confusing situation

[griz]

Looks as if the Obama administration, who wants to end the prohibition against gays in the military, is requesting a stay of the overturning of Don't Ask Don't Tell.  They say it would be to problematic to end it suddenly and :the administration would like Congress to deal with the issue on a political level and doesn't want the courts to take it on unilaterally".  Ain't it a strange world?


Link to the story:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/20/dont.ask.dont.tell/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

[vaskidmark]

If DADT is kiboshed by this judge, but later upheld at some further appelate level, the .mil will have to deal with some number of recruits/servicemembers who no longer qualify for service, but may in fact be entitled to benefits due to the conditions under which they were accepted.

This "You were OK then but not any more" issue, coupled with "We're going to kick you out but you get GI Bill and other (at-present unnamed and undetermined) benefits," as well as what the expelled servicemembers might convince a court they are "entitled" to, will make the current administration look really bad no matter how things work out.

Option 1 - LBGTwhatever enlists but DADT is later reinstated.  LBGTw sues for loss of career and pension they could have had if DADT was never reinstated.  There is at least one Circuit Court that has a high probability of buying the argument.

Option 2 - LBGTw declines to enter .mil due to uncertainty of DADT being reinstated.  Later on legislation prevents DADT from ever being reinstated (until the legislation is repealed).  LBGTw sues for time lost in career/promotion/benefits they could have been enjoying had they entered .mil earlier.  Same Circuit Court needs just a bit more convincing but probably would buy the argument.

Better to have a single set of conditions that covers the possible eventualitities.  Plus, you have all that time when your voters are still pulling the lever for you because you are "working towards a solution that encompasses diversity" for all.*

stay safe.

* This would have been posted 30 minutes earlier, but I had to go wash out my mouth, my mind and smack my fingers for typing that.

[Perd Hapley]

Looks as if the Obama administration, who wants to end the prohibition against gays in the military, is requesting a stay of the overturning of Don't Ask Don't Tell. 

Actually, homosexuals can serve, they just have to keep it under wraps.

[griz]

I understand the desire for an orderly transition, and can likewise understand the legal issues of a serviceman caught in the middle.  It just seemed ironic that the current administration would be stuck backing (albiet temporarily) a policy they want to abolish.

Actually, homosexuals can serve, they just have to keep it under wraps.

I thought  10 U.S.C. § 654(b)  still forbade it, and DADT was just an understanding that they wouldn't look as hard to find offenders.  It has always struck me as an impractical accomadation, like saying you can't serve unless you hide your private life from everybody.

[Perd Hapley]

It has always struck me as an impractical accomadation, like saying you can't serve unless you hide your private life from everybody.

I don't think it really works that way. When I was in the Army, we always heard that it would take some kind of concrete evidence. Other wise, a service member could very easily scam their way out of their contracted enlistment. Then again, the Army was quite a rumor mill.

Besides, military members are forbidden from membership in hate groups like the Klan, for reasons of unit cohesion. So (back then, anyway) you could be homosexual or racist in the military, just not that openly. So I don't think it's that impractical.

[Tallpine]

Besides, military members are forbidden from membership in hate groups like the Klan, for reasons of unit cohesion. So (back then, anyway) you could be homosexual or racist in the military, just not that openly. So I don't think it's that impractical.

I guess you can be a radical muslim terrorist, too - up until you start shooting your fellow soldiers 

[Perd Hapley]

So it would seem.

[taurusowner]

I'm not particularly concerned with the idea of homosexuals in the military, as I'm sure there already are.  I am however concerned with the additional levels of social engineering and middle school attitudes that will be forced on soldiers as a result of allowing it openly.  The Army already has a miasma of rules and regulations meant to keep people from offending each other.  And it's honestly a lot more counterproductive than it's worth.  Soldiers should not have to worry about whether the scantily clad woman in the ad inside their Game Informer magazine will offend someone.  Telling a joke should not result in loss of pay.  The last thing we need is two soldiers getting tasked with unloading ammo crates, one of them mutters "this detail is gay", and getting written up because some homosexual soldier found it offensive.  That sort of "inconvenience the group to make one person feel better" attitude hurts morale because it makes whole units tip-toe around certain people or topics out of fear.  There are also practical considerations, such as shower facilities, that will become an issue when soldiers are forced to do things like shower and change with other guys they know might be leering at them.  To me, removing DADT is not just about letting gays be in the military.  It's about the myriad of other rules and special considerations that will eventually come with it, and will have the net effect of bogging down what should be a fighting force with social and emotional concerns equivalent to a ruck sack full of bricks.

The military is about killing people and breaking things.  The moment people decided that it should be about becoming an institution of social change, they lessened our real ability.

[vaskidmark]

Ragnar -

Then how do we account for the (I think it is the) Dutch Army?  They have gays serving, and apparently not all the problems you mention.

My objections to gays in the military are more focused on public health issues.  While AIDS is in there, it is way down on my list of worries.  The population, like the IV drug-users, carries some significant baggage that I would not want to be exposed to.  Back in my day we did not bother with latex/vinyl gloves before stuffing our hands in a gaping belly wound to try and find the artery that needed clamping because there was not much need to worry about what might happen when we encountered bodily fluids.  Nowadays things are entirely the opposite.

The other concern I have is regardng possessive relationships.  I've seen too much damage take place over relationships with the opposite sex when the object of competing affections was not living in the barracks.  Imagine the chaos of a lovers' triangle when all three are living mere feet apart.

I do not see either of these circumstances being every-day occurrances.  But when they raise their head it is going to do a lot of damage that will take a lot of time and effort to settle down, let alone put to rights.  To me there is no reason to go through the exertion.

stay safe.

[taurusowner]

Then how do we account for the (I think it is the) Dutch Army?  They have gays serving, and apparently not all the problems you mention.

First, there is really no comparison since the Dutch Army is nowhere near the fighting force as the US military.  Not even in the same ballpark.  Not even the same sport.  This gives them the leeway to care about things like sexual liberation in a military setting.  There is no concern for loss over combat effectiveness since the Dutch Army has no real combat effectiveness to begin with, and is only playing a minor part in Afghanistan, and no part in Iraq.  They have the leisure to care about the feelings of homosexuals.  The US military does not.

Second, the social attitude of the Netherlands are not the same as the US.  And thus the attitude of their soldiers are not the same as US soldiers.  In addition, I would doubt they have the same, shall we say...zeal, for litigation and political correctness that the US does.  I'm skeptical that a pornographic magazine in the possession of a Dutch soldier, or the telling of an off-color joke would be grounds for a Dutch soldier to lose pay or be reduced in rank.  However, both are very real concerns in the US military.

Let's put this in perspective.  We are currently engaged in a war in Afghanistan, and the withdraw from a past war in Iraq.  Combat operations with real shooting and real killing are going on every day.  And yet, we have Majors and Colonels who do nothing but make sure soldiers are wearing their reflective safety belts while on the FOB/COB, write up soldiers for being dirty and unkempt at the chow hall (even if just returned from an 18hr mission), issue speeding tickets for driving HMMWVs faster than a walking pace on post or without a ground guide, issue Article 15s to soldiers who's wives or girlfriends send the scantily clad photos, give negative counseling statements to soldiers who have untucked PT shirts, or are wearing PT shirts with civilian shorts, or black socks while in PT gear, and quite frankly millions of other little things that basically serve no real combat purpose.  Now you can argue, with no small degree of truth, that all of these things promote discipline, which does in turn help combat effectiveness.  But that isn't the point.  The point is, that even for soldiers engaged in real combat in a war, they still have a book of rules a foot thick to think about and follow, as well as a host of other Equal Opportunity concerns telling them what to say, what they can read, what websites they can go to, what jokes they can tell, and so on.  A US military member engaged in combat in the war in Afghanistan does not need yet another level of social engineering and childish behavior rules foisted on top of the crap they already have to worry about, in addition to their actual mission.

I'm sorry that some people have their feelings hurt about this issue.  But we're in a war.  Your feelings don't matter.

[roo_ster]

I'm pretty much on board with Ragnar.  It is a fighting force, not a self-actualization camp.

Tell me again, how effective the euros (& Dutch) were at halting the Balkans mess before the USA stepped in?  They didn't even have the capability to effect events on the continent of Europe, let alone project force most anywhere in the world.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate their help, but their militaries are playthings relative to the Green Machine.

[Tallpine]

two soldiers getting tasked with unloading ammo crates, one of them mutters "this detail is gay"

Because Real Men shoot the ammo right out of the crate 

[Jamisjockey]

Ragnar -

Then how do we account for the (I think it is the) Dutch Army?  They have gays serving, and apparently not all the problems you mention.

My objections to gays in the military are more focused on public health issues.  While AIDS is in there, it is way down on my list of worries.  The population, like the IV drug-users, carries some significant baggage that I would not want to be exposed to.  Back in my day we did not bother with latex/vinyl gloves before stuffing our hands in a gaping belly wound to try and find the artery that needed clamping because there was not much need to worry about what might happen when we encountered bodily fluids.  Nowadays things are entirely the opposite.

The other concern I have is regardng possessive relationships.  I've seen too much damage take place over relationships with the opposite sex when the object of competing affections was not living in the barracks.  Imagine the chaos of a lovers' triangle when all three are living mere feet apart.

I do not see either of these circumstances being every-day occurrances.  But when they raise their head it is going to do a lot of damage that will take a lot of time and effort to settle down, let alone put to rights.  To me there is no reason to go through the exertion.

stay safe.

Skid

Me and many of my compadres engaged in plenty of risky heterosexual activities back in the day.  I understand your concern, but I don't think it's valid.  
Also, in plenty of non-combat units, the barracks are quite often co-ed.  I lived next door to two female Marines in Yuma for awhile.  Plenty of opportunity for lover's triangles.  Personally, the worst drama I saw in relationships involved two or more members involved with the same civilian girl.  Once they caught on, that usually went downhill fast....

[taurusowner]

Because Real Men shoot the ammo right out of the crate  

Because ammo gets shipped from Lake City to Bagram Afghanistan preloaded into magazines and sent individually

[Fitz]

Everyone knows who the gay soldiers are in their units. Nothing will change.

IMHO we have more important *expletive deleted*it to worry about than gays in the military

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

don't the brits let gays in without the farce?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/world/europe/21britain.html?pagewanted=print

funny thing  my son was in roo_ster's alma mater  and he was a fighting fool  big kid had a couple black belts by the time he was 15 and REALLY liked it and was good at it. scary good. he gave his hand to hand instructors fits.  the one guy in his unit who could whip him was gay. went to his wedding a few years back. he kept it undercover but the guys in his unit knew or strongly suspected but this guy was supertroop  one of those guys that if you had a choice in a tough spot for a partner you'd say "i want him" .
i think we want the best we can get and if there are problems they can be addressed. if the gay person is the problem boot him.  if its someone else in his unit who has the problem shine them on. the unit will be the better for it.  chose based on actual behavior as opposed to fear prejudice and imagination.

i used to tease chris about the gay guy being a better fighter than him and all he could say was "gay he might be but a man to share a fight with he definitely is."   knowing him changed my son for the better.

(son is not mine biologically  could whip me in a fair fight when he was 15 and i was in my 20's  and was sadly no stranger to real violence in his earlier life)

[MechAg94]

I agree with one of roo__sters concerns about potentially adding a bunch of new regulations to deal with.  As long as they aren't trying to create a new protect class, it is not so much a concern.

[vaskidmark]

Apparently my age is showing.  Back before dirt was invented all barracks consisted of a long room with bunkbeds lining the inboard and outboard bulkheads.  Heads had urinals on the starboard side as you entered, and stools on the port side.  There was not separation/privacy barrier.  Females were billited at least a quarter-mile away and the only difference in their barrack was the absence of urinals/double the number of sit-downs.

And yes, back before the dinosaurs we also engaged in high-risk heterosexual behavior, notwithstanding the time I took the company into San Diego to celebrate my brand-new E-4 stripes at a bar staffed with the most beautiful and seemingly sexually available men dressed as women you ever wanted to meet.  The negatives are still in a safety-deposit box downtown.  As for what is alleged to have occurred in various commercial establishments in Viet Nam, I can assure you that the degree of plausible diniability is extremely high.

Yes, we had gays in the service back then.  I hear the Taliban is over-run with them but they call it something else.  None of that was my point.

Opening up the .mil to openly gay persons who may or may not be able to stay in the service merely due to their sexual orientation, let alone worrying about their conduct, is problematic due to both the issues of replacement if DADT comes back, budget when (not if) those forced out are determined to be eligible for compensation and benefits at some level, and a host of other matters.

I do need to apologize for bringing up the Dutch Army.  That I was even attempting to compare their mission to that of the US .mil was an error on all sides.  They are good at logistical stuff.  At one time they wewre known for being brave fighters even in the face of overwhelming odds, but they have not had an opportunity to test to see if that trait still exists.  My bringing them up was to remark on the remarkable lack of grab-a$$ that seems to take place in spite of the "mixed" population of that army.

stay safe.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

the brits seem to be doing just fine with gay folks

[roo_ster]

the brits seem to be doing just fine with gay folks

Once again, not in the same league.

They barely were able to pull off the Falklands vs a pathetic latin American despotism and were unable to do diddly about the Balkans. [Which (at that time) meant ethnic Serb & Croat irregulars and maybe, if things got sporty, a Yugo/Serb army equipped with T55s, MTLBs, and the best mid-1950s Warsaw Pact export gear had to offer.]

At that time, their airlift capability consisted of a few C130s.

These days the Brits don't have the equipment they need for the missions they have taken on in A-stan.  Lions led by asses, indeed.

The Euros can play with their militaries because they are playthings, these days. 

We have made some of hte same mistakes.  One being, that if a female service member gets pregnant, she is no longer shown the door as a matter of policy.  Every log guy I knew at my unit loved the fact that our unit did not allow females.  There had been too many times when a log shop (CO supply, motor pool, etc.) had most its females on a light duty profile due to being pregnant.  The work still has to be done, so the men work many more hours and don't get to see their wives & kids.  Oh, and how deployable is a pregnant gal?  SO, if the unit in question had to deploy in a hurry, they are going to deploy short-handed.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

the falklands predates their open policy   and i'm looking for , and failing to find, some link to that policy and some failure in their military

[41magsnub]

I was present for the integration of females into my combat unit, there were 12 of them sent all at once to a single battalion.  It was sort of an experiment, it sidestepped the no females in a combat MOS by bringing in female cooks, medics, and admin staff.  Of course, all of those personnel deployed to the field with us.  It did not go well though to my knowledge it is still in place...  my biggest complaint as a male in that unit was the sudden high number of new work details.  For the first time we had KP duty in the field taking away from the training we were supposed to get (the girls had trouble lifting much of the gear), we had male assistants for the female medics, none of the female medics could be directly attached to the line platoons so the male medics pulled extra duty, the lone admin staff female in S1 was a very religious married E-5 so that was not a problem.  From an administrative standpoint the NCO's were struggling with the females.  There are more examples.

We also had a VERY high rate of pregnancy.  The barracks turned into a co-ed college dorm.  In the first year, 1/3 of the lower enlisted females were unmarried and pregnant.  It does take 2 to tango but it would have taken serious DNA testing to ID the baby daddies.

I'm 13 years out of the military so I do not know if a way to make that work was ever found.

We had some obvious gays in the unit and there were no issues I ever observed with them.

[sanglant]

I guess you can be a radical muslim terrorist, too - up until you start shooting your fellow soldiers 

or throwing nades into there tents.

[roo_ster]

the falklands predates their open policy   and i'm looking for , and failing to find, some link to that policy and some failure in their military

The point RD & I am making is that their military establishments are playthings for social engineers and that whatever is done to them is really incidental at this point.  They aren't players.  They can not militarily effect the outcome of any conflict much beyond their shoreline.  They are dependent on America to move what assets they do have to where they can be of any utility.

OTOH, the US military establishment still has to make things happen across the globe.  Placing impediments in the way will get folks killed and resources mis-allocated.

Oh, BTW, here is a little more on how the Brit .mil is sinking further into irrelevance.  

   ● The replacement for the Trident nuclear deterrent will be delayed by a year until after the general election scheduled for 2015. [Cameron] will insist he remains committed to renewing Trident but will say the delay is needed to save £750 million.

    ● The Army will lose 7,000 soldiers, more than 100 tanks and 200 armoured vehicles. One armoured brigade will be lost and the end of Britain’s 65-year presence in Germany will be signalled.

    ● The RAF will keep most of its Tornado fighter-bombers but lose at least 5,000 personnel. Two RAF bases will close and be occupied by soldiers returning from Germany.

    ● The Navy’s fleet of warships will drop from 24 to 19 and it will lose 4,000 personnel. Harrier jump-jets will be scrapped next year but no F35 Joint Strike Fighters will be available to replace them until 2020.

Envision a "Royal Navy" with 19 warships.  

I have nothing against the UK and appreciate the work their folks are doing in Astan.  Especially when one considers how ill-equipped they are for the mission.  But, the simple fact is that they could not do Astan and they could not do the Balkans on their own.  They barely did the Falklands.  

Writing that the open admission of homosexuals into their ranks has not diminished their effectiveness requires the existence of an effective force to start with.