Gates to unveil plan to abandon 'don't ask, don't tell'

[Ken Morgan]

Remember when they said women shouldn't be out on the frontline etc?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...-leg-Captain-Kate-Philp-talks-to-The-Sun.html

When I joined up some years ago, during the selection phase out in Gagetown, I was in the section with the first women being considered for frontline combat duty. (There were 8 of us in the section, 4 women and 4 men)

We went through hell together. Near the end they interviewed us all like crazy to get a feel for what we thought about the women. All of us said the samething, "as long as they can do the job, gender doesn't matter."

Two of the four women never made it to basic, one made it to armour school, and I have no idea what happened to the other one.

Really? Gay, female, straight male, even if you like ABBA, you should be allowed to serve your country in the military.

 

[Blade96]

I'm a hockey fan and there are also no openly gay people in the NHL playing. People say 'i wont change with a gay person' Its as if people think gays are all promiscuous and wanting to cop a feel at any opportunity or something. There's that common belief too.

I change all the time with a lesbian Brown Belt at my dojo. There's a bunch of us girls - brown belts, one black belt, and a white belt who's almost yellow belt (me) One of the brown belts is gay. and we never worry 'is she looking at me' whats she thinking' We're all mature young women and she isnt interested in any of us anyway. We're all good friends, we train together and that is that. why should it be different in the military? Honestly I think people who think 'i wont change with a gay person' 'i wont work with them if i knew they were gay' seriously need to grow up and get over themselves.

 

[CoryKS]

Remember when they said women shouldn't be out on the frontline etc?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...-leg-Captain-Kate-Philp-talks-to-The-Sun.html

I read somewhere, and I can't find the article, that there were two main concerns with women on the front line. The first concern would be the treatment they would receive if captured by the enemy, since there are obvious abuses that men would not normally receive. The second concern was more interesting, and tbh it's something I would not have considered. Apparently there's some evidence that having women on the front line leads to an increase in the number of combat atrocities. The hypothesis is that if the males see a female teammate killed, it provokes anger and personalization of the fight to a degree that seeing another male killed doesn't. Obviously there isn't a lot of data for them to use, though they did use Israel as a source since they by necessity have a fully integrated force. I wish I could find that article.

 

[geezer]

I am of a more cynical American point of view. I am wondering at the bringing up of an issue that is not apparently much of an issue at this time. The timing of the announcement is meant in my opinion to reenergize the extreme left of the Democratic party and bolster their flagging support for President Obama after all the recent losses and setbacks he has suffered. I think he is hoping to get the right to help him re-ignite the passions of those supporters and is willing further split the country to satisfy his political need. Brian

In general, I'd say your perspective is more realistic than cynical. Successful politicians need to take all these factors into consideration. In other words, of course there are political reasons why the President is broaching this hot-button issue at this particular time. But regardless of timing, getting rid of "Don't ask, don't tell" was one of his campaign promises, and it is high time this inequitable and unworkable policy was thrown out. If that re-energizes Obama's base, all the better for him.

As far as "splitting the country", I think we can find a lot of blame to pass around there. I'd start by looking at the sensationalist talk-jocks in the media! With the Senate's "super majority" gone, Obama needs to unify the country a bit more. If he can't build a little more bi-partisanship in Congress, his administration is dead in the water. Now that may please some on the far right, but it's not good for the nation.

 

[Tez3]

I read somewhere, and I can't find the article, that there were two main concerns with women on the front line. The first concern would be the treatment they would receive if captured by the enemy, since there are obvious abuses that men would not normally receive. The second concern was more interesting, and tbh it's something I would not have considered. Apparently there's some evidence that having women on the front line leads to an increase in the number of combat atrocities. The hypothesis is that if the males see a female teammate killed, it provokes anger and personalization of the fight to a degree that seeing another male killed doesn't. Obviously there isn't a lot of data for them to use, though they did use Israel as a source since they by necessity have a fully integrated force. I wish I could find that article.

Israel doesn't have a fully integrated force and it's not a 'proper' army to judge others by. The IDF is basically the whole country having to fight for it's survival, there's no voluntary joining up, people shooting at you means you have to shoot back regardless of sex or sexual orientation.

The idea of women on the front line causing more atrocities is unlikely to be honest at least in the British army. As I mentioned before the regimental system here means that friends, brothers fathers, uncles etc etc are in the same regiment, many have grown up in the regiment and their ancestors were in it going back in some cases to the 17th century. daughters and sisters marry in the regiment too so you have a very close knit family community that fights together, you will be on the front line with your brother, unlce, brother in law etc which is far more likely to cause men to fighter harder etc than the fact a woman is on the front line.
Properly trained and discplined troops aren't so stupid to go berserk just because the person killed is a woman, they could go berserk if a colleague, a fellow soldier regardless of sex is killed or they as is more likely will revert to their training and take out the enemy.

The answer as always is education and good training.

 

[CoryKS]

Israel doesn't have a fully integrated force and it's not a 'proper' army to judge others by. The IDF is basically the whole country having to fight for it's survival, there's no voluntary joining up, people shooting at you means you have to shoot back regardless of sex or sexual orientation.

I'm not going to debate your other points because what I wrote wasn't necessarily my viewpoint, but rather something I read that sounded interesting. I'm just curious how you can describe the IDF as "the whole country having to fight for it's survival" while simultaneously disputing that it is fully integrated?

 

[CanuckMA]

I'm not going to debate your other points because what I wrote wasn't necessarily my viewpoint, but rather something I read that sounded interesting. I'm just curious how you can describe the IDF as "the whole country having to fight for it's survival" while simultaneously disputing that it is fully integrated?

Because everybody does their tour and everybody remains in the reserves.

It is not fully integrated because Israel has not had women in front line combat roles since after the 1948 war.

The flip side is that having women available to fill in the support roles gives you more men available for combat roles.

 

[Tez3]

Because everybody does their tour and everybody remains in the reserves.

It is not fully integrated because Israel has not had women in front line combat roles since after the 1948 war.

The flip side is that having women available to fill in the support roles gives you more men available for combat roles.

Cheers for that!
It's often quoted, wrongly, that the Israelis had women in the tanks but took them out because the men were finding it impossible.Women have never been in the Israeli tank corps.

Some of my MA students are in a tank regiment, they have a couple of gay men in ther battalion and no one is bothered about being in the close confines of the tanks with them and it is close with the haed of one chap being almost in the groin of another so if they can ignore all that, which would be uncomfortable in all senses of the word with two straight men, when its a gay man the american forces I'm sure will manage fine.

Cory I wasn't debating with you or being on the opposte side, just answering the post.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

To you, perhaps.
To the thousands of gays / bis / lesbians in the military, this is a monumental issue.
If someone is good enough to kill or die for his or her country, it would probably be a decent thing to allow those who wish to to come out of the closet without risking instant dismissal.

Yes, that's true. I'm just saying that it is coming at this moment for reasons that have little to nothing to do with the issue, important though it is.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Especially when a lot of those criticising gays aren't willing to go that far for their country!

Please. I served six years in the Marines. I have earned the right to criticize policy if anyone has.

And I'm not criticizing gays. I'm not even criticizing the change in policy. However, I do note that there are 'hot button' issues which one is not allowed to challenge by PC convention without being a 'homophobe' or a 'racist' or 'sexist'.

Am I allowed to hold an opinion that is contrary to the PC crowd without being anti-gay, or must I be a homophobe if I have an opinion that some gay people might not like?

 

[Tez3]

Please. I served six years in the Marines. I have earned the right to criticize policy if anyone has.

And I'm not criticizing gays. I'm not even criticizing the change in policy. However, I do note that there are 'hot button' issues which one is not allowed to challenge by PC convention without being a 'homophobe' or a 'racist' or 'sexist'.

Am I allowed to hold an opinion that is contrary to the PC crowd without being anti-gay, or must I be a homophobe if I have an opinion that some gay people might not like?

Nobody was attacking you or even thinking about you when the posts were made. I don't know why you thought it was aimed at you.

 

[Gordon Nore]

I'm sure I've posted this before. It's a scene from The West Wing tv series in which the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs questions a subordinate on his opinion of allowing gays to serve openly in the military.

"The West Wing: Let Bartlet Be Bartlet (#1.19)" (2000)

Major Tate: Sir, we're not prejudiced toward homosexuals.
Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: You just don't want to see them serving in the Armed Forces?
Major Tate: No sir, I don't.
Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: 'Cause they impose a threat to unit discipline and cohesion.
Major Tate: Yes, sir.
Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: That's what I think, too. I also think the military wasn't designed to be an instrument of social change.
Major Tate: Yes, sir.
Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: The problem with that is that's what they were saying about me 50 years ago - blacks shouldn't serve with whites. It would disrupt the unit. You know what? It did disrupt the unit. The unit got over it. The unit changed. I'm an admiral in the U.S. Navy and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff... Beat that with a stick.

 

[CoryKS]

I'm sure I've posted this before. It's a scene from The West Wing tv series in which the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs questions a subordinate on his opinion of allowing gays to serve openly in the military.

It's a fair point but consider for a moment that the situation 50 years ago was quite a bit different than it is today. First, there was a draft which meant that they didn't have to worry about white service members choosing not to enlist. Second, the military pretty much had carte blanche to enforce discipline in any way it saw fit.

The fact is that when people are free to make their own choices, you have to take their opinions seriously even if you don't agree with them. The Mass. election is a clear example of that. Try to force something that people don't agree with, and they will exercise their choice not to participate. Now, it may be that these concerns are misplaced. That's why they need to have a study, to gauge what the likely response will be.

 

[geezer]

Try to force something that people don't agree with, and they will exercise their choice not to participate. Now, it may be that these concerns are misplaced. That's why they need to have a study, to gauge what the likely response will be.

OK, do a study, get good data and come up with a sensible plan to move forward. Then do the right thing. If fewer homophobes enter the military, and we come up a bit short... then sweeten the deal and attract a better grade of soldiers. Do what it takes. People will adjust.

 

[Archangel M]

As long as you are devoted to serving your country, I could care less about what you find attractive. The whole thing was dumb at its inception.

 

[K831]

As long as you are devoted to serving your country, I could care less about what you find attractive. The whole thing was dumb at its inception.

I don't think it was ever about who was attracted to who. It was about culture and "esprit de corps" which is a massive aspect of what makes an organization such as the Marines, Army etc work and remain strong.

The issue was more about inclusion and synergy amongst troops, unity and morale than anything else. Most guys fight for the other guys in their unit more than anything else. They create bonds withing units that are uncommon outside of such a culture. A rift in that dynamic could be catastrophic to the organization accomplishing its task, and that is what the concern was.

I'm not advocating either side, however, from an organizational behavior point of view, I can absolutely understand the concern. Looking at it objectively, the questions isn't "is it right" but much more "is it effective, what is the cost, what is best for the organization and its ability to accomplish its given tasks".

Not to mention the whole "contrary to good order and discipline" aspect.

 

[Tez3]

I think many are estimating the service people when they say they are fearful of change etc, I think sometimes its actually downright insulting. Do you really think that people don't know who is gay in their units and that in reality it doesn't make any difference that they are? I'm betting that most unsits have gay people in them and that if being gay is made lagel it doesn't change the dynamic at all. You don't go on deployments, into wars, get shot at etc etc without knowing whats going on with your colleagues. Trust me, make being gay legal and in a year or two you will wonder what all the fuss is about.

 

[geezer]

Most guys fight for the other guys in their unit more than anything else. They create bonds withing units that are uncommon outside of such a culture. A rift in that dynamic could be catastrophic to the organization accomplishing its task, and that is what the concern was.

Yeah, Jason you have a point, but I think people really do underestimate the "common" soldier... as Tez pointed out. I don't believe that we Americans are really that backward compared to the Brits and Canadians, and they've moved beyond this issue.

Another thing. To a large degree, military "effectiveness" is linked to "what's right". Who wants to fight in an army that enforces "what's wrong"? Having the sense that you represent what is right, good, and just is a tremendous moral booster.

Finally, my dad was in the service back when it was racially segregated and first became integrated. He said that some people did have a hard time adjusting. But eventually they adjusted. I personally had a student who came from an Aryan Brotherhood background. He was majorly bigoted, and it caused some issues in the classroom. Well, he went on to join the Marines and served in Iraq. I saw him again a couple of years ago. A changed man. He told me about how one of his black Marine "brothers" saved his **** under fire. Yes, the guy still likes off-color jokes, but he's not a bigot anymore. In fact, I was really proud of him. In time, the same thing will happen after they dump "Don't ask don't tell".

 

[K831]

Trust me, make being gay legal and in a year or two you will wonder what all the fuss is about.

Being gay is illegal?

This is part of the problem that I think many are missing. Steve Chapman, in a piece for the Chicago Tribune begins his piece with disingenuous framing. That the issue is about "allowing gays in the military" ….

There are homosexual men and women in the military now. The issue is the extent to which it needs to be discussed.


I can see both sides of that coin, I just wish they would frame the argument around the actual issue.

Yeah, Jason you have a point, but I think people really do underestimate the "common" soldier...
I don't believe that we Americans are really that backward...

I understand where both you and tez are coming from, but I think the way you both are stating it is a bit loaded.

From a completely objective point of view, words like "underestimate" and "backwards" are clearly working from the position that the inherent or absolute truth is that there is nothing morally or psychologically wrong with homosexual acts and that as such, there is no reason people who participate in those acts should keep quite about that.

The problem is, not everyone believes that, and, so far as I can tell, the majority of our military servicemen believe otherwise (as well as many of our general population).

Another thing. To a large degree, military "effectiveness" is linked to "what's right". Who wants to fight in an army that enforces "what's wrong"? Having the sense that you represent what is right, good, and just is a tremendous moral booster.

This is absoulutely correct. So, given this, how are we to expect all of the military men and women who feel that homosexuality is sinful (religiously or morally) or "deviant" in terms of mental health or biological evolution?

In that situation, we are asking them to fight in an army that allows what is "wrong".

The military concern lies in the fact that studies show the majority of the members feel that way, and as such cohesion, morale, unity etc would suffer.

If that is that case, why should the desires of outside politicians trump the military's choice to keep the "Don't ask, don't tell policy" in effect when it is in line with the majority of its members? It allows gays to serve if they want to , it disallows them to talk about it.

Finally, my dad was in the service back when it was racially segregated and first became integrated. He said that some people did have a hard time adjusting. But eventually they adjusted.

Again, this line of thinking operates from the default position that being gay is just as biological as being born black. (I'm not trying to argue for or against this point, rather, frame the argument as both sides see it).

Many people don't believe that, but rather, that it is a choice, a behavior you indulge in or a sin, etc etc.

There is no choice regarding race, and no "behavior" resulting from ones race that may be viewed as "illicit" or "immoral" "deviant" or "sinful".

I think it is important to look at the issue from both sides.

I can’t answer the effect that this would have on the military, so I simply try to get a clear picture of both sides of the argument.
My biggest issue with the whole thing is timing. It seems to be a non-issue for most, and I can’t help but think that Obama simply brought up an issue he thought would energize his disenchanted base, and to deflect attention from the many things he promised us and has gone back on. I don't like disingenuous mentions of such issues.

 

[K831]

Some of you may find the comments under this piece interesting:

http://comments.realclearpolitics.com/read/1/564886.html

A fair amount military personnel sharing their thoughts.