David Petraeus On DADT: 'The Time Has Come'

CENTCOM Commander General David Petraeus came to the meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee preparing to deliver an "eight-minute statement" expressing his personal feelings about the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. Unfortunately, Senator Carl Levin, who chaired the committee, put the kibosh on those plans, citing time constraints. Instead Petraeus simply told the committee that "the time has come" to give a repeal some due consideration. Petraeus endorsed the ongoing review of the matter that commenced at the direction of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

PETRAEUS: I believe the time has come to consider a change to Don't Ask, Don't Tell. But I think it should be done in a thoughtful and deliberative matter that should include the conduct of the review that Secretary Gates has directed that would consider the views in the force on the change of policy. It would include an assessment of the likely effects on recruiting, retention, morale and cohesion and would include an identification of what policies might be needed in the event of a change and recommend those polices as well.

WATCH:

Of Levin's decision to disallow Petraeus's longer statement, The Hill's Roxana Tiron reports:

Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) did not allow Petraeus to deliver his statement after ranking member Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) asked the general whether he believed thorough review was necessary before "Don't ask, don't tell" was repealed. Levin's reason: the committee rule on Tuesday was only a six-minute round of questions and answers for each senator.

Petraeus averred that repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is "not a sound-bite issue," so it's unfortunate that this is where we're left today.

Back on February 21 of this year, Petraeus took up the matter with David Gregory on "Meet The Press":

GREGORY: Do you think soldiers on the ground in the field care one way or the other if their comrade in arms are gay or lesbian?

PETRAEUS: I'm not sure that they do. ... You heard Gen. Powell who was the chairman when the policy was implemented, had a big hand in that, who said that yes, indeed, the earth has revolved around the sun a number of times since that period 15 months ago. You have heard a variety of anecdotal input. We have experienced certainly in the CIA and the FBI -- I know, I served, in fact, in combat with individuals who were gay and who were lesbian in combat situations. Frankly, you know, over time you said, hey, how's this guy shooting or how is her analysis or what have you?

WATCH:

In previous hearings, Joint Chiefs Chair Admiral Mike Mullen took a very firm stance against "Don't Ask Don't Tell", calling for its repeal and telling the Armed Services Committee that it was an issue that "came down to integrity."

[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

[checkabalance]

09:41 AM on 03/30/2010

Having sexual intercourse in BEQ is a moral issue against 'church and state'. And why shouldn't the military allow sexual intercourse between the soldiers male to male, or female to female, or male to female. This would certainly stop soldiers from wandering about night clubs looking for sex. And morale would be greatly improved. Sort of like the ancient greek warriors.

[checkabalance]

09:32 AM on 03/30/2010

Why don't women and men share the quarters. If homosexuals can share rooms with straight men, then women and men should be able to share rooms.

[Shane Hatch]

10:01 AM on 03/17/2010

younger people today are much more accepting of gay people in general. I think the real issue is with the older people in uniform who are clinging to their outmoded prejudices...

[missouriwatcher]

05:56 PM on 03/17/2010

Precisely so. It is indeed the older generations--both in uniform and civilian--that make such an issue of this. A real tempest in a teapot. Of course there were LBG people in the military when I was; the vast majority of them served honorably, as did those who were straight. There is no good reason for insisting that they continue to live the lie.

[AZreb]

09:49 AM on 03/17/2010

McCain just had to put his two cents worth in, didn't he? First he said that he would listen if military leaders supported doing away with DADT, but now that some have he is doing all he can to sabotage any progress. John McCain is a poster boy for term limits in Congress!

But back to the subject at hand - we always hear that there are no atheists in battles, and this holds true for gays and lesbians also. If they are good military personnel, do not push their sexual practices on others and do their jobs, why condemn and ostracize them? To me it is similar to having a radical fundamentalist Bible-thumper in the military - okay as long as he/she doesn't push beliefs on another. And frankly, it is easier to turn away advances from a gay or lesbian than it is a fundamentalist!

McCain was not noted for his prowess in the military, but for his notoriety in crashing planes and then being a POW. How many others were POWS and went through even worse torture and are forgotten? The only reason McCain is listened to is that he is the perfect politician - using POW status to promote his own agenda and to heck with anyone or anything else. And the reason I am "picking" on McCain is that he is a senator from my state and I am fed up with him and his holier-than-thou attitude.

[GravitonX]

08:45 AM on 03/17/2010

JoblessGenXer
Graviton's comments remind me of the guilt trip that the "brothas" lay on me for dating white men. You can't help who you're attracted to, period. Ioncejokedwithafriendgirl(who is also black)thatI'veknownsincethe2ndgradethatIwasgoingtomarryawhiteman! Justbecauseyoudon'tunderstanditdoesn'tmeanit'snotreal.

These same "brothas" who scoff at the site of me with a white man also seem to get amnesia and forget their disdain for interracial relationships, particularly if they themselves are dating a blond and still expect us "sistas" to sit at home with our cobwebs on us...
---

LOL! Given the fact that I'm half-white (by blood, not by thought), I find your statement hilarious. Though, I'm not even going to touch your "I knew I was going to marry a white man" comment, though it's understandable within the context of racial consciousness and preference in American children.

By all means, dating, marry, procreate with whomever you like. If you find a nice white guy who understands you and your peoples struggle (if you even care other than "he's white")), by all means, be happy, and live happily ever after. But, you only see the "parallels" with the gay issue because gays struggling for respect co-opted Civil Rights narratives for their own purposes because it was effective for Blacks. Hey, I don't blame them, but you bought the whole false analogy hook-line-and-sink. But, realize there is a vast difference between affirming a natural mechanism that continues the species, any species, in all it's natural variations, and simply affirming innocent anomalous sexual behavior.

[MarsAmbassador]

03:43 AM on 03/17/2010

They tried gays in the military in Britain for awhile. Worked just fine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol5Dfs7jqFI

[MarsAmbassador]

03:41 AM on 03/17/2010

While this is certainly important, I am FAR more concerned with the sheer number of our women in the Armed Forces being raped by their fellow soldiers. The sheer numbers are absolutely astronomical. Pretty much 1 in 2 or 1 in 3 after they factor in the percentage of victims they believe actually come forward. Women veterans also have a MUCH higher homeless rate than male veterans. But these are issues nobody seems to want to talk about. Why do institutions protect sexual criminals so vehemently? The military and the Catholic Church should be ashamed of themselves for covering up these instances and protecting serial rapists who destroy good people for life with their actions.

[arlandbaee]

03:08 AM on 03/17/2010

My six years in the navy proved to me that racial prejudice is of a higher concern among enlisted personnel than homosexual prejudice yet the military functions fine being a racially integrated institution. Why? Because they have to. Bottom line is if you have a rule which allows prejudice you will always have prejudiced people who want to uphold the rule. And besides, I can't recall any other instance where the opinions of the enlisted members were used as a reason to create or maintain military rules or codes of conduct. Why this? Why all of a sudden are the personal views of the enlisted member so crucial in the decision of DADT? Can you imagine the headlines, "DADT is upheld because it's what the enlisted personnel want"? What's next, "The war in Iraq is over, because it's what the enlisted want". I can understand why the officers are confused. Keeping DADT would be implying that they don't have the control over their subordinates action they say they do and may show them bending to the will of either politicians outside their chain of command or the enlisted. Repealing DADT shows that the military supported a flawed rule for the past 14 years. The one year review is a compromise which will deflect both criticisms and allow the military time to formulate the right strategy to attack the situation. Now that was difficult to put into words.

[GravitonX]

08:55 AM on 03/17/2010

They allowed Blacks into the military because the brass needed more cannon fodder. Black soldiers were either on the front lines in the worst of combat or in unimportant or secondary support roles behind the scenes. All final decision command or elite operations roles in the US military remain 99% white, and that's the way it will stay.

[hgovernick]

02:54 AM on 03/17/2010

When I was working my rear end off at Camp Pendleton during boot camp, and creeping through the jungles of Vietnam day and night, weeks on end, the last thing on my mind was, "Gee, I wonder if that guy in front of me or behind me is going to make a pass at me today?"

Too busy learning, then implementing survival techniques.

The whole concept of DADT is ludicrous and ridiculous.

[Christober]

07:34 AM on 03/17/2010

I agree hgovernick. I was right there with you, (two times in fact) and that was the last thing on my mind. That being said, the military we knew is much different than the one today. I don't think there is a valid argument that says the social acceptance of homosexuality was more prevalant then than now. An openly gay man in your unit (or mine) would simply not have facilitated the cohesion needed to give everybody a chance to stay alive. It's that simple.

Things are different now. Kids today are simply more accepting of different lifestyles. Homosexuality isn't viewed the same today as it was when I was trudging through the Quang Tri Province in 1968. Wouldn't you agree?

Anyway, I find it amusing how the radicals in our party no longer see Petreaus as "Gen. Betrayus." Who knew all it would take would be for him to openly accept homosexuals in uniform?

[taddles]

12:09 AM on 03/17/2010

So, the re1ch wingers who were so in love with Patreaus are now disowning him, typical Rethugs.

[Christober]

07:35 AM on 03/17/2010

And the radicals on the left no longer see him as "Gen. Betrayus." Go figure.

[RefreshingTaste]

11:47 PM on 03/16/2010

Gays in the Army experimented with in Europe, very interesting study. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Tj4_L-9edQ&feature=related

[superstition]

11:39 PM on 03/16/2010

"'There are at least a dozen studies or papers on this topic, and all, without exception, say the same thing,' said Sarvis.

They include: 'Working Group of Retired General/Flag Officers Condemns Gay Ban' (Palm Center, 2008); Blue Ribbon Commission report, co-authored by former defense secretary William J. Perry (UC-Santa Barbara, 2006)"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0209/Anything_but_another_study.html

"The 1993 RAND study was not the first time that a group of researchers had reached the conclusion that the sexual identity of service personnel is not relevant to military service or job performance.

The 1957 Crittenden report found that gay men posed no great national security risk in terms of susceptibility to extortion.

The 1988 PERSEREC/Sarbin-Karols report concluded that homosexuality was as unrelated to military job performance, as was right- or left-handedness.

The 1989 PERSEREC/McDaniel study found that in terms of background characteristics prior to entering military service, gay men were "as good or better than the average heterosexual" in terms of suitability for positions of trust."
http://books.google.com/books?id=Go9XsJ47GswC

[superstition]

11:43 PM on 03/16/2010

Scientific fact:

Homosexuality isn't a disorder (Hooker, 1956).

Therefore...

All forms of discrimination against gay people as a class are unscientific/irrational.

[Elbrado]

02:36 AM on 03/17/2010

Hooker has been criticized as having no clinical experience in the study of human behavior but undertook the study to prove that homosexuals could function as normal human beings. (Her homosexual friends instigated the study). Her methodology is also in question since she recruited her homosexual subjects from an organized group. Critics believe other inaccuracies in her research cast doubts on her reliability as a researcher.

[hgovernick]

02:39 AM on 03/17/2010

You're assuming that the reader accepts the validity of the "pronouncement" from Hooker. I'm not suggesting that homo sexuality is a disorder, just pointing out that your logic is faulty. Since 1956 you may find other scientists who claim it is a disorder.

I would argue that it is discrimination to keep gays out of the military EVEN if homosexuality were considered a disorder. After all, there are plenty of neurotic and psychopathic individuals in the military. They more than likely make the best fighters, because they are the angriest amongst their fellows.

[spagma]

11:26 PM on 03/16/2010

With every fiber of my being I have to believe that it cannot matter. How can we fight to protect freedom only to deny it to those who are doing the fighting. Its hypocritical at best.

We need to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell!

[Proud Bay Man]

11:22 PM on 03/16/2010

An I will start with myself!

[Nancy Lloyd]

11:07 PM on 03/16/2010

The VERY FIRST SOLDIER SERIOUSLY WOUNDED IN IRAQ IN 2003 LATER CAME OUT AS GAY. Now retired Marine Staff Sgt. Eric Alva, did not admit his sexual orientation until he retired from the military. Eric Alva has since become a strong advocate for repealing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT)policy. Think John McCain knows this?

[Henwood]

11:14 PM on 03/16/2010

Strange what a serious wound can do to a fella ...

[Lefty08]

12:20 AM on 03/17/2010

What a stooge...