[NKP_Vet]

If this article can be believed Trump is already going back on his word. He flatly said that "transgenders" would not be serving in the US military in "any capacity." Letting Mattis decide who to keep and who to kick out is absolutely not what he said. And if that's fact, there will be no ban on "transgenders" in the Armed Forces.

"After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military," "Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail." Thank you

[upchuck]

Employing the criteria of deployability to remove service members is bound to be greeted with deep opposition.

Really? What a shame. The snowflakes and SJWs will be all upset.

[pepsionice]

If the theme had been to let them have their status and life-style....we just won’t pay for it (meaning no drain on medical costs), then we’d be talking about a different situation.

[easternsky]

If cannot get their freebies and cause a scene they will walk on their own. The majority will for sure then if no playhouse others will go to.

[Spiridon]

One thing that is certain through all this debate is that President Donald J. Trump is the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces and should get the final say.

[GailA]

Most will leave on their own, when free surgery/treatment is denied. It is cosmetic and Military only pays cosmetic for active duty who are injured. Rest you pay for.

[MortMan]

I disagree that he is already going back on his word. The tweeted "rule" was clearly a common-English summary of the intent. The deployability-based decision making process is the only way to structure a policy that will have the proximal effect of a "ban".

Turning away anyone not currently in for being transgender isn't too much of an issue. Removing anyone who is already in is the problem - No one has a 'right' to serve, but once you enter into the contract, both sides are bound to its terms.

Without a clear, need-based set of rules, any policy will be immediately declared null as being arbitrary. Even with a clear, need-based set of rules, that is not an unlikely outcome, knowing the federal courts and how the left knows which judges are friendly.

Just my opinion.

From the article: Employing the criteria of deployability to remove service members is bound to be greeted with deep opposition.

This, in and of itself, illustrates very clearly the problem with leftists regarding the military. If a soldier (sailor, airman, marine, etc.) is not deployable, they are incapable of doing their job in case of need on part of the country. Therefore, they forfeit their position in the military - especially when the cause of not being deployable is a permanent illness.

If a person is diabetic, they are non deployable, and would be mustered out right quick. Why is a mental illness considered less debilitating?