CJCS: Problem with gays in the miltary? Leave

[Gipper]

You did make your point.. as for why I am coming down on the other side of that point is because it seems the evidence goes against it.

There does not appear to be any actual evidence that such a policy would screw up our military or its capability.

You apparently are not looking for the evidence or have fallen prey to the leftist effort to repeal DADT at time of war. Have you bothered to ask yourself why this has become an issue NOW? And, why have you chosen to believe the left on this issue when you know they lie about everything? Why is the left media pushing so hard on this issue?

This from John McCain. I would guess he knows more about the issue than you and the Left. And he cites a survey that shows many soldiers and Marines do not want DADT changed.

“However, we also learned that, of those surveyed, 30 percent of the total, 43 percent of Marines, 48 percent of Army combat units, and 58 percent of Marine combat units believe that a repeal of the law would have a negative or very negative impact on their units’ ability to ‘work together to get the job done.’ Furthermore, 67 percent of Marines and nearly 58 percent of Army soldiers in combat units believe that repeal of the law would have negative consequences on unit cohesion in a field environment or out at sea.
“This is supplemented by comments like these: ‘I believe this is not the time for us to make huge changes in the military. We are at war and our men and women overseas do not need any more distractions. This issue should be addressed at the appropriate time. That time is not now.’”
“I remain concerned as I have in the past and is demonstrated in this study, that the closer we get to service members in combat, the more we encounter concerns about whether ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ should be repealed, and what impact that would have on the ability of these units to perform their mission. These views should not be considered lightly, especially considering how much combat our force is facing. Additionally, I am concerned about the impact of a rush to repeal when even this survey has found that such a significant number of our service members feel that it would negatively impact military effectiveness.
“Mr. Chairman: As we move forward with our discussion on this matter, I hope that everyone will put aside political motives and agendas. I also hope that everyone, on both sides, will refrain from questioning people’s integrity. Finally, I hope that everyone will recognize that this debate is focused on our military and its effectiveness, not on broader social issues being debated in our society at large.
“This is a complex and important issue that could have significant repercussions for our force – a force that is engaged in its tenth straight year of sustained combat, but a force that is performing exceptionally well. At this time, we should be inherently cautious about making any changes that would affect our military, and what changes we do make should be the product of careful and deliberate consideration.
“I am not saying this law should never change. I am simply saying that it may be premature to make such a change at this time and in this manner, without further consideration of this report and further study of the issue by Congress – for of all the people we serve, one of our highest responsibilities is to the men and women of our armed services, especially those risking their lives in combat.”

Read more: http://thepage.time.com/2010/12/02/mccain-dadt-repeal-timing-premature/#ixzz17Qd77VI6

It gets worse for your position...

Simply put, young men sign up for infantry duty in large part to prove their manhood. Gay men can be, and surely often are, great Soldiers. However, openly gay service is incompatible with the shared sense of manhood and masculinity that binds infantry units together into a brotherhood.

Moreover, the introduction of an overt sexual dynamic into small-scale military units is inherently disruptive and problematic. And this is especially true when that sexual dynamic is backed up by the full power of the state and the full force of law. Morale and esprit de corps require a strong sense of brotherly love, not same-sex attraction and allure which undermine the brotherhood.

That’s why former Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway has objected to how policymakers and the media have framed this issue.

The issue, says Conway, is not whether the U.S. military can somehow manage open homosexuality within the ranks. The issue is whether a change in policy “somehow [will] enhance the war-fighting capabilities of the United States Marine Corps.” And the answer to that question is: it absolutely will not.

“My best military advice to this committee, to the secretary, and to the president would be to keep the law such as it is,” Conway told Congress last winter. That’s why the greatest opposition to openly gay service comes from Soldiers and Marines who have seen combat and who are in the combat arms.

Indeed, “59 percent of Marines who have served in combat say repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t tell’ would have a negative effect,” reports the Washington Examiner’s Byron York. And “45 percent of Army respondents who have been in combat say the same thing. This is significant, not marginal, opposition.”
http://www.frumforum.com/why-mccains-right-on-keeping-dadt

I guess you and Left know better than our military leaders...

The top officers of the Marine Corps, Army and Air Force said Friday that Congress should not scrap the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the near-term, claiming it would add more stress to troops during a time of war.

Arguing before a Senate panel that implementing repeal in the short-term would be “risky,” Gen. Norton Schwartz, the chief of staff of the Air Force, recommended that it should not happen until 2012, at the earliest.

Gen. James Amos, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, pleaded against repeal implementation as the Marines fighting in Afghanistan “are singularly focused on combat” in a “deadly environment.”

Doing so “has strong potential for disruption at the small unit level, will no doubt divert leadership attention away from almost singular focus of preparing units for combat,” Amos said in his opening statements to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Amos’s Army counterpart, Gen. George Casey, who led forces during the Iraq war, said Friday the law that prohibits gays from serving openly should be repealed “eventually,” but stressed that he would not recommend “going forward at this time” given all the missions the Army “has on its plate.”

Casey said that swift implementation of repeal will “add another level of stress to an already stretched force.”

The officers’ testimony likely will fuel the arguments of critics who oppose repeal of the Clinton-era law.

http://www.frumforum.com/top-service-chiefs-keep-dadt

 

[BigRob]

You apparently are not looking for the evidence or have fallen prey to the leftist effort to repeal DADT at time of war. Have you bothered to ask yourself why this has become an issue NOW? And, why have you chosen to believe the left on this issue when you know they lie about everything? Why is the left media pushing so hard on this issue?

There is no doubt that it is a political issue.

This from John McCain. I would guess he knows more about the issue than you and the Left. And he cites a survey that shows many soldiers and Marines do not want DADT changed.

There are other surveys (from the Pentagon) saying that majority of the military would not care one way or the other.

Additionally, other leadership in the military, which I presume knows a great deal about the issues, has come out in support of a repeal:

Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
General Colin Powell, Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
General John Shalikashvili, Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
51 Retired Generals and Admirals and Former Army Secretary in a letter to Congress

It gets worse for your position...

This big flaw in this argument is that all around the world in countries with a similar culture and military to ours, this has not actually occurred or been a problem. How do you account for that?

I guess you and Left know better than our military leaders...

Many of these ones you cite say repeal should come down the road...and I cited numerous other leaders saying repeal should happen...

This idea you seem to be pushing that the military leadership is united in opposition is absurd.

 

[Gipper]

This idea you seem to be pushing that the military leadership is united in opposition is absurd.

You continually misrepresent my posts. Why? I did not state the military was united in opposition.

However, much of the military does oppose and that is enough for me to oppose a left wing policy. It should be for any conservative.

And again, the US military is in a class by itself. They are not Israeli or whatever nation you wish to cite. You seem to believe that since its okay (as reported by the left wing press) in other countries, it should be okay here. I am not willing to accept a left wing policy just because other nations have.

Our culture is different. Many American males are not ready to accept openly gay men in the military. As those in the military have stated, this will hurt morale, enlistments, and who knows what else. The consequences of liberalism are almost always detrimental. History proves this. So, why would we follow them on this issue?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You continually misrepresent my posts. Why? I did not state the military was united in opposition.

However, much of the military does oppose and that is enough for me to oppose a left wing policy. It should be for any conservative.

And again, the US military is in a class by itself. They are not Israeli or whatever nation you wish to cite. You seem to believe that since its okay (as reported by the left wing press) in other countries, it should be okay here. I am not willing to accept a left wing policy just because other nations have.

Our culture is different. Many American males are not ready to accept openly gay men in the military. As those in the military have stated, this will hurt morale, enlistments, and who knows what else. The consequences of liberalism are almost always detrimental. History proves this. So, why would we follow them on this issue?

many whites where not ready for blacks...tough, deal with it...Gays have rights, and should not be treated as 2nd class citizens because you don't care for them..

 

[Gipper]

many whites where not ready for blacks...tough, deal with it...Gays have rights, and should not be treated as 2nd class citizens because you don't care for them..

Typical BS from the Left.

Gays are not treated as second class citizens by anyone. But, you keep believ'in the BS like a good lefty drone.

 

[Rick]

Quick note: OBVIOUSLY, claims of surveys from the pentagon on this issue that purport to show soldiers are eager to have openly gays with them in the barracks are not credible. They ask a bunch of soldiers under their control "Do you support the commander in chief's policy or not?"

 

[BigRob]

You continually misrepresent my posts. Why? I did not state the military was united in opposition.

I am not sure what else I am supposed to take away from your comment of "I guess you and the Left know better than our military leaders." Such a comment implies that "our military leaders" hold the position that you are arguing in favor of... which is simply not the case.

However, much of the military does oppose and that is enough for me to oppose a left wing policy. It should be for any conservative.

Much of the military also does not care if DADT if repealed according to other surveys taken as well... even former Vice President Dick Cheney supports its repeal.

And again, the US military is in a class by itself. They are not Israeli or whatever nation you wish to cite. You seem to believe that since its okay (as reported by the left wing press) in other countries, it should be okay here. I am not willing to accept a left wing policy just because other nations have.

Our culture is different. Many American males are not ready to accept openly gay men in the military. As those in the military have stated, this will hurt morale, enlistments, and who knows what else. The consequences of liberalism are almost always detrimental. History proves this. So, why would we follow them on this issue?

History proves that these same arguments were made when blacks were included in the Army, and none of the major concerns came to fruition. History also proves that other nations with a similar culture to ours have adopted such a policy successfully...

I am not saying that alone makes it a done deal, but it is something that cannot be simply cast aside.

 

[Gipper]

Quick note: OBVIOUSLY, claims of surveys from the pentagon on this issue that purport to show soldiers are eager to have openly gays with them in the barracks are not credible. They ask a bunch of soldiers under their control "Do you support the commander in chief's policy or not?"

You are probably right, yet some people even some conservatives fail to see the obvious.

 

[BigRob]

Quick note: OBVIOUSLY, claims of surveys from the pentagon on this issue that purport to show soldiers are eager to have openly gays with them in the barracks are not credible. They ask a bunch of soldiers under their control "Do you support the commander in chief's policy or not?"

For those wishing to read the actual Pentagon survey, you can find it here.

Edit: Such a question was never asked in the actual survey.

 

[dogtowner]

many whites where not ready for blacks...tough, deal with it...Gays have rights, and should not be treated as 2nd class citizens because you don't care for them..

If you look at the contract you sign when you agree to join the military you find that you surrender many rights, thats the nature of the institution and required for it to do what it does.

But it goes a little farther than DADT to make it go away. Its still against the rules, DADT just was a way to ignore the rules.

 

[Gipper]

I am not sure what else I am supposed to take away from your comment of "I guess you and the Left know better than our military leaders." Such a comment implies that "our military leaders" hold the position that you are arguing in favor of... which is simply not the case.



Much of the military also does not care if DADT if repealed according to other surveys taken as well... even former Vice President Dick Cheney supports its repeal.



History proves that these same arguments were made when blacks were included in the Army, and none of the major concerns came to fruition. History also proves that other nations with a similar culture to ours have adopted such a policy successfully...

I am not saying that alone makes it a done deal, but it is something that cannot be simply cast aside.

I guess I should have been more specific when I referred to "military leaders" as a preface to the article I posted proving many "top officers" of the Marine Corps, Army and Air Force do not want repeal for you to NOT misrepresent my point.

I recognize many in the military think DADT should be repealed. But unlike you, I also recognize many who do not and I chose to side with them over a policy promoted by leftists. You have chosen to side with the leftists and that is your right. But, it is unfortunate that a conservative would do so.

 

[BigRob]

I guess I should have been more specific when I referred to "military leaders" as a preface to the article I posted proving many "top officers" of the Marine Corps, Army and Air Force do not want repeal for you to NOT misrepresent my point.

I am not out to misrepresent your point.. but even in the article you cited, two of the three commanders said that the law should be repealed eventually, just not right now..

I am fine with that, but ultimately it will be repealed.

I recognize many in the military think DADT should be repealed. But unlike you, I also recognize many who do not and I chose to side with them over a policy promoted by leftists. You have chosen to side with the leftists and that is your right. But, it is unfortunate that a conservative would do so.

I don't care who promotes a policy, I care about evidence that backs that policy up... so far I am more swayed by the evidence backing the position of ultimate repeal of DADT... be it now or down the line.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Typical BS from the Left.

Gays are not treated as second class citizens by anyone. But, you keep believ'in the BS like a good lefty drone.

they are not? so they can join the army? they can get married? they can adopt kids? ...on what planet are they not treated as 2nd class...?

also you talked about McCain...how does McCain trump current army leaders in knowlage of this issue? Also you know he is on record showing just how little he knows about this policy as he yelled at reporters who where telling him how the law has been used to purge gays who have not said they where gay as well..who they fished for info or got info from others and then used it against them.... his words "its not the policy " its not the policy" Its not the policy".....only evidence shows very very clearly....its what is happening all the time....he has his head in the sand to try to get Republican credit again when he got challenged by a tea party hack...

 

[Rick]

For those wishing to read the actual Pentagon survey, you can find it here.

Edit: Such a question was never asked in the actual survey.

Your site requires a login, and I'm not giving my email. OBVIOUSLY, my comment was not suggesting an actual question, but rather the lack of credibility from a poll being conducted by an organization which is committed to a particular outcome - like a test given by the KKK to see if blacks are stupid.

 

[Gipper]

they are not? so they can join the army? they can get married? they can adopt kids? ...on what planet are they not treated as 2nd class...?

Answers to all your questions are YES except the last one.

What planet you ask? I suppose its the unreal one you live on.