Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Kill DADT?

You know my position - it is in alignment with the CINC's statement at the SOTU address.

Let's make it "Don't care" and move forward.

30 comments:

Pedro the Lion said...

Very progressive of you, Cdr.

Claudio said...

theres a time and a place to pick your battles.  I frankly don't care either way.  20 years in the canoe club, I served with some I knew and some I didn't that were ghey.  Not that there's anything wrong with that. 

But I just think that with the present issues facing our country, there's maybe other priorities that need to come first, such as economy and the 2 wars we're fighting...pick from among the dozen or so issues milling about

then again, maybe this is a little maskirovka...

pa moemu, da.

DeltaBravo said...

hahaha.  What?  The Great Pot War of 2010 didn't get enough debate?

;)

AW1 Tim said...

Claudio,

  This is Obama's attempt to divert attention away from the REALLY important issues, and help stir up his base in the wake of some nasty losses to the GOP.

   Besides that, It's Congresses call to make, NOT the CinC or the military. Congress wrote the law banning gays from the military. Only Congress can undo that, and it remains to be seen how many, in an election year, will have the courage of their convictions?

sobersubmrnr said...

DADT is a DoD policy, not a law. The exclusion law is just that, Federal law that has to be repealed by Congress.

CDR, with all due respect sir, your position on lifting the ban does not square with your distaste for the Diversity Bullies. You of all people have know what will happen if homosexuals are allowed to serve openly. "Don't care" just ain't happening. They will make you care....or else.

Mustang said...

I have to agree on this one.  Don't we have enough to worry about right now?  Is there something really broken with the current policy (law)?  Let's fix what needs fixed and stop pandering to the special interest groups that put him where he is today.

ewok40k said...

note also the stance on energy elsewhere in the address- go gren, go nuke, go (clean) coal, go shelf for oil..
heard Rep congressmen made applause at the point

Anon said...

100% agree with the CINC on this and could care less about his motivations.  The argument that "this isn't the right time because we have so much else to worry about" seems to have become the preferred argument of those who oppose a change in the policy, period.  I am not willing to look at a gay Sailor or Marine and tell them they must continue to serve under constant risk of discovery and discharge because I am too busy to do right by them.  Of course, I don't have to tell them that, because I don't know who they are and they can't tell me.  That makes it pretty easy for me to live in blissful ignorance until they get fed up and vote with their feet, but by then it's too late and I've lost a good performer.  The sooner we put this shameful and wasteful policy behind us, the better.

Tugboat said...

I served with 2 who came out to get out (one E5 and one E4), and one who was a good friend who didn't come out till after he got out, because he was afraid that he'd lose his friends.  The general response to his email was a resounding 'who cares where you put your thing?' and from a 6-sigma (had to sneak in a buzzword) perspective, how much time do we lose when we do an investigation, outprocess someone for being gay, and have to train up (and experience-up) a replacement? 

LT B said...

Only problem is the diversity ninnies beating me every year w/ MORE sensitivity training.  If I have to have a gay pride month to go along w/ Black/female/Hispanic, etc pride months.  This will be yet another politicized thing.  Also, we need to shut the fraternization down.  male/female and same/same must be treated honestly.  Will we be afraid to discipline gays like many are w/ females or minorities?  Time will tell.  I have little faith in the senior leadership to NOT screw this pink bowed poodle.

cdrsalamander said...

No reason to throw insults around Pedro.   ;)

UltimaRatioRegis said...

I hear that BGen Balltickle McSoulpatch walked right down to the prior service recruiter and joined the Navy.  He was whistling the Village People song the whole way.

Wait'll we get the mandatory sensitivity classes where you are told it is a felony to punch some guy's lights out for hitting on you at the local bar. Or the SCM for the "take it in the a**" comment that is overheard.

And, behold, DACOGITS.  Barney Fwank (D- Assachusetts) will chair it.  And Admirals and Generals will cowtow.  Same as always.  And yes, Gay Heritage Month. 

Think this is an exaggeration?  Bet a case of scotch that it ain't.

MR T's Haircut said...

LT B,

A package call for the Chief to hurry and get out before the deadline... Gay Navigator of the Year award... Contestant flown for lunch in San Francisco...

Anon said...

Yeah, it's really going to suck not being able to say "that's so gay" anymore.  Grow up.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Anon,

The point, not surprisingly, sailed over your head.  So maybe your growth could use some work.

Mike F. said...

Then, like I have said before, logical consistancy mandates that we eliminate segregated berthing on board ship and adopt a "Starship Troopers" model. 

Anthony Mirvish said...

It will work about as well the coed force (especially on the fraternization/discipline side) except that there won't have to be any separate physical standards for the men or any doubt about their ability to perform them. 

While I see this as less of a problem than the force being coed, I caution that history shows many things that seem "reasonable" in the abstract have a way of not working out so well in practice.  It's not just unintended consequences but the way human nature works sometimes...sort of like the old saying about leading a horse to water. 

Casey Tompkins said...

Tim, that seems to be the key issue. Just finished reading a post over at Blackfive by Uber Pig saying Obama should just issue an Executive Order, just like Truman did for racial integration.

Further down thread someone pointed out that Congress later enacted DADT (<span>US Code Title 10 § 654) into law. I don't think Barry can over-ride that with an Executive Order.</span>

I didn't know about that, until today. You would think mister Harvard "I've got a brain the size of a planet" Graduate would, or at least one of his advisers would give him a heads-up on the issue.

Agree that it's kabuki, but interpret it rather as trying to mollify part of his base, instead of stirring them up. If you haven't noticed, many progressives are becoming quite disenchanted with Fearless Leader these days. Apparently they're starting to realize his promises really do have expiration dates... :-[

LT B said...

But what about the DIVERSE gays?  Can we get a professional Black Gay Engineer award too?

YNSN said...

This already is a "Don't Care" to much of the blueshirts.  I myself had shipmates in the racks next to me that we all knew were gay.  Never was an issue.  We all knew... We grew up in the 90s, we can tell. 

MR T's Haircut said...

of course, it would be Fabulous!

Quartermaster said...

It would be a huge mistake rivaling the admission of women to combat forces. We already have enough disgusting trash tearing the forces down without something like DADT being repealed.

Grumpy Old Ham said...

In a less politicized, less polarized world, the question would simply come down to "does repeal of DADT increase combat readiness?"  If so, repeal it forthwith; if not, let current policy stand.  Remember, DADT is mostly the brainchild of Charles Moskos, who also said DADT shouldn't be a permanent policy (http://militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?p=105677).

Moskos also pointed out the same issue as Mike F., which is also along the lines of what a now-inactive blogger posted here:  http://redfoxpolitix.blogspot.com/2009/04/gays-and-military.html

Unfortunately, we don't live in such an ideal world and have to deal with second-order effects.  One one hand, repeal might shut down that BG McSoulPatch and his fellow travelers in the militant LGBT community; on the other, they'll use it as an excuse for even more confrontation, "training", and "Heritage Months" as URR and LT B pointed out.

AW1 Tim said...

Here's the part where we get to talk about the unintended consequences of all this. First off, I haven't a problem with gays serving openly. never have, never will.

  Nope, the problem isn't with the gay men or women. It's going to be when the first "transgender" wants to enlist that the real problems will occur. What's the military's response going to be? Remember that the code word for all of this is LGBT: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,transgendered. ALL of them are going to want to be a part of this deal, and it's going to be quite an issue when a transgender male decides he wants to enlist as a female, and live as a female among actual female sailors.

   This is going to be an "all or nothing" thing, and when the floodgates open, there's going to be hell to pay.

   As pointed out below, what passes for "leadership" these days needs to make a decision as to whether gays openly serving in the military is in the best interests of our military, and of our nation. If it is, then so be it. If it isn't, then the law needs to stand as is, and I have no doubts that the SCOTUS will affirm such a decision.

   Like I said, it isn't the gays that are the problem, it's the shemales of both stripes that will be the real issue, and you better have a whole fuel bunker full of beer and popcorn when this gets going.

Anthony Mirvish said...

GOH,
In a less politicized world, the effect on combat readiness would have been the only question asked when any personnel policies were being considered. 

Moskos was an infantryman who served in the 1950s before becoming going into academia.  With regards to women in the force, he said that, "You raise the question of where the burden of proof should lie...It would seem to m the burden of proof would be on the side saying equal opportunity is of such significance that we're going to override some of these costs."

We should remember that none of the promises made regarding standards and equal treatment have been upheld for women in the forces.  Regular incidents and comments on this site offer ample proof of that.  If the force is still as effective, fine.  But, the evidence from the gender front suggests that skepticism on how the sexual orientation front is justified.  Lots of men, after all, said there would be no problem with women.

Since much of this policy is based on the success of the coed force, one will not be able to challenge it without challenging that claim.

Kris (fmr QM1) said...

Look, the Brits dealt with this over 10 years ago. Do any of our guys as the Brits to confirm their sexual identity before allowing them to assist in a fire fight?

Lemmie get this straight - AW1's worried about men who become women and want to bunk in female berthing? Does he think there is going to be a line of trannies trying to enlist?

Hey, it's a big country and maybe some will. Who cares? Presumably, the only "issue" would be if the man who became a woman became a lesbian - but then AW1 doesn't have a problem with gays...

I'm confused. His scenario's more complicated than an "L" Word plot.

Philo said...

<span> Will we be afraid to discipline gays like many are w/ females or minorities?</span>
****
Why are you afraid to discipline women or minorities?  When someone violates the rules, they need to face the music.  This isn't the fault of the women or the minorities, this is the fault of those that refuse to hold them accountable.  If you're afraid to hold people accountable, you shouldn't be an officer.

Philo said...

The entire policy results in a dead weight loss, and undermines the equal opportunity message of the military.  Telling people to lie amounts to telling them to ignore honor and integrity (but just for this one thing).

Philo said...

Glad to see you taking the expected level of maturity with this.  No wonder the military still has problems integrating women.

MR T's Haircut said...

Vote for Pedro....