Pentagon Journal Calls For Repeal Of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

For a long while now, I've been of the mind that the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that the Armed Forces enforces on its soldiers is pointless, juvenile, and detrimental to our national security concerns. Well, today, Spencer Ackerman highlights a story in the

"After a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly," writes Colonel Om Prakash, who is now working in the office of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. "Based on this research, it is not time for the administration to reexamine the issue; rather it is time for the administration to examine how to implement the repeal of the ban."

At some point, it would be nice if President Barack Obama would join this emerging vanguard of thought urging for the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" before it completely passes him by.

RELATED:
Don't Ask, Don't Be Ridiculous [Attackerman]

PREVIOUSLY, on the HUFFINGTON POST:
Rep. Patrick Murphy, Iraq Vet, Takes Charge of DADT Fight

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[Kenny18]

To Gay Rights Activists: Be careful of what you ask for. 1. When you can successfully make the case that homosexuals are just as good as non-homosexual as warriors you will have succeeded in making the case that they are eligible for the draft when there is one -- congratulations on your draft eligibility. (The same goes for women in combat.) 2. Having been in the Army (taking group showers and using non-partitioned, platoon-sized toilet rooms) I know that the military will lose a lot of good heterosexual, quintessential, warrior types due to low morale. Get angry about this if you wish, but the bottom line underscores what conservatives have believed all along -- the Left is no good at protecting America. Life and death situations shouldn't become a P.C. debate. If you want to keep America safe listen to the Generals and anyone else with a warrior mentality.

[Ventoi]

When we get stuck in the military elevator..

civilians can't tell either.

[BVLian]

photo

Quick Facts:

-In a 2006 Zogby poll, 72% of active duty soldiers said they are comfortable with gays, and 23% report that they actually know someone in their unit who is gay.

-More than 13,000 service members have been discharged since the implementation of DADT, many who are valuable members of the intelligence community and linguists.

-Modern Military Nations such as The United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and Israel have open policies. No unit-cohesion issues have been reported.

No fantasies. Just Facts.

Support H.R. 1283

[Kenny18]

According to a Zogby poll released in December 2006, more troops wanted gays out of the military than in see this link and look at question 13, http://www.zogby.com/CSSMM_Report-Final.pdf

Not a fantasy just a fact.

[blaharumph]

thank you!

[JakeMontero]

DADT is a stoopid rule and congress needs to stop it.

[truthartbeauty]

what will it take for Mr. Obama to honor his campaign promises?

[Amalek]

Perhaps the best way for the repeal of DADT to happen is for the military to take the lead in demanding it. Just like this. Obama does not need to do all the heavy lifting, and if the military supports it, the right just might calm down a bit.

Otherwise, you just add more fuel to the fire of the homophobe Obama derangement syndrome sufferers to call for the violent overthrow of the American government. We need to find a way to deal with our poor Southern countrymen other than by crushing their coup attempts.

[Kenny18]

The problem is that the military leadership is the number one proponent of excluding gays from the military. If you had them on board there would be no discussion.

[jennylynn]

Everyone is asking the same question??

[wafuu]

The article sites scientific evidence. Since when do Americans rely on such evidence? Less than 40% of all Americans believe in the Theory of Evolution, one of science's most broadly accepted. It would be easier to convince those in the non-believing 60% that Christ was going to reappear tomorrow in the backseat of their SUV, rather than expect them to believe scientific theories backed with empirical proof. This is America, after all.

[supergranny]

depressing and too true.

[Kenny18]

A wise person once observed, "There are Lies, damned lies, and statistics." The article cited volatile opinion polls. You have referenced an unproven, yet popular theory. The Earth was flat according to popular opinion polls before Christopher Columbus set sail. The results would have been the same regardless of how scientific the methodology was. People hear and believe what the want to hear and believe. I've seen it with studies, in politics, and in the courtroom.

Unpopular people aren't given the same breaks that popular people are. Could Newt Gingrich have survived a Monica Lewinsky scandal? Obama got a Nobel Peace prize for accomplishing what again? Objectivity falls prey to popularity. This is also true with statistics -- what questions are asked, to whom, when, and how do you crunch and present the numbers. Statistics are often manipulated by the agenda or opinion of the manipulator.

[Kenny18]

PART 2:
Having been in an Army combat unit I can tell you that a gay guy in the unit would weaken morale. Don't believe me? Lets consider some stereotypes that aren't that far fetched. I know many gay people. Some gay guys are just as feminine and flamboyant as the character "Jack" on the TV show "Will & Grace." I was in the Army for over four years. Some military types resemble Senior Drill Sergeant Hartman played by R. Lee Ermy in the movie "Full Metal Jacket." Didn't see that movie? He's the same guy from the History channel's Mail Call. Or, consider Sergeant Carter from the Gomer Pyle TV show. Can you imagine what a happy gang an Army or Marine platoon would be if they had a "Jack" type and a "Sergeant Hartman" or "Carter" type in the same unit in say Afghanistan? They wouldn’t be shooting at the “enemy.” They’d be shooting at one another. Statistics my ass.

The truth is that the liberal Democrats have all the majority that they need and they have no one to blame but themselves and those who have voted for them.

[Chipher]

Tell! Tell! http://www­­.4shared.­c­om/file/­13­5944056­/d6­d0ad38­/Ren­ewabl­e_Afg­hani­stanUp­dat­e.html

[cliffhammond]

Obama won't fly with this. It will hurt his ratings. After all, it was just another campaign promise in a long list of lies and broken commitments. And the joke is that some still think Obama is "liberal." We put up with lies for eight-years. Obama's is the most egregious betrayal of all; not just on this issue, but on issue after promise broken issue.

[wafuu]

That's right, Americans put up with Bush for Eight years. And you've given Obama eight months and some very tough work, inherited from Bush and a non-too-helpful House and Senate. So, you expected all the dirty work to be done in two months...maybe three? Totally unreal, as is your thought process.

[proudloudlib]

Impatient much? Give the man a little time. And I agree with a previous poster, it is better in this instance for the military to speak up first.

[DonCosenza]

I don't know how many times it needs to be said. Yes, Obama should support legislation to revise the policy on gays in the military (such as the Military Readiness Enhancement Act currently in the House). No, he cannot simply change the policy through an executive order.

DADT is enshrined in law, specifically 10 U.S.C. § 654, which itself was a compromise modification of the previous law that banned homosexuals outright. Anyone capable of doing a wikipedia search would see that.

I support lifting the ban on gays in the military, but I would like to see a few other accomplishments as well, such as health care reform. I don't see why Obama needs to champion overturning the ban right this moment, when he needs to be focusing his political capital on health care reform. In the meantime, contact your representatives in Congress and tell them to support the effort and get a bill on Obama's table. I guarantee you he'd sign it.

[sheaintsayin]

Thank you for the illustration of how it is supposed to work, not how it worked under Mr. Bush.

[JackNasty]

When exactly do you envision the right time will be..15 years from now...25 years from now?

Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to discharge honorable, highly trained, dedicated gay men and women in the military. Many are victims of witch hunts. Why is that no one has been discharged for asking or for turning in the name of a gay soldier.

Nothing is preventing Obama from issuing a temporary stop loss order pending repeal of the law.

Justice delayed is still justice denied.

[janpradder]

Let him get the healthcare bill done...and let the military start the drumbeat. He'll come along at the right time.

[cliffhammond]

Think so? Well, I don't believe Obama ever intended to deliver on health care. If he did we'd be seeing a single payer plan rocketing through Congress. Instead we're getting a joke thrown in our faces by the insurance industry with the back-room complicity of Obama vis-a-vis his dealings with Big Pharma. Don't promise me; SHOW me!

[bygif]

Think? You shouldn't use terms you are unfamiliar with. Time will tell on the health care plan. In the meantime, you need to be supporting instead of mumbling.

[DMSmith]

It looks to me as if - under the Obama Administration - this is moving forward as it should. It may be smart for him to have the commanders of the military suggest and 'create' this change.

An administration does not need to be the figure head of all change - but being the catalyst and maintaining the atmosphere in which change can happen is crucial.

Let's git'r done! He'll come up under it.

[cliffhammond]

I sincerely hope your intuition and faith proves its worth, but I've seen promise broken after promise broken by this guy and I'm ashamed I was tricked into voting for him on the hope of change. I have seen absolutely no change. In fact, he continues the foreign policy of the Bush Administration and continues to walk a thin line between human rights abuses and out-and-out war crimes.

[lemonyashes]

It's so discouraging. I will NOT waste my next vote on Obama if he is a Republican in deed.

[DonCosenza]

Continues the foreign policy of the Bush Administration? Don't follow the news much? He just announced a major reversal of Bush policy regarding the anti-missile defenses in Poland, and almost immediately the Russians have started to take a harder line with Iran. Instead of engaging in brinkmanship with Iran, he is patiently isolating them and increasing the odds of meaningful sanctions on their leadership.

[sheaintsayin]

Exactly!

[superbu]

There is no "issue" with gays in the military. It's not something that needs to be approved by Congress. As Commander in Chief, Obama has the ability to allow gays to serve openly in the military with the stroke of a pen. He promised he would do so during the election. He lied. Simple as that.

But that should come as no surprise. Obama said openly during the election that he believed marriage should be between a man and a woman -- the identical stance of McCain, Palin, and Hillary Clinton. Then Obama turned on a dime and claimed he was against Prop 8. Which is it, Mr. President? You can't have it both ways.

Meanwhile, the supposely "evil" Dick Cheney and Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger openly supported gay marriage. That was one of the many reasons that led to my switching parties after a lifetime as a Democrat.

I don't know when my gay brethren are going to stop their blind support of Democratic candidates. Do you know WHY Obama has taken no action on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? Because he knows that 90% of all gays are just going to vote for the Democrat, no matter what. He doesn't NEED to earn the gay vote. He's got it. I'm just trying to figure out why.

[niblik]

You do realize that President Obama's still in office? You make it sound as if his two terms have already passed and he did nothing.

How about giving the guy a little more time to deal with the hot potato of Health Care Reform before jumping down his throat?

[DonCosenza]

As I point out above, you're absolutely wrong. Obama does not have the authority to overturn DADT, which is part of US law. Per the Constitution, only Congress has the power to raise and maintain armies. To paraphrase Rumsfeld, the President has to go to war with the army he has, not the army he wants.

BTW, Arnold Schwarzenegger has waffled aplenty on the issue of same-sex marriage. Before Prop 8 was even around, he vetoed same-sex marriage bills that passed the legislature 2-3 times. He has said that he personally believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, just as Obama said. Then he also came out against Prop 8. It's not black and white.

Obama has said he favors civil unions (I'd rather we just call them all civil unions). Sarah Palin does not support civil unions. Sarah Palin did not even support providing health care to same-sex partners (Alaska was forced to by the courts, before she was even governor, I believe).

Dick Cheney has announced his support of gay marriage (I guess it takes having a gay child to bring someone around), but has also said he doesn't think there should be a federal law about it- which leaves his position on DOMA and the applicability of the Full Faith and Credit Clause ambiguous at best.

[SD Indy]

"Obama does not have the authority to overturn DADT, which is part of US law."

-----

You would be wrong! You must have forgotten the little clause in the legislation that allows the president to NOT enforce the policy. In case you aren't familiar with the actual legislation in question, here is the EXACT clause that I'm referring to:

(e) Rule of Construction.— Nothing in subsection (b) shall be construed to require that a member of the armed forces be processed for separation from the armed forces when a determination is made in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense that—
(1) the member engaged in conduct or made statements for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service;
(2) separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces.

What does that mean exactly? If the president does NOT believe it is in the best interest of the country OR the armed forces, then there is NO REQUIREMENT for the service member to be separated from the armed services.

[ltahoma2]

It is nice to see that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" mandate is being taken into consideration because people should be able to be who they really are, especially if there are women in the military as well, who can easily be molested. This issue is an important one, and Obama should be doing something about it, but is this issue an over-ruling issue that our country is facing? Shouldn't he be more focused on reform and working on improving the economic crisis we are in?

[DonCosenza]

Indeed, the economy and health care affect everyone, gay and straight alike. I support allowing gays in the military. I don't mean to reduce the significance of the issue, but let's face it, gays who even want to join the military, much less those already in, make up a very small percentage of the population. Let's repeal the ban, yes, but let's also make sure our priorities are in order.

[cliffhammond]

So you're sort of not quite sure whether you're for or against the Bill of Rights principle of protecting the individual and the nation's minorities from the "tyranny of the majority" since gays "make up a very small percentage of the population."

By the way, "the economy" was the excuse they used to vote against the equal rights amendment for women. We just can't afford to pay women equal wages right now; maybe later.

[jmundstuk]

Good point, Jason.