I have a lot of respect for the US Military. Think of the things they have done, and continue to do, over the nearly 250 years of our history.
Consider — moving people around the world, dealing with minor cities in the forms of bases, planning elaborate operations, transporting and supporting ammo and tanks and trucks and all that jazz, contracting with tons of contractors to provide (well, let’s not get into contractor management), dealing with benefits and payroll and managing 1.5 million personnel, worldwide, with their families.
People of all sorts — all races, all religions, all political persuasions. A massive populace that has dealt in the last 60 years with wars, racial integration, sexual integration, changes of branches, going from the draft to all-volunteer …
So, Bryan, why do you hate our military? Or at least sell it so short? Why do you think that, with the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, our brave, committed, devoted troops, and the remarkable organization that supports them, will fall apart?
As hearings before Congress have already indicated, implementing the LGBT law in the United States military will prove to be a confused snarl.
Certainly it’s going to be complicated. But the military has faced greater challenges. And society is dealing with these same challenges. But things change.
The House Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing tomorrow (Thursday) on the subject of implementing the repeal of the longstanding ban on homosexual service in the armed forces.
I would feel better about that if the House Armed Service Committee weren’t majority GOP now and likely to blow any problems out of proportion in the most partisan fashion they can manage. Because, of course, the GOP base expects that DADT is a plot by Teh Evill Gayz and their Liberal Muslim Atheist Democrat Lackeys.
As Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness points out, there are a raft of unanswered questions regarding implementation, questions for which military brass seem to have no answers.
Donnelly and the CMR are opposed to the repeal of DADT, and not necessarily for objective reasons (if articles like “Will Senate Surrender Pentagon Social Policies to the “LGBT Left?” are any indication).
To this point, no one has argued in any persuasive fashion that repeal will actually strengthen the military and improve its readiness, recruitment and retention capabilities.
I disagree, Bryan. It’s been pointed out that the military, through the DADT policy, has discharged lots of valuable talent. How can cutting the population to draw from, or getting rid of people who are serving valuable positions within the military, not weaken the military — and not doing that strengthen it?
The best they’ve been able to do is argue that it is doable, with (an imaginary) minimally disruptive effect. Even Pentagon officials have acknowledged that unless the transition is handled well, this thing could blow up like a grenade in the hand.
Yes, if transitions are not handled well, it will not go well. Um … yes, any other obvious bits of wisdom you want to pass on to us, Bryan?
During last Friday’s hearing before the HSAC Personnel Committee, neither Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness Clifford L. Stanley nor Vice Adm. William Gortney could make the case that implementation would improve the military. In fact, when Sec. Stanley was asked how the change will improve the military mission, he said, “We don’t know.” The best they could do was Adm. Gortney’s prediction that “this change will not impact our ability to win,” hardly a ringing endorsement.
See above. And, honestly, Bryan, your reporting of what happened in the GOP-led HASC (not HSAC, Bryan) carries a less-than-convincing tone.
To which I’d add, did anyone make a case that the racial integration would actually “improve the military”? Or was it just “the right thing to do?”
Many questions remain, and here are just a few, many of them raised in a briefing prepared by Ms. Donnelly for the HSAC.
I’m sure Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) appreciates her fine help.
There are potential huge problems dealing with personal privacy issues. Local commanders are to be told to handle accommodation issues on a “case-by-case basis,” which leaves them at the mercy of superiors who may accept complaints that any adjustments they make create “hostile work environments” for LGBT personnel.
What sort of “personal privacy issues” are we talking about, Bryan? I mean, it”s known that there are already gays serving in the military (otherwise a DADT policy wouldn’t be needed, right?). So wouldn’t folks concerned that TEH GAYZ might be ogling their private bits actually be better off knowing who those GAYZ are?
Berthing and billeting issues, especially on submarines and with deployed battalions, will have to be faced because of the sexual tension that will be created by the presence of same-sex-attracted service-members. What alterations can commanders make to “mitigate” privacy concerns without facing career-ending accusations? No answer. If four-star officers cannot answer these questions, why should subordinate field commanders be expected to?
Again, why do we need berthing and billeting changes? Sexual advances within the ranks are already covered by regulation. I can, potentially, imagine some changes in how sexual harassment regulations are handled, but, honestly, aside from those sorts of overt actions, why is the presence of “same-sex-attracted service-members” that big a deal? (Especially, again, as we already know they already exist.)
In fact, Adm. Gortney admitted …
“Admitted,” Bryan, is, of course, a weighted word to imply that it was something folks were trying to hide.
… that men are separated from women to protect “good order and discipline,” and that without that kind of separation, sexual attraction would inevitably harm the military interest. But he gave a muddled and entirely unsatisfactory answer to the obvious question about sexual tension created by same-sex attraction in the same settings.
One obvious difference is that gays constitute 1-5% of the population, by most counts. So, out of 100 men in a barrack setting, you might expect 1-5 of them to be “same-sex-attracted.” I don’t expect that’s going to be a challenge to “good order and discipline” that the 95-99% of the heterosexual population would represent in a mixed-gender setting.
And what if a commander makes a good faith effort to accommodate privacy concerns, and is accused by an LGBT individual of “disrespect?” Will that officer be supported by his superiors or thrown to the wolves? Will such an officer get legal representation if dragged into court, or will he be on his own?
Yeah, Bryan, adjustments will have to be made, and, yeah, I suspect there will be a certain amount of give and take between policy from above and actuating it from below. Welcome to the real world.
But, by the same token, the same conditions existed in both the racial and sexual integration of the armed forces, Bryan. And, heck, folks outside the military have been having to deal with the issues of “same-sex-attracted” folks in the workplace for some time now. I suspect the military will figure out how to handle it. They are ostensibly trained to deal with ambiguous tactical and strategic situations, aren’t they?
The Pentagon doesn’t even have mechanisms in place to assess the impact of repeal and the impact of the training that’s being done in preparation for implementation. How in the world, then, can the Secretary of Defense or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs certify that repeal won’t have a negative impact?
What sort of “mechanisms” would you suggest, Bryan?
Further, there is no indication that exit interviews of departing service-members will include questions regarding the impact of the LGBT law on their decision to leave the military. So how is the military going to get any kind of meaningful data on the impact of the LGBT law on retention, which is a major concern of opponents of repeal?
Well, there’s looking at retention rates before and after the implementation of the policy change, for a starter. And, assuming there are exit interviews at present, presumably the opportunity to provide such feedback (“Why are you leaving the military?”) would be included, without positing a specific question about it (“Did the fact that there were EVIL PERVERTED GAYZ in the military have any impact on your decision to leave the armed forces?”).
With regard to religious liberty for both chaplains and people of faith, serious questions remain. Will chaplains be allowed to express their sincerely held religious convictions about the nature of homosexual conduct outside worship services, say while they are off-duty but on base? If questions come up while they’re in the PX snack bar or at a sports activity, will they be hammered if they represent their faith tradition accurately in such conversations?
Are chaplains currently able to express opinions about faiths other than their own? Or about particulars of their own faith? If someone comes from a faith tradition that says that women should be married and birthin’ babies (rather than being in the armed forces), is that allowed to be preached? If someone comes from a faith tradition that says that some other religions group (Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Catholics, non-dispensational-milleninarians) are doomed to the Fiery Furnace, are they allowed to express their opinion? If someone comes from a faith tradition that says that the races should not mix, are they allowed to preach that lesson as a military chaplain?
I submit that same would apply to those whose faith traditions condemn homosexuality.
What procedures will be in place to protect chaplains from prejudicial fitness reports from pro-gay superiors? If a chaplain loses his endorsement, the military has indicated that he may still be required to finish out his term of military service even though he’s been defrocked. Doing what exactly?
See above.
I am not in favor of chaplains having to abandon their true beliefs. On the other hand, the nature of the chaplaincy is serving the spiritual needs of all the troops. If a chaplain is expected to serve to Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Mormons, Zoroastrians, and Wiccans, I would expect they could manage to squeeze in homosexuals of various stripes.
And what about families who rely on on DoD schools for their children’s education? If LGBT personnel teach and pro-gay indoctrination is allowed in military-run classrooms, does the DoD have any way of determining how many families will choose not to re-enlist because of this?
How about those Jews? Are there Jews teaching and giving pro-Jew indoctrination? How about Blacks? Are there Blacks teaching and giving pro-Black indoctrination? And women? Are there women teaching and pushing pro-woman indoctrination? How many families are choosing not to re-enlist because of that?
If pro-marriage service-members want educational alternatives because of LGBT curricula in DoD classrooms, will alternatives be provided, or will they be forced to suffer the brainwashing of their children as long as they serve?
And what about alternatives to pro-Catholic, pro-Republican, pro-Italian-American, and pro-Star-Wars-geek curricula?
Gee, Bryan, you seem awfully certain that TEH GAYZ are going to enforce their particular curriculum/viewpoint more than any other group that you support or oppose.
And what about benefits for homosexual partners? President Obama has already directed his attorney general, Eric Holder, not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. Will gay couples married in Massachusetts now get family housing and other spousal benefits, in direct violation of the law, since the Commander in Chief believes that denying them such benefits is homophobic bigotry?
That’s actually an interesting question, Bryan. At the moment, I presume that gay couples, even those wed in certain states, will not be treated differently from unmarried couples. (Just because DOMA is not being defended in the courts doesn’t mean gay couples are getting federal marriage benefits, sadly enough.) I also expect that to evolve over time, Bryan, which no doubt is causing you major hissy-fits.
There are enormous health risks involved in homosexual conduct. Does the military have any estimate of the increased medical costs the military will incur treating the raft of diseases homosexuals routinely contract?
As opposed to the diseases that heterosexuals routinely contract? Do we actually have any data, Bryan, about STDs for gay vs straight populations in a military context? (We do know that homosexual women have lower STD rates than heterosexual women — are you suggesting, Bryan, that we should let Lesbians into the military preferentially to straight women?)
If homosexuals are denied housing and benefits and sue, who is going to defend military policy in court? The DOJ is already fatally compromised. Will the DOJ allow DoD to defend DOMA and military policy that denies benefits to homosexual couples? And how, exactly, does a military lawyer argue vigorously against a policy advocated by his Commander in Chief without kissing off the rest of his career?
See above. And, yeah, I’m not sure we should be establishing policy based on what’s comfortable for military lawyers. That said, I expect both that there will be some back-and-forth on these kind of issues and that they will be settled pretty quickly.
Further, the prospect of a federal judge deciding a dispute between the Commander in Chief and the military on such matters is an unseemly prospect, and certainly can’t be good for military morale and cohesion.
Agreed. And, as a rule, the federal judiciary (up to and including SCOTUS) have been highly reluctant to intervene in military matters.
Will pro-marriage families be allowed to move off base if the housing environment becomes detrimental to their own children’s welfare, and still keep their housing allowance?
Given that private individuals don’t get to duck out of their mortgage if TEH GAYZ move in next door, I suspect that breathless claim of palpatations over some sort of “housing environment detrimental to children’s welfare” will not get much attention beyond normal standards of disturbing the peace. In other words, if folks flee EVIL COHABITING GAYZ WHO ARE SEEN HOLDING HANDS IN PUBLIC, that probably won’t get much sympathy. And if TEH GAYZ are sodomizing each others in the hallways, I’m pretty sure there are other regulations that cover that.
Serious questions, no answers.
Especially if you’re looking for answers that allow people who are, perhaps, through non-exposure, uncomfortable about the ideal of knowing or being around someone who is (sssshhhh!) gay, being able to trump that discomfort into being able to live in a gay-free environment.
If repeal progresses as planned, be prepared for a slow-motion train wreck that will derail the most powerful military in the world and leave our families and nation less safe by the day.
Right. We managed to integrate blacks into the military. We managed to fit women in there. We managed to go from a draft to an all-volunteer force. We’ve managed to go from peacetime to one, two, now three wars.
And yet, somehow, Bryan, you’re convinced that letting TEH GAYZ in will “derail the most powerful military in the world.”
Obviously, Bryan, you have less faith in the military than I do. That’s kind of sad.