Gates to unveil plan to abandon 'don't ask, don't tell'

[Bob Hubbard]

Gates to unveil plan to abandon 'don't ask, don't tell'


STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Plan to abandon policy will go before the Senate Armed Services Committee
• 'Don't ask, don't tell' was implemented 15 years ago under the Clinton administration
• Plan to repeal policy regarding gays in the military has met mixed reviews

During last week's State of the Union address, President Obama made clear he wanted a change.
"This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are," he said, to a healthy round of partisan applause.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff sat stone-faced as the president made the announcement and have been quiet on the matter since the State of the Union speech.
A senior Pentagon official told CNN the military leaders are expected to support the president, but also will tell him to what extent they think allowing gays to openly serve will hurt the morale and readiness of the force.
"All they want is a little bit of time" to come up with ideas on how to implement a change in the policy, if it's approved by Congress, the official said of the Joint Chiefs.

"'Don't ask, don't tell' to many people, including myself, seemed so reasonable," Alex Nicholson, a former Army intelligence officer discharged for being gay, told CNN's "American Morning."
"I knew I was gay going in, and I knew about 'don't ask, don't tell,' but you know, 'don't ask, don't tell' as a sound bite sounds very reasonable. It sounds like nobody will inquire as to your sexual orientation -- as long as you don't throw it in anyone's face, you won't have a problem.
"But after I got in, I realized that 'don't ask, don't tell' was much more all-inclusive and all-encompassing," said Nicholson, who now is the executive director of Servicemembers United, an advocacy group that opposes the policy. "It was more like 'don't ask, don't tell, don't happen to be found out any time, any place, in any way.'

Since the policy was implemented, more than 13,500 service members have been discharged, according to Rep. Jim Moran, D-Virginia. In 2009, there were 428 discharges under the policy -- the lowest rate of discharge since implementation of the policy, he said. The highest year was 2001, with 1,227 discharges, he said.
"This shows that during wartime, DADT is not being pursued aggressively because one's orientation has nothing to do with their ability to fight," Moran said in a written statement Monday.
Defense officials have said privately that the will to enforce the law is declining.

Nicholson predicted the matter will become a "non-issue," saying his organization knows of gays serving openly in the military now.
Asked whether he would return to the military if the policy is repealed, Nicholson said he would not hesitate and that he has wanted to return since his discharge in 2002.
"I speak five languages, including Arabic," he said. "There's nothing more that I'd love than to go back right now."

Won't work. The average person in the military will most likely stop shooting at the enemy and start shooting our own troops. After all, only backwards redneck prudes become marines, and only unthinking robots become regular army. The navy will of course be surprised to find as expected they're almost entirely gay and will start putting cute little curtains up on all the destroyers and a doily under each round in the ammo locker. Also, the Air Force will finally not feel goofy wearing that goofy long scarf and waxed mustaches.

*/sarcasm

 

[Gordon Nore]

The Joint Chiefs of Staff sat stone-faced as the president made the announcement and have been quiet on the matter since the State of the Union speech.

<Meddling Canadian Alert on!>

Bob's tongue-in-cheek comments above notwithstanding, apart from some grumbling in the ranks, I don't think the President's biggest opposition will be from the military itself. I suspect his plan will embolden the religious right into action. Like Clinton, he will face the criticism that as someone who as not served in the military, he is not qualified to command it (apart from being elected to do so, and all). Then there will be the discussion about how this is the wrong time to do it.

I also think he will back down or submit to some compromise that renders the effort meaningless.

<Meddling Canadian Alert off!>

 

[geezer]

Bob's tongue-in-cheek comments above notwithstanding, apart from some grumbling in the ranks, I don't think the President's biggest opposition will be from the military itself. I suspect his plan will embolden the religious right into action...

You're probably right about the religious right, but I don't think Obama will drop this one. He may just move along a bit more slowly than I'd like. From what I've seen as a high school teacher, Young Americans have come a long way on this issue from the Clinton days. I really think it's time to take this step. Or we could just go on discriminating and kicking perfectly qualified people out of the military while we show the rest of the world how much we respect "liberty and justice for all". Ha.

 

[CoryKS]

With an all-volunteer military whose enlisted ranks consist primarily of conservative males from the lower end of the economic scale, I think that there are two questions they need to contend with. First, will a change to the policy result in a substantial decrease in the number of voluntary enlistments? This is the readiness question. Second, will a change to the policy result in an increase of violence or alienation among service members? This is the morale question. Actual assaults aside (and FYI incidences of off-duty racial assaults are still fairly common despite the overall success of integration in the services), there's the disturbing possibility that one may find oneself in a firefight surrounded by a team who doesn't care whether one lives or dies.

If it can be found that these concerns are unfounded, we will see a change in policy. If a change is made without consideration to these issues then measures will have to be taken to deal with the fallout. A draft would handle the first issue. I think the assault issue could be handled easily enough through the military justice system provided that the chain of command enforces it. The thing is that you can pass any rule or law that you want, but you can't always factor in the myriad ways that people will respond to it.

 

[Brian King]

I am of a more cynical American point of view. I am wondering at the bringing up of an issue that is not apparently much of an issue at this time. The timing of the announcement is meant in my opinion to reenergize the extreme left of the Democratic party and bolster their flagging support for President Obama after all the recent losses and setbacks he has suffered. I think he is hoping to get the right to help him re-ignite the passions of those supporters and is willing further split the country to satisfy his political need.

Brian

 

[Carol]

I am also suspicious of the timing, although I strongly support abandoning Don't Ask Don't Tell.

 

[Tez3]

It's been legal in our armed forces to be gay for quite a while now, nobody seems really bothered. We have same sex couples who have a civil partnership living together in married quarters and most of our accomodation now is single bedsit type rooms so it doesn't impinge on anyone what your sexual orientation is and frankly it has been known that squaddies will shag most things with a pulse even sometimes without lol! I think our guys and girls are secure enough in their own sexuality that they don't feel threatened by gays at all. It's old news now, training for deployment and equipment needs are far more pressing matters.

It may be too that the working class in this country is far more likely to be socialist ie vote Labour than be conservative.

 

[David43515]

With an all-volunteer military whose enlisted ranks consist primarily of conservative males from the lower end of the economic scale, I think that there are two questions they need to contend with. First, will a change to the policy result in a substantial decrease in the number of voluntary enlistments? This is the readiness question. Second, will a change to the policy result in an increase of violence or alienation among service members? This is the morale question. Actual assaults aside (and FYI incidences of off-duty racial assaults are still fairly common despite the overall success of integration in the services), there's the disturbing possibility that one may find oneself in a firefight surrounded by a team who doesn't care whether one lives or dies.

If it can be found that these concerns are unfounded, we will see a change in policy. If a change is made without consideration to these issues then measures will have to be taken to deal with the fallout. A draft would handle the first issue. I think the assault issue could be handled easily enough through the military justice system provided that the chain of command enforces it. The thing is that you can pass any rule or law that you want, but you can't always factor in the myriad ways that people will respond to it.

I guess I`m a member of what many would call the religious right, but frankly speaking I could care less about anyone else`s sexual orientation. I have enough weaknesses of my own that I don`t need to waste time hypocritcally pointing out weaknesses in others.

But Cory brings up some good questions to consider. Namely will it make any practical differences good or bad? (I`ve no idea, but I would hope the situation would be like Tez described it in the UK...everyone getting on with thier job and not really caring one way or another.) The military is the one place in life that practical concerns have to always take president. Cory`S questions reminded me of an old saying among engineers. "What`s the difference between theory and practice? Well, in theory, there is no difference."

 

[The Last Legionary]

Sgt Rico, I want you and your men to take that hill. Can you do it Rico?

Sorry Captain, but I got 4 turd burglars in my unit and it's just broken us. Pvt. Harkins, the one with the muscles, he's a a salad tosser Sir. Spent last week putting curtains up in the barracks and missed the mission briefing.

Damn it, it was so much better when we didn't know and the general population thought we were too stupid to figure it out. For ****s sake Jenkins, will you stop painting flowers and smilie faces on the MX and listen to me!


Why do I think that most of the fears will go away once they bring back or can keep thousands of in demand specialists and can better kick the *** of our enemies?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I am of a more cynical American point of view. I am wondering at the bringing up of an issue that is not apparently much of an issue at this time. The timing of the announcement is meant in my opinion to reenergize the extreme left of the Democratic party and bolster their flagging support for President Obama after all the recent losses and setbacks he has suffered. I think he is hoping to get the right to help him re-ignite the passions of those supporters and is willing further split the country to satisfy his political need.

Brian

Correct. Obama has been trying to assure the GBLT community that he has not forgotten his promises to them that earned him their support in the election, while they have been becoming louder and angrier, especially as recent state bans on homosexual marriage were enacted. In the meantime, his approval numbers are dropping like a stone, and the deficit looks like a moon rocket; the kind we no longer will have in the case of NASA. The recent debacle with health care reform, which ended with a thud the day the Democrats lost their super-majority in the Senate, has led directly to Democratic politicians announcing their retirements or to their suddenly backing away from the President, as their poll numbers have shown them to be about one step away from public tarring and feathering.

He had to do something bold to get some of his supporters back under the tent, or he risked open rebellion.

It is is, as the man recently said, a 'red herring'. It is meant to distract, nothing more. A grand gesture, a loud noise, symbolizing nothing.

 

[Tez3]

Why is there the assumption that gay men are also effiminate? The gay men I know in the military aren't in the least and as the service accomodation comes with really good furnishings including double beds and en suite bathrooms there isn't the slightest need for anyone to go doolally about curtains and such like. Even trainees have their own bed space, cupboards etc in a four man room.
The days of spartan (yes I use that word advisedly) accomodation, 12 men to a room, basic facilties and 'you're in the army now' attitude should have well and truly gone. Todays service personnel are professional and have the right to expect decnt living accomodation, decent leisure facilites and a standard of life on par with civilians. They can still maintain high standards of discipline, professionalism and integrity if they are treated as intelligent human beings, in fact they perform better. The question of who is gay doesn't arise when everyone is expected to be professional. Its just a matter of respect. It's taught in basic training, servicepeople know what is expected of them and they know the standards they are expected to reach, these standards they often exceed, not because they are pushed to it but because they have self respect and self worth. Frankly whinging about gays in the forces is soft and namby pamby, it's like the bleating of sheep rather than the roaring of lions. The attitude here is bacically 'who gives a flying ****, we're all in this together' and that is exactly how it should be.
Oh and we have very few assaults, rapes or sexual harrassment of female service personnel either for all the same reasons. Again it comes down to professional training and standards.

why not watch this and see if you can tell who is gay?
http://www.army.mod.uk/training_education/training/18145.aspx

Training is exactly how you see it here, quiet professionalism.


(It also shows something that was brought up on another thread...bayonet training.)

I think perhaps British soldiers are trained to be more independant perhaps than most armies, they keep a lot of their individuality, this is also something that comes from the regimental system where regiments have traditions dating back hundreds of years and each is different with it's own character. the corps too have thier traditions and individual ways of working. regiments and Corps are like families where it's easier perhaps to 'be yourself' whatever that is.


The Beharry Centre seen in video named after Johnson Beharry VC, the proof the training works.
http://www.victoriacross.org.uk/bbbeharr.htm

 

[Bob Hubbard]

"the assumption that gay men are also effiminate? "
It's a commentary on the stereotype. Most of the gays I know are as "normal" as anyone else.

 

[Tez3]

"the assumption that gay men are also effiminate? "
It's a commentary on the stereotype. Most of the gays I know are as "normal" as anyone else.

Sadly true but people need to get over it.

 

[CanuckMA]

When yoou're lying in the dirt, ans the s**t has hit the fan, there's only one question I'd ask the guy next to me. Can you kill the SOBs bearing down on us?

Everything else is immaterial.

 

[Bruno@MT]

It is is, as the man recently said, a 'red herring'. It is meant to distract, nothing more. A grand gesture, a loud noise, symbolizing nothing.

To you, perhaps.
To the thousands of gays / bis / lesbians in the military, this is a monumental issue.
If someone is good enough to kill or die for his or her country, it would probably be a decent thing to allow those who wish to to come out of the closet without risking instant dismissal.

 

[Tez3]

To you, perhaps.
To the thousands of gays / bis / lesbians in the military, this is a monumental issue.
If someone is good enough to kill or die for his or her country, it would probably be a decent thing to allow those who wish to to come out of the closet without risking instant dismissal.

Especially when a lot of those criticising gays aren't willing to go that far for their country!

 

[xJOHNx]

Tez, that clip is amazing.
A high level of professionalism in the British Army. Makes me regret I didn't join.

 

[Tez3]

Thanks John! Its probably not fair to compare the British and the Amercian armies, ours is a small force which probably makes it easier to train and give the recruits the attention they need such to turn out high standard soldiers. Education is a big part of their training and often the recruits will have gone to an army college when they were sixteen to brush up on all their academic skills.
From day one it's understood that people comes from various ethinic backgrounds and have different sexual orientations but the important thing is that they get stuck into their training. the general attitude outside the forces is one of not bothering an awful lot about peoples sexual orientation, there are many who don't agree or like gays but it's something you keep to yourself like other subjects such as religion, nudity, sex and abortion all things that seem to work Americans up to a frothy mouthed state! for somewhere that has a Constitution and is keen on all this independance etc you get really concerned about what other peoples beliefs and activities are whereas us 'socialist' countries don't really care lol!

 

[Gordon Nore]

Especially when a lot of those criticising gays aren't willing to go that far for their country!

Interesting point, Tez.

Caught this in the news yesterday... The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has come out (so to speak) in favour of abolishing "Don't ask..."

February 3, 2010



[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell gets boost[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Serif]Military chief says he agrees
[/FONT]FREE PRESS NEWS SERVICES
WASHINGTON -- Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen said Tuesday that he supports allowing gays to serve openly in the military, providing powerful support for President Barack Obama's call to lift the legal ban on their service.
http://www.freep.com/article/201002.../NEWS/Repeal-of-Dont-Ask-Dont-Tell-gets-boost

As well, former Joint Chief Colin Powell has changed his thinking on the matter...

In 1993, Powell called the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy a "healthy compromise." But in December 2008, Powell said that the ban on gays serving openly should be reviewed.

 

[Tez3]

Remember when they said women shouldn't be out on the frontline etc?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...-leg-Captain-Kate-Philp-talks-to-The-Sun.html