Attach "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Repeal To Tax Cut Deal
As I write this, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is attempting to move forward on the Pentagon budget bill, which includes a repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy (DADT) of forbidding gays from serving openly in the military. At this point, most Senate-watchers expect it to fail to get the 60 votes it needs to move to the floor for debate (it could always succeed, and surprise everybody, but I wouldn't bet much on the prospect right now). But if Senate Democrats were smart, they'd change tactics after losing this procedural vote. Democrats, led by Harry Reid and Joe Lieberman, should strip the DADT repeal out of the military appropriations bill and, instead, attach it to the tax cut bill being prepared. Because doing so would not only change the entire tone of the debate in a big way, but it might actually work.
Congressional Democrats are fuming right now that the tax deal President Obama worked out with the Republicans isn't much to their liking. It extends the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy for two years, which is seen as a serious defeat for the Democrats' (and, supposedly, Obama's) agenda. It is a defeat, politically, there is no doubt about that. But Democrats in Congress should realize two things about this deal, before deciding what to do next.
The first thing Democrats in Congress should realize is that they bear an enormous share of the blame for how we got to this point -- a much bigger share than President Obama, in my opinion. Congressional Democrats, remember, could have had this grand tax cut debate at any time over the past two years. They failed to do so. They decided the schedule, and they are the ones responsible for punting it all the way to the lame duck session of Congress. Congressional Democrats did this for naked political expediency, or sheer political cowardice (take your pick). They didn't want to have the debate during the midterm election season, and now they are paying the price for this timidity -- by having the president step in and do their job for them. If Congressional Democrats thought that they could have put together a better legislative package on tax cuts than what Obama just proposed, they why didn't they do so before the last possible moment? Why didn't they do so during the last possible moment? Democrats couldn't even agree -- as recently as last week -- on what their preferred tax plan was, which is just pathetic.
The second thing Democrats should realize is that the Obama deal actually contains a large "second stimulus" package -- to the tune of $780 billion, in exchange for $120 billion in millionaires' tax cuts. That's not bad, after all the emotional venting the deal caused out on the blogosphere. But it could be even better. And the best way of improving it may just be the addition of an unrelated issue which is near and dear to Democratic hearts -- ending DADT in the military.
Doing so would give a lot of Democrats a strong reason to vote for the bill. It would muddy the water among both Democrats and Republicans, actually. Up until now (and through tonight's expected vote in the Senate), Republicans in the Senate have been holding fast to their promise not to vote on anything before the tax cut extension is passed. Attaching DADT repeal to the same bill would pull the carpet out from under this position.
Contentious issues are often passed in this fashion, I should point out. Without getting too far into the details of parliamentary procedure, such legislation is often amended to other legislation in an effort to get it passed. It happens all the time in Congress, in other words. Both parties do this on a routine basis -- and on vastly unrelated matters. Sometimes the two bills are related, but often they are not. The key is to attach the contentious issue to a bill that is seen as a "must-pass" piece of legislation. Democrats already attempted to do so by throwing the DADT repeal into the military appropriations bill -- which, you would think (in the midst of two wars), would be an absolute top priority for Republicans. Well, that would be true if Democrats were able to demagogue successfully on the issue ("Republicans are voting against supporting troops in the field during wartime!") -- but they are simply not as good as Republicans at this sort of thing.
But now, the Republicans have already proclaimed the tax cut issue the highest priority, which must be passed before Christmas. OK, so let's toss DADT repeal into that mix. Defy Republicans to vote against their signature issue, because DADT is attached to it. Give Democrats who are leery of voting for the tax package a real reason to do so. It would be a lot better to swallow the bitter pill of extending the Bush tax cuts if the same vote would mean getting rid of DADT for a lot of Democrats -- especially if it was presented as the only way DADT was going to get repealed in the foreseeable future.
The deal that Obama cut with the Republicans has yet to be inked. There is no bill awaiting a vote -- it has to be written. There are many ways to attach unrelated issues in the Senate, so Harry Reid should pick one of them and merge the two ideas. Doing so may actually produce a much more bipartisan vote than either one of the bills would get otherwise, as both Democrats and Republicans face the choice of voting for both the good and the bad in the bill (Democrats and Republicans would disagree on what was "good" and "bad," of course, but the mix would certainly be a lot more equal from either perspective).
Would this be a bold move? Yes, it would. Would congressional Democrats be able to make it work? Possibly. Is it bound to annoy Republicans? Oh, definitely so. Would the Lefty Blogosphere hold its nose and support the combined bill? Maybe... just maybe. Would the White House go for it? President Obama has shown that when it gets this close to passing something, he's willing to make just about any last-minute changes just to get something (anything!) on the president's desk for a signing ceremony. So I'd have to say that the White House would indeed go along with the plan, if Senate Democrats forced his hand.
It might not work, I'd be the first to admit. The Republicans will be screaming about "parliamentary tricks" -- even though the practice is as common as overblown bombast is on the floors of Congress. Democrats would need at least a few Republican votes in the Senate to make it work, and Republican senators have stood firmly together so far in the lame duck. But at this point, it may be just about the only chance DADT repeal has left. And it would certainly sweeten the tax deal itself for Democrats. Which makes it worth the attempt.
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
-- Chris Weigant
I am still not convinced that repealing DADT is the best move in the here and now.
Sure, the majority of 702 Units state that in their opinions, nothing untoward would happen.
But it's the opinions of the Combat Units that should carry the day.. And those units are firmly against the repeal by margins of 60%..
When one is in the middle of 3 wars and a hot skirmish, it is really not the best time to push a social experiment on the US Military.
On the other hand, there IS logic to the argument that a wartime footing is the BEST time for such an action..
So, I am not sure which side of the fence I am really on in this issue.
Like with Net Neutrality, there are logical and rational arguments on both sides of the issue.
Michale.....
122
When one is in the middle of 3 wars and a hot skirmish, it is really not the best time to push a social experiment on the US Military.
military people have had all sorts of sexual behavior for millenia, well before the little social experiment that we call the United States of America.
military people have had all sorts of sexual behavior for millenia, well before the little social experiment that we call the United States of America
True..
And, by and large, I guess everything worked out OK...
Yet, past performance is no guarantee of future success...
The argument of "If not now, then when?" is a good and valid argument.
Just as the argument "it's not wise to frack with things in the middle of wars" is ALSO a good and valid argument.
If just one person dies because of the change, that is too high a cost..
"Hay, that thing just killed a civilian!"
"We project a 12% collateral damage rate. Acceptable."
"Yea, unless you happen to be one of the 12%."
Roy Scheider, BLUE THUNDER
Michale.....
123
Michale,
If just one person dies because of the change, that is too high a cost...
That seems a very strange remark to make. I mean, isn't that a spurious argument against change, in general? It just doesn't make any practical sense, Michale.
You say that the "if not now, then when?" is a valid argument in favour of DADT. Well sure it is. But it's not the only one nor is it even in the top 10 of the most important arguments in favour of repeal.
Your a guy who likes to see issues from all sides and points of view, so I'm wondering ... can you come up with any more valid arguments to support repealing DADT?
Liz,
That seems a very strange remark to make. I mean, isn't that a spurious argument against change, in general? It just doesn't make any practical sense, Michale.
I used it as an example of why it's not a good idea to perform such a social experiment in the midst of the conflicts we are facing in the here and now.
You say that the "if not now, then when?" is a valid argument in favour of DADT. Well sure it is. But it's not the only one nor is it even in the top 10 of the most important arguments in favour of repeal.
Your a guy who likes to see issues from all sides and points of view, so I'm wondering ... can you come up with any more valid arguments to support repealing DADT?
Oh sure, I can...
It's reprehensible that a country as great as this one would not properly reward and respect it's citizens who want to serve their country and, if necessary, make the ultimate sacrifice for this country.
That's the best argument for repealing DADT that I can come up with..
On the flip side, there are some very real issues and threats with combat units and their acceptance of gay people within their ranks.
As a combat veteran, both overt and covert, I can sympathize with those issues and threats and understand that these ARE real and legitimate concerns.
Does one argument outweigh the other? I don't think so..
How would I decide?? I probably would err on the side of the combat units...
If the REPEAL DADT argument is the right one but DADT is upheld, what's the worst that can happen?? There are some hurt feelings and this country's Armed Forces might not get the best talent possible..
If the UPHOLD DADT argument is the right one, but DADT is repealed against the wishes of the combat units, what's the worst that can happen?? Men and women who serve in FEBA could be killed?
That's what would govern my decision making process.
I am just very VERY glad I don't have to be the one to decide.
Michale.....
124
I'm curious as to why Congress is holding votes on these issues. Simply from a process point of view.
For example, the DREAM Act passed the House but stalled in the Senate.
Is the purpose of this solely so that Democrats can voice their support for it?
Is it to test whether Republicans would be willing to work with them?
I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing or a good thing, I'm just not sure I understand what they're trying to accomplish. Any help welcome.
-David
As a former combat infantryman I can say it really has no meaning at all.I served with people who were gay;though I did not know at the time.The DADT law is just pointless waste of talent.What really is needed is for this puritanical mindset of Americans to stop thinking about important things;like how are we going to get out of these wars that are against our national interest.
David,
I'm curious as to why Congress is holding votes on these issues. Simply from a process point of view.
Simply so they can say, "Well, we tried" and then let the process take it's course.
It's their way of abdicating responsibility..
Americulchie,
As a former combat infantryman I can say it really has no meaning at all.
For you, it doesn't. But you have to allow that, for others, it does... And they have as much right to have THEIR feelings taken into consideration as you have the right to have YOUR feelings taken into consideration.
You may not agree with the mentality of those who are uncomfortable around gay people, but you have to acknowledge that they feel as strongly about their feelings as you do about yours..
By and large, there are no "evil" or "wrong" people here.
There are just people on different sides of a very profound question..
The DADT law is just pointless waste of talent.
True...
However, one must consider the feelings of those opposed. Else it denigrates into a "my way or the highway" mentality..
Michale.....
125
i don't necessarily buy the argument that it might cost lives to have openly gay people serving in combat. admittedly i've never served in the military, but is it not feasible that some gay folks might be better in combat than some straight folks? if there is a single gay person who is better in combat than a single straight person, wouldn't NOT having them serve cost lives?
However, one must consider the feelings of those opposed. Else it denigrates into a "my way or the highway" mentality.
You have to consider the feelings of those opposed?
Where were you during the Bush years?
I thought you called those opposed to you "terrorists" or "communists" or "liberals" and then made fun of them :)
I seem to remember a certain President from a few years back who basically said it was "my way or the highway". And you seemed to respect this President because you agreed with his views.
I don't think you can have it both ways.
I'm not really passionate about DADT. But I'm having a hard time with your argument.
So lemme see if I get this straight. When someone you like and agree with does something, you seem to think its strong forceful leadership, and when something you don't like is about to happen, it's a "my way or the highway" mentality.
Am I summarizing accurately?
-David
Michale -
Here's a question I've been meaning to ask you for a while. Before I do, I have to post some caveats, because it is an awfully touchy issue. (1) I'm not trying to "bait" you into expressing some sort of racism, (2) I'm not really trying to equate the two issues (they get conflated a lot, but they are different issues, I realize).
So, having said that, my question: Do you think Truman was right to integrate the military the way he did and when he did?
Some background, and some of the reasoning behind my asking:
At the time, we were at war (Korea).
At the time, a draft was just about to happen (or was in process, should have checked my facts). Black groups were stating publicly that they were going to call for a black mass movement to refuse being drafted if the military wasn't integrated -- which could have significantly impacted staffing up the Army (in other words, the blacks had more tangible leverage in the struggle then than the gays have today).
At the time, the Army was having a hard time replacing dead soldiers (to keep units in the battlefield fully staffed), and still keep the units segregated (it was a logistical nightmare, in other words).
Truman's executive order didn't change things overnight -- it took years to fully integrate the services (some really dragged their feet).
Here's the real kicker, though -- at the time, an OVERWHELMING amount of the military DID NOT WANT to integrate. Among civilians, it polled at something lik 80% against, I believe, and almost as high within the military. In other words, there were a LOT more people uncomfortable with the idea, including most people in uniform -- and most people in combat units.
So, having laid all that out, what would you have had Truman do? Delay integration, because soldiers were uncomfortable with it (or seriously opposed to it)? Delay because the military "should not be used for social experiments" (a popular argument at the time)? Delay until civilian America was OK with the idea (which would have taken years if not decades)? Or go ahead because he either thought it was the right thing to do, or (less charitably) because he needed everyone to show up when drafted, and needed to keep units in the field fully staffed?
Like I said, I'm not trying to say "the two are absolutely equivalent" because they're not, and I'm not trying to trap you in some sort of ethical dilemma, I'm just genuinely curious about how you see Truman's actions back then.
-CW
NYPoet,
i don't necessarily buy the argument that it might cost lives to have openly gay people serving in combat. admittedly i've never served in the military, but is it not feasible that some gay folks might be better in combat than some straight folks? if there is a single gay person who is better in combat than a single straight person, wouldn't NOT having them serve cost lives?
Do you recall the movie GI JANE??
Granted, it was fictional, but it did accurately portray what issues might arise if females were allowed to join the Teams.
I could put forth many accurate and logical scenarios whereas having openly gay soldiers in combat roles would be a detriment to unit cohesion and morale.
Regardless, we're not talking about MY opinion, we are talking the report that came out.
I had asked on several occasions prior to the report coming out what the response would be if the report indicated a problem with repeal of DADT.
If I recall correctly, I never got an answer..
Now I know why.. :D
David,
When you embark on an endeavor to take the military's position and "feelings" into account and then you ignore that position and those feelings, that is a "my way or the highway" position.
If TPTB were going to just ignore the position of the military, why take the poll in the first place???
CW,
On the one hand, it's a valid comparison as it does invoke the same kind of "hatred" or a level of uncomfortable-ness (for lack of a better term)...
But, the difference is that then we are talking about an issue of race and now we are talking about a lifestyle choice.
And we don't really know how well it worked out DURING the time frame in Truman's time. History is always written by the winners. But assuming that things are as they are written, it was a good thing that Truman did and it turned out OK.
But that's no guarantee that integrating gays into the military will work out the same..
As I have said, personally, I don't have a problem with the repeal of DADT..
But the military was polled and the combat units indicated there would be a problem with integration.
Why bother polling if TPTB are just going to ignore the results??
Michale.....
128
But, the difference is that then we are talking about an issue of race and now we are talking about a lifestyle choice.
A lifestyle choice. Very interesting.
Ok, so I'm curious. When did you choose to be straight?
Ok, so I'm curious. When did you choose to be straight?
So, you seem to be in the camp that it's genetic.
Well, considering that "science" has shown that being a slut is "genetic" and being a liberal is "genetic", I guess that's how things are progressing..
Every bad, wrong or despicable thing anyone does or ever will do can be attributed to "genetics"..
How great is THAT going to be!??
We absolutely positively never have to accept responsibility for ANYTHING we do...
It's all "genetic"...
It used to be called something else..
What was that again??
Oh yea...
"The devil made me do it."
:D
Michale.....
129
michale,
first you're citing GI Jane (lousy film, but that's a discussion for another time) - then in the same breath saying that being gay in the military is different from being black because it's a lifestyle choice. well, is being female a lifestyle choice? which is it?
I could put forth many accurate and logical scenarios whereas having openly gay soldiers in combat roles would be a detriment to unit cohesion and morale.
having neatly sidestepped the question of whether any specific gay person might be better for a unit than some specific straight person, it sounds as if you're saying that the troops' opinions are the only ones that matter. certainly they do matter, but aren't they capable of being wrong? further, you seem to posit (through movies of course) that being openly racist might or might not have made for more effective fighting units, but being sexist does self-evidently, and therefore being homophobic obviously must as well. i don't know enough about combat to debate whether or not any of those things is actually the case, but it sounds as if that's what you're saying.
Michale -
OK, I'll give this a shot. Say you're right about the "lifestyle choice" thing. I don't think you are, but just for the sake of argument here, let's start from your position.
What other "lifestyle choice" can you name that is (1) fully legal and (2) part of your private life -- that would cause you to have to lie about it in order to serve in the military? I mean, what other precedent can you point to? There may be other examples, but I can't think of one off the top of my head right now.
If you dig into the details of the survey, what it found was that when they asked all combat troops, they found a big percentage of combat-unit Marines and Army folks thought there might be problems with serving with a gay member of their unit.
BUT -- here's the kicker -- when you break down troops in combat units who say they have actually served with someone they believed was gay, the percent who said there were no problems at all skyrocketed to something like 85-90 plus percent.
So, combat troops in general think there may be problems. Combat troops who have served with someone who is gay over-freakin'-whelmingly say there were no problems whatsoever. So the entire thing is one of perception and fear of the unknown. I mean, who you gonna believe here? People with direct experience, or people who are theorizing about an abstract situation?
I notice you didn't actually answer my question. If you had the ear of the president, and Harry S Truman asked you whether you thought integration was a good idea or not -- right before he signed the EO, what would you have counseled? By all your arguments here, you seem to be on the "let's not do it" side of things, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.
What would you have told Truman to do?
Back then, there were even more complicated (and even more bigoted) issues. It wasn't just showering and bunking together (the main issues brought up today), it was also things like being allowed to eat together, integrating officer's clubs, and (gasp!) since there would be black officers... what the heck were they going to do with a black officer giving orders to a white subordinate, if the white guy had a major problem with that? I mean, these things were GIGANTIC issues back then. And, like I said, segregation was HUGELY supported by the troops, the Pentagon, and most of the public.
And, of course, we were at war at the time, so the same sort of "let's wait" arguments were present as well. I've got a link to the Truman archives which lays out a good timeline of the entire process, let me dig it up...
Here you go.
What leaps out at you from reading the timeline is that the entire process took YEARS, and the Pentagon (some branches more than others) not only dragged their feet, but actively resisted the change. But it still happened.
I read an interesting comment from somewhere recently, a soldier who talked about walking with another white soldier in about 1962, and both having to salute a black officer walking across the base. The other guy said, after they were out of earshot, "I wasn't saluting him, I was just saluting the uniform." So the attitudes didn't change overnight, either (this was over a decade after integration started). It did take the military quite a while to adjust.
But adjust they did. Soldiers can get booted out today for exhibiting naked racism. I saw one have this happen to him on a documentary, where the soldier in question was quite likely faking it to use it to get the hell off his ship because he had decided it was time to leave the Navy (the excellent show "Carrier" which was a PBS reality show and is WELL worth watching, because it is fascinating). Getting kicked out of the military for racist attitudes would have been pretty inconceivable in the 1950s, that's my guess anyways.
You sound like you're not only sitting on the fence on this, but are actually persuadable. My position is still the one expressed in the West Wing episode (I can dig up this link, too, I quoted from it extensively in a previous column) "It [blacks serving with whites] would disrupt the unit. You know what? It did disrupt the unit. The unit got over it. The unit changed. I'm an admiral in the U.S. Navy and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff... beat that with a stick."
OK, here's a link to where I quoted that scene in more detail, in my Memorial Day column this year.
As for recent developments, I'm still waiting to see if Lieberman and Collins can successfully introduce it as a standalone bill. I remember Lieberman's antics last year right before Christmas, so I'm not betting against him yet. Or Harry Reid, for that matter, who is a master at getting things done right before a vacation....
-CW
This issue seems to generate more heat than light no matter what any one says;though DADT has had no appreciable effect on the combat arms it has had an impact(I detest myself for using the word impact)on the intelligence gathering capabilities.There is I believe anecdotal evidence from WWI that in the British Army it had no effect on combat ability;long before gay rights was an issue.Simply put if you are against the imposition of equal rights for gays serving openly in the military it is about ones' own bias.Personally speaking with the exception of pedophiliacs I don't care who is having sex with whom;I so realize that makes me rather "Un-American". :)
NY,
first you're citing GI Jane (lousy film, but that's a discussion for another time)
Definitely wasn't Demi's or Viggo's finest film, to be sure.
- then in the same breath saying that being gay in the military is different from being black because it's a lifestyle choice. well, is being female a lifestyle choice? which is it?
Like I said, that the GI-Jane comparison wasn't the best one. But it illustrated what can happen when social experiments are done with combat units.
The integration of Black Americans into the armed forces IS the best analogy/comparison to make.
I simply maintain that there are differences in the two situations, primarily of which is the fact that on the Black American, we're talking about a difference that is genetic vs a difference that is a lifestyle choice.
Think Cpl Klinger... :D
having neatly sidestepped the question of whether any specific gay person might be better for a unit than some specific straight person,
I don't think I side-stepped that question. I believe I specifically stated that simply being gay is NOT an indication of anyone's abilities in and of itself.
it sounds as if you're saying that the troops' opinions are the only ones that matter.
Since they will have to suffer the effects, I think that's pretty close to the mark. Although I didn't come out and say that, it IS how I feel.
What I *DID* say, however, is that the opinions of the troops should carry SOME weight. It appears it carries no weight... Which prompted my question.
If you are going to ignore the opinions of the combat troops, why bother polling them in the first place??
You can bet that the grunts on the ground are asking themselves that very question right now..
but being sexist does self-evidently, and therefore being homophobic obviously must as well. i don't know enough about combat to debate whether or not any of those things is actually the case, but it sounds as if that's what you're saying.
I am simply saying that the military is not the place for social experiments. Especially in time of war.
Yes, it has worked out in the past. But past performance is no indication of future success.
Let me ask you something.
How would you feel about repealing DADT but classifying gays in the same manner that women are classified, insofar as combat roles go?
No women or gays in combat roles such as Special Ops teams and the like??
Would that be a compromise you can live with??
Michale.....
131
CW
What other "lifestyle choice" can you name that is (1) fully legal and (2) part of your private life -- that would cause you to have to lie about it in order to serve in the military? I mean, what other precedent can you point to? There may be other examples, but I can't think of one off the top of my head right now.
The SWING Lifestyle.. :D Been there and done that. :D
Your Black Americans comparison is the best one going. And yes, it worked out well then.
There is really nothing to indicate that integrating gays into the military won't follow the same pattern.
But what if it doesn't? What if there is wide-spread chaos and many deaths and casualties are attributed to the integration??
This HAS to be considered...
You sound like you're not only sitting on the fence on this, but are actually persuadable.
I truly am on the fence about this. My biggest beef is that there was such a big brou-hau made about getting this December report and getting the opinions of the troops etc etc and, when all that is done, the opinions that are against the repeal of DADT are COMPLETELY ignored.
THAT is what pisses me off about this whole thing..
I think the Left is simply concentrating on their agenda and totally ignoring the possible consequences of this action.
Let me ask you what I asked NYPoet?
How would you feel about repealing DADT in it's entirety, but restricting gays to non-combat roles, as women are restricted.
Would that be a compromise you can live with??
Americulchie,
Simply put if you are against the imposition of equal rights for gays serving openly in the military it is about ones' own bias.
The same could be said for having women serve in overt and covert combat roles..
Michale.....
132
My biggest beef is that there was such a big brou-hau made about getting this December report and getting the opinions of the troops etc etc and, when all that is done, the opinions that are against the repeal of DADT are COMPLETELY ignored.
Completely ignored? What about the 2/3 surveyed who don't think it would have any impact?
You seem to be focusing on only the data that agrees with your position.
Ok. To be fair, you've been talking about combat troops. So maybe its a slightly different argument. But I don't think anyone is totally ignoring their position.
I just don't yet hear a valid reason why it wouldn't be ok to have gay people in combat. Just a lot of hypothetical well, maybe this ... and maybe that. The same kind of thing that was used in the past to prevent black people from serving.
I would think the military would want the most qualified people. Irregardless. And not having the most qualified people seems like more of a danger than any hypothetical gay consequence I can think of.
Everyone should have an equal chance to succeed on their merits.
Well, considering that "science" has shown that being a slut is "genetic" and being a liberal is "genetic", I guess that's how things are progressing.
You've lost me. I thought we were talking about sexuality.
I'm still curious. When did you decide you were straight?
You seem to be in the camp that wants to change the subject ;)
How would you feel about repealing DADT in it's entirety, but restricting gays to non-combat roles, as women are restricted.
They're not women. They're gay.
And hell, if a woman could qualify, I'm not even sure they should be restricted to non-combat roles.
Haven't some of the best snipers in history been women? Or did I just see that in a movie? :)
-David
BTW, Michale. Apologies if I got a little bit passionate.
I think it's not so much because of DADT, as it is about the principle that I believe you pick the best person for the job. Simple.
I think this is one of the things that's made America great and differs from some other countries.
And I get a little bit passionate when I feel people with the ability are held back for other reasons.
Fortunately, I know you're not easily offended - which is one of the things I like so much about you! :)
-David
Completely ignored? What about the 2/3 surveyed who don't think it would have any impact?
You seem to be focusing on only the data that agrees with your position.
Because the data that I a focusing on comes from the units that truly matter in the issue.
Not to denigrate those who serve as 702s, but it's very easy to say, in THAT environment, that it doesn't matter if a person is gay or not.
I just don't yet hear a valid reason why it wouldn't be ok to have gay people in combat. Just a lot of hypothetical well, maybe this ... and maybe that. The same kind of thing that was used in the past to prevent black people from serving.
Because, if those hypotheticals come pass, people will die..
This being the case, doesn't it behoove TPTB to be completely and utterly damn sure that all the Is are crossed and all the Ts are dotted??
Everyone should have an equal chance to succeed on their merits.
In a perfect world, it would be (And we used to live on Whidbey!! :D Sorry, family joke).
But we don't live in a perfect world. And the reality of combat takes precedence over feelings of total equality.
Which is why women don't serve in combat roles..
You've lost me. I thought we were talking about sexuality.
I'm still curious. When did you decide you were straight?
You seem to be in the camp that wants to change the subject ;)
You seem to be of the opinion that being gay is genetic.. I am simply pointing out OTHER ridiculous claims of genetics being the cause of different behavior.
Such as being a slut or being a liberal.
Do you think being a liberal is genetic?? Because there is "science" that says it is..
Just like there is "science" that says being gay is genetic.
As for me?? I always dreamed of being in bed with Marta Kristen nekkid. :D (sorry for the mental picture) :D
I think I started that in about 1968..
So, I guess that means I decided to be straight when I was 6 years old. :D
More later... Gotta run...
Michale
134
Michale,
There is an old Canadian saying that says "you can't have your cake and eat it, too.
And, right beside it, in the book of sayings, is your picture!
You cannot say that,
It's reprehensible that a country as great as this one would not properly reward and respect it's citizens who want to serve their country and, if necessary, make the ultimate sacrifice for this country
and, then go on to say -in the same comment, no less -
How would I decide?? I probably would err on the side of the combat units...If the REPEAL DADT argument is the right one but DADT is upheld, what's the worst that can happen?? There are some hurt feelings and this country's Armed Forces might not get the best talent possible...
Clearly, you have lost this debate to CW whose credible and valid arguments have won the day! :)
Michale,
There is an old Canadian saying that says "you can't have your cake and eat it, too."
And, right beside it, in the book of sayings, is your picture!
You cannot say that, on the one hand,
It's reprehensible that a country as great as this one would not properly reward and respect it's citizens who want to serve their country and, if necessary, make the ultimate sacrifice for this country
and, then go on to say -in the same comment, no less -
How would I decide?? I probably would err on the side of the combat units...If the REPEAL DADT argument is the right one but DADT is upheld, what's the worst that can happen?? There are some hurt feelings and this country's Armed Forces might not get the best talent possible...
Either the DADT law is reprehensible or it is not. And, if it is reprehensible, then there is only one course of action and that is repeal of the law. You cannot make the spurious arguments you are making and expect to retain your credibility or have your claims taken seriously on this issue.
Clearly, you have lost this debate to CW whose credible and valid arguments have won the day! :)
I wouldn't mind if our Dear Editor would delete comments [23] and [25] ... especially considering that such action would not inhibit Michale's comment tally in any way, shape or form. :)
I truly am on the fence about this. My biggest beef is that there was such a big brou-hau made about getting this December report and getting the opinions of the troops etc etc and, when all that is done, the opinions that are against the repeal of DADT are COMPLETELY ignored.
i agree that we shouldn't ignore out of turn the opinions of the people who will be most affected by a change. but that also doesn't mean they necessarily ought to have the last word. i always consider the opinions of my seventh graders when i adjust my classroom rules, but i still make the final decision, and it's frequently not a decision they like or want. does that make it a bad decision?
i don't know the specifics of the interaction, but how do you know for a fact that the opinions of the combat troops were actually ignored? i'm not challenging your knowledge, i'm just uninformed about the details. if their arguments were actually ignored then i agree that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. however, if their arguments were seriously considered, honestly researched and still found wanting, there's nothing inherently wrong with going against their expressed wishes. isn't that one of the reasons why the chain of command exists?
Michale -
OK, I dug it out:
"When asked to assess their unit’s performance, however, 95.6 percent of Marines who had at some point been in combat with a suspected gay service member said that unit performance was good, very good, or neither good nor bad."
"84 percent of troops in Marine combat arms units (infantry, armor and artillery) who said that a unit in which they served with someone they believed to be gay had a good or neutral ability to work together."
Those are some pretty overwhelming numbers, wouldn't you agree? This is only from combat troops, mind you.
-CW
Liz,
Discrimination as is postulated by DADT IS reprehensible..
But it's even more reprehensible if people were to needlessly die by a spurious rush to irresponsibly eliminate DADT.
My reasoning is logical and my credibility is beyond reproach..
"So Say We All"
:D
At let us not forget, that it was the Democrat of Democrats who GAVE us DADT in the first place...
hmmmmmmmmmmm?????
NYpoet,
i agree that we shouldn't ignore out of turn the opinions of the people who will be most affected by a change. but that also doesn't mean they necessarily ought to have the last word.
The opinions of the combat units should be given more weight than those of the 702 units, as it is the combat units who would be most affected (use that right, CW??) by the change.
My beef is that opinions of those who are against repeal are given absolutely NO weight...
if their arguments were actually ignored then i agree that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Read thru the pages of this commentary. I don't think ANYONE (except for yours truly) has stood up and said, "Ya know, the combat troops DO have a good point.."
The only media outlets that have even MENTIONED that disparity amongst combat units are FNC and Drudge... All other media falls over themselves touting how the majority of the military is for repeal of DADT...
It's a given that the combat units will be most affected by the repeal of DADT..
To put it into another context...
Let's say we take a poll and see if cold-weather parkas should be issued to each man, woman and child on the planet..
The poll results are in and, lo and behold the majority of people on the planet say, "Hell no, we don't need any cold weather parkas..."
But the majority of people living above the 45th Parallel say, "Hay now... We're the most affected by the cold. Shouldn't OUR opinions carry more weight than those who run bare assed nekkid all day???"
Yea, I know.. It's not the best analogy.. But it does aptly describe the disparity between the combat units and the 702 units in the military..
If the combat units are the ones who are going to have the most negative impact, then the opinions of the combat units should carry more weight..
David,
BTW, Michale. Apologies if I got a little bit passionate.
I think it's not so much because of DADT, as it is about the principle that I believe you pick the best person for the job. Simple.
I think this is one of the things that's made America great and differs from some other countries.
And I get a little bit passionate when I feel people with the ability are held back for other reasons.
Fortunately, I know you're not easily offended - which is one of the things I like so much about you! :)
Not to worry. I LOVE passionate arguments.. I really do..
But here's the thing..
I am not arguing with you. Or Liz, or NYPoet or CW..
Because ya'all's argument is a sound and logical argument.
MY only point is that the OTHER side of the issue is also a logical and rational point.. But you can't see that because there is no common frame of reference.
Spock:"It would be impossible to discuss the subject without a common frame-of-reference."
McCoy:"Are you saying I have to die to discuss your insight on death!!??"
:D
Michale.....
135
CW,
Got a reference for those numbers??
Because all the reports I have read say that between 53% and 64% of combat units (Army and USMC) feel that having known gay members within their ranks would adversely affect their ability to accomplish the mission.
And, as anyone who has served in the military knows, THAT and ONLY that is the number one priority.
Accomplish the mission.
ALL other considerations are secondary.
Michale.....
136
Michale -
How about this for an alternate compromise: get rid of DADT on a service-by-service basis. The Navy, I believe, says it is ready to go right now. So let them go first, along with maybe the Air Force and Coast Guard. Then the Army, then the Marines.
This is kind of how segregation ended anyway, and it would give everyone a chance to see how things were working out.
What do you think? If others have proposed this, I'm unaware, but it strikes me as possibly a workable solution.
-CW
Michale -
Here is the whole thing from the horse's mouth:
http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt/DADTReport_FINAL_20101130(secure-hires).pdf
I got the figures from factcheck.org:
http://factcheck.org/2010/12/dont-ask-dont-tell-just-argue/
Here's a quote from the actual Pentagon report, which is exactly the point I'm making:
"When Service members talk about a unit member they believe to be gay or lesbian, their assessment of that individual was based on a complete picture and actual experience, including the Service member’s technical and tactical capabilities and other characteristics that contribute to his or her overall effectiveness as a member of the military and as a colleague.
By contrast, when asked about serving with the imagined gay Service member who is “open” about his or her sexual orientation …[s]tereotypes motivated many of the comments we heard."
In other words, it is attitudes and fears and not actual problems. When these people serve with gay unit members, they report no problems to the tune of 80-95-plus percent. I think that's evidence enough that the transition could indeed be made almost seamlessly.
-CW
michale,
i think cw's point does not contradict your own. as best i can tell from the data provided, soldiers and marines in combat units are likely to view some anonymous gay person in the abstract as detrimental to the unit. however, when asked about their buddy "joe" who everybody pretty much knows is gay, they aren't bothered in the least. the question then becomes, does joe become a less effective member of the team and hurt the mission by admitting he's gay?
~joshua
How about this for an alternate compromise: get rid of DADT on a service-by-service basis. The Navy, I believe, says it is ready to go right now. So let them go first, along with maybe the Air Force and Coast Guard. Then the Army, then the Marines.
Off the top of my head, that does sound like a good solution..
However, looking deeper, it would still cause problems. Each branch has their own Special Ops cadre.
Navy has the SEALS. Army has Delta. USAF has the PJs. Marines.....well, Marines are a law unto themselves.. :D
I think the best solution was what I proposed before. Make gay soldiers ineligible for combat roles...
As we are now easing women into combat functions, so can gays be integrated into combat roles as well...
Ya'all's point about gays in the "abstract" as opposed to gays they have known may be an accurate assessement..
However, it's likely that these soldiers got to know their "buddy" as a fellow soldier...
It's likely that, if a soldier is introduced to a unit and it's known off the bat that the soldier is gay, that would color the relationship from that point forward and probably not in a good way..
Michale.....
Michale,
But it's even more reprehensible if people were to needlessly die by a spurious rush to irresponsibly eliminate DADT.
Yeah, and if pigs had wings, they'd fly.
Let me put it another way..
Let's say that someone came in to CW.COM and told all of you EVERYTHING about me and THEN you met me...
Do you think, under those circumstances, we would have the same relationship we have now???
:D
Michale.....
140
Michale,
What on earth has that got to do with valid and credible arguments in support of repealing DADT and spurious arguments against it?
What on earth has that got to do with valid and credible arguments in support of repealing DADT and spurious arguments against it?
First, let me ask you..
What "spurious" arguments against the repeal of DADT are you referring to?
Secondly, it's quite simple.
CW's premise is based on reports from frontline soldiers who said, when confronted with specifics, IE a person they knew, that him being gay wasn't that big of a deal..
My point is that is probably because they got to know the soldier as a soldier first and then later learned that he was gay..
Which leads me to my fer'instance that I put forth..
Would we have the same fun and good times if you knew beforehand what a total jerk I can be??
I don't think so.. You would have developed pre-conceived notions about me which would have precluded getting to know me as the total fun and awesome guy that I am.. :D
In combat, unit cohesion is paramount... There are enough pressures and problems that would eliminate that unit cohesion...
Do we REALLY need to be adding ANOTHER issue into the mix???
As I indicated above, it's hard to find common ground amongst those who have never been on combat footing...
In a perfect world, being gay or being straight wouldn't matter..
But in a perfect world, being a fat dumpy bald computer geek or being a rock-sculpted, hard bodied stud-muffin ALSO wouldn't matter...
But we don't live in a perfect world and BOTH issues DO matter in combat situations...
"Dems da facts, jack!!!"
-Bill Murray, STRIPES
Michale.....
141
Michale,
Would we have the same fun and good times if you knew beforehand what a total jerk I can be??
Well, let me put it this way ...
Let's say that I had been forewarned about you. I would take that advice or not, depending on who was dishing it out. And, then, in either case, I would make up my own mind, knowing full well that I'm capable of being a pretty good jerk myself, in any event.
What I'm trying to say, Michale, is that I don't think you're a jerk now, nor have I ever thought you were a jerk and, I never will!
And, so ... let the good times roll!! :)
P.S. No need to reply. :-)
Liz,
Yes, but you are an exceptional person with a keen mind and the ability to look beyond the superficial and see the diamond in the rough... :D
Your average combat military grunt is not.
Michale.....
142
Once again, let me point out to EVERYONE...
I am NOT disagreeing with any of you. All of you make logical and rational points..
I simply maintain that, having been on the OTHER side of the equation, in the trenches (so to speak) that I can see that those on the other side of the issue ALSO have valid points as well...
Michale.....
143
And, as anyone who has served in the military knows, THAT and ONLY that is the number one priority.
Accomplish the mission.
ALL other considerations are secondary.
My sentiments exactly.
So why should anyone care if someone in the unit is gay, or black, hispanic, a woman, or otherwise?
The key is whether they can do the job and help accomplish the mission. Period.
Everything else is secondary.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Cheers
David
p.s. I'll take the overqualified misfits over the underqualified any day.
At least this was the premise of The Dirty Dozen and countless copycat movies since :)
Escape from NY
Several Dirty Harry movies
Every Arnold Schwarzenegger movie ??
David,
The key is whether they can do the job and help accomplish the mission. Period.
Sorry, David, but you are incorrect.
The key is can the TEAM work together and accomplish the mission.
The majority of combat units said that, when there is a known gay person present, the mission may be compromised.
That is really the only relevant point from that argument.
Escape from NY
Several Dirty Harry movies
Every Arnold Schwarzenegger movie ??
How can you not mention THE EXPENDABLES? :D
Michale.....
144
To re-phrase, the question is NOT can gay individuals accomplish the mission.
Whether they can or not is certainly not determined by the orientation.
The question is can the unit accomplish the mission with a gay person amongst their ranks..
To get an idea of the complexities involved, ask yourself if the unit can accomplish the mission with a female amongst their ranks.
The concepts and the dynamics are the same, albeit for completely different reasons, of course.. :D
Remember, we're not talking about 702 units. We're talking about elite overt and covert combat units whose training is honed to a razor edge and who MUST mesh as a single entity to be able to accomplish the mission.
Michale.....
148
To re-phrase, the question is NOT can gay individuals accomplish the mission.
Then this is a failure of leadership.
At one time, the majority of combat units would probably have said they are against blacks in the unit. Or Mexicans. Or Asians. Or whoever.
You don't ask the unit how they "feel".
You tell them you're here to accomplish a mission soldier. I've put together the best team to accomplish this mission. If you don't like it, perhaps you don't belong in the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, etc.
This is how you lead. It's not about asking the troops how they feel. It's about telling them what is needed to get the job done.
If I were putting together a team, I would take the most qualified people I could find and then I'd build cohesion. You don't start by asking the troops about their feelings.
And if you can't do that, then you're not qualified to lead.
-David
"Man up, 'ya limp dick fuckups!" - Kirk Lazarus, Tropic Thunder
Navy has the SEALS. Army has Delta. USAF has the PJs. Marines.....well, Marines are a law unto themselves...
aren't the marines spec ops called recon?
David,
At one time, the majority of combat units would probably have said they are against blacks in the unit. Or Mexicans. Or Asians. Or whoever.
Yes.. And, in the future, we can look back and think how ridiculous it was for combat units to have a problem with gay soldiers..
But the future is not the here and now..
The combat units have spoken... If their opinions are to be ignored, they shouldn't have been asked of in the first place.
That's my only point in this particular discussion...
You don't start by asking the troops about their feelings.
What you call "feelings" is known in military parlance as "morale"...
And NO commander of men who is ANY kind of decent commander of men would ignore morale...
It's really that simple.
Nypoet,
aren't the marines spec ops called recon?
To the best of my memory (which I admit is not as sharp as it once was) Force Recon is just one elite force within the USMC.
The one thing that is inarguable about Marines is practically every unit within the Marine Corp is an "elite" unit, as it is commonly defined...
Which is why it's the Marines who would have the most trouble integrating gay members into their units.
Once again, I am constrained to point out that I am not disagreeing with ya'alls argument..
I am simply trying to show you that there is ANOTHER side of the question that is equally valid..
But, as with Spock and McCoy and their discussion on death, we have no common frame of reference in which to discuss the combat soldiers point of view.
Michale.....
150
And NO commander of men who is ANY kind of decent commander of men would ignore morale.
Sure. But morale, just like cohesion, is built.
And it's built through leadership.
And you don't ask the troops how they feel about having Jewish people in the army. Or blacks. Or Hispanics. All of which I'm sure cause some consternation among certain new recruits.
But its dealt with and it doesn't seem to impact morale or cohesion.
And there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence to show having gay people would have any impact either.
I will agree with you that this whole idea of asking them how they feel seems a bit ridiculous to me the more I think about it. But that's about as far as I would go.
So if you rule out the poll, there is no evidence that combat units would be impacted.
But there is this big "fear" it seems among certain members of the military. What I usually suggest in this case, when I have to deal with a customer who fears change, is a pilot program.
Roll it out in one of the units on a small scale and see what the results are. CW suggested something similar and this seems like it might help people to get over any doubts.
What really seems to be missing is any actual data about the impact on combat units. But w/o trying it somewhere, there's no way to get any data. A pilot program would solve this. A friend of mine who is a former Army Ranger suggested this.
Cheers
-David
So if you rule out the poll, there is no evidence that combat units would be impacted.
Agreed...
And that's kinda my point, in a roundabout sort of way..
Here's the thing. Democrats and those pushing for repeal of DADT simply assumed that the poll would reflect the opinion of the general public.
It was inconceivable to them that the military might actually have an opinion that runs counter to civilian sentiment.
Ironically enough, it's the Pro Repeal crowd that have made repealing DADT harder...
What really seems to be missing is any actual data about the impact on combat units. But w/o trying it somewhere, there's no way to get any data. A pilot program would solve this. A friend of mine who is a former Army Ranger suggested this.
Agreed...
But there is a problem with this.
If you try a pilot program with a 702 Unit, it really won't mean much.
If you try a pilot program with a combat unit, it might get some people killed that otherwise would not have died...
It's a tough call..
Michale.....
152
Michale
I have to take issue with your statement "Lets not forget it was the Democrat of Democrats who gave us DADT". Bill Clinton never was a liberal Democrat;I don't know of any liberal on the campaign trail who would get off said campaign trail to sign a death warrant for a mental incompetent;as our Bill did;QED as right wing as you can get.
If you try a pilot program with a combat unit, it might get some people killed that otherwise would not have died.
So in your world, combat units would never try anything different because there's a possibility someone might die.
That sounds like a pretty cowardly military to me. I hope that's not the case with our actual military.
In WWII, flying bombers had not been perfected yet. Fifteen-thousand Air Corps trainees died in training stateside. And 36,000 airmen died in noncombat accidents.
Using your logic, no one would ever have flown bombers because of the risk that someone might die.
Are you sure this is the military you want?
-David
just to get back to a point i made earlier, homosexual behavior among military personnel extends back well beyond the beginning of our country. many of the most feared warriors of the ancient world, among them the spartans, were permitted (or even encouraged) to have homosexual relations with each other. this is not to suggest that our military ought to start encouraging gay behavior among members of combat units, but at least it provides evidence that the matter has already been proven many times over not to necessarily impede unit cohesion. thus, a pilot program would not exactly be breaking new ground, so to speak.
Americulchie,
Bill Clinton never was a liberal Democrat;
Perhaps not.
But he IS the quintessential Democrat. He IS the face and the foundation of the Democratic Party.
He is the consummate politician.
And that is NOT a compliment...
David,
So in your world, combat units would never try anything different because there's a possibility someone might die.
That sounds like a pretty cowardly military to me. I hope that's not the case with our actual military.
In WWII, flying bombers had not been perfected yet. Fifteen-thousand Air Corps trainees died in training stateside. And 36,000 airmen died in noncombat accidents.
Using your logic, no one would ever have flown bombers because of the risk that someone might die.
Are you sure this is the military you want?
You are talking about risks for the advancement of technology..
I am referring to risks that are done for the purposes of social experimentation.
You are talking apples and I am talking Eskimos... :D
Michale....
153
David,
Having said the above, you DO raise a good point.
Having gays being able to openly serve in the military will, in the long run, strengthen our Armed Forces. Just as integrating Blacks ultimately proved beneficial..
However, that is the long term. The short term may be very rocky. Exacerbated by the numerous conflicts we are currently engaged in and the uniqueness of these conflicts..
Again (ad nasuem :D) let me point out that you DO make valid arguments.
Where we disagree is in the fact that I think the other side of the issue ALSO has valid arguments and you do not feel the same..
Michale.....
154
At least it provides evidence that the matter has already been proven many times over not to necessarily impede unit cohesion.
Agree completely with you nypoet. But it seems like we're dealing with a lot of fear in the military. Fear of change.
So was brainstorming ways to alleviate that fear.
(Of course this assumes that this is "fear" and not something else.
When working with customers, you keep trying to address their concerns. If at the end of the day, there's still pushback, then it's usually a good sign that something else is going on.
Me personally. I think it's more laziness than anything else. Meaning that I think middle mgmt of the military simply thinks it would be easier not to do than to do because of the perceptions of many troops. Sad, but true.)
Where we disagree is in the fact that I think the other side of the issue ALSO has valid arguments and you do not feel the same.
Are you equivocating, Michale? This seems very un-Michale :)
I'll be honest and say that I still don't see a valid argument against repeal.
What I hear from the military in the media sounds like a lot of excuses:
1. We're at war, now is not the time (used any time politicians don't want to deal with something)
2. There could be consequences (no one will name them or cite any evidence to support this claim ) - but things could be "scary"
I guess what's saddest is to hear these things coming from our military. A military that took Iraq in a matter of days, but seems afraid of a few gay people.
-David
You are talking apples and I am talking Eskimos... :D
But we're both talking about long term benefits.
The only difference I see is that in the case of WWII bombers there was an actual real short-term risk (the technology sucked), with repeal of DADT no one can seem to show any evidence that there's any real risk.
I'll be honest and say that I still don't see a valid argument against repeal.
That's because you are simply incapable of seeing the military perspective because you have never experienced it first hand..
One would think you would give the military the benefit of the doubt, on that basis alone.
If you had the military background, I think you would feel as I do.. That both sides of the issue makes good ponts..
he only difference I see is that in the case of WWII bombers there was an actual real short-term risk (the technology sucked), with repeal of DADT no one can seem to show any evidence that there's any real risk.
Because any evidence of real risk would have to come after the fact of a test case.
Would you send up an experimental aircraft with 1000 soldiers on board, just to show that there is no risk??
of course not. You would run test after exhaustive text prior to putting lives at risk..
Has test after exhaustive test been done to see what the results of a repeal of DADT would do??
No, there has not..
The Left wants to just throw it out there and hope for the best..
Let me ask one question??
Why the hurry to get it done now? We have a global war on terror.. Iraq is ramping down, but Afghanistan is heating up. Mexico is getting froggy and threatening our Southern Border..
And Iran is just itching to lob a ICMRBM's at us just for shits and grins..
Do you REALLY think this is the time for social experiments???
Seriously??
Michale
157
If you had the military background, I think you would feel as I do.
Since you know this perspective so well, perhaps you could explain it.
Would be nice to see some evidence and no one seems to have any. All anyone has are hypothetical instances.
Here's an actual instance where the DADT policy hurt our military:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/attack/main529418.shtml
No one from the military seems to be able to show an instance where gay people had an affect on morale or cohesion or anything else.
Has test after exhaustive test been done to see what the results of a repeal of DADT would do?
Then why not run a pilot on a small scale? This would do exactly that.
-David
Then why not run a pilot on a small scale? This would do exactly that.
Because it might get someone killed.
Is someone's life worth it to find out that repealing DADT in the here and now may be a bad idea???
The Democrats hit upon the process early on.. Let's ask the military and see what THEY think.
The military responded and the representation for repeal was not as glowing as the Left had hoped.
But the Pro Repeal folks had made their bed.
Now they are getting pithy because they are expected to sleep in it.
Michale.....
158
So, why not just repeal DADT for 702 Units and retain DADT for Combat Units??
That would be a good way to gradually introduce the concept....
But none of ya'all seemed to like that idea before...
Michale.....
159
So, why not just repeal DADT for 702 Units and retain DADT for Combat Units?
I guess I'm not fond of this idea because it still sounds like discrimination.
And I find it hard to justify discrimination. Especially when the military is not offering any evidence.
If someone can do the job, they should have a shot. Simple.
How would it sound if this argument were about black people? Or Christians? Or anyone else for that matter?
"Black people in our military could affect cohesion."
"People could die in our combat units because evangelical Christians are destroying morale."
Unfortunately, it looks like discriminating against gay people is the last socially acceptable discrimination in our military.
Very sad.
-David
I guess I'm not fond of this idea because it still sounds like discrimination.
How is this any different than your small pilot program??
Let's get it down to brass tacks..
Do you think that openly gay people would affect unit morale in combat situations?
Yes or No??
What evidence is your answer based on??
Michale.....
159
Do you think that openly gay people would affect unit morale in combat situations?
No.
25 countries currently allow openly gay people to serve in the military. The British military is one of them.
In 2007, the Ministry of Defense went on the record and stated that there had been no incidents of harassment or unit cohesion. In fact they said, it's really been a non-issue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/world/europe/16iht-gays.4.5740115.html
What do you believe and what evidence is your answer based on?
-David
p.s. A pilot in the U.S. would be a way to test here. I also think it would help ease the fear among mid-level military management.
Banning gay people from combat units would prove nothing, lead to nothing, and would help keep discriminatory policy in place.
What do you believe and what evidence is your answer based on?
Personal experience. Granted, dated personal experience, but.....
p.s. A pilot in the U.S. would be a way to test here.
Not really..
To fully test your theory, you would need a grunt that is A> gay and B> part of a combat unit where cohesion is priority.
That and that alone is the only way to confirm compatibility...
Using foreign military units is not really a good example...
How many gay SAS members are there?? Gay GSG9?? Gay Shayetet 13???
Michale......
160
Personal experience. Granted, dated personal experience, but...
Is it something you can share?
Not to knock personal experience, but unless it can be shared it's hard for others to believe.
To fully test your theory, you would need a grunt that is A> gay and B> part of a combat unit where cohesion is priority.
Apologies, I meant pilot program. Not "pilot". Ok as to the combat unit.
-David
David,
Not to knock personal experience, but unless it can be shared it's hard for others to believe.
True, but if the only response to personal experience is lack of belief then that seems to be a concession of the debate.
Because Person A, who makes the claim of personal experience knows it to be true. If Person B's only response is to require proof of that personal experience, with no supporting data, then that would seem to me to be a concession..
Your mileage may vary.. :D
Apologies, I meant pilot program. Not "pilot". Ok as to the combat unit.
The apology is mine.. I had wondered where the hell a military aviator came from in this discussion. :D
Should have realized... :D
Michale.....
161
David,
Let me just say that my "personal experiences" re-enforces what the December report stated vis a vis the willingness of combat units to accept openly gay members amongst the teams.
The best way to go about it is to limit openly gay members to non-combat roles.
Just as it was in the beginning with women who were denied any sort of combat opportunities, that has slowly been whittled away so that, where we are in the here and now, there are very very few roles that women CAN'T serve in..
Why not use the same approach for openly gay members???
A SEAL or a DELTA or a PJ wouldn't have a problem with an openly gay member processing their paychecks or giving them their intel briefings.
But they MIGHT have a problem with working with an openly gay member in the field..
It's not fair, it's not right, but it IS the way it is..
And no amount of political correctness will change that one simple fact..
Michale.....
163
Why not use the same approach for openly gay members?
Perhaps. But if it were me, I'd fight to go about this in a different way.
Why? Because it reinforces the stereotype that gay people are effeminate. Like women.
I have, on the contrary, known some gay people who were quite the opposite. One was an All-American linebacker.
A SEAL or a DELTA or a PJ wouldn't have a problem with an openly gay member processing their paychecks or giving them their intel briefings.
Keep in mind, I'm not saying we should drop any requirements. Gay people would still have to kick the same ass to make these units.
Here's a quick story from my past. Probably dates me a bit, but oh well.
I met my friend the Army Ranger about 20 years ago when he'd left the military to pursue his Electrical Engineering degree.
We worked for a company that designed military satellites. One of the first people I became good friends with was one of the other engineers who was openly gay. We'll call him Steve.
My Army Ranger friend, at first, had a hard time understanding Steve. Heck, even I did when I first met him. He was the first openly gay person I knew on a personal basis.
But we'd all play volleyball on Thursday nights and we'd invite Mr. Army Ranger (Jeff) out on our bar jaunts even though we suspected he probably wouldn't join us.
Well, one day he did. And during the course of the evening Jeff asked Steve about being gay. They ended up having a long conversation over beers while we ignored them.
Jeff later told me that Steve changed his opinion about gay people. Because he'd actually met one. And Steve didn't fit the stereotype. At the time there were not a lot of openly gay engineers. In fact, there weren't many women either.
Now I know this isn't combat units, etc. But it surprised me to see Mr. Army Ranger have this change of heart. Because my perception of Army people was that they had a certain set of beliefs and were pretty inflexible.
So I have to say, Jeff changed my opinion of people in the Army.
Now I know this isn't combat units or anything like that. And it's only one specific instance.
But I believe that at the end of the day, people are pretty dang capable of adapting. Especially when you have to deal with a situation firsthand. And, if what really matters is the mission.
This isn't political correctness. I could tell off-color gay jokes that would have you laughing your ass off. Most of them were told to me by gay friends :)
Its just that my belief is, if you can prove you can do the job, you should be given the chance.
I do sincerely appreciate this discussion though. You surprised me by bringing up that you'd be ok w/ openly gay people in non-combat roles.
I know full well there could be challenges with repealing DADT in the military. Especially for openly gay people. But it's nothing I think the military couldn't overcome and long term benefit from.
Shiite. Can you imagine the challenges faced by some of the first blacks in combat units? The stereotypes they had to overcome?
Hell ... I'm not even sure why I'm arguing so strongly for repeal as I can't imagine a gay person wanting to be out in the military. I guess I just feel very strongly that anyone, if you can prove you have what it takes and you want it badly enough, should be given the chance and you shouldn't have to deny what you are.
So I'd be open to any types of ideas that would help bring this about. Starting w/ non-combat units wouldn't be at the top of my list because of what I said above. But it might be an option.
-David
I don't have a problem with gay people at all, whether they be 702 types or line grunts. If the guy is capable of protecting my ass, I don't care if he is happy, sad, gay, straight, Vulcan, Denoblian, Klingon or purple with green polka-dots...
BUT....
I do know that I am not the norm amongst combat troops when it comes to that.. And I know that those combat troops who DO have a problem with it could cause cohesion break down at a critical moment.
These sentiments are shared by the Commandant of the US Marine Corps, so I guess I am good company. :D
I have no doubt that DADT will be repealed. And, I have little doubt that it will probably go smoothly. The kinds of troops that would have a problem with openly gay people are the same kinds of troops that follow orders...
I simply maintain that it would prove an even LESS dangerous transition if we
A}Phased it in slowly with 702 units to start and then combat units to follow...
or
B}Give it a year or two to make sure that the military commitments we are involved in ramp down and the possible flare-ups (Mexico, Iran and North Korea) we are facing don't actually flare up..
This has been a completely awesome discussion. It's the kinds of debates that I live for.. :D
Michale.....
164
OK, folks, I encourage everyone to move this discussion thread over to today's article, where I wrote about DADT again, and where I'm about to post a very loaded question to Michale...
:-)
-CW