DOD reportedly examining IF, rather than how, to repeal DADT

[FreeState]

http://www.dcagenda.com/2010/03/23/researcher-concerned-about-dont-ask-studys-direction/

A former Reagan defense official and opponent of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” expressed concern on Tuesday about the Pentagon study of the law potentially going in the wrong direction.

Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, said he met recently with officials working on the study and said he didn’t think the questions they raised pertained to where he thought the study should be heading.

“Now, I get the impression — based upon looking outside and talking to people — that a lot of the people are not convinced that this needs to be repealed and really think it’s their mission to even examine this,” he said during a panel discussion on a new Center for American Progress report on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Korb said officials on the working group were focused on how repeal could negatively affect the U.S. military as opposed to implementing an end to the law — as Defense Secretary Robert Gates directed earlier this year.

One person involved with the review, Korb said, wanted to look at the “impact of this on unit cohesion and readiness.”

In response, Korb the that issue has been already resolved in previous studies, noting the 1993 Rand Corp. study, which didn’t find detrimental impact to open service in the U.S. military, as well as studies of foreign militaries that have dropped their bans. Still, Korb said the official said he wanted to raise the issue again.

Korb said someone else involved with the study had concerns about the people in the places where the military handles recruitment thinking homosexual behavior “is immoral” and “going to cause problems.”

.....

[foxfeet]

1. Quelle surprise.

Oops. Too French?

[FreeState]

2. LOL - well it seems like the more we push the more they ignore

or blame the senate.

[joeybee12]

3. Nothing surprises me anymore when people are handed s**t and see ice cream...n/t

[Starry Messenger]

4. Do we know who is on the review panel?

Interesting that Korb decided to publicly kick a little ass about it. I liked his statement about getting women into the military.

[Renew Deal]

5. The article doesn't match the headline

And doesn't say much of anything

[FreeState]

8. Really?

Maybe you missed this part

“Now, I get the impression — based upon looking outside and talking to people — that a lot of the people are not convinced that this needs to be repealed and really think it’s their mission to even examine this,” he said during a panel discussion on a new Center for American Progress report on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Korb said officials on the working group were focused on how repeal could negatively affect the U.S. military as opposed to implementing an end to the law — as Defense Secretary Robert Gates directed earlier this year.

[Renew Deal]

9. This is the part that should be bolded

“Now, I get the impression — based upon looking outside and talking to people — that a lot of the people are not convinced that this needs to be repealed and really think it’s their mission to even examine this,” he said during a panel discussion on a new Center for American Progress report on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Korb said officials on the working group were focused on how repeal could negatively affect the U.S. military as opposed to implementing an end to the law — as Defense Secretary Robert Gates directed earlier this year.

Some person gets the impression "that a lot of the people are not convinced that this needs to be repealed."

And the second bolded line doesn't say anything. Of course they would consider how repeal could negativly affect the military.

The article doesn't support this headline: "DOD reportedly examining IF, rather than how, to repeal DADT"

[FreeState]

10. So you skipped over the word "reportedly" in the OP title? n/t

[FreeState]

11. dupe n/t

[spanone]

6. the President has spoken.

[Hissyspit]

7. You just change the law. Just like other militaries have done...

Soldiers are used to following orders, believe it or not.

[shedevil69taz]

12. perspective of a noncommissioned officer

I personally would not have a problem with changing the law regarding homosexuals serving openly in the military. On the same token I also don't see a problem with examining in detail what the effects would be, and what steps could be taken to mitigate any negative feelings of those opposed to it. WHEN it happens (I am convinced it will just maybe not as quickly as some would like) it wouldn't be fair to those who have strong beliefs opposing it to just tell them: "we're sorry if you wouldn't have volunteered in the first place if this was the policy before you signed on the line but you're now stuck with absolutely no say in the matter." Because the fact is that some would not have joined if they knew they would have to serve along side openly gay/lesbian service members. The argument that they are now anyway isn't really valid, I am sure more than a few of them were smart enough to realize that they might serve with them anyway, but there is a big difference to some people between KNOWING and suspecting.

In my position I have to worry about how people feel about orders sometimes. While usually most service members will follow them, and never complain, there are never absolutes. When people (even soldiers) feel like thier values are belittled they sometimes act out in negative ways. As an NCO I not only have to uphold standards but also prevent things like: sexual harrasment, assualt/sexual assualt, suicide, and fratricide. Its a delicate balance and a stressfull job, and while I am not afraid of it repealing DADT will only add to that stress for myself and thousands of other people in our military.

In the end whatever my Commander in Chief decides is the standard is what I will uphold, but we should have a clear understanding of what new dynamics will be created by those standards.

[FreeState]

13. You realize its been examined over and over already right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell#Scientific_community

http://www.sldn.org/pages/about-dadt

[shedevil69taz]

14. broken link

that first link doesn't work.

•In 1993 RAND Corp. concluded that openly gay people in the U.S. military do not negatively impact unit cohesion, morale, good order, or military readiness

This conclusion cannot be applied across the entire service to every unit. I don't have to do a study to tell you that some units would be very negatively impacted.

•73 percent of military personnel are comfortable with lesbians and gays (Zogby International, 2006).

That leaves roughly 400,000 service members that are not comfortable with it. That's not exactly a small number. I think most of that number would actually end up just serving out their contractually obligated time with honor, but some won't feel that they should be held to that, and quite frankly I don't know if I could say that they were wrong for feeling that way. Do we give those people the option to retire (meaning with benefits even though they may not have met the time in service requirements) like they might have chosen to do? Do we give them the option of getting out with an honorable discharge?

Those are just two of the many questions I think need answered BEFORE we repeal DADT. I do hope they get answered sooner rather than later though

[riderinthestorm]

16. Bluntly, this is just like serving with black people.

Do you think the armed services should have contorted themselves in the same way to try to shield service members from serving with people who have dark skin? Or women?

[shedevil69taz]

21. different times

I didn't live in them, I don't know the answer to that.

I think what you are getting at though is that women and people with dark skin had no choice in being what they are, and equating homosexual behavior as something one doesn't choose to be.

I don't ever get involved in that debate, as its usually what causes the most division and yes hatred on both sides. Some people's religous convictions tell them that its wrong, and that it is infact a choise, and they shouldn't support people or organizations that condone homosexual behavior. Whether or not they are right or wrong I don't know. I do know that thier religeous beliefs do not make thier service any less honorable, and if we give them the chance to get out when we repeal DADT I would not think less of them if they choose to take it.

All I am saying is that we should decide beforehand under what conditions we allow those people to leave the service.

[riderinthestorm]

23. No difference. And being gay isn't a choice. That IS what is right

and anyone else who tells you differently is lying.

And the military condoning that kind of bigoted, "different times" (cough), agenda should be called on it and forcibly changed. Instantly. This is a civil rights issue, not a religious one and you are buying into the spin.

Educate yourself about LGBT issues so you can be a pro-active military member instead of a passive by-stander. Your fellow LGBT service members would be grateful.

You do know that you are already, and have been, serving with LGBT service members already right? And people have been since time immemorial without any problem? It's just this law that makes it currently unsustainable for them to serve openly.

[shedevil69taz]

26. I think

My overall opinion is this: Forcing the repeal of DADT upon those serving that object to serving with openly homosexual service members for whatever reason is just as bad as the situation we put those same homosexuals in by keeping it around. It's not something you should be FORCED to accept over your religeous beliefs, which some people do not think its a choice for them to follow either, because its that much a part of who they are.

Its easily fixed problem though like I have been trying to say here, and infact I tell anyone I talk to when the topic comes up:

Repeal DADT, let those that want out becauses of the repeal get out honorably, and from now on anyone who is thinking of signing up can factor it in to thier decision.

Myself I will stay in and finish my time and retire after making a career of military service just like I had planned on.

[cherokeeprogressive]

17. The way to "mitigate any negative feelings of those opposed to it" is to PUT THEM THE FUCK OUT

OF THE MILITARY. Period. The military should be staffed by individuals who understand the responsibilities at hand and NOT the sexual orientation of their peers.

[shedevil69taz]

18. the responsibilities at hand

Include adapting to a specific lifestyle that is dictated to you through laws that you agree you can adhere to before you sign up. Many of them retrict us from doing things that ordinary cititzens would not be. You have to conciously be willing to place restrictions on your own civil liberties, which idealy would include being able to choose your place of employment factoring in the makeup of the other people that work there. The only time we get to make that choice is before we signed up OR if we are offered the chance to terminate our contract. Now if my superiors decide that they will offer that chance to those who would take it that's great.

Sure as you put it put them the fuck out, but under what conditions?

[cherokeeprogressive]

19. UCMJ Article 134 n/t

[riderinthestorm]

20. I'm sure other present and former military can correct me,

but I'm fairly sure the military adheres to laws as they are enacted, not just those that are in place "before you sign up". And military personnel are required to adhere to those laws, they can't just pick and choose to adhere to those that were laws in the past.

Part of being in the military is that you DO lose the flexibility to object to the law of the land and simply "opt out" if you don't agree. You just simply have to adhere to it. I've never heard of anyone allowing someone to retroactively apply for opting out of their military contract because they don't like discriminatory laws being changed to adhere to the Constitution.

I'm thinking if you can't abide by the law of the land, you will be "put out" with a dishonorable discharge or worse. It's long past time DADT was laid to rest. And persons in the military better be preparing for that day. It's overdue and anyone who can't live without DADT is gonna find themselves in trouble imho.

[shedevil69taz]

22. I would hope

That my superiors would decide to offer people who cannot abide by the repeal on the basis of religeous grounds the option to get out honorably. If not I will do whatever I can to ensure the standards and laws are followed in my section. I can easily imagine a senario where a young soldier cannot reconcile his religeous beliefs with being forced into a situation to share a small barracks room with someone openly homosexual where this person harms either themselves or someone else. If I see it comming I'll do everything I can to prevent it. But not everyone would, sometimes we just don't see it comming.

The absolute hardest thing I have to do is inventory the personal items of someone I served with because they're going home in a body bag. It is a great day every day I wake up here in Iraq when I don't have to do that duty. If letting people get out honorably saves even one of those lives, I'll pick up the slack left by thier absence gladly.

[riderinthestorm]

24. You are already serving with gay service members.

And so are those who are ostensibly "religious" (but who are in fact, bigots).

It's just the current law that makes the situation untenable. But their have been gays in the military since... forever. And will continue that way...forever. "Religious" objections are really just bigots in disguise.

[shedevil69taz]

25. I know there are

I have even served with some who I knew to be gay who trusted me to talk about things, I have no problem with it.

I am certain many who would normally object are smart enough to realize there are as well. For some people ignorance is a warm blanket of comfort though. Call them whatever names you want. Most of them I know would never dream of calling you or I or even openly gay people anything other than Sir or Ma'am. Including the hardest working officers in our military (imo) the Chaplains.

You refering to all of them in such disparaging terms paints you with the same broad brush you just wielded.

[riderinthestorm]

27. I truly thank you for your service but anyone who objects to serving with gays is a bigot

I don't believe they should get an honorable discharge because they won't serve with them either. That would be akin to people who won't serve with black people being allowed an honorable discharge.

I think if the military "allowed" them to leave the services, that would only reinforce their (mistaken) impression that being gay is something that they CAN have a problem with.

And frankly, that's just wrong. Yes, it may take them a while to realize how wrong they are. They may never realize how wrong they are, but just because they are bigots (even if and perhaps even especially if its because of their "religion") doesn't mean they should get a pass out of their service contract.

You've even said yourself that people are already serving with gays. These bigoted service members are already serving next to openly gay British troops or other UN troops that have openly gay service members (Israel etc.) and nobody's pitching a fit or asking to leave because of that are they?

[MicaelS]

28. Don't forget about the Law of Unintended Consequences...

And if the military discharges so many such that enough volunteers can not be found, are you willing to reinstate the draft? Are YOU willing to be drafted? I have friends in the military and many of them state that there are plenty in service who do not want to, or will not serve with gays. Those people state they will leave the service rather than be forced to "shower with" gays. Now, personally, I have no doubt DADT will be, and should be repealed. I'm just warning you of what could happen.

[cherokeeprogressive]

29. I've already served, so your question about whether or not I'd be willing to be drafted is a

non-starter. I stand by my belief that nobody who can't serve next to another without worrying about their sexual orientation belongs in the service. So you have "friends" who state they will "leave the service rather than be forced to shower with gays"? That's strange. I served in the Navy for 9 years and NEVER, once I graduated from boot camp, NEVER did I have to shower in sight of another man. Never. Naval barracks have individual shower stalls. Naval ships have individual shower stalls. In what branch of the service do your friends serve?

In my book, the law of intended circumstances would result in the military being leaner and smarter. I don't find bigoted people to be very intelligent, and given the sophisticated machinery used by the military today, I'd prefer to have the smartest people possible. I also find most bigots to be more than a few pounds overweight.

[MicaelS]

30. In the Army...

And no, not my friends saying they will leave, rather members in their units saying this to them. I'm just passing on what they have said. And yes, I think DADT should have never been implemented, and gays allowed to serve a long time ago. And you're probably right about the military becoming leaner and smarter.

[MissMarple]

15. In some areas of high enlistment, this could be a problem... at first, anyway.

Sad, but true.