s
If you say so, sailor.
Big foolish mistake. Shali is a retired Klinton general, which usually does not mean much. Furthermore, he is not part of the military now and cannot make good judgements because he has not been involved in years.
From the man that trivialized the black beret.
A blood supply is only as safe as the reliability of the product's testing process before being certified as acceptable for medical use regardless of the donor source.
From a personal viewpoint, openly gay persons are unacceptable in the military.
I hope Shak gets laughed right off the planet.
See #139
Thanks for the ping!
Funny how this was a controversial issue until we went to war, now that our troops are fighting, shoulder-to-shoulder, and we see daily on TV the value of unit cohesion, almost nobody (Shalli excepted) wants to argue that gays is the military is an important concept.
1. It's a conscript army
2. Those openly gay are segregated from the rest.
(which is a matter of controversy there)
I'm not sure where you got your list, or how serious the research was that went into it. Got a link?
It is well established that the demographic group most responsible for spreading HIV/AIDS is homosexual males (check the CDC website for corroborating evidence). Since homosexual male soldiers stand a much higher chance of having and spreading HIV, and given the reliance on fellow soldiers for blood transfusions in combat theaters, a unit would have to either leave the homo back in the rear (no pun intended) when it deployed for duty in a combat theater, or risk infecting normal troops with tainted blood from the perverted deviant. To leave the homo back would mean that the unit would be missing part of the team it trained with in peacetime, and would therefore have to find, train and work into the team structure a replacement. This would be detrimental to the unit's readiness.
Therefore, in addition to the damage homosexuals do to the morale and cohesion of any and all units in the military, they would have an adverse effect on unit readiness.
Homosexuals have no place in the military...now or ever.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Yes the Black Beret was this idiots idea. Add the fact that we bought those berets from China I believe. I looked up his Bio, not too impressive. The man was commissioned in 59 and somehow managed to keep himself out of RVN until 1968-1969. I wonder who he knew, as we darn sure needed Field Arty officers in RVN. From FO's(Forward Observers) out with Infantry companies to FA (Field Artillery) types commanding artillery units that all Infantry Divisions have as TOE units, the Gen was late in arriving in country by any combat arms standard. 9 years of commissioned service prior to setting foot in war back then is hard to buy for me.
He was a one tour wonder as a MACV Advisor, most likely as a very senior Captain or a junior Major, in 68-69. Quite remarkable for a seasoned FA officer, who was never in prior combat to escape the advisor period and the influx of major US Infantry Divisions in 65.
He was obviously willing to push the do not ask policy, or he would have been history as a man with an office in the White House. I would think he would fade away with his record not to mention many seasoned combat Vets, who had very little regard for him. Very unusual as many OCS grads from Fort Sill's FA OCS were in Vietnam within two years or less of being commissioned.
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.