Military brass wants to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

It's about time.

Quote

"We -- the undersigned -- respectfully call for the repeal of the 'don't ask-don't tell' policy. Those of us endorsing this letter have dedicated our lives to defending the rights of our citizens to believe whatever they wish. Scholarly data shows there are approximately 1 million gay and lesbian veterans in the United States today as well as 65,000 gays and lesbians currently serving in our armed forces. They have served our nation honorably. We support the recent comments of former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. John Shalikashvili, who has concluded that repealing the 'don't ask-don't tell' policy would not harm and would indeed help our armed forces. As is the case with Great Britain, Israel and other nations that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, our service members are professionals who are able to work together effectively despite differences in race, gender, religion and sexuality. Such collaboration reflects the strength and the best traditions of our democracy."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/17/dont.ask.dont.tell/index.html

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[kelpdiver 2]

that strikes me as strange way of saying 'allow gays to serve.' Reading that makes me think they want to go to the 1992 method where they ask recruits and run them through a gaydar device, and to kiss a girl.

[Gawain 0]

104 retired military brass sign a letter. Easy for them, they don't get to deal with the headaches.

It's unworkable, even if they restrict MOS assignments in the process.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

104 retired military brass sign a letter.

Doesn't stop retired military on this board from laying out their opinion.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

104 retired military brass sign a letter. Easy for them, they don't get to deal with the headaches.

It's unworkable, even if they restrict MOS assignments in the process.

Can you elaborate on this? I don't think of it as unworkable and MOS restrictions never crossed my mind.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

65,000 gays and lesbians currently serving in our armed forces

Under current policy that is 65k people who are a risk to OPSEC.

I've been against the policy all along simply because of the risk of blackmail. "Tell me your unit's SOI, or your career is ruined."

End the policy now.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

65,000 gays and lesbians currently serving in our armed forces

Under current policy that is 65k people who are a risk to OPSEC.

I've been against the policy all along simply because of the risk of blackmail. "Tell me your unit's SOI, or your career is ruined."

End the policy now.

Wouldn't 'Don't Ask-Don't Tell' prevent anyone from asking this of another military member?

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[nanook 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

65,000 gays and lesbians currently serving in our armed forces

Under current policy that is 65k people who are a risk to OPSEC.

I've been against the policy all along simply because of the risk of blackmail. "Tell me your unit's SOI, or your career is ruined."

End the policy now.

Wouldn't 'Don't Ask-Don't Tell' prevent anyone from asking this of another military member?

Blackmail is illegal also. It would be the unethical types that would use this.

I'm still on the fence with gays serving. Not because of their lifestyle, but because of the old ideas entrenched and having to be there for the turbulence during the time that the "old guard" is adjusting.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

It's unworkable, even if they restrict MOS assignments in the process.

Why then is it workable in the Canadian, British, and many other militaries? Are Americans really that much more homophobic as a group?
Is the US military unique in its inability to handle the diversity that exists within the society that it serves? If so is that a strength to be preserved or a weakness that must be expunged?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

104 retired military brass sign a letter. Easy for them, they don't get to deal with the headaches.

It's unworkable, even if they restrict MOS assignments in the process.

Can you elaborate on this? I don't think of it as unworkable and MOS restrictions never crossed my mind.

I can speak on observations in the Army only, I suspect it's not too different for Marines, and I can only speculate about the Navy or Air Force.

Consider the affect this would have in an Infantry line unit. No women are allowed in those MOS's. The reason? Other than the arguments about capability, it also has to do with distraction. So, it could be argued that homosexual men shouldn't work in combat MOS's. Homosexual women, by contrast can't be in combat MOS's because of their gender, but because of their orientation, non-combat MOS's with women in them can also be viewed as a conflict. How does the Navy handle ship assignments in that environment? Are you going to tell me that the Marines offer an environment that would welcome an open policy? Based on the Marines I've met, and seen in combat... The Army has a few unpleasant stories about how things like this play out "in real life".

I will argue that if it's that important for someone to be out of the closet with their sexual orientation, more important than the desire to serve, then they should reconsider their reasons to serve. Guys and gals aren't ringing in with "I'm a heterosexual" at their swearing in. This isn't a civil equal rights issue in the corporate workplace. The rules in the military are different.

With all the problems that the Army (and military) has to deal with, this is a social element it is ill equipped to handle.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[jakee 1,622]

Quote

Homosexual women, by contrast can't be in combat MOS's because of their gender, but because of their orientation, non-combat MOS's with women in them can also be viewed as a conflict.

Any more so than women serving with men?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Homosexual women, by contrast can't be in combat MOS's because of their gender, but because of their orientation, non-combat MOS's with women in them can also be viewed as a conflict.

Any more so than women serving with men?

Oh not at all.

The reality is that I do not need to know the sexual orientation of someone, in any circumstance. So, why do people feel they need to advertise?

The plain, and unfortunate, reality is that the armed services are hard pressed to maintain awareness about "consideration of others" and "equal opportunity" and "discrimination". It is difficult enough to keep toes on the line as it is currently. Past consequences from unintentional discovery on such matters have been alarming (to say the least), and opening the gates will not help matters. It will overload the mechanisms in place which are already fully loaded areas of harassment/IG/EO, etc.

If it were 100 active officers saying, "yes, it can be done", then I might have a different take on it. I find it ironic that retired officers would take such a stance, and everyone would say, "look! great!" never acknowledging that these guys get to sit back and watch the train wreck...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,190]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Homosexual women, by contrast can't be in combat MOS's because of their gender, but because of their orientation, non-combat MOS's with women in them can also be viewed as a conflict.

Any more so than women serving with men?

Oh not at all.

The reality is that I do not need to know the sexual orientation of someone, in any circumstance. So, why do people feel they need to advertise?

...

Who needs to advertize? Are there people walking around in the Army with placards announcing their orientation, or something?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,190]

Quote

If it were 100 active officers saying, "yes, it can be done", then I might have a different take on it. I find it ironic that retired officers would take such a stance, and everyone would say, "look! great!" never acknowledging that these guys get to sit back and watch the train wreck...

Can you explain why the militaries in other nations do not seem to have suffered a "train wreck"? Is the US Army so much more delicate?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,622]

Quote

The reality is that I do not need to know the sexual orientation of someone, in any circumstance. So, why do people feel they need to advertise?

If you talk to a colleague about his one night stand/ girlfriend/ wife is he advertising his heterosexuality to you? Should he not be allowed to talk about his life in the same way a gay soldier is currently unable to talk about his?

Equating not having to keep your life a secret to advertising is bogus.

Quote

The plain, and unfortunate, reality is that the armed services are hard pressed to maintain awareness about "consideration of others" and "equal opportunity" and "discrimination".

At the time, would you have used the same argument to oppose complete desegregation of the military?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

If it were 100 active officers saying, "yes, it can be done", then I might have a different take on it. I find it ironic that retired officers would take such a stance, and everyone would say, "look! great!" never acknowledging that these guys get to sit back and watch the train wreck...

Well, now that's a no-brainer to figure out why the active duty officers aren't joining in: they're subject to the realities of military discipline and the potential to be ostracized and/or damage their military careers if they speak out of lockstep with command doctrine, as well as military culture. The retirees, on the other hand, are relieved of such duress, and thus feel free to candidly speak their minds.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I'm still on the fence with gays serving. Not because of their lifestyle, but because of the old ideas entrenched and having to be there for the turbulence during the time that the "old guard" is adjusting.

I hope you are not suggesting that our military is incapable of adapting to changing conditions.

That does not bode well

[miked10270 0]

Quote

If it were 100 active officers saying, "yes, it can be done"... sit back and watch the train wreck...

The British Armed Forces never had "Don't Ask - Don't Tell". They moved straight on to "Don't-Give-A-Flying-Fuck".

If the average British Squaddies have the intelligence & tolerance to achieve this, then surely their American equivalent is also... Err... OK... Maybe a weak argument... Sorry.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[gjhdiver 0]

It's a dumb policy whose time has come and gone.

Since there have been militaries, there have been gay people serving in them. Passing laws one way or another doesn't change that.

You'd think with the current US military failing to meet recruiting goals on just about every front, they wouldn't turn down any able bodied citizen that wanted to serve. This policy has actually made the US military weaker. A case in point was of the gay Arabic and Pashtun interpreters that were thrown out of the military at a time when such skills were (and still are) in crucial short supply.

Also, when you've lowered the bar to accept convicted felons and retards, you've effectively conceded any moral grounds and "unit cohesion" arguments.

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Are you going to tell me that the Marines offer an environment that would welcome an open policy? Based on the Marines I've met, and seen in combat...

In my experience, I was absolutely shocked at the swiftness and violence of the reaction to the situation. I think a time can and will come when sexual orientation is irrelevant to military service, but right now may not be the best time to start down that road with the Marines.

[labrys 0]

There are precedents:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7b8_1216914590

Owned by Remi #?

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

Are you going to tell me that the Marines offer an environment that would welcome an open policy? Based on the Marines I've met, and seen in combat...

In my experience, I was absolutely shocked at the swiftness and violence of the reaction to the situation. I think a time can and will come when sexual orientation is irrelevant to military service, but right now may not be the best time to start down that road with the Marines.

I'm not sure what you mean by violent but swift is correct. If a Marine is discovered to be homosexual they are immediately separated from their unit and removed from service. At least that's what I witnessed while I was in.

However I do feel the Marines would likely be the best equipped to adapt to such a change in policy. Ridicule and harrassment from individual Marines is a different story all together and will likely take a tremendous amount of time and training before the whole of the Corps becomes accustomed to such a policy.

Where things become complicated is the use of heads (restroom and shower facilities for you civi's). We already have male and female heads. Will we need a gay head as well. You betcha. Will we need to segregate the heads for gale males and lesbians? Eventually. THAT is the only problem I can foresee. Combat and MOS restrictions aren't necessary in my mind.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[nanook 1]

Believe me, we can adapt. I remember when women were first allowed on board ships. I had no issues with it. But I really hated hearing the old chiefs and senior officers make bickering comments and their knee jerk reactions to silly stuff that they didn't have to. Their ignorance put a strain on all of us. When these guys finally left, things went back to normal. Lo an behold, the Navy is at our best times yet. When homosexuals are allowed to be open and serve, the people who don't want change will start up again. More ignorant crap to deal with.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Are you going to tell me that the Marines offer an environment that would welcome an open policy? Based on the Marines I've met, and seen in combat...

In my experience, I was absolutely shocked at the swiftness and violence of the reaction to the situation. I think a time can and will come when sexual orientation is irrelevant to military service, but right now may not be the best time to start down that road with the Marines.

I'm not sure what you mean by violent but swift is correct. If a Marine is discovered to be homosexual they are immediately separated from their unit and removed from service. At least that's what I witnessed while I was in.

However I do feel the Marines would likely be the best equipped to adapt to such a change in policy. Ridicule and harrassment from individual Marines is a different story all together and will likely take a tremendous amount of time and training before the whole of the Corps becomes accustomed to such a policy.

Where things become complicated is the use of heads (restroom and shower facilities for you civi's). We already have male and female heads. Will we need a gay head as well. You betcha. Will we need to segregate the heads for gale males and lesbians? Eventually. THAT is the only problem I can foresee. Combat and MOS restrictions aren't necessary in my mind.

By violent, I mean......violent.
I think the Marine Corps and Army would be the least equipped to handle an open policy. I expect the Navy would be a little better, but not much with the Air Force being the best equipped.
How is the head even a consideration? If it actually is for you, there must be some sort of a sexual connection for you with a bathroom. For the majority of people regardless of sexual orientation, there is nothing sexual about the bathroom.

[BikerBabe 0]

why? you use public restrooms ALL THE TIME. and you know what? i'd be willing to bet that at least once in your life, there was a gay guy at the urinal down the way.

Did he attack you? Jump you? even look at you? Probably not. Because despite what you may think, gay people are people...with the same or similar standards of public decency, morals, and protocol that straight people have.

Why do people automatically assume that gay people are these horny motherfuckers who are going to come in and start hitting on everyone they see? Do you do that to all the women in the military? Do all the women? NO. why would it be any different?

Besides, if they did that, then military discipline wouldn't have sunk in very well, eh? why would they not follow the same frat rules that you do?

The sheer amount of stereotyping and wrong assumptions surrounding this issue is staggering.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!