More News On Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

| January 31, 2010

In my last post, I addressed some of the big issues concerning how the DoD would go about repealing DADT. According to an article from the AP, the DoD has apparently begun to address some of the same issues that I brought up in my previous post. I am happy to hear that the DoD is at least making the right noises in preparing for a potential lifting of DADT. Gates and Adm Mullen are also going to testify in front of the Senate Armed Service Committee on the issues facing the military in regards to DADT. I still believe (and so do most political commentators including the author of the AP article I link to) that there will not be any changes to DADT this year. The focus is obviously on the economy and the 2010 election and I realistically don’t see the Democrats in Congress or the President making repealing DADT a centerpiece of their 2010 agenda.

My personal feelings on DADT are a bit conflicted and my mind is not completely made up on the issue. I do not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in combat arms units or on submarines. I don’t believe this because I buy into a stereotype of gay men/women as “weak” or “girlie”. The living conditions in these units  do not allow for the ability to segregate gay and straight soldiers/sailors/Marines and adding sexual tension (and I don’t care what anybody says that tension will exist no matter how many people say otherwise) to an already stressful environment that exists in these combat units is a dangerous mix. These are some of the same reasons why we do not allow women to serve in combat arms units. On the issue of gays serving in other MOSes, I am not sure that this would effect the capability of some of these units. Again, I spent my four years in security force and infantry units, so my experience with non-combat arms MOSes is limited, but nobody can argue that they operate differently. I certainly don’t believe that there should be quotas for gay enlisted and officer promotions to insure that there isn’t discrimination against them. There is so many things wrong with that I don’t even know where to start with that one. The military is meritocracy (thats why many on the left dislike it) and promotions should be based on ability not on race, sexual orientation, or anything else. I also don’t believe that men and women who were discharged under DADT should be allowed to reenlist/recommission. Right or wrong, they violated a stated DoD policy by revealing their sexual orientation. The only exception I would make is the ones who were maybe involuntarily outed.  If the United States were to legalize pot, should we let everybody who was kicked out because of drug pop on a piss test? Absolutely not.

Again, the overall point I want to make on DADT is that is far from a simple issue that can just be changed overnight. There are serious implication for our military, which is currently engaged in active combat operations all over the world.

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Congress sucks, Military issues

Comments (9)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. ROK Drop says:

    I have always believed that the DADT issue is not about gays serving openly but rather what special treatment the gay lobby and their political allies will demand of the military.

  2. wifeunit says:

    You are bringing Teh Ghey ads on this post… lol.

    I read that article with its quota mention and was hoping it would make it into the discussion. Disturbing.

  3. SSG David Medzyk says:

    What about MY morals, MY social understanding, MY religious tenets?

    At what point do my Christian beliefs become violated?

    I do not accept homosexuality, so do not force me to accommodate it. Be gay all you want, just not in my AO.

  4. Anonymous says:

    After discussing it with a few buddies, we arrived at the following conclusion; the only way for the DOD to be completely fair in regards to DADT is to either make the entire military co-ed(which will in all likelihood never happen), or create two additional genders and force the military to comply(which will in all likelihood never happen).

    Either way, I agree there probably wont be much action on DADT this year.

  5. anon says:

    “what is expected to be a several-year process in lifting its ban on gays from serving openly in the military.”

    Let’s talk about it but keep kicking the can down the street at the same time.

    Bureaucratic cover for BHO and the illusion of progress for everyone else.

  6. OldTrooper says:

    Some of the things in my own personal contention with openly gay military personnel have been addressed by others here. If we want it to be open, then make it co-ed, since it’s about sexual preference and not sexual orientation. I happen to like girls, so I wouldn’t mind showering with them, but that’s just me 🙂 On a serious note; if we are going to do this, there will have to be some segregation, no matter what anyone thinks, or how open minded those that are proponents of opening this are. It’s just like everything else in that reality will have to be the guide. Segregated barracks/quarters will have to become the norm, it’s that simple. Those in combat arms are going to have the toughest job, since there really isn’t an easy answer. Some have noted in other threads and other blogs that they knew so and so was gay, but that didn’t stop them from performing their duties to the highest standard, or another situation that may, or may not, be hypothetical in asking the question “would you care if the medic saving your life is gay”? Well, that’s the extreme edge of the envelope and probably wouldn’t matter to the person who is being attended to, however, that is but one example of the extreme edge and not really a fair synopsis of the general discussion. If you were to ask the same person if they would mind taking a shower with an openly gay person, their answer might change from the one they gave when their life was on the line. Context is important and there really isn’t a ready answer to all the questions posed by this.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Old Trooper (or anyone else),
    Gays are in combat units/the military now and there is no segregation, I am wondering what aspect of repealing DADT will require a change to segregation (or full integration for that matter)?