Chm. Joint Chiefs of Staff-Bring Gays Into Military

[David]

If he likes his job he's better go this route.

Top uniformed officer: Gay ban should be lifted
By ANNE FLAHERTY and ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writers
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
(02-02) 10:36 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

The military's top uniformed officer on Tuesday made an impassioned plea for allowing gays to serve openly in uniform, telling a Senate panel it was a matter of integrity and that it is wrong to force people to "lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."

The comments by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, set the stage for the military's yearlong study into how the ban can repealed without causing a major upheaval to the fighting forces.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, appearing with Mullen before the Armed Services Committee, announced plans to loosen enforcement rules involving the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that has been in effect since 1993.

President Barack Obama has called for a repeal of the policy, a move that require congressional action. If he succeeds, it would mark the biggest shake up to military personnel policies since President Harry S. Truman's 1948 executive order integrating the services.

"No matter how I look at the issue," Mullen said, "I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens." Noting that he was speaking for himself and not for the other service chiefs, Mullen added: "For me, it comes down to integrity — theirs as individuals and ours as an institution."

Sen. John McCain, the ranking Republican on the panel, publicly bristled at the Pentagon's decision to the study, saying he is "deeply disappointed" and calling the assessment "clearly biased" because it presumes the law should be changed.

"Has this policy been ideal? No, it has not," McCain said. "But it has been effective."

Several other Republicans sided with McCain, warning Mullen and Gates not to pursue a change at a time when the United States is fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and facing a continuing threat of terrorism. Democrats said they would back a change in policy.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and chairman of the committee, said a repeal of the law might be slipped into a broader military policy bill that authorizes defense spending.

Democratic Sen. Mark Udall said his Colorado constituents pride themselves on allowing others to live and let live.

"You don't have to be straight to shoot straight," said Udall, quoting libertarian Barry Goldwater.

Gates suggested that lawmakers keep the intensity of debate in tow until the military can get a better handle on how to proceed. To sort out the details, Gates has turned to Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson and Gen. Carter Ham, who leads Army forces in Europe, will conduct the review.

"Keep the impact it will have on our forces firmly in mind," the secretary implored lawmakers

Mullen said it was his sense that rank-and-file troops would support the change.

"I have served with homosexuals since 1968," Mullen said in response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. "There are a number of things cumulatively that get me to this position."

Ham is a former enlisted infantryman who rose through the ranks to eventually command troops in northern Iraq in 2004 and hold senior positions within the Joint Staff. Recently, he helped conduct an investigation into the shootings by a soldier at the Fort Hood Army base in Texas.

As the Pentagon's top legal counsel, Johnson has played an integral role into the effort to try to close the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...w135319S35.DTL

[Rifleman]

Disappointing but not surprising, the Joint Chief's position is a political appointment period!

[David]

Opposing view: Don't interject sexuality
Repealing ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ could hurt combat unit cohesion.

By Mike Coffman
My combat experience during the Persian Gulf War makes me very reluctant to change the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

In 1990, I was a captain in the U.S. Marine Corps assigned as the executive officer for a light armored infantry company. In late December, the company was spread out along the Saudi-Kuwaiti border in anticipation of a ground war with the Iraqi army. Military analysts had estimated that a ground war with the Iraqi army could cost up to 30,000 lives among coalition forces. Because the Marines in our unit knew that light armored infantry, by doctrine, would most likely be the "first in," we fully anticipated taking a disproportionate share of those casualties relative to our numbers.

The stress of anticipating combat was unnerving. We were combat-ready 24 hours a day, seven days a week. At night we took turns sleeping in foxholes, but we never really rested. Until after the main ground attack was complete, we never left the front lines.

The determination to accomplish the mission, along with the will to survive, welded the unit into an effective ground combat team: An interdependent bond was formed between each and every Marine in the unit.

That strong interdependent bond held our ground combat team together and made us into an effective fighting unit. The bond was founded upon a mutual trust: Although each Marine could be singled out for a task that could put his life at risk, Marines would always have the confidence that the orders given to them on the battlefield were never tainted by any emotional bias.

U.S. Marine Corps ground combat teams are composed of men only. Interjecting sexuality into a ground combat team potentially creates an emotional divide between Marines that undermines confidence and prevents that interdependent bond from forming, ultimately compromising the combat effectiveness of the unit.

We need a very deliberative and reasoned approach before considering a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," a proven policy that has served the military and the nation well since 1993.

Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colo., is a member of the House Armed Services Committee. He is the only member of Congress to have served in both the Persian Gulf War and the Iraq war.

SOURCE

[NightMgr]

Don't do what military commanders say = Obama bad.

Do what military commanders say = Obama bad.

I see a pattern.

[schaabdl]

A minor disparity - the joint chiefs are not commanders - one of the best lines (unfortunately, I don't remember the general who said it) during Desert Storm - the purpose of the Pentagon is to support the commanders and not attempt to command - that's what we tried to do during Viet Nam and we know that didn't work!
***
The Pentagon chiefs are appointees (that probably deserves a separate thread) and they often play the political game just like anyone else. I think if you talked to commanders, with an exact meaning for commander intended, you may find a different result (if the commanders could be protected from reprisal!)

[David]

It's amazing how things have changed. When Clinton wanted Gays in the military in 1993 there was a groundswell of opposition. Especially from the military itself and veterans. I just saw where both Colin Powell and Oren Hatch are OK with scrapping DADT. This is as a result of the left's never ceasing quest for their pet projects. They just wear you down. Shame you with PC. This policy change is inevitable. Just as Gay marriage is inevitable in most states.

[NightMgr]

I think those who want their rights have historically shown they have more endurance in demanding them than those who would deny them.

Additionally, without prejudice, eventually the generations learn there is no reason to continue the discrimination.

Goes with race, sex, sexuality, all sorts of liberties.

[Hawkscall]

Saw someone on Fox, a Navy commander, who said that the issue of being straight or gay doesn't really matter to a lot of young people who are in the services today, most 19-1/2 average age. Maybe that's true and that is what is changing.

C

[David]

The only reason to end 'don't ask, don't tell': military effectiveness

SOURCE

[jtdc]

The only reason to end 'don't ask, don't tell': military effectiveness is generally correct.

Moreover, gays and lesbians already have served honorably and valiantly, so what, one might ask, is the big deal? Why make people pretend they're not who they are?

In most situations they could not have accomplished their heroism if they were openly homosexual. In most cases their homosexuality was known after the fact.

No doubt we all served with gay guys and never knew it. Gays aren't stupid and they darn sure know who is friendly and who isn't.

But not always.

Equally absurd is the notion that gays cannot abide by the rules against fraternization. There's no evidence that gays are less able to control their libidos than are heterosexuals.

Heterosexuals are not in a barracks sleeping next to a person of the sex they are attracted to.

[NightMgr]

Originally Posted by jtdc

In most situations they could not have accomplished their heroism if they were openly homosexual. In most cases their homosexuality was known after the fact.

Care to support that?

Sure, if they were kicked out. But, aside from that?

Heterosexuals are not in a barracks sleeping next to a person of the sex they are attracted to.

This is so often trotted out as some kind of reason. Do you feel some attraction for every woman you see? Do you feel an overwhelming desire to try and have sex with every woman around? Do you ignore their desires and consent and just impose yourself on every woman you find on the street and elsewhere?

Heck, I read there's a big storm in DC right now. If you were essentially stranded in a home with a woman, could you not control yourself and sleep in a room with them without trying to tear their clothes off and force yourself upon them?

When I read this, I have to wonder if the people who post it have any self control at all.

I dunno. Maybe you guys are all so hot that no one would be able to resist you. I've heard gay guys say that people who say "Oh, I'm afraid a gay guy will hit on me" have the least to worry about. They greatly overestimate their attractiveness.

[NightMgr]

From the article quoted:

Among sober arguments favoring repeal of the law is the particular idiocy of banning or removing someone who is otherwise useful to the military. The several Arabic-speaking gays who were scrubbed when the military was sorely lacking in communications personnel in Iraq come to mind.

I've been repeatedly challenged when I brought this up that it was just hypothetical. Here it is cited again.

Another place where I've heard the military ignores even openly gay members is health care. They can't hire enough nurses and doctors. As witnessed by the Ft. Hood shooter, they are desperate to retain those who are enlisted. I don't have a cite but it has seemed to me, and I've worked in health care facilities for about 15 years, there are a disproportionate number of gays in health care. Perhaps it's a sense of compassion to care for others or perhaps it's knowing that's a profession where their lifestyle will be tolerated.

[Hawkscall]

This is an interesting story. In the mid-nineties, I worked ina gym here in Marin County. There was a young woman who worked out there also, and the only reason she chose that gym was because Steve from Journey worked out and she had a crush on him and thought she could get to know him. Totally straight.

She was in the Coast Guard, stationed in the Bay Area. She told me that she was trying to get out because she was so harrassed by gay women on the base who refused to believe she was straight, came onto her, made fun of her, put her down, etc.

Don't know what happened to her,she stopped working out there and I left that gym maybe a year later.

But that is another angle to this.

C

[NightMgr]

I think there are already laws against harassment in place. Perhaps they ought be better enforced.

I think there's a pretty bad record of women being harassed by straight men who refuse to take no for an answer, who make unwanted advances, who harass, and so on.

Hmmm. Maybe it's people, no matter the sex, who would prey on someone they perceive as weak that ought be kicked out of the military.

[NightMgr]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/opinion/07rich.html

...

Now that explicit anti-gay animus is an albatross, those who oppose gay civil rights are driven to invent ever loopier rationales for denying those rights, whether in the military or in marriage. Hatch, for instance, limply suggested to Mitchell that a repeal of “don’t ask” would lead to gay demands for “special rights.” Such arguments, both preposterous and disingenuous, are mere fig leaves to disguise the phobia that can no longer dare speak its name. If gay Americans are to be granted full equality, the flimsy rhetorical camouflage must be stripped away to expose the prejudice that lies beneath.

The arguments for preserving “don’t ask” have long been blatantly groundless. McCain — who said in 2006 that he would favor repealing the law if military leaders ever did — didn’t even bother to offer a logical explanation for his mortifying flip-flop last week. He instead huffed that the 1993 “don’t ask” law should remain unchanged as long as any war is going on (which would be in perpetuity, given Afghanistan). Colin Powell strafed him just hours later, when he announced that changed “attitudes and circumstances” over the past 17 years have led him to agree with Mullen. McCain is even out of step with his own family’s values. Both his wife, Cindy, and his daughter Meghan have posed for the current California ad campaign explicitly labeling opposition to same-sex marriage as hate.

McCain aside, the most common last-ditch argument for preserving “don’t ask” heard last week, largely from Southern senators, is to protect “troop morale and cohesion.” Every known study says this argument is a canard, as do the real-life examples of the many armies with openly gay troops, including those of Canada, Britain and Israel. But the argument does carry a telling historical pedigree. When Harry Truman ordered the racial integration of the American military in 1948, Congressional opponents (then mainly Southern Democrats) embraced an antediluvian Army prediction from 1940 stating that such a change would threaten national defense by producing “situations destructive to morale.” History will sweep this bogus argument away now as it did then.

Those opposing same-sex marriage are just as eager to mask their bigotry. The big arena on that issue is now in California, where the legal showdown over Proposition 8 is becoming a Scopes trial of sorts, with the unlikely bipartisan legal team of David Boies and Ted Olson in the Clarence Darrow role. The opposing lawyer, Charles Cooper, insisted to the court that he bore neither “ill will nor animosity for gays and lesbians.” Given the history of the anti-same-sex marriage camp, it’s hard to make that case with a straight face (so to speak). In trying to do so, Cooper moved that graphic evidence of his side’s ill will and animosity be disallowed — including that notorious, fear-mongering television ad, “The Gathering Storm.”

The judge admitted such exhibits anyway. Boies also triumphed in dismantling an expert witness called to provide the supposedly empirical, non-homophobic evidence of how same-sex marriage threatens “procreative marriage.” In cross-examination, Boies forced the witness, David Blankenhorn of the so-called Institute for American Values, to concede he had no academic expertise in any field related to marriage or family. The only peer-reviewed paper he’s written, for a degree in Comparative Labor History, was “a study of two cabinetmakers’ unions in 19th-century Britain.”

...

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by NightMgr

Care to support that?

This ain't a court of law. And you are a biased juror. Nidal Malik Hasan was a trusted member of the military. But he was an enemy within. If people knew what he was, he would not have been put in a position of trust. But like the homosexual situation PC is trumping logic. You answered your own question with "Sure, if they were kicked out." Nidal would have been nothing if he had been kicked out!

Originally Posted by NightMgr

This is so often trotted out as some kind of reason.

Sort of like your "Care to support that?"

Originally Posted by NightMgr

Do you feel an overwhelming desire to try and have sex with every woman around? Do you ignore their desires and consent and just impose yourself on every woman you find on the street and elsewhere?

It only takes one incident to do the damage. But you like the absurd. After all if a woman has sex all her life and is raped only once, "what's the big deal", right?

Originally Posted by NightMgr

Heck, I read there's a big storm in DC right now. If you were essentially stranded in a home with a woman, could you not control yourself and sleep in a room with them without trying to tear their clothes off and force yourself upon them?

One reporter commented that there would probably be a baby boom in about 9 months in the east. At least they won't be from homosexual relations.

Originally Posted by NightMgr

When I read this, I have to wonder if the people who post it have any self control at all.

When I was in the Air Force they had one guy who after a couple of years in that service, jumped an unsuspecting guy in the barracks. Obviously practicing homosexuals don't have the self control or they wouldn't be practicing.

Originally Posted by NightMgr

Maybe you guys are all so hot that no one would be able to resist you.

I'm glad there's a computer and the Internet separating you from us.

Originally Posted by NightMgr

I've heard gay guys say that people who say "Oh, I'm afraid a gay guy will hit on me" have the least to worry about. They greatly overestimate their attractiveness.

What the attraction is for same sex relations is hard to fathom.

Originally Posted by NightMgr

I've been repeatedly challenged when I brought this up that it was just hypothetical. Here it is cited again.

If the military wants to accommodate them as they accommodate women, that is another matter. But if they are to treat them as "men", that's a problem.

Originally Posted by NightMgr

Another place where I've heard the military ignores even openly gay members is health care. They can't hire enough nurses and doctors. As witnessed by the Ft. Hood shooter, they are desperate to retain those who are enlisted.

So you think that is the reason they didn't dump Nidal?

Originally Posted by NightMgr

I don't have a cite but it has seemed to me

No evidence?

Originally Posted by NightMgr

there are a disproportionate number of gays in health care.

But they are not forced to live in a barracks together are they? Different circumstances. But you'll try to run them together for your argument.

Originally Posted by NightMgr

perhaps it's knowing that's a profession where their lifestyle will be tolerated.

Sort of like Hollyweird?

[David]

Frank Rich lives for Gay rights. I don't think he's gay himself. Married with kids. However, he is obsessed with the "Religious Right." Here he refers to those who don't support gays in the military as "bigots."

SOURCE

[NightMgr]

Originally Posted by jtdc

This ain't a court of law. And you are a biased juror. Nidal Malik Hasan was a trusted member of the military. But he was an enemy within. If people knew what he was, he would not have been put in a position of trust. But like the homosexual situation PC is trumping logic. You answered your own question with "Sure, if they were kicked out." Nidal would have been nothing if he had been kicked out!

No, I've always thought of this not as a court but more of a debating site. You are obviously free to make any unsupported claims you wish, but they remain unsupported, unsubstantiated, and unconvincing.

Here- let me provide your retort:

No it's not!

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by NightMgr

No it's not!

Why?

[Rifleman]

NightMgr wrote; No it's not!

Hasan is a perfect example. The mere fact that don't ask, don't tell is proposed to be revoved in favor of openly homosexual behavior, will result in unfair favorable treatment of gays. That will be true whether the New York Times or NightMgr deny it. Such it was with Hasan. He got favorable treatment because he was muslim. It was bad enough that he got a full scholaship from the military in the first place, and even worse that he kept it even though he proved a poor student, this is similar to the many quota based affirmative action scholarships in the country, but beyond that, when Hasan's radical and violent anti-american views came to light, at each stage Superiors were afraid of reporting it because of the risk to their careers.

And as I have pointed pout in the past, there were enough problems associated not with having women in the military, but the promotion of putting them into combat positions or specialties that they historically avoided. The point being that what few institutional barriers to female participation exist, they exist for the purpose of avoiding such sexual issues under combat conditions, not perpetuating sexual discrimination. The increase in the numbers of married personnel both being in the military has created HUGE problems for the military, and so has the pregnancy of those female spouses. I was stationed in Oscoda Michigan at Wurtsmith AFB in the late 70's. One year we had extended cold and snow, and suddenly half the female population both military and Civilian became pregnant. Now with the military, there were then severe personnel shortages, because of limited duty and medical care. It got so bad later, that Army Commanders were enabled with being able to throw female soldiers out of the Army, were they to become pregnant. Similarly, a female pilot trainee would face expulsion from the flght training program, were she to become pregnant.

Now, imagine the problems with the military if open gay becomes the "solution". Suddenly, the kind of "in your face" gay activist that marches in gay rights parades or participated in transsexual operation, but would be kept out, by the current; "Don't ask, don't tell", can't be kept out, in fact they won't be able to be silenced no matter how destructive to the Service, they are. In fact, any kind of restraint will be nullified.