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 ...
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
To automatically kick someone out that does their job well just because they are gay is just stupid.
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.
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.
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.
That doesn't mean I have to approve it
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.
We elected a Democratic government to take democratic action.
I'd like to see them do it.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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.
Whether civilian or military it is very unwise to talk about your sex life except to those who won't blab about it.
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.
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.
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.
But do not expect any action on any of this until the healthcare reform vote is complete.
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!
The status quo remains until the vote is in on health care reform.
Mark my words. Sad but true.