A SOLDIER'S PERSPECTIVE
THE WEB'S LEADING MILITARY BLOG SINCE 2004
This is a toned down, public version of a private post I wrote for just my friends. I wanted to get some peer reviews and made some edits before I went live with this. I also had to ensure I wasn’t crossing the line. So, some of the timeliness of this may seem off as I had to wait a few days for feedback from higher ranking NCOs and Officers outside of my chain.
The greatest misrepresentation perpetrated on the American people and our troops was presented to Congress today. This post is my PERSONAL opinion and does NOT represent the opinions of any department, branch, office, organization or unit within the United States Government. These views are mine and mine alone. However, these opinions are based on actual experiences
“The President, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and I have certified that the implementation of repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the armed forces. This certification decision was carefully made after receiving input from the service chiefs, service secretaries and from all the combatant commanders, who stated their views that the force is prepared for this change,” said newly appointed Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta recently in a statement.
President Obama released a statement saying the certification removes a policy “that undermines our military readiness and violates American principles of fairness and equality.”
Funny that we had no problem winning all the nation’s wars BEFORE the repeal. I fail to see how the policy undermined anything, especially readiness. If the President were so concerned with “fairness and equality” he’d allow males and females to room together. If “fairness and equality” were important, there wouldn’t be separate benefits for married and single troops.
In speaking about us, he said “Today’s action follows extensive training of our military personnel and certification by Secretary Panetta and Admiral Mullen that our military is ready for repeal.”
I’m sorry. We are? WHAT EXTENSIVE TRAINING? We haven’t been “trained” on anything other than the fact that repeal happened and some things will change while others will not. The military and civilian leadership was supposed to certify that repeal of DADT would ensure ” military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the armed forces.” Not one iota of this “training” focused on ANY of that. As a matter of fact, the training wasn’t training at all, but a briefing on what the law means. There was never even an attempt to ascertain how the troops would be affected. There was no discussion on how to handle issues. It was a “the law has changed, shut up and suck it up” briefing. Don’t get me wrong, this wasn’t the commanders’ fault. Their hands were tied, I think. They were afraid of “straying from the script” (yes, that’s a quote) while giving this training.
Anyone that says the military has been “trained” is misleading the American people on what the “training” entailed. When the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Honorable Clifford Stanley, says “training was being well-received, and there were no issues or barriers arising,” it’s a slap in the face to every Soldier that was forced to endure it. Either he was misled or is misleading the American people. The reason no “issues or barriers” arose was because they didn’t permit any to arise. NO DISCUSSION WAS ALLOWED DURING THIS “TRAINING!!”
This reminds me of a funny email I was sent:
In the beginning, there was a plan,
And then came the assumptions,
And the assumptions were without form,
And the plan without substance,
And the darkness was upon the face of the workers,
And they spoke among themselves saying,
“It is a crock of poop and it stinks.”
And the workers went unto their supervisors and said,
“It is a pile of dung, and we cannot live with the smell.”
And the Supervisors went unto their Managers and said,
“It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong,
such that none may abide by it.”
And the Managers went unto their Directors saying,
“It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide by its strength.”
And the Directors spoke among themselves saying to one another,
“It contains that which aids plants growth, and it is very strong.”
And the Directors went to the Vice Presidents saying unto them,
“It promotes growth, and it is very powerful.”
And the Vice Presidents went to the President, saying unto him,
“This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigor
Of the company with very powerful effects.”
And the President looked upon the Plan
And saw that it was good,
And the Plan became Policy.
And this, my friend, is how poop happens.
During a question an answer session earlier today, the following took place:
Q: OK. The other question was, at the time that you guys did the survey, the big concern was unit cohesion, disruption of unit cohesion. In the process of training, which we’ve heard has gone swimmingly and had no problems, has there been any indication that — you know, separate or different from what you thought coming out of that survey, once we get past training, and we get past the repeal and this really starts and open service is allowed that there will be unit cohesion going all the way down to the combat units, it’s a big worry that everyone has.
GEN. HUMMER: The — as the service chiefs have received information from their leadership, their chains of command, to include combat areas over the last six months, there have been no distractions from unit cohesion that have been reported. So it’s been very, very positive, the information that’s come from them, through the leadership in this building.
Again, keep in mind that Soldiers aren’t allowed to express their disagreement or mention any “distractions” that repeal would cause. The briefing was very specific in that it was a one-way conversation. So, naturally, no distractions would be reported when we aren’t allowed to report any! Soldiers’ opinions are being stifled and instead just forcing people to accept immoral behavior. Regardless of our disagreements, most Soldiers will always treat everyone with respect regardless of feelings on any particular topic. So the assumption that we need special training to be professional or respectful is a strawman.
Soldiers will ALWAYS revert to their values and do what they’re told with honor, integrity, and personal courage. They’ll “suck the egg” given to them. The problem I have with this “training” isn’t that it happened, but that it’s being represented as something the troops are comfortable with. Normally, who cares what the troops think. Our place is to do what we’re told as long as it’s morally, ethically, and legally right. But, the American people are being told that we had some sort of say in this policy and that is simply inaccurate. Either our leaders, both in and out of uniform, care what the troops think or they don’t. They want people to think that troops approve of this and it’s simply not true based on what I’ve seen and heard. Why can’t we just be honest and say, like or love it, we’re instituting this repeal. I’m not going to be a party to a lie. I have more integrity and personal courage than that (which may cost me).
Yet, in a statement that goes unquestioned by our fawning pro-gay, agenda-driven media, Gen Hummer even says what I’ve been trying to get people to understand for months:
Q: OK. Thank you. For those of us not familiar with the training, I was told it was anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour and 15 minutes in groups of 50 to 250. Is that accurate?
GEN. HUMMER: That’s pretty accurate. The training was made up — and I think most people know of a — kind of a one-way presentation, like a PowerPoint presentation —
Q: Was that in every case, the PowerPoint —
GEN. HUMMER: I’d — yes. I’d say yes.
Now, my natural follow-up question would be, “wait a minute. You just said the training was a one-way presentation, but that no distractions were reported. How can Soldiers express what the distractions would be if the training didn’t include a dialogue?” I mean, that’s what I would ask! Instead, Gen Hummer goes on:
And then as part of that were the frequently asked questions and the vignettes, and that’s where you get the dialogue going. So it depends on the leadership how they’re going to present, what level is being prepared or being trained or educated, and how long those discussions go.
Perhaps I didn’t get the correct training, but there was no dialogue during our “training.” Soldiers at other bases I’ve spoken with relayed the same frustrations, so I’m sure I got the official version.
This briefing also gave us a look into what was to come. Not only is it just about allowing gays to serve. Once the repeal is confirmed and finalized, the next phases of legitimizing homosexual activity will be initiated, including overturning DOMA and obtaining benefits for same sex couples not married.
MS. PENROD: When we looked at the plan for implementation of the law, our priority was to develop the training and ensure that the force is trained. And looking at that priority, we realized the benefits, although very important — that we would wait until repeal before we decided to look in the benefits; which we will do upon repeal.
Finally, I want to leave with this little interesting tidbit that the media also didn’t follow up on. My question is obvious, so I’ll just end it with this.
Q: And could you just fine tune that statement that was made earlier about how there was unanimous support?
MR. WILSON: There was unanimous support for implementation of repeal at this time, that the conditions had been met.
It seems to me that the sudden departure of Secretary Gates and this announcement by his replacement was quite convenient. I’m anxious to hear what Secretary Gates has to say about this in the future. I’m willing to bet that DADT has a lot to do with it. Maybe he saw what the rest of us know…
(35) Readers Comments
Leave a Reply
![[UPDATE] The “Face” of Military Dating Scams – The Wall of Shame](http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/themes/LondonLive/thumb.php?src=http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2.jpg&w=53&h=41&zc=1&q=100)
Anatomy of a Military Dating Scam
to Anonn, thank you. i thought so. i just want a clear picture of his
Military Dating Scams (More Nigerian Scammers)
New Scam to be aware of……….I am 2LT. Anderson Darrell Clinton , an off
Anatomy of a Military Dating Scam
New Scam to be aware of……….I am 2LT. Anderson Darrell Clinton , an off
[UPDATE] The "Face" of Military Dating Scams - The Wall of Shame
New Scam to be aware of……….I am 2LT. Anderson Darrell Clinton , an off
Roger Fortier
Well said. If anything, this latest progressive science project is at the expense of readiness. Linked at http://milpundit.blogspot.com/2011/08/dadt-repeal.html.
Mer
first of all the thought that there has to be training to make sure people arent assholes and pick on people because of who they happen to love. You dont know what its like to be on the other side of the fence. what if you had to lie about who you were everyday. Are you not fighting for your country? do you love it any less? just because your gay? this matter shouldnt even really effect you or any other straight people done worry you wont have and guys trying to jump your shit in the showers i guarantee it. Maybe the gov;t didnt go about doing it the right way for whatever their motives were i personally dont care its done and its long overdue. this is a free country why cant we act like it and quit being bigots and pointing the finger. if you have a problem with gay people thats your opinion be an adult and keep it to yourself. but the impact it has on people who are in loving committed relationships and would die for that person regardless should give them every right to be who they are without being persecuted. If its anyones fault you dont feel youve been trained properly to deal with us queer folks who by the way are just like everyone else. blame it on our amazing gov’t who act like a bunch of retarded elementary students running around in a pissing contest. But not the people who deserve to have this right. We deserve to live a full and happy life just like everyone else regardless of your personal beliefs just because their your personal beliefs make them right . Love, Understanding and compassion is whats right even if its something you cant wrap your head around. Just think about it what if a guy you were serving with and loved like a brother and would die for told you he was gay how would you react? hes still the same person whoes been there for you and would take a bullet for you. He just happens to have someone back home who isnt a woman?
CJ
Mer, allow me answer a few of your questions and make a few points.
“what if you had to lie about who you were everyday.” YOU choose to lie if you want to serve. The choice is simple. If you didn’t want to lie prior to DADT repeal, you just didn’t have to sign up. Which goes to a later comment where you mention it’s a free country. You’re right. And you’re free NOT to join the military. You’re free to do whatever you want where you can be a happy gay and accepted. The military wasn’t the place for you so why force it? Your answer is probably something along the lines of “because I want to serve my country.” Well, become a cop then. Become a fireman. Become a border patrol agent. Become a TSA crotch grabber (actually a pretty good job for gays, I’d say!). Join the FBI. Being in the military is not the only way to serve your country.
” Are you not fighting for your country? do you love it any less? just because your gay? this matter shouldnt even really effect you or any other straight people done worry you wont have and guys trying to jump your shit in the showers i guarantee it.” You CAN’T guarantee. With DADT in place, homosexual rapes accounted for just under 10% of all sexual assaults. Are you saying that if we allow more homosexuals in the military that this number will be reduced to zero? Are you saying that somehow homosexuals are somehow better able to control their sexual urges than heterosexuals? Because if that is what you’re saying, you’re wrong. And if that isn’t what you’re saying, it’s wrong to force separate showers among straight males and females. What you don’t understand is that the military requires its troops to sleep and operate in close quarters and in some uncomfortable circumstances. This is unlike ANY other job in the nation that I can think of. Soldiers are roomed together based on sex because traditionally the military didn’t have to worry about two dudes or dudettes rooming together. Now they do if one or both is gay. What the repeal has just created is a protected class of sexual attraction. Gays are protected and permitted to room, bathe, and co-exist with the sex of their attraction while straights will be discriminated against and separated.
“blame it on our amazing gov’t who act like a bunch of retarded elementary students running around in a pissing contest.” No, I blame it on the homosexuals in this country who use what should be a private matter to shove their sexual orientation into every aspect of society. They force us to accept it or we live with titles like “bigot.” I don’t see a straight flag. I don’t see straight parades. I don’t see “Pride” bumper stickers for straight people. What I do see is embarrassing activism by people who CLAIM that their sexual orientation should be a private matter while publicly flaunting it.
“Just think about it what if a guy you were serving with and loved like a brother and would die for told you he was gay how would you react?” This is the typical strawman argument. The argument isn’t whether or not someone is willing to fight and die for me. It NEVER has been. I’ve already explained what it is above. But, to answer your question, I’d probably punch him in the face if I wasn’t aware and had been sharing a room with this guy for months or years, undressing in front of him, etc. THIS is the problem. Of course, this won’t be a problem any more because I guess we’ll know that our new roommate is gay and your activism has successfully created a policy in which I can’t change rooms if I’m uncomfortable with sharing a close living space with someone who may or may not be attracted to the same sex! As I said, gays are now a protected class!
KC
Dear CJ, I wanted to respond to your concerns reflected in your reply to MER. When you wrote:
” The argument isn’t whether or not someone is willing to fight and die for me. It NEVER has been. I’ve already explained what it is above. But, to answer your question, I’d probably punch him in the face if I wasn’t aware and had been sharing a room with this guy for months or years, undressing in front of him, etc. ….”
Gee, forgive me if I’m interpreting your feelings in error but you gotta pretty big head if you’re assuming that your room mate ( just because he’s gay – closeted or not ) has the hots for you/has designs on you etc… Why could he not love you plain and simple like a brother, fellow dude, or compatriot ? Why does every straight man think he’s coveted for his sex by the homosexual community ? And even if he sized you up ( no pun intended ) and then filed it in the ‘feelings inappropriate for the situation folder’ and then promptly extinguished FOREVER the thought- like hundreds of other closeted gay military have done in this past – how does that impact readiness, how does that corrupt the working relationship between soldiers ? Sexuality, lust, desire is universal to all humans and undamaged adults typically are able to successfully navigate sexually through most of life without getting into or causing a train wreak. Civil society does have soft and hard rules for a reason and if we break rules there should be consequences ( the degree of which should be relative to all of the facts of the situation of course ). I trust my co-workers to respect my space, why can’t you ? And if a co-worker ever crossed the line I’d put him in his place and if he couldn’t check his impulses at the door because of selfcontrol issues, then that person has a big problem that need to be fixed or neutralized thru remedies that in the macro sense civil society has legislated or in the micro sense that most organizations have in place in order to deal with those employees, students etc.. that won’t follow the rules or are troublemakers.
Regarding the ‘training’ . Not to be cynical but after 33 years working for two of the biggest fortune 100 companies, training – mostly sucks ! You have my sympathies there ! I believe in my heart that the end of DADT will not cause a decline in military readiness. I recognize the challenges this may cause in some quarters but I trust the military to work these things out. Finally I respect the feelings of people like you but I don’t have to agree with them. I do hope there are support groups and education for those soldiers that let the end of DADT affect their minds and their work. I recognize and accept that your mind may not be changed on this issue but so should you recognize and accept that there are many straight soldiers that don’t have issues with the repeal of DADT.
CJ
You’ve qot quite he assurance that I’m not the uber attractive male specimen that I am. Let me go ahead and fire a burst of 240B rounds through your argment here.
“Why does every straight man think he’s coveted for his sex by the homosexual community?” This is flawed logic. It assumes that somehow gay attraction is different from straight attraction. I thought the entire argument of the homo lobby was that they are just as natural as straights? If that’s true, then the same argument could made about rooming men and women together. After all, why would anyone that the straight woman think’s she coveted for her sex by every male? There’s a reason men and women aren’t dormed together and to tell me that somehow gay men and women are somehow BETTER than straights in their sexual desires is just plain ignorant and dumb.
I could this same argument with ALL your points. There is nothing natural at homosexuality, any more than there is anything natural about who have sex with animals or siblings. It’s not and nothing you can say will convince me of it. The primary purpose of attraction is procreation. Gay people can’t procreate. We aren’t asexual beings. The human species depends on men and women and we accept that there are abnormalities.
Now, with that said, I treat EVERYONE with respect regardless of sexual orientation. I have gay friends and even family members. I had a gay uncle who died of AIDS. That didn’t change the way I felt about the behavior, but I still treated them with respect. The problem here is that the gay community doesn’t want to “just serve.” They want acceptance. No, they require acceptance. And I simply will never accept that behavior as morale or normal. If gays didn’t want to treated differently than everyone else, I may feel as strongly as I do about their service. But, they want a protected class. They want to enjoy military life better than straight people. They want to live with the same sex to which they are attracted without complaint. It’s unacceptable.
Justin Moore
Just to respond to KC argument about how homosexuals won’t go after just any man first of all if you speak to anyone who has ever lived in an enviroment were they had to spend EVERYDAY in a confined space with another person of the same sex (prison, the military) you don’t want as a heterosexual knowing that there might be EVEN the slightest possiblity that you are living with someone who sees you nothing more than a wet dream and you have to shower in front of this person,pee, take a dump, what have you and you know this person is attracted to the same gender it is going to make the heterosexual very uncomfortable. Also homosexuals are known not to care what hole they jump in as long as it is a hole belonging to the same gender you can be a fat slob they will approch you there is a misconception that all homos want are the greek god hardbody types they don’t care how you look
Justin
First of all, I am digging the new theme. Very nice.
Second, I am thrilled to admit that I very much agree with you here, specifically on two points:
1) The American military had “no problem winning all the nation’s wars BEFORE the repeal.” You are absolutely right, Sir! The American Army has defeated colonialism, racism, fascism, and is currently the first enemy of international terrorism. This has long been the case, and it should be acknowledged that this all occurred while gay men and women served within the ranks, even if discreetly.
“Soldiers will ALWAYS revert to their values and do what they’re told with honor, integrity, and personal courage.” This is an amazing summary of the high professionalism that the American military is know for. Even despite personal reservations, Soldiers know what the right thing to do is, and they ALWAYS do it. For this reason, I am confident that there will be no problems implementing DADT repeal.
2) I also agree that it is inappropriate for the repeal training to be portrayed as approval by the troops. Frankly, it doesn’t matter if the troops approve or not, and asking them if this repeal should affect them in any way merely places doubt on their professionalism. The decision to end DADT should have been made in the effort of enhancing equality, justice and integrity within the ranks. Not based on a head-count of soldiers who get the heebie-jeebies when they think about the repeal.
Will there be a breakdown in unit cohesion? Well, that really depends on the professionalism of the military doesn’t it? A pre-repeal force did not suffer from any problems with unit cohesion, even with gay soldiers included. The blame for any future dissolution of unit morale or cohesion falls squarely on the instigators who forget their professionalism, and refuse to acknowledge that a policy of discrimination against their gay peers no longer exists. They will spread dissension and poison units with their personal grievances.
But since I myself do not doubt the American military’s professionalism, I do not see that as a likely outcome.
Dale Day, MSG, USA-Ret
Sigh. 30 years and it hasn’t changed a bit! SNAFU!!!!!
You’ve earned my respect for taking this subject on. I assure you right now that you will not believe the amount of hate comments you are going to receive.
As has been said, our military did pretty well for more than 200 years without this policy and it will continue to do so through – and after – it. Like you, I could care less about some fake bias when it comes to the person next to me in the trenches. It doesn’t mean a thing what they do in their off-duty time just so long as they’re there when the situation hits the ceiling.
Linda
WILL the gay troops be required to take sensititivty training so that tTHEY learn how NOT to insult the straight soldier? I really hope so! In the real world I am always insulted by them and their touting their way of life!
When this DADT is done away with, it’s NOT going to be the quiet, keep to themselves gay person to join our military, it will be the voistrous and very opinionated in your face gay person who will be there! They cannot wait to get into our services and do their damage! They’ll demand more and more rights and benefits….Mark my word!
I still say that THEY should undergo sensitivity training also!
Oh, and that questionaire and survery that was cited in many mainstream media, that was a flawed survey and should NEVER have been administered, let alone used to promote the repeal of DADT!!
Thank you for writing this article….have you seen this?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=267101
Megan
Of course they are not going to ask for discussion during your training… there is nothing to discuss. A decision was made by YOUR Commander and Chief based on what he thought was best for the safety and well being of America. It is very much a ” Shut up and suck it up” scenario. Your boss ( President Obama) repealed DADT… DADT might I add was unfair and miss-representing of the foundations of this country (Liberty and Justice for all). This country’s constitution is based on freedom of all people. So wouldn’t freedom for ALL people mean that out homosexuals could serve their country? It would. and to Linda who thinks that the “in your face gay” will be the only type of person to join the Military, you ma’am are sadly mistaken. Homosexuals have been in the military for several years… they are used to having to be quiet and closeted. The only benefits they will be demanding are the benefits that their straight peers are already receiving. People wonder why homosexuals that are out in normal every day life flaunting their sexuality. The answer is because they are not treated fairly … they are not treated the same. If they were given equal rights they would shut up and be quiet… and until that happens you will continue to “be offended”… deal with it.
CJ
Megan, you should say “suck it up” when talking about DADT. It offers up a certain imagery. The point I’m making is that if it doesn’t matter what I think, why is the military even trying to make it appear as if we support this reversal? If it doesn’t matter what we think, there is no need for reassurance. But, since there is a lot of reassurance out there that is supposedly based on this “training”, it’s incumbent upon me to expose the truth of the matter. As for freedom, gays have the same freedoms I have and always have. There is no right to marriage. There is no right to military service. There is no right. Gays have no more rights than I do! If it’s a RIGHT to serve in the military, then fat people could serve, children could serve, and old people wouldn’t be forced out. You’re creating rights where they don’t exist. Deal with that.
Sam Keefer
Your commentary is spot on. Civilians and non-combat military personel simply can’t wrap their head around the concept that under DADT the military wasn’t trying to be anti-homosexual, but anti-sexual. They were attempting to remove the sex and fraternization issue altogether. Once relationships start up with DADT repealed (and they will) unit cohesiveness and dicipline will go out the window. When troops start getting that “he/she loves me” head in the sky feelings that come with new relationships (regardless of orientation), attention to detail and combat focus will diminish and people will get killed. This reason is why females are currently not allowed in combat MOS’s. It’s not that the military is sexist, but the baggage of sexual attraction simply cannot be tolerated in a combat enviroment. But the exception is supposed to be made for homosexuals. I enlisted in the Marine Corps the month after 9/11 and served five years
Sam Keefer
Your commentary is spot on. Civilians and non-combat military personel simply can’t wrap their heads around the concept that under DADT the military wasn’t trying to be anti-homosexual, but anti-sexual. They were attempting to remove the sex and fraternization issue altogether. Once relationships start up with DADT repealed (and they will) unit cohesiveness and dicipline will go out the window. When troops start getting that “he/she loves me” head in the sky feelings that come with new relationships (regardless of orientation), attention to detail and combat focus will diminish and people will get killed. This reason is why females are currently not allowed in combat MOS’s. It’s not that the military is sexist, but the baggage of sexual attraction simply cannot be tolerated in a combat enviroment. But the exception is supposed to be made for homosexuals.
I enlisted in the Marine Corps the month after 9/11 and served five years. I’m currently a senior in college and planned on attending Officer Candidate School after graduation. No longer. I know many like myself who are leaving the military, and the argument we are presented by our politicians and their “yes men” general officers, is that somehow all this personnel can be replaced from a pool of manpower (homosexuals) that make up a tiny minority of our national population. This seems an asinine and dangerous assumption in the extreme. The argument has been made that many European nations have made this switch just fine, but the United States is not Europe. Our military is currently the most advanced, professional and deadly military on the face of the planet. Why go experimenting with a system that seems to work so well? Political expidiency of course.
As the MSG said earlier, get ready to be called everything from a closet homosexual to a bigot by those who don’t understand or appreciate your utilization of logic. I would suggest standing on your values and leaving the military. Perhaps if enough of us leave, Washington will have no choice but to correct this mistake. All I’ve wanted to do was become a Marine Corps officer. It may be impossible for me now, but maybe this can be corrected by the time my son is of age. Semper Fi, brother.
John
Lets get out the razor and trim some of this BS:
DADT was inacted in 1993 and had the following affects : “Don’t ask” meant that prospective recruits would nolonger be questioned regarding their sexual orientation. this ensured the right to serve for all eligible candidate reguardless of sexual preference. “Don’t Tell” was the part Clinton had to throw in to reassure his opponents that the presence of gay military personnel would not disrupt good order and discipline. This is where it gets sketchy for you homophobes out there. DADT was designed to protect gay people from the military, not the other way around. It has been demonstrated over the last 18 years that the inclusion of gay people has not been prejudicial to good order and discipline. It clearly demonstrates that “if the straight people don’t know that they are working with gay people, they are just fine” so really its bigots that are the problem, not gay people.
That being said, the repeal of DADT does not determine whether gay people have the right to serve. They aready have that right. Repealing DADT simply means that those gay folks who have bled the same blood, in the same mud, will finally have the right to take their signifigant other to family day, or not have to look over their shoulder when they enter an establishment that caters to their particular demographic, or maybe even just hold hands in public while in civilian attire.
The repeal of DADT does not change policies already in place that protect good order and discipline by prohibiting harassment and sexual misconduct.
I had a revelation the other day during my Battalions’ DADT repeal breifing (we did have discussion after). Male heterosexuals rarely say no to the opposite sex. They may tell people they do, but we are all familiar with the joke about the moped. The bottom line is this guys, if another male expresses that he finds you attractive, take it as a compliment and politely decline. I’m positive you’ve seen this done before. Many men may find this disconcerting because they have a hard time hearing the word “no” and therefore assume that thats normal for all men. It may even be a new experience for some men to finally see the other side of “unwelcome sexual advance”.
CJ
I was waiting for the BS trimming, but you just planted more bushes. (pun intended)
John
Care to substantiate that? The most vocalized issues brought up during our discussion following the brief were:
1) I don’t want gay guys checking me out in the shower. The reality is that keeping DADT in place won’t stop that.
2) I don’t want guys hitting on me or objectifying me. This one is funny, I know quite a few women in the military who feel the same way.
3) If we let gay people serve openly, we’ll have a bunch of swishy flamers running around in uniform making us look bad. There is certainly a posibility that a few overly flambouyant individuals made join the military. The gay service members that are already here will have to lead by example, as will we all, in demonstrating what is considered ‘professional appearance and conduct’. And that will probably work just as well as it does on the few straight folks we have that don’t conduct themselves according to the standard.
John R
A couple of points to throw on the fire:
1) Concerns, as expressed by Sam and others, clearly have an emotional appeal but are not necessarily supported by any evidence. There is evidence, however, to suggest losing this segment of the military population hurts readiness. The military was critically short on Arabic and Farsi linguists during the early GWOT years. Despite this shortage, certain bigoted leadership saw it fit to dismiss 26 linguists supporting Arabic and Farsi in 2005. There was no information provided to indicate these Soldiers were behaving in a distracting, flamboyant or aggressive manner.
2) I’ve spoken with some veterans of WWII I who compare the current concerns with open integration of gay Soldiers into our ranks with the integration of black Soldiers in the wake of WWII. Similar concerns existed in terms of race based biases as currently exist in our current sexual preference bias. Fears of unit morale issues degrading readiness were just as prevalent with that necessary integration. This is different though, right? Gay people actually have a choice in the trait for which they’re mistreated, right? From gay people I know, it appears clear that they were born with this preference just as much as African Americans were born with with their skin color. The reliable genetic evidence I’ve seen backs up this assertion.
CJ
That’s a false argument. If the “critical shortage” is so bad, why are we also kicking out Soldiers for failing the height/weight. There are “fat” Soldiers who have no problem with physical fitness, yet we kick them out. They can shoot straight an, to use a pro-gay argument, do you really care if the guy in the foxhole is fat as long as he can shoot?
No matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it’s still a pig. There are still standards.
lester
Seriously get over it. The members of the armed forces go by a completely different law, enforced by a govt that citizens elected. Your opinion on whether gays should be allowed to openly serve is irrelevant. Only what the citizens and country serve thinks mattters. Obviously a lot went down to make this repeal a reality. In your scenario, troops had no opinion or readiness… Be prepared for anything, isn’t that ur job? If everyone’s opinion mattered some squadrons would be segregated into races, only because some soldiers might not be comfortable with other races. This is stupid. If u want to serve ur country u should be willing to stand beside anyone else who is willing to risk their life for the same thing. I would (and have) accepted anyone who is willing to protect me and my family. Shame on u for thinking everyone needs readiness and preparedness to accept openly gay troops. Life should have prepared u enough. It’s not about the individual soldier, its about protecting the rights of all our citizens, Gay and straight both. Ur not as hot as u think, just because u have a or.is doesn’t mean all gay men want u. Honestly, with ur attitude, I’d be surprised if anyone wanted u.
CJ
Lester, if you could show me where there is a “right” to serve in the military, I’ll gladly accept your false sense of shame.
Ned Flaherty
The “right” does not guarantee military service; the “right” guarantees that everyone is acknowledged to have been created equal. From that right stems the entitlement to be treated fairly and equally, without arbitrary distinctions such as race, color, creed, and sexual orientation.
CJ
So, based on your comment here, there shouldn’t be separate standards for men and women in the military then? Women should have to do as many push ups as men because we’re all equal. We should share toilets and showers. We should share rooms and bunks. Or is this a different equality you want for gays?
Ned Flaherty
Army Master Sergeant C. J. Grisham claims that his opinions are based on “actual experiences” but he doesn’t admit — or even know — that they’re also based on ignorance, fear, and the faulty logic that drives people with paranoia or phobia. Here are 13 stunning examples.
1. After 18 years of research and debate, the most comprehensive and extensive military survey ever taken, and 6 months of re-training, the president and DoD officials certified that DADT repeal doesn’t violate the armed forces’ standards for readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, recruiting, and retention. Grisham, though, without explanation, calls that certification “the greatest misrepresentation perpetrated on the American people.” Does he know what the Bay of Pigs was? Did he read the Pentagon Papers? Those were great misrepresentations. The DADT certification is nothing compare to those. Grisham dislikes it, but the certification didn’t misrepresent anything. Except for Grisham, the other 2.2 million service members are ready for repeal.
CJ
Oh believe me, Grisham isn’t alone or apart from 2.2 million. Obviously, you don’t have your facts straight.
Lhecker51
Since when do you speak for 2.2 million people?
CJ
Since when did I say I speak for 2.2 million people?
Milpundit
Gays could serve under DADT. The real issue is about making the gay lifestyle mainsteam and eroding the culture that made America great.
Already there are discussions of same sex benefits that will add to defense costs. To what end? How does this serve readiness?
CJ
You’re absolutely right, Milpundit. But those costs are just the beginning. We’ll be forced to endure Gay Pride Month ceremonies, a gay EO program, and an eventual separation of quarters once the military realizes what a can of worms they opened forcing straight and gay troops to sleep and shower together.
Vic
very well put. there was no training and the troops were never really involved. but here is the deal. Prior to Clinton taking office, everyone was asked what their sexual preferences were, I know because I joined in ’82 and still have all the paperwork. Then came DADT when it became serve in silence. The problem here is that there were laws which banned Gays from serving at all, period. Clinton made a compromise which he really shouldn’t have. People have to understand that when they join the military they are legally bound to serve per the requirements they signed up for. Nothing has changed except I didn’t sign up to lay in a foxhole with a homosexual. Not that I have anything against them, but we live by creeds and we live by demeanors and we live by standards and discipline. Apparently, instead of living by discipline a few homosexuals wanted to break that mold and live by their own standards and created quite a stink in doing so. Now, it is our jobs as Soldiers to change our standards for the very few. All I can say is watch your step if you walk into my tent, I won’t put up with any of that homo crap, so mind your P’s & Q’s and keep your mouth shut or find my boot in your piehole. I have my own DADT and it IS Constitutional.
mike
I have no issues serving in the military with those who do not share my beliefs about homosexual behavior: this is America after all, and we have the freedom to believe and live as we choose–as long as those beliefs or our lifestyle do not infringe on the freedoms of others to do the same. This said, the repeal of the law could result in reverse bigotry (and has already from my perspective). That is, before we were worried about Christians who would say that homosexuality is wrong and to prove it, they point to the military. Now, others push it in the face of Christians as if to say that popular vote disputes their right to believe as they do. We must ensure that just as homosexuals have the right to openly serve, we also must allow others the right to their opinions about that service.
Justin Moore
The thing that people are not realizing or ignoring is that it was NEVER about them getting to serve thier COUNTRY you know why? because they already were this is about homosexuality being legitamized they took the same oath as everyone else they wear the same uniform as everyone else and they have to abide by the laws LIKE EVERYONE ELSE you raise your right hand and swear before god to abide the UCMJ and defend your country NO EXCEPTIONS and after you leave the service you do whatever you want to do but you are U.S. Goverment property period. Repeal of this law doesn’t give our troops a tactical advantage (really every lingiust in the military is gay what’s up with that…. EVERY linguist) The survey is and was a dog and pony show and I don’t know who said it but if the troops opinions don’t matter ….why ask? on top of that this is THE ONLY thing Obama has done as president besides make a unconstituanl health care bill. Speaking of which the homos don’t really care if this nation is dragged into the deepest pits of hell they USED Obama to get what they want and in 2012 they will be done with him.
Cheryl
I think you did a good job here. I agree the military didn’t do any real prep work to prepare for the DADT repeal. I was a contractor for the Army when the “training” came out. The “training” was just a PPT presentation on what non exsistant changes were going to happen (they aren’t changing any of the quarters, training and bathroom situations) and the benefits homosexuals won’t be getting. I think my husband said he got a survey. Other than that there was no prepartion.
Ned Flaherty
DADT Repeal 100% Successful
Jim Macdea of NBC News reports from Logar, Afghanistan reports that repealing DADT posed no danger and caused no problems.
Even after the nation, Congress, and President Obama agreed to lift the ban on gays, lesbians, and bisexuals serving openly in the military, some people said repealing the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law would never work in the real world. They said that letting open gay and lesbian soldiers serve in close quarters would cause chaos, and that combat units would implode.
• In manpower, they predicted fewer recruits, more resignations, and a return to the draft.
• In units, they predicted harm to order, discipline, morale, and unit cohesion.
• In battle, they predicted disruption, distraction, mistakes, injuries, and casualties.
• Off hours, they predicted coercion, illicit activity, health issues, and sexual assaults.
• Overall, critics predicted high risks to property, freedom, national security, and the American way of life.
But despite all these things that critics imagined, none of them ever happened.
Today’s soldiers, from grunts to top brass, even U.S. Marines, have actively embraced the law, with no reports of incidents like hazing or gay bashing. Behind front lines at large bases like Bagram Airfield, groups of gays and lesbians now meet publicly, at coffee hours unheard of only months ago.
Hundreds — perhaps thousands — of gay soldiers have recently posted their own coming out videos on YouTube, often to their own families. A phone call home by Airman Randy Phillips, based in Germany, to tell his parents he’s gay, went viral, with more than 5 million hits. Even commanders like Marine General James Amos, once opposed to lifting the ban during wartime, now support it, allowing soldiers to excel, as they always have in war, but now, to do it freely.
Source: “No incidents reported since DADT repealed”
MSNBC Nightly News, 22-Dec-2011
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/45758539/#45758539
CJ
Ned, this story isn’t entirely accurate. Why? Because “reporting” doesn’t include the troops that have refused to share a barracks room with a gay Soldier. Typically, they are just moved into another room and nothing is said about it. The other issue is that gays haven’t been coming out as predicted because of the backlash. So far, only anecdotal stories exist of their integration.
To say that it’s 100% successful ignores the public outrage at the attempted repeal of Article 125 of the UCMJ, the Sodomy article. Because of the backlash from troops and the public, that repeal had to be stricken from the NDAA. Nice try, but using a sympathetic media story with an inaccurate headline doesn’t reflect reality – just what has been “reported.”
Dave Jannsen
I would beg any of you to read about integration in the military compared to the repeal of DADT. Compared to the strife of desegregation (often riots and real full out fighting) the repeal of DADT has gone swimmingly.
I would like to remind everyone here that the military is lead by civilian command, and it is the civilian command that sets policy.
The Congress, our governing body, decided by a 65 vote majority to repeal DADT. The case was already hanging in the Supreme Court because a Federal Judge had already struck down DADT as unconstitutional. To say that the policy was hanging by a thread is generous: it was already in legal limbo by the time it was struck down by a congressional super majority. For the record, a super majority of Americans supported the repeal of DADT. A majority of Republicans, Democrats and Independents supported repeal as well as regular Church goers.
I’ve yet to see the “negative impact” or “unit cohesion” arguments pan out. If anything DADT prevented people from being honest about who they were and made them susceptible to blackmail.
CJ, the Israeli military (composed of some very conservative Orthodox Jews, Bedouin Arab Muslims, and others) has managed to have the IDF integrated since 1993. Every one of our NATO allies has repealed their gay bans. Do you really want us to stand with the likes of Saudi Arabia and Iran on this?
DADT allowed gays to serve quietly, and most often people knew who the gay man or woman was in their unit but couldn’t say anything about it. The difference for effectiveness in your mind is between knowing there might be a gay person in your unit VS suspecting there might be one? That’s rather odd if you ask me.