• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pentagon: Letting openly gay troops serve won't hurt military

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
35,120
Reaction score
43,998
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Washington (CNN) -- Letting openly gay or lesbian troops serve in the military would have little lasting impact on the U.S. armed forces, a major Pentagon review has found, several sources familiar with the results told CNN Tuesday.

Putting an end to "don't ask, don't tell" would have "some limited and isolated disruption to unit cohesion and retention," the year-long study found, but the effects would not be long-lasting or widespread.

There will be some strong minority opposition, particularly in the Marines and some combat arms specialist units, said the chairs of the study, Defense Department General Counsel Jeh C. Johnson and Army Gen. Carter F. Ham.

As many as 40 to 60 percent of troops in those units were against changing the 17-year-old policy that lets gay and lesbian troops serve as long as their sexual orientation is secret.

Overall opposition throughout the military was about 30 percent -- roughly the same as it is in America as a whole, according to recent findings from CNN/Opinion Research Corp. and the Pew Forum.

Gates: Report says most servicemen OK with gays serving openly - CNN.com

How Obama and his administration choose to use this will be interesting, I understand it's a congressional thing, but he has a chance here to be a leader.
 
I really don't know what the President can do aside from trying to get them to vote on it now. Which of course they won't do. It looks like if the President wants something done he will need to sign an executive order.
 
I really don't know what the President can do aside from trying to get them to vote on it now. Which of course they won't do. It looks like if the President wants something done he will need to sign an executive order.

Not really familiar with the reach of such an order... could it actually get rid of DADT, or would it simply be a catalyst?
 
more like units expecting to see combat don't want to deal with the added trouble; which is why they poll so differently.

Added troubgle? Like what? :confused:
 
Not really familiar with the reach of such an order... could it actually get rid of DADT, or would it simply be a catalyst?

I believe Obama can instruct them to not enforce it, but that could be reversed by a later president who might feel differently about the situation.
 
Not really familiar with the reach of such an order... could it actually get rid of DADT, or would it simply be a catalyst?

An executive order would get rid of DADT. The downside is the next president could issue an executive order basically taking away President Obama's thereby reinstating DADT.
 
I believe Obama can instruct them to not enforce it, but that could be reversed by a later president who might feel differently about the situation.

Hence

Presidential ping-pong over executive orders

Presidential ping-pong over executive orders - Politics - White House - msnbc.com

WASHINGTON — Washington's presidential ping-pong game plays out every four or eight years as incoming presidents reverse the policies of their predecessors.
The new president can undo some of what his predecessor did, either through memoranda or executive orders, which are rules that a president can sign without waiting for Congress to legislate.
Another round of the game will soon begin, as Democratic-allied interest groups urge President-elect Barack Obama to reverse some of the things President George W. Bush has done.
Environmental advocacy groups like the Audubon Society want Obama to ban offshore oil or gas drilling off the Pacific or Atlantic coasts.
Bush lifted an executive ban on such drilling last July, and Congress later let a legislatively-imposed ban lapse.
“President Obama will have an opportunity to protect our beaches and coastal economies,” said Mike Daulton, legislative director at the Audubon Society.

Makes sense now, thanks Mega :2wave:
 
Laws are like layers of fabric.

An Executive Order would prevent the enforcement of the statute during the Bamster's presidency. An Executive Order would not end the effect of the statute.

Congress would have to revoke the statute to end it's potential effect. A subsequent president could issue another Executive Order revoking the Bambster's EO, in which case the statute would be enforced.
 
more like units expecting to see combat don't want to deal with the added trouble; which is why they poll so differently.

And yet even with them it's not strong opposition, more in the realm of 50 %.
 
Its time to stop the right-wing from using our military as their last bastion of their anti-gay agenda. They know that gay marriage is forthcoming and are trying desperately to hold onto the military as their last hope.
 
Its time to stop the right-wing from using our military as their last bastion of their anti-gay agenda. They know that gay marriage is forthcoming and are trying desperately to hold onto the military as their last hope.

To be fair dude, it was Bill Clintons baby
 
more like units expecting to see combat don't want to deal with the added trouble; which is why they poll so differently.

I read this article.

After strong appeal from Pentagon, opponents of ‘Don’t ask’ repeal ponder next move - Yahoo! News

Notice this little tidbit of info:

Among Marines and other specialty combat troops, resistance to openly gay service is higher than the overall average of 30 percent. Between 40 and 60 percent of combat troops say they think repealing the policy will be bad for troop morale. (Opposition is lower among troops who say they have served with a gay comrade before.) Military chaplains are also very strongly opposed.

This tells me that many of them are afraid of the unknown. This essentially confirms for me that due to their environment and, possibly some of their own biases, those troops don't know what changes will come, so it scares them. They know what they have been told, by the act itself, by McCain, by the Marine Corps Cmdt, but most of those troops have never actually served with someone they knew was gay.
 
We have heard many people (both on this board and in Congress) urging that we don't repeal DADT until the results of this study were in, and not unless it showed that the military approved. Now the results ARE in. Will they finally change their minds? Maybe a few of them...but let's not kid ourselves here. Most of the people who support DADT never gave a damn about how it would affect the military; they just personally thought boys kissing was icky. What's the next roadblock the homophobes want to impose? What's the next excuse why we need another year of studying the issue before the discriminatory law can be overturned?
 
We have heard many people (both on this board and in Congress) urging that we don't repeal DADT until the results of this study were in, and not unless it showed that the military approved. Now the results ARE in. Will they finally change their minds? Maybe a few of them...but let's not kid ourselves here. Most of the people who support DADT never gave a damn about how it would affect the military; they just personally thought boys kissing was icky. What's the next roadblock the homophobes want to impose? What's the next excuse why we need another year of studying the issue before the discriminatory law can be overturned?

Maybe gay soldiers thrown out of the military can find work helping John McCain move his goalposts around.
 
My guess is that even as the Defense community has now spoken decisively on the issue and other Armed Forces from overseas have had no major difficulties with similar policies, the law likely won't be overturned anytime soon. Express concern for the views of the Defense community from the DADT policy's supporters were largely packaging that temporarily masked what are really fundamental social positions. Their hope had been that the Pentagon's study would reaffirm their positions. In the wake of the report, the policy's supporters will likely attempt to discount or delegitimize the Pentagon's study i.e., claim that it isn't sufficiently thorough/representative or that it is subject to other inherent flaws that undermine its conclusions. They will also likely raise procedural hurdles e.g., citing more pressing policy matters in seeking delays in Congressional consideration of the issue.

IMO, the current policy should be overturned. Such a development would be consistent with providing all Americans equal opportunity and it would entail no serious risks to the performance of the nation's Armed Services.
 
I think there is strong evidence that a majority support to allow homesxuals to serve openly. I suspect, however, that congress is worried that the minority will be more vocal, more willing to vote than the majority. I suspect this is what has and and continues to slow this down, not to mention why McCain keeps moving his goal posts.
 
No study was necessary in the first place. I think it is kind of sick that people would support bigotry in the name of "military effectiveness." The same sort of argument was used when the military was segregated by Jim Crow laws, and it is just as morally invalid then as it is now.

I agree with some of the above posts that it is shameful that the military is being used as a political football. Shame on the Republicans for playing politics with our troops.
 
Added troubgle? Like what? :confused:
Like straight soldiers not wanting to shower with gay soldiers. There are few shower stalls in the barracks. Usually one big open room with shower ports. In the field, you drop your draws and wash in the open. Line units carrying live ammo are the last people you want to get into it over a straight soldier thinking or actually happening, that a gay soldier was looking at them in a sexual manner. Next thing you know you have a murder in a unit. That does no one any good straight or gay.
 
Like straight soldiers not wanting to shower with gay soldiers. There are few shower stalls in the barracks. Usually one big open room with shower ports. In the field, you drop your draws and wash in the open. Line units carrying live ammo are the last people you want to get into it over a straight soldier thinking or actually happening, that a gay soldier was looking at them in a sexual manner. Next thing you know you have a murder in a unit. That does no one any good straight or gay.

Which they are doing right now. This should in no way be a problem for adults. And there is no reason for anyone to look at anyone in a sexual manner (whatever that means). And if they couldn't control that, they would be having the same problem today. They don't.
 
Like straight soldiers not wanting to shower with gay soldiers. There are few shower stalls in the barracks. Usually one big open room with shower ports. In the field, you drop your draws and wash in the open. Line units carrying live ammo are the last people you want to get into it over a straight soldier thinking or actually happening, that a gay soldier was looking at them in a sexual manner. Next thing you know you have a murder in a unit. That does no one any good straight or gay.

I thought Liberals were the kings of the "What If's".

What if Godzilla attacked?
 
No study was necessary in the first place. I think it is kind of sick that people would support bigotry in the name of "military effectiveness." The same sort of argument was used when the military was segregated by Jim Crow laws, and it is just as morally invalid then as it is now.

I agree with some of the above posts that it is shameful that the military is being used as a political football. Shame on the Republicans for playing politics with our troops.
The same shame the left showed when they used the political statement " I support the troops but not their mission" BS?

The idiots whom used this have no clue that not supporting their mission is basely saying I hope you get killed when trying to accomplish your mission because I disagree with it and dont support it.
 
Last edited:
I thought Liberals were the kings of the "What If's".

What if Godzilla attacked?
I see you have never served in a line unit because of your ignorance of the truth of the matter of what I speak.
 
Back
Top Bottom