Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What the Don't Ask Don't Tell Report Really Says
Washington Examiner ^ | 12/1/2010 | Byron York

Posted on 12/02/2010 7:56:33 AM PST by ConjunctionJunction

Press coverage of the new Pentagon Don't Ask Don't Tell report suggests that large majorities of U.S. servicemen and women wouldn't mind the repeal of the military's current policy on gays. Don't believe it. What the report actually shows is that the military is deeply divided over the policy, both between the service branches and especially between those who have served in combat and those who haven't. Did you know that 59 percent of Marines who have served in combat say repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell would have a negative effect? And that 45 percent of Army respondents who have been in combat say the same thing? That is significant, not marginal, opposition.

Overall, the survey of 115,000 servicemen and women presents a mixed-to-positive reaction to the proposed repeal of the current policy. Seventeen percent of all service members say repeal would have a positive effect, while 21 percent say it would have a negative effect, 33 percent say it would have equally positive and negative effects, and 29 percent say it would have no effect.

But the picture is considerably different when you compare the opinions of service members who have and haven't been in combat. For example, the Pentagon study group asked the following question of respondents "who have never been deployed or haven't been in combat environment since September 11, 2001":

If Don't Ask, Don't tell is repealed and you are working with a service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect your immediate unit's effectiveness at completing its mission on a day-to-day basis?

The answers are a mixed bag but suggest that there would be support for repeal of the current policy. Seventeen percent of all service members say repeal would have a positive effect, while 21 percent say it would have a negative effect; 33 percent say it would have equally positive and negative effects, and 29 percent say it would have no effect.

Then the Pentagon team asked service members "who have been deployed at some point and been in combat environment since September 11, 2001":

If Don't Ask, Don't tell is repealed and you are working with a service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect your immediate unit's effectiveness at completing its mission in a field environment or out to sea?

The differences are striking. Just 11 percent say repeal would have a positive effect, while 44 percent say it would have a negative effect. Twenty six percent of those surveyed say it would have equally positive and negative effects, and 19 percent say it would have no effect.

Break down the numbers by service branch, and the results are even more striking. Fifty-nine percent of Marines who have been in combat say repeal would have a negative effect, and just 11 percent say it would have no effect. Forty-five percent of Army respondents say it would have a negative effect. The opposition is less intense in the Navy and Air Force, where 35 percent and 41 percent say repeal would have a negative effect, but those are still significant minorities.

And these are large groups. According to the study, 70 percent of respondents are now or have been deployed, and 83 percent of them have been in a combat zone or an area where they received hostile fire pay. There is simply no way to argue that they overwhelmingly support repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

But repeal is what the president and many lawmakers want. And civilian control of the military is a bedrock principle of the U.S. government. If the president and Congress order service members to do something, then that's what they are going to do. But don't pretend they all think it's a good idea.


TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: dadt; dontaskdonttell; military

1 posted on 12/02/2010 7:56:34 AM PST by ConjunctionJunction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction

Gay journalists don’t tell of their proclivities and they are among those pushing this issue in the news.


2 posted on 12/02/2010 7:58:34 AM PST by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction

Gates was bought and paid for by the Soros/obambi campaign


3 posted on 12/02/2010 7:59:02 AM PST by SF_Redux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Queers are a SECURITY RISK !!! Look at what ONE queer pfc. has done with our secret info. Kick ‘em all out!!! No “gay” military!


4 posted on 12/02/2010 8:07:10 AM PST by Spitzensparkin1 (Arrest and deport all illegal aliens. Illegal is not a race - it is a crime. WhooRaah! Arizona!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SF_Redux

This is based on a 10% response. The combat troops are sharing a computer with a company and have little time to take surveys. They send their e-mails to their families and let the next guy in line get on.


5 posted on 12/02/2010 8:08:25 AM PST by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction

What I still do not understand to this day is - what gives these turkeys the notion that the rest of the world wants or needs to know how and with whom they have sex? Who gives a “rat’s behind”? (Pun intended? I’m not sure.)

We all know what this is about...and it’s not about “diversity” or “equality” or any other politically correct buzzword they come up with. It’s another way to lessen the strength, morale and character of our military. I hate barack obama. “Commander in chief”, my a$$.


6 posted on 12/02/2010 8:13:02 AM PST by babyfreep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

I don’t have good facts on this, so just offering what I read somewhere else (do not remember where), but it was said that this survey, which gives such “wonderful” results was done after the CA court case that theoretically invalidated DADT, at which time the troops were led to believe that repeal was a certainty. Even if there is any validity to the survey results, I have to believe that the responses would be different if DADT seemed to be solidly in place into the future, as opposed to having the appearance of being repealed.

But we are dealing with an administration and Gates, who will tweak and twist the numbers in whatever way serves their needs, so it does not matter, I guess.


7 posted on 12/02/2010 8:18:03 AM PST by NEMDF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction

Put all the queers in the same unit and send them to the area where the fighting is the fiercest. Rapeat until no one is standing.


8 posted on 12/02/2010 8:19:08 AM PST by thethirddegree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction

I’m most interested in the military’s policy (currently) regarding those infected with HIV who are deployed- does it change? Will the soldiers deployed with the HIV virus, but not sick, be required to inform other soldiers deployed with them?

Soldiers living in the, necessarily, tight situation of the barracks, sharing a “head”- will they be allowed to know the HIV status of those who engage in aberant behaviors? How about those seving on ships? submarines?

WHAT are the rights of soldiers and sailors who are NOT gay? How about their families?

“DADT” was a stupid idea...a very “clinton” idea. But THIS one is a whole lot dumber. When one chooses a twisted lifestyle, then they should also accept the consequences.

They are achieving success with the military. Mark this: the traditional and evangelical churches are next.


9 posted on 12/02/2010 8:19:26 AM PST by 13Sisters76 ("It is amazing how many people mistake a certain hip snideness for sophistication. " Thos. Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

You have not heard of Doug Dannger then, his tag line is “I’m a gay man and a gay journalist”.

LOL


10 posted on 12/02/2010 8:21:32 AM PST by pennyfarmer (Even a RINO will chew its foot off when caught in a trap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction
but suggest that there would be support for repeal of the current policy. Seventeen percent of all service members say repeal would have a positive effect,

I guess that's technically true. I mean 17 percent is, well, 17 percent.

Of course, it would be technically true to say there would be opposition to repeal of the current policy because 22 percent is, well, 22 percent.

Of course understanding that 22 percent is greater than 17 percent would probably require a course in advanced magazine writing.

The opposition is less intense in the Navy and Air Force, where 35 percent and 41 percent say repeal would have a negative effect, but those are still significant minorities. But what is the percent saying it would have a positive effect?

11 posted on 12/02/2010 8:21:42 AM PST by Tribune7 (The Democrat Party is not a political organization but a religious cult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pennyfarmer

Does Anderson Cooper know?


12 posted on 12/02/2010 8:22:45 AM PST by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction

I can say this, when (and I do think it is when, not if) homosexuals are allowed to serve openly in the military, military service will NOT be a career I will urge my sons or daughters to pursue.

There are millions more like me too, as the lion’s share of military personnel come from the most socially conservative parts of the country (read, “the South.”)

When the military gets dominated by sexual perverts, who will defend us?


13 posted on 12/02/2010 8:24:38 AM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 13Sisters76

I don’t know about other branches, but the Army will not deploy a soldier who is HIV positive. Simply being HIV positive is not a reason (by itself) for discharge, either IIRC. So we have soldiers who won’t be deployed while other soldiers deploy over and over.


14 posted on 12/02/2010 8:26:49 AM PST by ConjunctionJunction (I can see November from my house!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 13Sisters76

The disease risks alone—given that ALL research shows the inescapable massive promiscuity of homosexual males—should disqualify homosexuals from service.

Not to mention the fact that ONLY after physical threats and intimidation did the American Psychological Association remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses.

Active homosexuals are both sexually perverted and mentally ill, not to mention immoral, and besides this pose a direct health threat to any and all around them in combat situations.


15 posted on 12/02/2010 8:31:03 AM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction
I don't believe it. The military members are not ready to repeal DADT.

Military folks and their civil service counterparts have been subjected to such incredible amounts of politically correct required classes/briefings/command direction/etc. they know, absolutely know, what answer they are supposed to provide.

I am pleasantly surprised at how many answered honestly and in the negative. No straight male or female wants a gay superviser/superior in the military with the power they will have over their lives. They already know how difficult it is with both sexes working together already. For the most part, they make it work, but still "stuff" happens.

The stuff that still happens usually gets covered up, but once in awhile it makes it to the mainstream press. For a taste of the future might look like with DADT repealed look here for a USN example and for a USAF example and imagine how these two examples could read. It won't be pretty.

16 posted on 12/02/2010 8:31:49 AM PST by RileyD, nwJ (proud husband, father, and grandfather)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction

What a loaded poll question. First of all it asks about the effect of “a” homosexual rather than multiple homosexuals. Then it asks about a generic effectiveness.

How about asking:

If Don’t Ask, Don’t tell is repealed and your commanding officer is an open/active homosexual, will it affect your ability to serve in the military and obtain fair promotions if you refuse to engage in homosexual activities?

or

If Don’t Ask, Don’t tell is repealed and your unit has a dozen or so open/active homosexuals, will that affect the close interaction that is required for ALL members of a unit (such as a submarine)?

or

If Don’t Ask, Don’t tell is repealed, will you willingly join/transfer to/recruit to a group with more homosexuals than another?

or

If Don’t Ask, Don’t tell is repealed, do you believe that greater emphasis will be placed on social issues or military ability?


17 posted on 12/02/2010 8:39:45 AM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 13Sisters76

Will the soldiers deployed with the HIV virus, but not sick, be required to inform other soldiers deployed with them?

Soldiers living in the, necessarily, tight situation of the barracks, sharing a “head”- will they be allowed to know the HIV status of those who engage in aberant behaviors? How about those seving on ships? submarines?

That would be "no" on both counts:

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/index.html

18 posted on 12/02/2010 8:41:39 AM PST by AF_Blue ("America is all about speed. Hot, nasty, bad ass speed." - Eleanor Roosevelt, 1936)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

The real issue with DADT is whether the discussion is about status or behavior. A soldier just being gay is not problematic, but if he knows he can’t be discharged for it, will that lead to wearing makeup in uniform, applying it in the latrine, sex in the barracks, sex in showers and overtly effeminate behavior? Admittedly, most homosexuals don’t or won’t engage in the overt objectionable behavior (many don’t at all) but it will only take a few. Watch the gay pride parades and consider how that “in your face” behavior will be received in a barracks setting. Flaunting the most disgusting behavior seems to be the trademark of some (not all) gays.


19 posted on 12/02/2010 8:50:26 AM PST by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Spok

How many homosexuals are going to demand promotion in rank to increase their representation? When are they going to establish a GBLT social group on base? etc.

The lawsuits will only begin from the act up crowd if this goes through.


20 posted on 12/02/2010 8:53:55 AM PST by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: kidd

How about

“If you are willing to shower and bunk with a member of the same sex who is homosexual, are you (A)FOR or (B) AGAINST showering and bunking with members of the opposite sex, who may or may not be homosexual”


21 posted on 12/02/2010 8:55:50 AM PST by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction
If DADT is repealed gay servicemen will have no reason to be discreet. They will be as promiscuous as they want to be. Since they score the lion's share of HIV, HIV may spread among the heterosexual population fighting on the battlefield when combat medics start digging around one bloody injury to another. Is the medic going to make sure he changes latex gloves for every soldier he attends in the heat of battle? Will he even tend to a soldier known to be openly homosexual?

Not to mention the drain on military healthcare system and all the other issues that go along with bunking in close quarters.

22 posted on 12/02/2010 9:04:51 AM PST by BufordP ("Drink me if you can't take a joke." -- Kool-aid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Opening the floodgates of litigation for every hurt feeling or insult (real or imagined), or discriimination, (real or imagined), will destroy morale and cohesiveness in the military. The left is assaulting every traditional institution, from religion to marriage to the military, not with the intention of change, but I believe to destroy them.


23 posted on 12/02/2010 9:36:52 AM PST by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction

Wasn’t there a poll last year by the military times that said something to the effect that 70%+ of enlisted men said it would impact their decisions to reenlist?


24 posted on 12/02/2010 9:57:22 AM PST by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

There were gays serving on my ship when I was in the Navy, and when they were “outed” for one reason or another, things didn’t go well for them. They were normally “removed” from the ship very quickly (for their own safety I assumed). I’m not saying it was right how they were treated, but it was reality.

I can only comment on what I know about from my experience. Living quarters/showers are cramped, even on big ships, and life on a ship is stressful. After getting off work, it was nice to be able to hang out and play cards or listen to music and not have to worry about being “scoped out” or whatever.

I tend to think of having gays openly serving as being about equal to having men/women living in the same living quarters. While there may be good intentions all around if men and women were berthed together, there WOULD be added stress, to the men, and the women. It’s simple biology.

Why subject our soldiers/airmen/sailors to more stress than they already have? The military shouldn’t be a social experiment. How long before two men have sex in a berthing area? How would you feel if two guys had sex in your HOME and you were unable to leave? There are so many reasons not to repeal DADT, and I can’t think of one good reason to do it.

I also have a real problem with politicians/media who always ask officers about it. They won’t be the ones who have to deal with it in their day to day working environment, at least not to the extent of the enlisted personel. Living conditions were cramped as a sailor, I can only imagine what life is like for an enlisted soldier in combat.

I will be saddened for our armed forces if DADT is repealed. I don’t consider myself a homophobe, but if others think I am, I won’t care, at all. I just feel from my experience that we don’t need to do this. It will make the military less than it is now, in many ways.

rant over...


25 posted on 12/02/2010 9:58:40 AM PST by Sporke (USS-Iowa BB-61)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction

What the report actually shows is.
The old lets change the numbers game.


26 posted on 12/02/2010 10:02:16 AM PST by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson