On Don't Ask Don't Tell, Army's Ready, So What's the Hold-up?
This past week, former Republican Congressman John McHugh, the new secretary of the Army, said that the Army is ready to deal with repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell without a problem.
So why hasn't a repeal been enacted?
To that, I say, we're getting there. In the House, Representative Patrick Murphy, an Iraq veteran, has taken the lead on the bill to repeal the policy, and has the support of other Iraq and Afghanistan era war veterans, like Tim Walz and Joe Sestak. At VoteVets.org, we're now better than 10,000 signatures (over 5,000 veterans) in favor of a repeal on our online petition.
In the Senate, we're very close to seeing companion legislation introduced. A number of Senators, from Kirsten Gillibrand, to Mark Udall, to John Kerry, to Barbara Boxer have been working on the issue, with many more ready to jump on a bill.
Meanwhile, those opposed to a repeal hang on to this notion that a repeal would affect unit cohesion.
Hurt unit cohesion? For years, the military accepted those with "serious criminal misconduct" issues--aggravated assault, robbery, vehicular manslaughter, receiving stolen property and making terrorist threats--because recruiting under normal standards was falling fast. According to USA Today, one-in-eight Army recruits required a waiver by 2008.
One such recruit was Steven Green, guilty of the brutal murder of a family, and the rape of their young daughter, in Mahmudiya, Iraq. After Green killed the family and raped the young girl, he covered her head with a pillow and shot her. Her body was then burned. The murders set off a wave of anti-American sentiment in Iraq, pushing our battle to win hearts and minds even further back. Green was allowed in on a waiver, despite his three alcohol and drug related arrests.
Meanwhile, a highly decorated Airman is fighting a discharge under Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach served in the Air Force, defending America for 18 years. Fehrenbach is now being represented by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, and has nine Air Medals - including one for valor for assaulting an Iraqi ambush position while under heavy anti-aircraft fire. He and his wingman spotted armored personnel carriers laying in wait for U.S. troops on their way to Baghdad. Fehrenbach's wingman's plane malfunctioned, so he couldn't accurately fire his weapons. Fehrenbach not only fired his own weapons but he guided the wingman so that he could fire on target. All this while they were under fire.
Tell me now about which person affects cohesion and readiness?
Here's an idea: Let's just keep our best troops, no matter what their background or orientation. Those with a criminal history who have proven to be good troops can stay. Those who are openly gay will abide by the same strict rules that govern heterosexual relationships in the military. If they break the rules, they're out. But if they also prove to be valuable soldiers, we keep them, too. When our top concern is a military made up of the very best society has to offer, America wins.
Momentum is picking up in Congress behind that notion, and that's a good thing. But we still need the President to make his move.
Like most issues, it will take the President to put this issue over the top. During the campaign, he vowed to repeal the policy. Once in office, he deferred to the military, first ordering a study to examine how a repeal might affect things. Now, his own hand-picked Secretary of the Army has given him an answer: It won't affect much.
The fact of the matter is that implementing a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not a problem for the military. They can do it quickly and easily. The delay in a repeal has been and continues to be a political problem for politicians.
Crossposted at VetVoice.com
Follow Jon Soltz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jonsoltz
Lorelei Kelly: 365 Days and Still Thanking Jesus
In looking at Obama's first year, we must not fall into the typical trap that pits idealism against pragmatism, where the virtuous line up against the effective, and the purists fight the negotiators.
Don't ask, don't tell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
'Don't ask, don't tell' to get Senate committee review - CNN.com
The Administration's Don't Ask, Don't Tell Strategy - The Atlantic ...
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
People are ready
Military Attitudes
73 percent of military personnel are comfortable with lesbians and gays (Zogby International, 2006).
The younger generations, those who fight America's 21st century wars, largely don't care about whether someone is gay or not-and they do not link job performance with sexual orientation.
One in four U.S. troops who served in Afghanistan or Iraq knows a member of their unit who is gay (Zogby, 2006).
The Public Overwhelmingly Supports Lifting the Ban
Majorities of weekly churchgoers (60 percent), conservatives (58 percent), and Republicans (58 percent) now favor repeal (Gallup, 2009).
Seventy-five percent of Americans support gays serving openly - up from just 44 percent in 1993 (ABC News/Washington Post, 2008).
http://www.sldn.org/pages/about-dadt
If there was a way to leave DADT in place, but eliminate the part where you they kicked out unless it causes other problems. Maybe something more along the lines of DADA - Don't Ask, Don't Act. And it should apply to everybody. In other words, if it's not causing problems with morale or unit cohesiveness (and in most cases I doubt it would) then it's not a problem. But if it does, then it is. And it should make no difference whether they are gay or straight, that is irrelevant.
To automatically kick someone out that does their job well just because they are gay is just stupid.
There is already tons in the UCMJ to govern how people act.
You know being late to work in the military is a crime?
Some of the text is so vague as to cover just about anything, like no "conduct unbecoming..."
Really, there is no lack of regulation on how people "act" outside of DADT.
DADT is not only unproductive but counterproductive, has no redeeming value.
Personally I could care less about DADT
Because I don't really consider participating in offensive war to be a universal human right. As opposed to the right to choose who you marry.
What I find interesting about this is that the way things are going, gay men will get full military rights before women. Because of course women are not allowed to serve as combat troops. Whereas if they end DADT, gay men will have full rights. I just find that interesting. Especially because the same arguments are used against both groups.
For some people joining the military is their ticket out of poverty, the only way to pay for college, a place where they can get health care and equal pay for equal work.
It can be an important step to full participation in society. And you should not have to also sacrifice your personal life. I mean, you offer your very life, that should be enough.
For some people, robbing liquor stores is their way out of poverty
That doesn't mean I have to approve it
I come from a religious tradition which believes that killing is wrong, period. But I understand the real issue here is not about the so-called right to participate in an offensive war as you put it. That is a narrow and off focus perspective. The issue here is that each citizen has an equal right to participate in the privileges and obligations of the society to the extent they are able and not be restricted from doing so by meaningless superstitions or narrow prejudice.
The common soldiers do not make the policy decisions of the government nor is their role in society simply to carry on "offensive" wars. A gay man or woman should have the same opportunity as a heterosexual man or woman to serve the country if that is what they wish to do and are otherwise capable of doing so.
What i am trying to say is, does the U.S. have to be such a Drama Queen about everything ?
HA!!! That is brilliant ... and true.
Great. Why does the US have to be such a Drama Queen about everything?
Why is it that among civilized nations, only the United States seems to have difficulty in finding & implementing solutions to problems that affect quality of life ? Other nations have successfully integrated Gay & Lesbian People into their Military. The U.S. debates about it endlessly. Other nations have had some form of national health care for years. The U.S. talks & argues about it for years, with some people equating it with Socialism & Communism. Can anything be accomplished here, simply & effectively without making it into a painful, years on end, process ?
Let's hope.
We elected a Democratic government to take democratic action.
I'd like to see them do it.
May we have Health Care Reform first, please. We are getting everything we want slowly but surely. Hate crime bill was just signed, along with the ban lift of AIDS traveled. So, please calm down and have faith.
Here is the thing. this is obviously going to happen so instead of pulling our hair out over the specifics maybe we should be planing the next step this fussing over it. seems to me like wasted energy.
It all boils down to "good order and discipline". Homosexuals serving openly in the military is a pipe dream.
that was the thinking circa 1982....
DADT impairs military cohension and homosexuals serving openly in the military is supported by almost 70% of the public and,per poll posted in Star and Stripes,among military personnel. I will say the Gay and Lesibian community and those that support the repeal of DADT will have to quit whining and start working. The house is within 40 votes of passing repeal through the house but congress doesn't change anything without pressure from the public.
There were no such concerns when Alexander was conquering an empire as big as America. The Western way of warfare was born in Ancient Greece, where they thought having entire armies of gay men was (and proved to be true) a wildly successful idea. Our military is professional, they can handle being around different people to themselves.
Even macho countries like Argentina and Uruguay have integrated gays and lesbians into their military.
We're behind the developed world and some of the developing world.
It is idiotic at this point to continue DADT with 3/4 of the public and the troops behind a repeal.
http://www.sldn.org/pages/about-dadt
There have been gays in the military and known to their fellow service personnel for a long time. I know this from my time in the service. There may have been a few jerks who had issues about such things, just as there were some who did not like serving with racial minorities or people of different religious faiths. Most got over that issue pretty quickly on their own or we gave them a blanket party which is the traditional informal military method of dealing with idiots.
PART 1 of 2
AH YE OF LITTLE FAITH...
The problem is this: that many who joined our military forces
under the condition there were no gays aboard and/or which,
if discovered, would be discharged, may now bring suit against
the military for changing their policy in mid-stream. This would
especially hold true for individuals who have invested no less
than a lifetime career in the military.
Still others who now have thoughts of make such a stupid
decision (of joining the military) might jump on board a civil
suit.
Like all good and fair-minded soldiers who also hate gays,
they'd see no shame in the middle of our economic crisis, 2
wars, a gutted middle class, a raped Constitution and a greed
binge by corporate America that has destroed both the
American and world economies, to file such a civil suit.
Still others may decide such a reversal is the final straw and
take serious aim at Obama (I'm speaking figuratively and
literally).
It has been legal to serve as a gay or lesbian, just not to reveal it.
No one had a reasonable expectation of not being exposed to gays and lesbians in the military, and would certain be mad to think they'd encounter fewer than in the general population.
Troops don't seem to have an issue. The younger ones don't even get what all the fuss is about.
Service members cannot sue the government.
No one would be able to sue the military for being exposed to different people. That's a rediculous thing to say. There's be no standing in court to bring such a suit.
Once Upon A Time:
"
The problem was: that many who joined our military forces
under the condition there were no Colored People aboard....
"
That was changed.
And They all lived happily ever after..
The End
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz/on-dont-ask-dont-tell-arm_b_339982.html
A soldier cannot sue because gays are allowed to serve openly any more than a white soldier could have sued when they integrated the services racially or allowed women to serve. The military is not a democracy where people get to make such absurd demands as a condition of their service. If you had ever served in the military you would know that.
PART 2 of 2
It's about the only thing missing in the long list of problems
we have.
Please, can't we just give this man a chance? Can't we stop
pushing to achieve in 10 months the complete fix of both
America and the world? Can't we TRUST him to have a
reason, even if he isn't willing to state it at this time?
WTF is our faith? We're giving up after 10 months. Does anybody
here have any idea what he's already accomplished? Or are the
greed and "me now" factors so overwhelming in all of us that
10 months is test enough to throw Obama out and put in the
next president?
Get a life, people.
See Nelson Montana's Profile
I think it's hilarious when they say Congress is gaining "momentum" on repealing this policy. Seems to me to be something they should be able to knock out on their lunch break.
What's the problem? Though I'm not sure how serving openly makes much of a difference. And before anyone starts in with how gays are discriminated against, that is not what I'm talking about. Nor am I defending other forms of conduct in the military that is worse. Just this issue. Serving openly should not, could not and would not be a factor in the way the army operates.
I think it's more a statement than a great accomplishment. So just repeal it already. Then again, finding a new slogan to define the program will most probably take a few months -- before they put it to a vote. And then the Republicans won't like it. Blah, blah, blah. (Prediction: there's your next big news story for 2010).
Congress cannot knock out tying their shoes on their lunch break. The problem is we need an additional 40 votes in order to pass the bill through the house. I nagged my congressman until he signed on to co-sponser and I'm not gay. What have you done?
See Nelson Montana's Profile
Actually, I think it makes no difference one way or the other.
The military over the years has been willing to let go of the people who have been highly trained in so many areas and was even willing to sacrifice our active duty soldiers with kicking out translators when we could ill afford to in Iraq as just more current examples. This has gone on for so long since DADT and before when there was no official "label" on the kicking out those who might be called many names by the right. There has been through the years many sexual attacks on female soldeirs as well as the locals near the bases all over the world and yet the whipped up fears of the right and ignorance of many soldiers about those who are not heterosexuals have kept this a bias that has cost too many their desired active duty status and too many not honorable discharges. When I speak to active duty soldiers now they have without exception said they cared little about the orientation of the soldiers sex life but they wanted somone on their "six" that would be their and do what needed to be done. This is one thing we need to let go of and get rid of yesterday and not sooner than now if we can. TOO many soldiers are done in and tired of doing all when we have people willing and able who want to serve without the questions about sex....
actually "Don't ask, don't tell' should be a universal workplace requirement, for EVERYBODY. I've worked in places where people- gay and straight- were having affairs right & left, and it's awful for team morale. The military has rules against fraternization, but my understanding is that as long as the officer is male and the enlisted person is female, nobody says anything. If the roles are reversed, or the couple is gay/lesbian, there's a problem. I don't want sex in the workplace. I don't want to hear about my co-workers' sex lives. I don't want to know that my boss is doing his secretary, and then have to make polite conversation with his wife at the annual Christmas party. I don't want to have to cover for a co-worker whose spouse calls the office wondering where he or she is. It makes me the keeper of sordid secrets, and I don't like that. Don't tell me about your sex life, and don't ask me about mine!
To the contrary...If a person dates a subordinate in their chain of command there is rapid response and punishment. If they aren't in the same unit (so the superior can't affect the subordinate's career), it is sometimes overlooked, but you could still get in trouble if someone complained or there was the slightest appearance of impropriety.
You can also get in serious trouble for sleeping with someone else's spouse.
I fully support the repeal of DADT as an Army Vet.
So because you don't want to hear about someone's crazy sex, men and women should be required to be liars? I don't think it's appropriate to talk sex in a civilian job. But talking about your loved one isn't talking about sex. Gay enlisted men and women not only have to lie just about who they are, they also have to make up other lies to support the lies they're forced into. Asking someone to lie for your benefit is not ok to them, or to our military.
It is never acceptable to talk about your sex life at work. The only exception is if they are friends.
Whether civilian or military it is very unwise to talk about your sex life except to those who won't blab about it.
Did I say people should have to lie? Most of the people I served with didn't care about a person's sexuality as long as they did there jobs well. There were a few homophobes, but $20 says half of them will be out of the closet by the time they hit 45.
How does my explanation of the military's current policy of fraternization endorse DADT? I simply wanted to correct civilian misconceptions that are so common. Frankly the military is a little too concerned with everyone's sex life and not concerned enough with actual sexual harassment (the current training for sexual harassment usually ends in the younger troops making jokes for a week and coming up with what would be right on the line but not over it).
DADT is coming to an end. Most soldiers don't care if someone is gay. They certainly don't want to lose qualified and experienced troops to a silly rule that does nothing to improve their safety.
Here we go again...waiting for Obama to make his move, rather than congress.
I really hope that congressional democrats lose a good number of seats in 2010...so they can stop making Obama look weak as pretty much head of the party.
“Rights aren't given to those who wait, they're won by those who agitate.” ~Andrew Young
This is already a bill to repeal DADT:
The Military Readiness Enhancement Act H.R. 1283
http://www.hrc.org/laws_and_elections/5659.htm
There are already HR 1283 sponsors:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR01283:@@@P
BTW, I don't think it is too much to expect leadership from the leader of the free world.
define leadership... in your view it seems to be trying to do what you want immediately. In my world it is picking your spot and winning. The President will work to repeal this, but if you think DADT wouldn't effect the fight for health care right now you are mistaken. If you think it is a slam dunk in the senate, you are mistaken. There will be a window after the 2010 elections... elections we are going to win by the way, to pass DADT but not now, it costs to much political capital. When Truman took office and started the process to integrate the military he did exactly what the President did, commissioned a study that said it would work. It took years. This will take years too. Hopefully only two years, but still years. You have a right to be impatient, but change is coming. Hang in there.
All good ideas and worthy causes.
But do not expect any action on any of this until the healthcare reform vote is complete.
Good.
We should bring all the troops home too while we're working on health care since we can't walk and chew gum at the same time!
You missed the point. Bringing troops home would be a change.
The status quo remains until the vote is in on health care reform.
Mark my words. Sad but true.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
