DADT STUDY: Majority Of Troops Would Not Object To Serving Alongside Gay Soldiers

[jefferson_dem]

DADT STUDY: Majority Of Troops Would Not Object To Serving Alongside Gay Soldiers

Tonight, NBC News’ Richard Engel has learned some early results from the Pentagon’s Working Group study of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. According to military sources who have seen the report, a majority of American troops would either not object to serving alongside openly gay troops or would raise any concerns directly with their gay peers:

ENGEL: The findings are that for most soldiers, and this wasn’t the sum total of all soldiers, it wasn’t that big of a deal…The majority — the number one answer, first answer was ‘I don’t care.’ That’s significant.

MADDOW: Predominant answer is ‘no big deal.’

ENGEL: Most common, number one. Number two was, ‘I would deal directly with the person involved.’ So when you put the two of those together, it is the majority. Now, there were some people who said, three, they would go to the chain of command and some four, who hated it, hated it. But the answers one and two are considered positive. So these studies show a relative if not positive outlook, at least an accepting outlook.

MADDOW: So the military study is, as you said, the survey of the troops is part of it. It’s an overall study of the feasibility of the issue….this survey of the troops, what you’ve learned is that a majority of troops it’s not going to be a major deal.

ENGEL: Not a deal breaker, that they they’re not going to be running from the army in droves. A key thing this study kept coming back to is that it’s very important about the chain of command. What commanders say. How far commanders act. What tone they set. The marines were the most negative out of the services. They had the most people who were — with negative responses. And the marine corps leadership has taken a stance and has been very vocally against this issue. And the study found that most soldiers and sailors and all different service members follow a chain of command. So if the chain of command accepts this as the law, the data is that so will the soldiers.

Watch it:

<SNIP>

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/10/28/engel-dadt/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[leftstreet]

1. K&R

That was interesting, thanks for posting it.

People tend to overlook the chain of command concept. Civilians apply 'well, but how will it impact morale?' logic to a system where you basically do what you're told.

[TheWraith]

6. The chain of command needs to be looked at, but it's not that simple.

You have to remember that troops are most accepting of command when morale is high and they believe in what they're doing. It's basically like an office job: if your boss is a dick, or you know your job is pointless, you're not going to be working at your best. So in most situations, particularly outside of combat, it' not as simple as just "tell them what to do and they do it." Command can't be separated from leadership.

[Divine Discontent]

2. that's very pleasant to hear!!! K&R 4

[Voice for Peace]

3. nice and somehow not a surprise. nt

[TheWraith]

4. But but but, I thought the survey was all a big conspiracy to keep DADT?

:sarcasm:

As somebody else on DU pointed out, in the legal framework of DADT is a congressional finding establishing that homosexuality is bad for the military. To create a permanent repeal of DADT and similar policies--as well as to undermine the opposition to repeal in the military and in the Senate--one of the first orders of business is to have a new finding of fact based on actual facts, to wit that most of the serving troops "don't know, don't care."

[Change has come]

9. Do you ever notice...

How that sarcasm thingy looks like dripping blood?

[TheWraith]

11. I have. It's faintly creepy. nt

[Change has come]

14. Agreed.

[EFerrari]

19. And to think they could have just paid $50 and read the Rand study from '93

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR323/

I wonder exactly how many studies the Pentagon was sitting on when they ordered up this new one. What a big fat waste of time and money and personnel.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[msanthrope]

89. I'm the one who keeps bringing up the 'finding.'

Yes...the survey is part of the effort to refute the finding that being gay is inherently inimical to military unit cohesion.

Once you refute that, then all that is left is animus, because the original, stated purpose of the law was to protect military cohesion.

But, yes...the survey was supposed to be further proof of the perfidy of the Obama administration, wasn't it?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

5. Yeah but that won't stop the Repukes

from fillibustering DADT repeal.

[Kurovski]

10. Obama is free to end it . He don't need the Puke piles to slide him in.

[TheWraith]

12. False.

DADT is statute law which requires an act of Congress to repeal.

[Touchdown]

33. Broken record. No basis in any fact.

All conjecture from lawyers who happen to agree with what you already made up your mind about. Obama is right and he's so Dreamy!

[TheWraith]

34. I've provided many links to prove my point, including the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel.

You have nothing to prove your side other than one article by the Palm Center which was later proven wrong by the Servicemember's Legal Defense Network, and your insistent belief that President Obama is not bound by those pesky "laws."

[Touchdown]

35. And yet...

You still don't get it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9396208

[TheWraith]

41. I get it perfectly fine.

That doesn't mean I'm going to throw out two thirds of my brain and start expecting the President to do things that aren't legal.

[Touchdown]

42. Yeah. Keep that close to your breast.

Just don't smother it.

[Chulanowa]

13. No. He could end the discharges

And then the next president in could just reinstate them. Meanwhile legislators and judges sit on their heels going "well, discharges have ended, it's no longer a pressing issue for us!" and not shit gets done.

[Kurovski]

17. I still hold he doesn't need the pukes. But there's room for argument.

http://firedoglake.com/2010/10/14/obama-says-he-cant-issue-executive-order-ending-dadt/

3) Regarding the part about his inability to issue an executive order, Scarecrow says: “Nice theory, but then what exactly is the point of signing statements? If you believe you are bound by the literal meaning of passed legislation and cannot ignore portions you believe to be an unconstitutional infringement on executive powers, then there is not purpose served by such statements, yet you continue to sign them. Why?

4) As Cynthia Kouril points out, Obama now has an injunction to hide behind clarify the matter. But rather than comply, today the Justice Department said they will appeal.

5) After the Town Hall, Obama tweeted:

BarackObama Anybody who wants to serve in our armed forces and make sacrifices on our behalf should be able to. DADT will end & it will end on my watch.

At the very least, the President’s messaging on this issue is. . . confusing.

[Chulanowa]

20. It's only confusing if you are easily confused

He is personally against the legislation. he is in favor of ending the legislation.
He is not a legislator.
Nor can he rule the legislation unconstitutional.

Ending DADT is not something within the purview of the executive branch. The Executive can choose to not enforce the law, but thing is? Not enforcing the law is actually of questionable legality at best. And even if this administration goes that route, the next one might not.

Obama is against the law, but he is not really able to do anything truly effective about it. it is an issue for the legislative and judicial branches.

Of course, reality doesn't matter much to people who have been dead-set on finding any excuse at all to pile hate on the man ever since he won the primary.

[Kurovski]

21. Yeah, well I'm easily confused.

How a constitutional scholar who is black can let this shit stand in 2010 really confuses the mother-fuck out of me.

[Chulanowa]

22. Does it?

Not too familiar with either the constitution or the civil rights movement, I take it.

[Kurovski]

23. Yep.

Confused.

So just disregard.

I'm hoping for a blowout last term from President Obama. Hopefully 6 years from now. Hope hope wish wish hope.

Too familiar with politics, and 40 years being in the middle of it.

[Chulanowa]

57. Well, I'm explaining it to you

Repealing DADT will take an act of congress. The repeal will be contested in court. And either way it goes, all that the Obama administration can legally do is say "We'd really like it if it went this way" - and then enforce it, either way the court decides.

The very best that Obama can do is to declare that he will no longer enforce the law - which given the court injunction, he should do. However, a blanket "We will no longer be enforcing this particular law" will have two important ramifications - one, it'll be the executive branch basically saying to the other two, "fuck y'all, unitary executive all the way, yeehaw!" which of course, worked out so very well for everyone between 2001 and 2009.
Second, it will suck the steam out of any congressional or judicial efforts to repeal the law or rule it unconstitutional. if the law is not going to be enforced, why fight the law? End result, DADT stays on the books and the next administration in is free to restore enforcement - very probably after using it as a big ol' drum in a "rule of law" campaign that would FURTHER distance the possibility of getting the thing repealed due to the ramifications of such.

It's not moving fast enough, sure, I can agree with that. The Obama administration should stop being so afraid of leaning harder on Congress, I can agree with that, too. But at the end of the day, it's still congress that needs your ire, not the president.

He's just an easy target, like Californian blacks were in November 2008.

[Kurovski]

82. They don't want it to FUCKING move at all.

That's pretty obvious.

This shit could have been done in the 90s. Seventeen Long years ago. The military was ready then.

The only reason it is dragging on is because it is used for political purposes. Gays are used for POLITICAL PURPOSES, and I am goddamned sick and fucking well tired of it.

The unitary is JUST FINE with me. It is my life, goddamnit. Use the Unitary executive, use it now. right the fuck...y'know, Monday morning, I fucking want it done On monday. Unitary Executive, Gobama! Get it done, if you are any kind of decent human being Mr. President. Get. It. Done.

What has been lost to me, will never return. And you do not seem to give one shit about any LGBT individual or what we have lost, and will go to our graves without, as you so reveal while you yammer on in Political-legalesque claptrap.

Is Obama even as good as Truman, a middling president who integrated the troops during an extremely racist period in American history. can he at least find a shitfucker way to integrate the troops, or is he not even as good as a Truman? I'm thinking he might be a little better than this shameful, degrading political horseshit he's trapped in.

[Zhade]

39. EPIC WIN.

CheckfuckingMATE.

[Chulanowa]

56. Damn, got me

:eyes:

First... A constitutional scholar understands the limits on executive power.

Second... A black constitutional scholar probably also understands that the victories of the civil rights movement were made through Congress and the courts.

Third... Go learn to play chess.

[Hekate]

80. ~*~

Your explanations are spot on, correct, and I wish like hell everyone could understand them. I keep trying too, although in different words.

Somehow it just seems that if you hate Obama, you hate Obama regardless. What would it be if not this particular issue?

Thanks for your eloquent efforts.

Hekate

[Kurovski]

83. ...

One: A Constitutional scholar must realize you don't take rights away from a group based on religious ideas.

It's unconstitutional. I'm pretty fucking stupid, but tell me it's not.

How do you support an unconstitutional law?

Two: Go have a seance with Truman about achieving a civil rights victory.

Three: Go Fish.

[Chulanowa]

87. You're being purposefully dense

it is not the executive's purview to rule on the constitutionality of a law. They are constitutionally bound to enforce the law of the land, whatever it may be, until the law is either repealed by congress or overturned by the courts.

Of course's it's unconstitutional; So is letting the executive branch reach and act on that conclusion.

Two; Truman integrated units with an executive order. On his side was the fact that military segregation was a tradition and NOT actually a law. Richard Russel tried to attach amendments to military spending bills that WOULD have made segregation the law of the land, thus defeating Truman's orders by making them retroactively illegal - if the amendment had passed (it was defeated by congress both times it was brought up) then there is not shit Truman could have done.

By comparison, DADT is an actual law. Before DADT, it was, again, "just tradition." Now the segregation is lawful, even if it's not constitutional. By MAKING it a law, the legislators passing it basically immunized it from Truman-style action, which was the whole fucking point.

Learn what the fuck you are talking about before you speak. when you do, maybe we'll speak again. i'm done with you now.

[Kurovski]

86. And speaking of courts...

the recent ruling on DADT as unconstitutional was an opportunity for the administration, and they gave it a pass.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

91. actually, unless i'm wrong an higher court has in the past ruled it contitutional

As such the DoJ would likely be required to appeal i think or be accused of not fullfilling their duties and oaths.

Unless things have changed in the US, a lower court can't overturn a higher courts ruling as such can it?

[Kurovski]

92. I dunno, ask Churlanova.

Can a president sign an executive order? Is torture and spying just way cooler than being a lesbian commander? Has Obama rolled back the unitary executive? What does he think he might do with it in the future? Will Sasha get that pony? Will kurovski finally get to bed so he can get two hours of sleep before he has to wake up?

Yes to the last. And so goodnight, dear DUer. :)

[TheWraith]

29. Very well said. nt

[jgraz]

64. Worst. Excuse. Ever.

Seriously, the worst. I don't even think you believe this one.

[Kurovski]

7. But the old geezers in the Pentagon wet their drawers in fear , loathing and confusion.

I wonder who will dry their bottoms? Who?

[ruggerson]

79. stay tuned for the dvd

n/t

[Kurovski]

84. HEY!

:hug: :D It's so damn nice to see you. :hi: (They'd make more money if they make it a pay website.) "Leaky Lieutenants", I dunno, something like that.

[ruggerson]

85. back atcha

:P :hug:

[w8liftinglady]

8. I asked my son today.he didn't give a crap.neither did my dad.

"If they make it through basic(and assuredly,they will be given hell)..then bring it on"
My dad said there were several "confirmed Bachelors" in his unit.he said he would have died for them,and vice versa.i think most troops know they are there for each other,regardless of gender preference.

[David Zephyr]

15. Translation: It's Chickenhawks (Limbaugh, Rove) who insult our troops suggesting they're homophobic.

The results of this study don't surprise me. At all.

[jberryhill]

16. Oh, the awful homophobic pentagon survey of death?

This is THAT survey?

The one that was horribly offensive?

[Change has come]

28. You were'nt offended?

You're not ashamed to admit it?

You think this survey was necessary?

:wtf:

[FreeState]

37. +1 - regardless of the results the "study" was homophobic n/t

[jberryhill]

62. Which only amplifies the result

The ability to say that the survey was biased in the other direction thus immunizes against a challenge of the results on the proposition that it was favorably biased.

You are absolutely correct that the survey was designed to elicit homophobic responses.

That's what makes the result devastating to our opposition, and I believe this result was also expected.

[jberryhill]

59. To find out if people harbor offensive positions...

...one asks questions designed to elicit them.

The survey was "necessary" to the extent that in the legislative debate, some nitwit always goes off about how "the troops won't stand for it, and it will destroy morale".

This is the answer to that.

[msanthrope]

90. The survey was absolutely necessary.

It was, because DADT is premised on the legal 'finding' of Congress that being gay is inimical to unit cohesion.

To make this finding, Congress held hearings and took testimony from military 'experts' regarding what having openly gay members would do to morale and cohesion.

Now, to repeal DADT,*** you must address the finding--you must essentially prove the finding wrong, or no longer applicable.

You do that by this survey--you see, with this survey, the original, stated purpose of DADT (unit cohesion) goes away. All that is left is animus.


***And survive judicial review, by invoking deference.

[struggle4progress]

18. I think the public opinion fight has been won for a while now

[Kurovski]

24. Your understatement is commendable.

:) Is it...what? 2010?

well, on the bright side, if I were in Iran I couldn't be half the asshole I am now. In the Middle East I'd be way dead by now.

God bless...America.

[struggle4progress]

25. I remember very well a time, when I was growing up in the conservative South, when the battle

for public opinion had not been won. Of course, winning the political fight is a different matter, since the so-called political "center" usually lags far behind public opinion

[EFerrari]

53. In this case, the political "top" lags behind public opinion. n/t

[uppityperson]

26. k&r and a link to a different take on it....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4592575&mesg_id=4592619

[Kurovski]

93. it's a deleted message.

Which strikes me as funny, but it probably really isn't. :shrug: :)

[political_Dem]

27. Thank you for the info. Very Fascinating.

[readmoreoften]

30. Well that's a relief. They should have taken such a survey after Loving v. Virginia.

Interracial marriage should only be legal if potential bigots aren't bigoted. Same thing goes with troops. Good thing they're not bigoted, because if they were it'd be impossible to integrate gay troops without disrupting our ability to annihilate brown people who occupy key geopolitical locations.

It's important to survey potential bigots before enacting civil rights legislation. :eyes:

[Kurovski]

31. That's the "Truman Theory" I think.

:rofl: Best use of rolly-eyed emoticon I've seen in years.

[Zhade]

40. I think I love you.

: )

[Kurovski]

45. I know I love her.

And you ain't so bad yourself. :D

[EFerrari]

52. They had to give them one more chance.

None of the other studies came out right.

[Kurovski]

54. Who knew hate had such a short shelf life?

It was supposed to last at least 50 more years.

Damn Will & Grace, damn them all to hell!

[Ignis]

81. +++

"Oh, but that's different!" some will cry.

Of course, they can never quite clarify how it's different. Go figure. :eyes:

[Radical Activist]

36. It appears that the study is bolstering the case for repealing DADT.

Awesome.

[Touchdown]

43. Yeah, against what they were expecting.

Including Obama who never denounced it, but pushed it through.

[Radical Activist]

44. Your attitude doesn't seem rational to me.

Obama has been consistent in his support for years. He has never shown signs of backing down on repeal. He has taken steps toward repeal since taking office. There are a number of rational arguments for why DoJ is appealing the court cases. By contrast, I don't see a rational case for believing that Obama has been lying his ass off about LGBT rights for his entire public career, including his time as a state senator.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Radical Activist]

47. Giving the military a deadline of this year is tangible.

Getting public support from top military leaders is tangible.
Publicly campaigning for it and lobbying Congress is tangible.

You have more hate than facts.

[Touchdown]

48. The year's not over yet.

Come back to me in January. Until then, you got nothing.

If you actually read my other OP that you posted that genuflecting name drop in and understood it, then you should understand that I've been through enough, and I have no patience any longer for excuses or promises of sometime in the future. Give it a rest. I have no reason to listen to the sniveling excuses or justifications and hero worship any longer. I'm fed up!

[TheWraith]

50. And you know what everyone involved was expecting, because you're telepathic.

Which apparently explains how you know that Obama personally pushed through an internal study by the Pentagon. :eyes:

[Touchdown]

51. Not telepathy. Reading the survey itself

It was designed to get specific answers in the negative. It was bigoted, slanderous, and disgusting. It was a push poll. Kids these days saw right through it, and that is not what the DOD was expecting.

[jberryhill]

60. Lol

If you are trying to find out if someone is a racist, which of these is a better question:

"Are you a racist?"

"Are you concerned about minorities being treated more favorably than whites?"

That second question is going to be much more useful to you than the first one.

You bet - the survey included offensive propositions as if they were perfectly normal. Hence those holding them would be comfortable indicating as such.

The fact is that most young people these days don't get excited over this stuff, and the military population skews young. It doesn't matter how they are asked, and nobody can accuse the survey of being skewed the other way.

Your point that the survey was biased REINFORCES the result, and I don't see why you don't see that.

[Touchdown]

63. Actually, you have a point.

It does reinforce the results. I question why it was commissioned in the first place.

[DevonRex]

71. To reinforce the fact that soldiers are perfectly happy to serve with GLBTs.

I was happy and honored to do so when I was in. The few that are homophobic will now have to rethink their positions on the subject. They will have to face the fact that they will be the oddballs, not the GLBTs or the vast majority of soldiers who will serve alongside them proudly.

[Touchdown]

72. I don't buy that.

The survey wasn't necessary in the least. No argument so far has changed my mind on that. No other survey on any other minority was done where the majority was asked about their comfort level with them. That alone, regardless of how it was written, or what questions were asked is bigoted and exclusionary.

[DevonRex]

74. whatever

[CBR]

65. Keep on trucking... nt

[DevonRex]

70. All of us who have served knew that would happen.

:party:

[Zhade]

38. I don't give a fuck. They're soldiers. They get orders to serve with GLBT soldiers, they do. PERIOD.

I don't give a SHIT about their level of comfort. Bigots don't deserve any accommodation.

[laughingliberal]

49. "Bigots don't deserve any accommodation."

Indeed

[DefenseLawyer]

66. +1

That's my take also. If the "average" soldier said he wouldn't serve with African Americans, would we re-segregate the military?

[Touchdown]

55. Oh' yeah, almost forgot. Good for the young troops.

They're much more mature and smarter than soldiers were in my generation. :yourock:

[xchrom]

58. Recommend

[bullwinkle428]

61. Well, any foot-dragging politician sure lost a great big fat excuse

for any further delay in the repeal of DADT!

[ieoeja]

67. My dad said that when he was in the Marines, the first thing he was told on boarding a ship was ...

... where and when you could get a blowjob. This was during and after the Korean War when there were no women aboard ship.

He always followed that up with, "anybody who ever served in the Marines or Navy and claim they never knew any gay sailors or marines is a fucking liar."

[Kurovski]

88. The Marines are the most resistant to changing DADT.

Which figures, it's always the guys getting their knobs waxed on the sly who complain the loudest against it. ;)

[riderinthestorm]

68. So I'm a cynic but the rights going to use the percentage that's against repeal to filibuster it

I absolutely believe the Rethugs will use that percentage of soldiers, whatever that percentage is, to block the repeal. They'll state that we can't afford to lose "that many" (however many it is) soldiers who will quit the military "during a time of war".

THAT'S why I've always thought this survey was bullshit. It was despicably biased towards homophobia in the first place but imho, the legislation is doomed anyway regardless of the survey results. No matter how many people in the military are cool with DADT's repeal, that percentage that's against it will be ramped up by the news media, the rightwing bloviators, the bigoted and antiquated senators like McCain until it becomes FACT- "we can't lose that many soldiers in a time of war".

[DevonRex]

69. Personally, I think this study was a great idea. And I'll tell you why.

My fundie relatives think that everyone else thinks like they do. They simply assume they're right and that everyone will agree with them. It's the same with people in the military who would object to serving with GLBTs.

This study SHOWS them that they're wrong. Dead wrong. It puts peer pressure on them to rethink their bigoted ideas. It will make them realize that THEY are the ones who would damage unit cohesion if they cannot act like honorable men and women while serving in the military.

[woo me with science]

73. +1

This isn't unexpected at all. Demographic surveys have been showing for over ten years that the bigotry is decreasing in younger generations. The older generation just hasn't realized it yet.

[HughMoran]

75. +2

Good post.

[Number23]

77. I don't think the survey was anywhere near a good idea. But I agree with you

that the data coming out of it will be a big kick in the throat to alot of bigots. :thumbsup:

[mcollins]

76. My brother is an officer in the Army.

He's about as right wing as you can get, we barely talk most of the time because it's just easier than arguing. I did ask him about this and he said he really didn't care who you ****, as long as you did your job, you were fine with him.

I think the large majority of the military feel this way.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.