Posted on 07/07/2008 8:16:52 PM PDT by markomalley
Congress should repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law because the presence of gays in the military is unlikely to undermine the ability to fight and win, according to a new study released by a California-based research center.
The study was conducted by four retired military officers, including the three-star Air Force lieutenant general who in early 1993 was tasked with implementing President Clinton's policy that the military stop questioning recruits on their sexual orientation.
"Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion," the officers states.
To support its contention, the panel points to the British and Israeli militaries, where it says gay people serve openly without hurting the effectiveness of combat operations.
Undermining unit cohesion was a determining factor when Congress passed the 1993 law, intended to keep the military from asking recruits their sexual orientation. In turn, service members can't say they are gay or bisexual, engage in homosexual activity or marry a member of the same sex.
Supporters of the ban contend there is still no empirical evidence that allowing gays to serve openly won't hurt combat effectiveness.
"The issue is trust and confidence" among members of a unit, said Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, who retired in 1993 after working on the issue for the Army. When some people with a different sexual orientation are "in a close combat environment, it results in a lack of trust," he said.
The study was sponsored by the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara, which said it picked the panel members to portray a bipartisan representation of the different service branches.
According to its Web site, the Palm Center "is committed to keeping researchers, journalists and the general public informed of the latest developments in the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy debate." Palm himself was "a staunch supporter of civil rights in the gay community," the site says.
Two of the officers on the panel have endorsed Democratic candidates since leaving the military - Army Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, who supports Barack Obama, and Marine Corps Gen. Hugh Aitken, who backed Clinton in 1996.
Air Force Lt. Gen. Robert Minter Alexander, a Republican, was assigned in 1993 to a high-level panel established by the Defense Department to examine the issue of gays in the military. At one point, he signed an order that prohibited the military from asking a recruit's sexual orientation.
Alexander said at the time he was simply trying to carry out the president's orders and not take a position. But he now believes the law should be repealed because it assumes the existence of gays in the military is disruptive to units even though cultural attitudes are changing.
Further, the Defense Department and not Congress should be in charge of regulating sexual misconduct within the military, he said.
"Who else can better judge whether it's a threat to good order and discipline?" Alexander asked.
Navy Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan said he had no opinion on the issue when he joined the panel, having never confronted it in his 35-year military career. A self-described Republican who opposes the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war, Shanahan said he was struck by the loss of personal integrity required by individuals to carry out "don't ask, don't tell."
"Everyone was living a big lie - the homosexuals were trying to hide their sexual orientation and the commanders were looking the other way because they didn't want to disrupt operations by trying to enforce the law," he said.
Wow. Liberals can be hateful.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/27/time/pentagon.html
Aitken is the first Marine GO to sign on with the sodomy lobby. I wonder who'll be the next?
Let me know when you are planning your next shower and I’ll be over to join you.
I will hand you the loofah and my new Eucalyptus/Mint soap from the Body Shop please don’t splash my hairdo, but my husband probably not appreciate your presence in my shower.
I look over at DU and she wasn’t there.
“my husband probably not appreciate your presence in my shower.”
Could that be due to the fact that it would be inappropriate for a random individual that is sexually stimulated by being in the presence of visual images that they would find attractive?
No its because he’s a jealous guy and he wouldn’t want some other individual to enjoy his Brwnsuga.
>>I look over at DU and she wasn’t there.
I am sure you did. I don’t go there myself because the place is full of people we consider trolls here. I notice you are challenged with grammar and spelling. Is that a habit picked up from another forum?
Are you purpleraine over in DUmmieland or do you go by a different name there? Because I do know that the ONLY was that a person can really do a search over there is to be a member.
Conservatives like 8mm and I are often condemned by name on a lot of leftist sites, I personally consider it a badge of honor.
Ah, so it would affect your family’s cohesiveness in some manner.
Is it ME that you were looking for over at DU? Because I'm a HE.
Regardless, if you were looking for ANY of the FReepers who have been opposing you on this thread over at DU (and I suspect that you frequent that site regularly) YOU have a very serious problem with projection (which seems to be a trait found in nearly all liberals).
224 posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 11:50:16 PM by purpleraine
******************
I confess I'm mystified at what this means.
Shucks, I arrive on the scene too late and all that lingers is troll smell. Waddled out ahead of the zot and back to the comfort of DU I guess.
Must be over there now instead of responding here.
8mm
Shucks, I arrive on the scene too late and all that lingers is troll smell. Waddled out ahead of the zot and back to the comfort of DU I guess.
Must be over there now instead of responding here.
**********************
Bizarre. Her post makes no sense at all.
I think the question regarding women has more to do with lowered standards, lower abilities (physically) and the introduction of the romantic element into the combat team. In my experience, it is more of a problem in garrison and units in support. The rates of out of wedlock births in some units of the 18th Airborne Corps (though not the 82d) were incredible when I was there.
Good point; because the UK Military was told to embrace sodomy by their courts is no reason for it to be forced into our military.
Sodomy is against the UCMJ already.
Look, don’t try to use logic with me, buddy.
Inserting women into units creates similar issues. I would find it very distracting, possibly fatally distracting in combat
Everything is theoretical until the ship gets hit, some woman in a flooding compartment doesn't have the upper body strength to pull herself up out of it, and a sailer has to make a split-second decision on whether to save the ship by shutting the hatch on a girl he's romantically attached to.
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.