Admirals, generals: Repeal 'don't ask, don't tell'

[FreeState]

Source: Seattle Times

"As is the case with Great Britain, Israel, and other nations that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, our service members are professionals who are able to work together effectively despite differences in race, gender, religion, and sexuality," the officers wrote.

While Obama has expressed support for repeal, he said during the presidential campaign that he would not do so on his own - an indication that he would tread carefully to prevent the issue from becoming a drag on his agenda. Obama said he would instead work with military leaders to build consensus on removing the ban on openly gay service members.

"Although I have consistently said I would repeal 'don't ask, don't tell,' I believe that the way to do it is make sure that we are working through a process, getting the Joint Chiefs of Staff clear in terms of what our priorities are going to be," Obama said in a September interview with the Philadelphia Gay News.

Read more: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008402391_apobamagaysmilitary.html

---

Good to see the frame work for the repeal being set up... its past time everyone be allowed to serve.

[JJ]

1. Clinton should have handled it like Truman did race.

Truman said "integrate" and the military said "Yes, Sir."

[Vidar]

2. Real good point. He also said, "The buck stops here" & meant it, something I can't see anyone

in politics today doing. God bless you, Harry!

[kestrel91316]

3. Yep. The CIC is the CIC. There's no reason why he or she can't

simply ORDER the military to accept gays and ensure they are treated the same as straights. Anyone who doesn't want to go along gets their marching papers, or courtmartialed.

[Shipwack]

5. I agree totally...

Backing down from the Joint Chiefs was Clinton's first, and maybe biggest mistake.

They were openly insubordinate, and his only reaction should have been to either ask for their resignation or court martial them.

Now, if they were to privately discuss their misgivings, that would be a different matter, but they chose to be very public about them.

[tclambert]

9. Agree.

I first thought this was a good issue for him to establish his position as Commander-in-Chief. Take a position unpopular with some brass, order them to do it, and stick to it. Unfortunately, Clinton was so into the art of the compromise, he tried to compromise with the military. That's a sure way to earn their disrespect. You prove your ability as Commander-in-Chief by commanding.

I don't agree it was his biggest mistake. Somalia was just bad. He further hurt his standing with the military by pleading the Black Hawk Down fiasco wasn't his fault. That's the other side of C-in-C--responsibility. If it happens while you are C-in-C, you're responsible. Kennedy knew that. He took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs when he could have easily blamed the previous administration, yet his popularity went up. I expected Clinton to have learned from that lesson.

[Blue_in_Mass]

8. Theoretically true ... BUT:

You are ignoring the real world, m'boy :-)

[kestrel91316]

14. Well, I'm not a boy. Or a man. But if I were CIC I would order it and

that would be the end of that.

Being the little tinpot dictator here in my own little fiefdom of a practice for 17 years has given me something increasingly scarce among Dems: a SPINE.

[zipplewrath]

31. Sounds good but....

As Clinton and Frank both tried to explain back then, congress held all the cards, not the CIC. The UCMJ basically still lists sodomy as a crime. The UCMJ is controlled by congress, not the president. There was a strong sentiment back then to change the UCMJ to even stronger wording with respect to gays in the military. DADT was put forth as a "compromise" so that gays wouldn't end up in the stockade, with loss of rank/benefits/ or any of the other judgements that could have been rendered. It was Barney Frank that urged Clinton to accept DADT.

[kestrel91316]

32. I think the CIC would also have the prerogative to order the military

to stand down on ANY enforcement of sodomy statutes where the persons involved are off duty and acting in private.

And I'd tell Congress to change that law PDQ.

We need to get serious about gay rights. The situation as it stands is BS. And yes, I'm STRAIGHT.

[zipplewrath]

34. It's a bit dicey

It's a bit dicey, and really one of the things that George has gotten heat for, to suggest that the President and the executive branch not enforce the laws passed by Congress.

[Posteritatis]

17. Wasn't Truman, when he integrated the armed forces?

Sometimes it takes someone telling the real world to shut up and sit down to get things rolling. A little hubris is good sometimes.

[Fearless]

4. The Clinton thing is harder to explain than that...

We have to remember just how far we've come in the past 8 years (ironically enough, I know). He may not have been reelected if he had taken that stance; he may even have been impeached and thrown from office if the Rethug majority had seen him as even just a bit more of a mover and shaker.

Personally, I think it was a step. There are two ways to cause change. Step by step or in one fell swoop. The first takes longer but tends to be accepted more easily, the second has caused things like Jim Crow laws and "equality on paper" but not in practice.

In the end, it's a judgment call. I don't think we can say for certain that he make the right one or the wrong one. I doubt that he really understood the issue to begin with even. But, we cannot point fingers and place blame. We must move forward and remove DADT in the near future (obviously not under BushCo.) because now it is time, regardless of whether 8 or 10 years ago it was also the time.

NTF

[qwlauren35]

29. No, I understand the Clinton problem.

His popularity with the military was too low for him to do such a thing, because of the fact that he was a draft dodger.

We can't know what was said to him in private in terms of the repercussions of allowing openly gay men and women to serve.

I hated the decision, but he made it.

After 9/11 and the Iraq War vote, I've come to realize that our public servants are privy to far more secure and classified information than they can necessarily reveal. Maybe in 20-50 years, we'll know more about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

I for one am suspicious of the timing of this advice... given that troop headcount is low. And in tandem with similar proposals that ex-cons can serve as well.

I think the two decisions need to be as clearly separated as questions about Obama's mother-in-law... vs. the new dog.

[Winterblues]

12. He tried to do it in the most acceptable way possible.

Remember "Don't ask, don't tell" is a hell of a lot better than we had before. Gays were prohibited period.....After Clinton, as long as they didn't talk about their preference they wouldn't be bothered..

[Hekate]

13. Excellent precedent, in my opinion. nt

[PSPS]

15. Jimmy Carter has said that he regrets not having done this himself.

A simple order would have ended the matter once and for all. And it still would today. I guess today's politicians don't want to take any chances on losing the self-loathing closet case homophobe vote.

[Canuckistanian]

6. Hey, you can't argue with the Israelis

If they allow gays in the military and you disagree, you must be an antisemite.

Maybe the GLBT movement can use Joe Lieberman as their spokesman.

[dixiegrrrrl]

7. Gatting low on troop strength, sounds to me.

It took WWll to make blacks "good enough" to be in the military.
"Backstairs" preferably.

Unless I am really really off about my history.

[tclambert]

10. As a matter of fact, we are getting low on troop strength.

Remember they were missing recruitment goals so badly, the Bushies ordered the goals to be lowered, and the standards. Bad leadership leads to trouble recruiting.

Prediction: Recruitment will improve under Obama.

[Fearless]

11. No, that's more or less true. Sad but true.

They were also (along with Japanese Americans) put into places on average much more dangerous than White soldiers.

[BrotherBuzz]

19. Ever hear of buffalo soldiers?

Go ask General John (Black Jack) Pershing about them, and the great escapades he and his Negro soldiers had down in Mexico, and how he had to turn his back on them during WWI because southern soldiers were ready to commit mutiny if the had to associate with them. Black Jack found a unique solution to the problem.

Black soldiers from the US Army fought under French command during WWI

The all-black 93rd division, a rag-tag outfit that was initially issued Civil War uniforms, were assigned to French command by General John Pershing during WWI. The French desperately needed fresh troops and Pershing was able to satisfy France's needs by getting rid of his own problem - black soldiers. The 93d Division turned in their American equipment and were issued French rifles, bayonets, helmets, packs, and other equipment of the French soldier. They were then organized, trained, and commanded as a French unit, the first unit in US history to serve under foreign command.

The 93rd division fought as part of the French army, where, ironically, it found acceptance, respect, and glory, eventually winning the Croix de Guerre, only to return to America and find Jim Crow laws alive and well.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

23. Thats what I loke about D.U.

:hi:
A lot of history lessons!
:thumbsup:

[Best_man23]

30. Check your history

Many blacks fought (and died) valiantly in the American Civil War, Spanish-American War, WWI (and I'm sure other campaigns). However, in these wars (and WWII) they were placed into segregated units, almost always commanded by white officers. Also, prior to the order to integrate, blacks were excluded from many military occupational specialities.

The CIC should tell the military: Don't Ask Don't Tell is over, along with regulations barring gays/lesbians from serving in the military.

Any flag rank officer who doesn't agree is free to tender his/her resignation.

[zelta gaisma]

16. YEAAAAAAAAAAH RIIIIIIGHT!!! tell that to...

to all the women service people raped on US bases everyday (much higher than in US cities according to what I've heard) and tell me again "our service members are professionals who are able to work together effectively despite differences in race, gender, religion, and sexuality,"

[JonQ]

22. The vast majority are

and if the rates are higher in the military I'd say it's largely due to putting a bunch of young men and women together, so the populations are skewed.


I suspect that if you stuck over a million young people together in close quarters you'd have a higher than average rate of sexual assaults, whether it's a military or civilian organization. Hell, for comparison look at the stats on college campuses, they aren't exactly encouraging.

[LostinVA]

24. Rape doesn't equal sex, so your "reasoning" is wrong

[JonQ]

25. Wow, you got me

or that's what I would be saying if I had in fact made the claim that "rape = sex", but I didn't.

I did say that when you stick a bunch of young men and women together in close quarters the likelyhood of this sort of thing goes up. For instance, you stick a man in a jail cell by himself with no human contact, is he likely to rape anyone? No. So we've established that being around people is necessary for rape, as I said. Now, are 80 year olds as likely to commit rape as say 20 year olds? No. So we've now established that youth plays a role. And lastly, are men or women more likely to commit rape? I'd say men and in fact that numbers back me on this. So if you put a bunch of young men together with a few young women would you say that would make rapes more or less likely than in average, non-skewed, society?

[LostinVA]

27. Exactly, you heavily implied rape=sex

[JonQ]

28. No

I didn't. That connection seems to exist only in your head. Now if you could come up with a response to something I *actually* said . . . .

[TrogL]

35. I've functioned under military discipline

It is neither average nor non-skewed. You will follow the rules (eg. don't rape your hoochie-mate) or you will be punished.

[JonQ]

26. Dupe, deleted

[David__77]

18. I'm torn on this.

While I want equal rights for gays and lesbians (I certainly have material interest in doing so as I'm gay myself), I do not want to do anything to further the cohesion of the armed forces particularly. Integrating gay people openly would in the long term increase the fighting capacity of the armed forces. I'm not convinced that this is a move in the global interest at present. There are probably many more important fights I'd like to support.

[transeo]

20. Now that they're desperate for cannon fodder, we're good enough to serve

Forgive me if I am less than thrilled about the circumstances in which we gain equality on this.

[Zuiderelle]

33. I'd be ok, if they offer full pension benefits and/or recompense to all the gays they've ousted ...

for being gay. THEN it would begin to be fair.

[JonQ]

21. Once women were allowed in to the military integrating homosexuals became inevitable

The only pseudo-legit reason to keep either out was to cut down on fraternization within the ranks. Hypothetically an all male, all heterosexual army wouldn't have to worry about that.

But once women were allowed to serve that became kind of a moot point. Obviously all those heterosexual males are going to have to deal with heterosexual females, so some fraternization is going to be unavoidable. So adding a few gay men and women isn't going to make the situation substantially different, so why deny them the right to serve?

[TrogL]

36. Canada has had gay soldiers in the military for ages with no problems

I know one of them.