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.
You have now called upon everyone except ghosts of posters past. How many calls do you and others have to make before you think the mods will read your posts? At this point you are harassing me. How about staying away for a while so that those of us who are having a serious dsicsussion can continue?
If I get banned, at least, I will have the satisfaction of knowing I am not like you.
You've mischaracterized nearly everything in this thread.
This seems to be a habit of yours, like two months ago when you called me hateful when I said that a sex change operation was mutilation and then tried to equate a mastectomy for breast cancer with a sex change operation.
I always alert the mods to liberal trolls...
You say a family member was banned once upon a time? Was it for being a troll? Was it something like carolinalivin?
I always alert the mods to liberal trolls...
You say a family member was banned once upon a time? Was it for being a troll? Was it something like carolinalivin?
*********************
Quite right. As xzins said in an earlier post:
You are attempting to normalize the abnormal.
It's a typical liberal/pro-homosexual strategy.
Is it just me, or is there the distinctive smell of ionized air around this thread...like what you smell before lightning strikes?
I sure hope so.
If someone's spouse is banned for being a troll there is a pretty good chance that they are also a troll and when they make troll-like posts it is pretty much a certainty.
Trust me, it’s just you.
He was banned for calling for help too often and not making his own case.
Then would you mind telling us his name?
I and a few others are the only ones who have actually discussed the issue at hand. But call that mischaracterization all you want.
Now I'll predict your next reply: Take every word I've said on the thread and parse it and show how I'm rally a homo-activist, liberal, DU troll, re-tread, undercover liberal. Post a list of links showing that all-homosexuals are left-handed sub-humans, and call every person on your link to join in the fun. Look gang! A troll on the ole FR. Can't beat the argument so kill the messenger.
PS: Does this means you don't think homosexuals should serve in the military? LOL!
I was offering an example of how you seem to mischaracterize things. I have not hit the abuse button on anyone on this thread.
I and a few others are the only ones who have actually discussed the issue at hand. But call that mischaracterization all you want.
I've discussed it plenty. I believe that endangering our troops in ANY WAY simply to satisfy the desires of less than 4% of the population is idiotic.
Now I'll predict your next reply: Take every word I've said on the thread and parse it and show how I'm rally a homo-activist, liberal, DU troll, re-tread, undercover liberal.
No, I find it something of a waste of time to point out the obvious.
How is that personal information?
Duh! Figure it out. What you want to do is use whatever my husband said to smear me. You cannot treat people as individuals as your posts and reaction here prove. Why in God’s name would I tell you anything. If you want to talk to me, make a comment on this issue without attacking me personally and then you’ll get a response in-kind.
We’ve already beaten the argument. That happened before I knew you were on the thread. Unit cohesion, morale, decency and good order, unit security, and unit safety are all seriously impaired by gays in the military.
The argument aside, it’s always right to be a part of zotting a troll.
I’ve known of others who’ve returned...claiming to be the “relative” of a banned former poster.
Homosexuals have been in every military that we know of, have they not? And we lost all of those wars because of it? Please explain the endangering part.
Maybe take the war in the Pacific or some other campaign and explain how many deaths and injuries were caused by homosexuals presence in the military.
*******************
That would be redundant.
“Unit Cohesion” LOL :D
I’m so immature :(
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.