Get Ready for the DADT Repeal (This might be one of the priorities of this lame duck Congress)

American Thinker ^ | 11/06/2020 | R.C. Marash

[WebFocus]

One of the top priorities of the coming lame duck session of Congress will be the formal repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," aka U.S. Code Title 10, Section 654. Obama won't have another chance to shove it through before 2012, and he wants the gay community on his side then. He will probably also want to repeal Article 125 - Sodomy in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

Read at least the "Findings" part of Section 654 before you go any further. It contains a good summary of the logic that was used at the time that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was passed. Those facts have not changed. If Congress just repeals Section 654 and Article 125, they will be risking the lives of our Armed Forces. Since Obama still calls the shots until January, it is not likely that we can prevent this. But there is a way we can limit the damage -- and it's key to our response.

This is a matter of sexual behavior, not sexual orientation. A person's orientation doesn't matter; his or her actual behavior does.

Heterosexual behavior can be just as damaging to the military, and some evidence suggests that it is extremely common. Look at the U.S. Navy relieving commanding officers for "zipper problems." So far this year, the Navy  has relieved thirteen commanding officers. Last week the Navy relieved a Command Master Chief for it. Even as the Navy shrinks, the rate is growing. This is a measure of the "Top of the Cream." Only the best officers reach command, and yet almost 5% get in trouble. Issues with heterosexual behavior surface frequently on military forums. There is undoubtedly more evidence, but it's not in the public domain.

No matter what orientation they take, any sexual relations within a command can be dangerous because of how they impact trust within the unit. Here's an example lacking any names or personal pronouns so that you can substitute male or female names and roles as you choose.

In Afghanistan, Sergeant "A" is known to have a physical relationship with Private "B." When the squad is ambushed, Sergeant A orders Privates "C", "D," and "E" to flank the attackers while Sergeant "A" and Private "B" lay down covering fire. "C", "D," and "E" might certainly wonder if Private "B" is getting a safe assignment while they are exposed to danger because of the relationship.

It is entirely possible that the Sergeant's decision is tactically sound -- but the questions will persist. How hard do you think "C", "D," and "E" will press their attack?

Private "B" is not safe, either. Suppose Private "B" breaks off the relationship and the sergeant is unhappy about it. Next time, Private "B's" family might get the terrible news that their relative won't be coming home. If that happens, how is Private "C" going to resist the attentions of the amorous Sergeant? Refusal could result in the same outcome. ...Of course, it could bounce back -- Sergeant "A" might get "fragged."

Combat may be a bit extreme, but remember that even in peacetime, the Armed Forces are an inherently dangerous place. There are dangerous aspects to the job since they must daily work with tools that are designed to break things and kill people. In 2009, 443 service members were killed in accidents while only 338 were killed by hostile action.

Petty Officer 1^st Class "Z" has several well-trained 3^rd Class Petty Officers who work for "Z." Initially, all three are a natural team. But a sexual relationship develops between PO1 "Z" and PO3 "W." The other two soon resent the special attention that "W" is getting. Suddenly, an accidental fire erupts in a main engineering space. All three Petty Officers are involved in fighting it, but tragically, "W" is killed.

Even if it was totally an accident, the result could be dangerous for the other two because of "Z's" likely reaction towards them.

Before you say "That could never happen!," understand that emotional stress can grow for service members in ways that civilians simply don't understand.   

Service members can't quit or even leave. They almost never have any say where they work or whom they work with. In a worst-case situation, civilians can always quit their jobs. Service members cannot do that without committing a federal crime -- the choice is typically Article 86 - "Absent without Leave." They can't even argue about it -- at least one of Articles 89, 90, 91, and 92 will be relevant.

Service members have few options to "de-stress." Even in paramilitary organizations, such as police or fire services, civilians get privacy when off-duty. At the very least, they can go home, wherever that is, to relax. By contrast, try to "de-stress" in a thirty-man berthing compartment on a deployed warship. How can you do that in a platoon whose "home" is a remote outpost in Afghanistan? Even stateside barracks frequently lack any privacy.

So the stress caused by any kind of military sexual relationship can grow to lethal levels.

That stress means that we must push for simple, direct rules that address all forms of sexual activity that could affect service members. Further, these rules need to be simple, clear, and easily remembered, even when drunk or in the height of passion.

The following make sense -- probably in Article 120 under "Other Sexual Misconduct."

1. No sexual activity within a command. That means no sexual activity, of any kind, ever, between people who share the same commanding officer. The Service Secretaries would define what a "command" is -- I suggest along the O-6 Level ("full-bird" Colonel or navy Captain). This article would also have to apply to civilians assigned to the command.
2. No sexual activity anywhere under federal jurisdiction, even if allowed by #1 above. Otherwise, people risk discovery and blackmail, extortion, or worse problems. Further, it is manifestly unfair to those who follow the rules. (An exception will have to be made for on-base married housing.)
3. Sexual harassment is not permitted, no matter who does it, nor what his or her orientation. Toleration is required. You are commanded to listen without comment to those with whom you profoundly disagree. No service member is being asked to change his or her opinion -- just to tolerate the other point of view. This includes military chaplains. So even if a chaplain is against gay marriage, and you are for it, you are commanded to tolerate the other point of view. The person who holds the opposing viewpoint will have to reciprocate.

Now, what about the transgendered? Don't ask. Perhaps the challenges that issue will raise will cause someone to finally notice that there is no constitutional right to serve in the military.

[Blood of Tyrants]

With all the problems with the economy THIS will be one of their main priorities?

[Outlaw Woman]

Disgraceful. Absolutely disgraceful. Trying to legitimize depravity...Did anyone really think we’d see this in our lifetime? Legitimizing anal sexual intercourse. It is such a disgusting act it boggles my mind that so many ‘straight’ people accept it as normal.

Please pass the vomit bag.

Is there anything that can stop this ‘lame duck’ blitz? Constitutionally, where do we stand?

[Little Pig]

While they’re at it, something needs to be done to address marriage within a command, or more specifically within a unit. Let’s take your first example. What if, instead of Sgt A, and privates B,C,D, and E, we have SSG A, and Sgt B and C, each of whom lead a fire team under SSG A. If SSG A is married to Sgt B, and sends Sgt C’s fireteam to flank an enemy emplacement while Sgt B provides cover, what is Sgt C’s team going to think? Or, if on post, SSG A puts Sgt C’s team on trash detail, then what? Alternately, if SSG A puts B’s team on detail, that could stress the relationship and impair both SSG A and Sgt B, and then the whole squad is impaired.

Yes, I know SSGs don’t usually lead squads, but the point is sound.

[dajeeps]

The arrogance of these people is astounding. Even in defeat they are defiant and determined to shove the last vestiages of their agenda down our throats, the economy and real national problems be damned. I am so sick of these ideologs, I would really rather they just take the rest of the year off and stay out of our faces.

[dfwgator]

They can repeal it, as long as it reverts to the previous policy.

[Bronzy]

Will that make them go away?

[TCH]

Excellent article, not only for its reasoning regarding sexual conduct, but also in its explanation of the stress involved in military service.

[ColdOne]

DADT, plus Card Check to name a couple they are going to try to do in the “lame duck”.

[berdie]

Myself, I think there should be a poll of active duty military about how they feel.

After all...they are the ones that will have to deal with it.

Not our “safe” government or the coalition for the LBGT or LGT...whatever.

[behzinlea]

They can repeal it, as long as it reverts to the previous policy.

It will not revert to the previous policy. Homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgenders will be given special protected status of the same kind as already claimed by blacks, hispanics, and women. The other troops will be forced to endure endless sensitivity training sessions and will be summarily discharged if they openly express disagreement or disgust with the homosexual agenda or lifestyle.

[glorgau]

Ditto on the excellent article. The key point is that service members can’t leave and they can’t argue with superiors and they are all trained to operate lethal weapons with great amounts of stress applied routinely.

[Tweeker]

I am hoping that DADT is still around to be addressed by the Honorable Congressman from Florida 22 - Lt. Col. Allen B West. That will be some floor speech.

[Drew68]

Myself, I think there should be a poll of active duty military about how they feel.

There have been such polls:

‘Don’t ask’ survey published (Military Times)

Next month, the Pentagon is expected to release a report that assessed the replies of over 400,000 service members who were surveyed on the issue.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Without replacing it with something else (can you say hot potato) this would merely make policy fall back on the old practice of “if you’re gay you can’t come in, and if you are found gay while in, you get dishonorably discharged.” Surely the Rats know this, and they’re not talking about what’s going to take the place of DADT, and the “gay” community does not seem to be voicing any concern. Weird.

[little jeremiah]

Placemark for pingout tomorrow.

[little jeremiah]

And Sola Veritas took one of these surveys, and testified about it’s bogusness on another thread.

Sola, if you don’t mind copying or re-telling what you said on that other thread some days ago. I should have saved it; I don’t remember which thread it was on.

[Red Dog #1]

I’ve said it for many years...the racial analogy drawn by DADT opponents it wrong. A much better analogy is the integration of women into the services. It works, as well as it does, because we recognize men and women are of fundamentally different worth but they behave differently.Marash, nails the issue perfectly. Except for one point, by not beginning to discuss actual polices for addressing behavior, DADT repeal activist are being disloyal to the interest of gay service members.

[binreadin]

I've taken that survey, and its BS. It is a soft-pedal, politically correct survey that asks questions like "would you participate in social functions if there were gay people present?" The only place I got to put anything at all relevant was a spot for free text, and God knows what will happen to that. Now, you also have to know that every survey was assigned a specific tracking number, and my survey was personally adressed to me. I'm not in a position to worry much about what I say now, thank God, but if I were, I would be very careful with my answers because I don't for a minute doubt that someone at some point can track my answers directly back to me, and that might be an issue at a future point in determining promotions, assignments, etc. You notice that the results leaked to the media are already saying most service members support the repeal. That is BS. All you have to do is look at the questions to see there will be almost no other way to interpret the results. Gays in the military are bad news, period. They have a very high level of neroses, are poor leaders, and are terrible for morale. Civilians have no idea of the stresses involved, particularly for the young enlisted troops who have no control over many aspects of their lives. If DADT is repealed, discipline, violence and suicide issues will skyrocket.

[Sola Veritas]

The “survey” done by DoD was bogus. It was not an attempt to guage what the service personnel thought about openly serving homosexuals, it was about how to implement the policy. I was “tagged” to take the survey as an army reservist. The survey didn’t allow one to clearly state opposition or objection. Here is the opening paragraph in the letter telling me that I had been picked to respond:

“We request your participation in the 2010 Department of Defense (DoD) Compreshensive Review Survey of the Uniformed Force. This survey will help leadership assess the impacts, if any, a change in the law commonly known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” might have on military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention. It will also help DoD develop an action plan to support effective implementation if repeal occurs.”

Does this sound like they really care what someone thinks except the bottom line of....will you get out or encourage others to do the same?