Right Thinking From The Left Coast
We didn't lose the game; we just ran out of time. - Vince Lombardi

DADT Fallout

Well, it’s getting close to official. The House voted last night to allow the military to rescind Don’t Ask Don’t Tell if they deem it appropriate. Only a handful of Republicans voted for it, one of whom was Ron Paul, who is frequently smeared as a crazy extremist lunatic (that link is a must-read, BTW). Paul has previously supported DADT, but changed his mind:

“I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual,” Paul said Friday. “To me, this seems like an awful waste. Personal behavior that is disruptive should be subject to military discipline regardless of whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual. But to discharge an otherwise well-trained, professional, and highly skilled member of the military for these reasons is unfortunate and makes no financial sense.”

Needless to say, this does not represent the mainstream of the GOP.  Fortunately, most of them are being reasonable about it, to some extent. There are some fringe groups who are claiming that gay blood will contaminate the army (army personnel are screened for HIV) and others who claim it will mean soldiers getting gay raped. But then again, these guys think the Nazis were gay, so they’re not exactly in Earth orbit.

But the bulk of the GOP are sticking with the “it will disrupt the ranks” meme. That’s not an unreasonable view, even if, in my opinion, it’s an incorrect one.

We’ll see what the Pentagon’s assessment is.  I expect they’ll go ahead and repeal it.  We simply don’t have enough soldiers to go turning perfectly suitable ones out of the ranks.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 05/28/10 at 06:36 PM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by on 05/28/10 at 08:04 PM from United States

Are we somehow pretending that the demise of DADT isn’t a “done deal”? [for good or ill]
The Pentagon couldn’t stop now under any circumstances.From this point on it’s all just taxpayer funded Kabuki theater.

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 05/29/10 at 01:03 AM from United States

I’m actually in favor of the military taking its time to find ways of making this work once it does happen. Ther will be some issues to work out-can a straight soldier, Marine, sailor, etc, refuse to serve with a gay counterpart on moral grounds?

Still, in this case, I think the cooler heads will prevail over the kooks and crackpots. This is one area where the GOP can regain some of its moderate cred, if they’re smart about it.

Posted by on 05/29/10 at 08:40 AM from Germany

But the bulk of the GOP are sticking with the “it will disrupt the ranks” meme. That’s not an unreasonable view, even if, in my opinion, it’s an incorrect one.

Wow for how many people on this site formerly served in the military, the knowledge on this topic seems to be lacking. Hal, in the military there are a number of situations that would be HIGHLY uncomfortable if homosexuals were allowed to be openly admitted. I am going to site the group showers and shared foxholes examples of this. Your average 20 something marine/soldier is highly homophobic and rescinding DADT will disrupt morale and unit cohesion. Most of my friends are either marines or soldiers and have
ALL universally supported DADT because it prevents horrendously awkward problems. Why Obama and his fellow leftists think they somehow know more than the military does is beyond me. 

Furthermore, why is this being tampered with during a war? What the hell is wrong with our President. He has fucked up everything hes gotten his rat claws into so now he needs some bizarre face saving measure. He failed abysmally in closing gitmo, fixing the economy, or even establishing credible health care....I GOT IT, GAYS CAN SERVE IN THE MILITARY. Thats a great thing to implement, right as we struggle in Afghanistan. Good lord when politicians play games with military policy it enrages me.

Posted by on 05/29/10 at 02:22 PM from United States

WestVirginiaRebel, Could one oppose working with a homosexual in a regular 9-5 office environment on moral grounds?  If the answer is no then it should be no in the military.

Tool, I served as a 19D and I never took a group shower.  Not once, not even in basic.  I don’t know how the Marines do it though.  Also, your foxhole comment is just fucking stupid.  Do you really think some gay soldier is going to start dry humping your leg while bullets are flying?  What?  Are they wild animals with no self control?

20 something soldiers and marines may very well be homophobic but that is because they are more a product of a society that tells them it’s ok to be homophobic.  I knew a number of gays while I served and it didn’t bother me or those around us.  Yes, there were some knuckleheads but there everywhere.

Why can’t we address this during war time?  We need soldiers and marines to fight these stupid and unnecessary wars do we not?  When do you foresee us not being at war to address this?  This nation is constantly at war so now is just as good a time as any.

Perhaps if our political class didn’t feel a need to run around the globe brow beating and bullying third world nations to submit to our imperial needs and wants we wouldn’t need a military full of homophobes in the first place.

Posted by on 05/29/10 at 06:23 PM from United States

You know that very loud vocal minority that shames the rest of the gay community during gay pride parades?
I wonder where they’ll show up next.

Posted by on 05/30/10 at 10:08 AM from United States

Could one oppose working with a homosexual in a regular 9-5 office environment on moral grounds?

Certainly. Whether it’s right or wrong this person might leave the job. I think this is one of the concerns some of the brass have. They are worried that people will leave the military over this issue.

Posted by on 05/30/10 at 10:55 AM from Germany

Tool, I served as a 19D and I never took a group shower.  Not once, not even in basic.  I don’t know how the Marines do it though.  Also, your foxhole comment is just fucking stupid.  Do you really think some gay soldier is going to start dry humping your leg while bullets are flying?  What?  Are they wild animals with no self control?

One, you are the one being fucking dumb if you willingly admit that most soldiers and marines are homophobic then say “oh thats no problem they’ll just get over it and it won’t affect unit cohesion.” DADT is not about a blanket ban on gays in the militaty its about preventing an open display of homosexuality. I don’t see why you think thats necessary anyways. Do soldiers and marines have to be able to make it known they are openly gay?

Why can’t we address this during war time?  We need soldiers and marines to fight these stupid and unnecessary wars do we not?  When do you foresee us not being at war to address this?  This nation is constantly at war so now is just as good a time as any.

Two, read a fucking history book you dolt. We are always at war? Really? Thats why from 1974-2000 the only major combat that took place was a couple monhts of fighting in the Persian gulf and a bunch of peace keeping operations. The time to end DADT would have been then, not now when we have tens of thousands of combat troops in a protracted occupation of Afghanistan.

Perhaps if our political class didn’t feel a need to run around the globe brow beating and bullying third world nations to submit to our imperial needs and wants we wouldn’t need a military full of homophobes in the first place.

What the hell is this shit? You must read “The Socialist Worker” pretty often to be able to stomach that horseshit. Last time I checked we started invading nations in the middle east AFTER 3,000 Americans were killed in terrorist attack. Of course knowing someone like you, you probably think it was an inside job dont you?

Our imperial needs? Yes thats why we’ve annexed so much terrority and stolen millions of barrels of oil right you idiot? Try reading something besides socialist publications to get your talking points.

Posted by on 05/30/10 at 12:36 PM from United States

Badman - you’re correct.  This was my point.  If private business cannot discriminate then the military should not be allowed to discriminate.  I think most people who favor DADT have a very stereotypical view of gays dressing up in drag and acting like a bunch of faggots.  If some choose not to serve because the guy or girl next to them is gay then the character of our military personnel is that much better.

Tool - I said 20 something’s may be homophobic, not most soldiers and marines were.  Do you think folks are discharged when they reach 30?  I understand exactly what DADT is. My point is not that they are going to demand to wear drag on duty, just that it should not preclude them from being allowed to serve in the first place and they should not be forced into 8 years of KP because a minority of personnel think what they do in private is icky. Unit cohesion is just a tired argument. 

DADT is not about preventing openly gay acts.  Heterosexuals are not allowed any openly intimate activity either.  It is about discrimination.  Period.  You seem to be one of those that has a very bigoted, stereotypical view of gay people.

1976 - 2000 - US military intervention - Angola, Iran, Libya, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Lebanon, Grenada, Honduras, Bolivia, Virgin Islands, Philippeans, Panama, Liberia, Saudi Arabi, Kuwait, Iraq, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Haiti, Albania, Sudan. 

We have no Constitutional mandate to keep the fucking peace on planet earth.  When we enter a country uninvited by the locals it is not always seen as peaceful or helpful and often results in the death (accidental or not) of civilians.

I’ve never read any socialist anything.  The fact that you have to drop this shit and then claim that I think 9/11 was an inside job shows what a fucking dickwad you are.  Imperial ambitions don’t necessarily mean annexing land twat.  We have puppet governments all over the globe that put US interests, however shortsighted and selfsh they may be, as well as these leaders own interests, above those they are supposed to be leading.  This causes animosity.  If you cannot understand that then your handle is indeed appropriate.

Posted by on 05/30/10 at 12:58 PM from Germany

1976 - 2000 - US military intervention - Angola, Iran, Libya, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Lebanon, Grenada, Honduras, Bolivia, Virgin Islands, Philippeans, Panama, Liberia, Saudi Arabi, Kuwait, Iraq, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Haiti, Albania, Sudan.

Ok Mr. Upton Sinclair, let me impress this through your vapid socialistic brain.
Peace keeping operations are not war dumbass. Keeping 200 U.S. military advisors in a country doesn’t mean your at war. Well maybe to you it does but thats your problem understanding reality. In terms of an actual conflict where we undergo large combat operations there was only Somalia and the Persian gulf between 74-2000. You can yammer about military advisors in the Phillipinnes all you want but that doesnt make it a war. Also how does bombing in Sudan and Libya make those actions war? We dropped bombs on Gaddafi for killing U.S. Soldiers, that somehow becomes a war?

I’ve never read any socialist anything.  The fact that you have to drop this shit and then claim that I think 9/11 was an inside job shows what a fucking dickwad you are.  Imperial ambitions don’t necessarily mean annexing land twat.  We have puppet governments all over the globe that put US interests, however shortsighted

Hey retard remember when America was isolationist? We weren’t in any alliances and didn’t give out foreign aid? It was the 1930’s and even then we were still invading Latin America. Stoping subscribing to some utopian view of world politics where countries don’t conduct foreign policy for their own interests. We tried being Isolationist and that got us Pearl Harbor. The U.S. military being present in Europe and Korea is the direct reason those places haven’t exploded into warfare after the 1950’s.

We have no Constitutional mandate to keep the fucking peace on planet earth.  When we enter a country uninvited by the locals it is not always seen as peaceful or helpful and often results in the death (accidental or not) of civilians.

Try reading the Constitution before you prattle on about it. The constitution does grant the president and congress power to declare war, organize armies, and enter into treaties. What it does not forbid is our interventions. You also mention Albania, Yugoslavia, Phillipeans, and Kuwait as part of our “imperialist interventions”. We were either asked specifically by governments of those countries to provide military assistance. Open your eyes and stop pretending America can hide behind its borders and ignore the rest of the world.

Posted by on 05/30/10 at 12:59 PM from Germany

I am going to ask you again Qbert, how is the Invasion of Afghanistan (which was done in direct repsons to 9/11) an example of making, “third world nations to submit to our imperial needs.” If you can prove that i’ll shut my trap and agree with you. Otherwise, your just spewing leftist isolationist bullshit.

Posted by on 05/30/10 at 01:03 PM from United States

So this went from why DADT is good and necessary to “you’re a isolationist, utopian, socialist”?  Why don’t you just call me a commie faggot lover and get it over with you juvenile buffoon.
/end

Posted by on 05/30/10 at 01:15 PM from United States

For the record, I wasn’t talking about Afghanistan.  I wholly supported our response to 9/11.  It’s our continued occupation and subsequent fighting of the Taliban that I object to as well as the unnecessary Iraq fiasco.  We went to get AQ through the Taliban if necessary.  Which we did.  There is no noticeable AQ presence in Afghanistan. 

Can you justify the continued occupation of Afghanistan and fight against the Taliban?  They have no capability of attacking the US. Don’t try the lame “freeing them from oppression” line either. 

The Constitution grants the Congress authority to declare war, not the President.  No declaration has been made.  It also grants the President power to enter treaties.  How is peace keeping allowed by the Constitution.  The military is for defensive purposes.

Posted by on 05/30/10 at 01:42 PM from United States

I don’t want to get in the way of a good fist fight but allow me to ask you a hypothetical question Bert. How about they just reduce the punishment for violation of DADT? Maybe something like an article 15.

In the interest of full disclosure I’m heterosexual and was turned down by the military because of a prior drug conviction (later expunged). I don’t have a dog in this fight other than I want what’s best for our military.

Posted by on 05/30/10 at 02:29 PM from Germany

I defended the DADT qbert. Your the one who brought this little tidbit in during your first post.

Perhaps if our political class didn’t feel a need to run around the globe brow beating and bullying third world nations to submit to our imperial needs and wants we wouldn’t need a military full of homophobes in the first place.

The veering off topic was in response to your snide remarks about our military involvement overseas. Something you decided to input in a conversation over DADT.

Can you justify the continued occupation of Afghanistan and fight against the Taliban?  They have no capability of attacking the US. Don’t try the lame “freeing them from oppression” line either.

Sure I can, the fundamentalist Taliban were the ones who originally harbored Al-Qaida during the 9/11 time period. If they succeed and wrest control of the country they will certainly allow Islamic terrorists safe haven there again. The Taliban is an extremist movement with beliefs very similar to that espoused by Al-Qaida and other Islamic terrorist organizations. Furthermore, allowing Afghanistan to once more be under the Taliban’s heel would greatly destablize Pakistan which is already dealing with its own Islamic insurgency. Do mind Islamic militants controlling that country and its atomic weapons because i do.

Which circles back to my original point. This is not the time to play politics with the military. We absolutely must win this war.

Posted by on 05/30/10 at 02:32 PM from Germany

The Constitution grants the Congress authority to declare war, not the President.  No declaration has been made.  It also grants the President power to enter treaties.  How is peace keeping allowed by the Constitution.  The military is for defensive purposes.

I am not a fan of peace keeping operations either. I believe our military should only be utilized when direct national interests are at stake. Additionally I would prefer if we declared war before committing divisions of troops into combat.  However, since we invaded and removed the government of Afghanistan (the taliban) we do have the responsibility of maintaining order in that country until their own government gains that ability.

Posted by on 05/30/10 at 02:39 PM from United States

Sure Badman.  If someone is on duty or on base and flaunts the fact that they are gay and intentionally makes others uncomfortable then by all means an article 15 is appropriate.  If sexual harassment can be proven then a full court martial should take place.  The same goes for heterosexuals.  Even off base one should never try to intimidate or harass anyone.  Period.  Military personnel are ambassadors for this nation and the citizens of this country deserve to have the finest people serving.  The military is expected to hold themselves accountable to higher standards and those apply to all.  Gay or straight.

I too am a heterosexual.  If I acted inappropriately towards female personnel or civilians I would have expected to be held accountable.  In the civilian world I could be fired and sued.

Posted by Akula on 05/30/10 at 02:43 PM from Canada

I personally dislike this meme that the military can’t deal with it.

Almost all of our NATO allies allow gays to serve openly. And when they enacted those policies, all the scenarios we’re hearing from the anti-gay side now, never came to fruition.

So when you make the argument that our military cannot cope with having openly gay men and women, you are also arguing that our military is significantly less professional then many of the militaries of the world.

Posted by on 05/30/10 at 03:11 PM from United States

Tool - in the interest of celebrating the holiday weekend, let’s just agree to disagree regarding Afghanistan and it’s apparent we have wildly different opinions as to what constitutes “isolationism”. 

My grievance is not with the military of which I happen to be a veteran, it is with our foreign policy.  Foreign policy is created and directed by our politicians and has very little to do with yours and my best interest.  Certainly you can agree that politicians don’t really give a shit about you or I.

Your defense of DADT is that gay people can serve if they just keep their mouths shut so that those around them won’t know their gay.  Trust me, most already know.  They don’t need to sing showtoons all day to understand that.  If we need, as you suggest, to keep a large presence in far off shit holes, won’t we need as many as possible?  Shouldn’t we have the best soldiers and marines?

I stand by my statement about imperialism. As I said, we need not annex land to have imperialistic ambitions.  We need only have granted ourselves power to dictate the direction other nations move.  You contend that every nation will and should do what is in it’s best interest.  Seemingly regardless of what the peoples we screw over want.  Should Russia decide it is in it’s best interest to occupy Alaska should we just say “ah fuck, but it is in their best interest”? No.  We should kick their ass.  Why should others not feel that way about us?

Who gets to decide when some other nation that we are “stabilizing” is ready to lead themselves?  You?  Me?  Shouldn’t the people decide for themselves?  The Taliban can believe whatever stone age bullshit they want.  They have no military capability to hit us.  Besides, many Afghanis prefer the Taliban.

If Pakistan feels threatened then Pakistan can deal with it.  We could advise but no more.  BTW - what about India or China?  They are more directly threatened then us.

There is a legitimate use for our military and it is not being used for that effect.

As for being snarky I offer my apologies.  I had a hangover.  Enjoy your weekend and be safe.

Posted by on 05/30/10 at 04:39 PM from United States

I’m coming a bit late to the party, but qbert I have a question for you.  You wrote:

WestVirginiaRebel, Could one oppose working with a homosexual in a regular 9-5 office environment on moral grounds?  If the answer is no then it should be no in the military

So you think that the military should follow all workplace rules that apply to private employers?  Take a moment to think about that.  Done thinking?  Now don’t you think that’s a really stupid idea?

Posted by on 05/30/10 at 10:28 PM from Germany

Tool - in the interest of celebrating the holiday weekend, let’s just agree to disagree regarding Afghanistan and it’s apparent we have wildly different opinions as to what constitutes “isolationism”. 

Certainly, point taken.

My grievance is not with the military of which I happen to be a veteran, it is with our foreign policy.  Foreign policy is created and directed by our politicians and has very little to do with yours and my best interest.  Certainly you can agree that politicians don’t really give a shit about you or I.

No they do not to this I do agree. But regardless of my irritation with politicians I try to support my country in its military endevours. Having done some thorough research on the Taliban and their allies, I would prefer if they did not exist as I feel they are an extreme threat to our national security.

I stand by my statement about imperialism. As I said, we need not annex land to have imperialistic ambitions.  We need only have granted ourselves power to dictate the direction other nations move.  You contend that every nation will and should do what is in it’s best interest.  Seemingly regardless of what the peoples we screw over want.  Should Russia decide it is in it’s best interest to occupy Alaska should we just say “ah fuck, but it is in their best interest”? No.  We should kick their ass.  Why should others not feel that way about us?

Let me clarify my somewhat general and insulting prior statements about what you referred as imperialism. I am not trying to say the Saddam’s and Putin’s of the world can invade and wreck whoever they please as its simply in their best interest. What I am saying is that I try to view the world as a realist. Realistically, countries will act on foreign policy initiatives that benefit themselves. The taliban sheltered al-qaida and threaten our allies. Pakistan is an ally despite their issues and a governemnt under taliban rule in that country would be a disaster. The formidable Islamists infastructure would have more state backing then it already does and terrorism would be state sanctioned. To say nothing of an impending regional war with India if Islamic militants seized control of that nation.

Your defense of DADT is that gay people can serve if they just keep their mouths shut so that those around them won’t know their gay.  Trust me, most already know.  They don’t need to sing showtoons all day to understand that.  If we need, as you suggest, to keep a large presence in far off shit holes, won’t we need as many as possible?  Shouldn’t we have the best soldiers and marines?

I was also saying the majority of the people in the military say they do not want it reappealed. It was a military iniative in the first place. The politicians you derided earlier are now trying to say they know more about military performance than the military does. That irritates me greatly.

My apologies for my previous insults qbert.

Posted by on 06/01/10 at 01:59 PM from United States

Now that things have calmed down a bit, I have a question.  If this is going to affect the rank and file and upset unit cohesion, then what the fuck do you have officers for?  I thought they we to maintain good order and discipline and be leaders.  If they can’t do this over this issue, it sounds like you need better officers.  Personally, I find it insulting to all of the military to suggest that the rank and file will run amok and also that the officers are incapable of handling this issue. Reminds me of the trip up in “A Few Good Men”.  You can’t say on one hand that you give an order and it is obeyed unquestionly and then maintain you have to move a troop because you are afraid the other troops would violate your order to “do not touch Santiago”.  Can’t have it both ways, folks.
(Hope everyone had a meaningful, positive Memorial Day.

Posted by club penguin cheats on 06/08/10 at 07:26 PM from China

Almost all of our NATO allies allow gays to serve openly. And when they enacted those policies, all the scenarios we’re hearing from the anti-gay side now, never came to fruition.

<< Back to main