Posted on 02/24/2005 3:14:24 PM PST by drt1
Loss of skilled troops due to policy said to cost nearly $200 million. Hundreds of highly skilled troops, including many translators, have left the armed forces because of the Pentagon’s rules on gays, at a cost of nearly $200 million, the first congressional study on the impact of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy says.
The estimated cost was for recruiting and training replacements from 1994 through 2003 for the 9,488 troops discharged from the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marine Corps because of the policy, the General Accountability Office estimated.
The study released Thursday said the government does not collect financial information specific to each individual’s case. The investigative arm of Congress estimated the costs based on how much the Pentagon and each service branch spends to recruit and train the general military population.....
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
My son in the army said most guys who want out, just say I'm gay...and their gone. It's a sissyman's way out.
Hurt's the military compared to what?
Until they come up with a way to measure how much the alternative would hurt the military, a study like this is meaningless.
I could also go out and do a study that says that the toxic material in the air we breath hurts us, and it would probably be true, but what's the alternative, not breathing? Would that hurt less?
You forget an important question: Why, after four years of Republican control of Congress with a Republican president - in a time of war, no less - hasn't Bill Clinton's ridiculous policy been reversed? Of course it's costly, which will be the rationale advanced by the various Pentagon bureaucrats appointed by Clinton (and still sitting in their jobs) in advocating that the military admit open gays with no restrictions. That was the whole plan in implementing it.
Three steps forward, two steps back. Repeat as needed.
My favority arguement from the lunatic libs is goes something like "well other countries in Europe allow gays in their militaries and they don't have any problems".
Yeah, let's take the strongest, most feared military in the world and make it follow the lead of unionized Euro "forces".
that is why we are a superpower and the Euroweenies are just superpouters........
How many million would it cost to create facilities that give straight men the same privacy rights from gays as women have privacy from men?
[ Hurt's the military compared to what?
Until they come up with a way to measure how much the alternative would hurt the military, a study like this is meaningless. ]
You hit the nail on the head. They went into this survey looking for a pre-conceived result. You cannot do a study based on people discharged for disobeying orders and expect a neutral result. Of course discharge is going to give you a negative number of people who cannot serve.
What this study ignores is what impact would the lack of this policy have on the morale and enlistment number of troops ? How many would not enlist because of gays openly in the military ? How would camaraderie and trust within the troops be affected ? Personally, I have no insecurity in dealing with gays, but that is not true for the whole population. For whatever reason, to ignore the reality of bias against or rejection of the gay lifestyle is not presenting the full picture. The military is not a mirror of the civillian lifestyle, democracy does not reign, it is an authoritarian structure that is necessary to have an effective military.
[ Hurt's the military compared to what?
Until they come up with a way to measure how much the alternative would hurt the military, a study like this is meaningless. ]
You hit the nail on the head. They went into this survey looking for a pre-conceived result. You cannot do a study based on people discharged for disobeying orders and expect a neutral result. Of course discharge is going to give you a negative number of people who cannot serve.
What this study ignores is what impact would the lack of this policy have on the morale and enlistment number of troops ? How many would not enlist because of gays openly in the military ? How would camaraderie and trust within the troops be affected ? Personally, I have no insecurity in dealing with gays, but that is not true for the whole population. For whatever reason, to ignore the reality of bias against or rejection of the gay lifestyle is not presenting the full picture. The military is not a mirror of the civillian lifestyle, democracy does not reign, it is an authoritarian structure that is necessary to have an effective military.
Klingers everywhere
Yep and ya don't even need make-up and a skirt anymore!
"Hundreds of highly skilled troops, including many translators, have left the armed forces because of the Pentagon’s rules on gays"
Hundreds of highly skilled troops, including many translators, have left the armed forces because of the Pentagon’s rules on weight
Hundreds of highly skilled troops, including many translators, have left the armed forces because of the Pentagon’s rules on fitness
Hundreds of highly skilled troops, including many translators, have left the armed forces because of the Pentagon’s rules on age
Hundreds of highly skilled troops, including many translators, have left the armed forces because of the Pentagon’s rules on illegal drug use
Hundreds of highly skilled troops, including many translators, have left the armed forces because of the Pentagon’s rules on drunk driving
And so forth....
The Army used to be far larger than it is now, all male, and non-homosexual. That was back when it was a military machine and not a social engineering experiment. Rather than try and tinker with what doesn't work, we should reorganize to work with what does. The retention problem would fix itself overnight.
Whether or not you agree with their policies of allowing gays in their military, you can't seriously be criticizing the British as an inferior fighting force. Same goes for the Aussies and the Israelis. Those are some tough forces, and our allies to boot.
"We also have a problem with pregnancy hurting retention. Far, far more people have been discharged due to getting pregnant than due to being homosexual.
The Army used to be far larger than it is now, all male, and non-homosexual. That was back when it was a military machine and not a social engineering experiment. Rather than try and tinker with what doesn't work, we should reorganize to work with what does. The retention problem would fix itself overnight."
AGREED, except not quite overnight. Re: the pregnancy statistics, do you have any sources? Would love to see them. Ping me if so, thanks.
What a crock! Here's a question, How many will avoid military service because the government legitimizes and allows open perversion in the armed forces?
If you want on/off the ping list see my profile page.
Homosexual men are banned from Donating Blood. For those same reasons, they also need to be banned from the Military.
It's the blood flying all over the place. A Homosexual man spreads disease. And in the military where blood transfusions are often needed on the spot- is it safe? I would say no.
The only question that should have to be asked is "What's your blood type." Not "do you have AIDS"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.