Posted on 12/03/2010 10:42:09 AM PST by FTJM
Marine Commandant Gen. Jim Amos and Air Force chief of staff Gen. Norton Schwartz will tell a Senate panel Friday they do not recommend Congress change the law to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
“Based on what I know about the very tough fight on the ground in Afghanistan, the almost singular focus of our combat forces as they train up and deploy into theater, the necessary tightly woven culture of those combat forces that we are asking so much of at this time and finally the direct feedback from the survey, my recommendation is that we should not implement repeal at this time,” Amos said in prepared testimony for the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Schwartz echoed the concern. “My best military judgment does not agree with the study assessment that the short-term risk to military effectiveness is low,” Schwartz said, adding that full implementation of repeal should not occur until sometime in 2012.
The service chiefs’ concerns about “open service” are not a surprise, though their “best military advice” puts them at odds with their boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and their commander in chief, President Barack Obama, both of whom want Congress to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy this month.
But the recommendation of Army chief of staff Gen. George Casey — seen as a wild card in the contentious debate — is far more nuanced.
Casey represents a service that is wholly in the fight in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, where many combat forces have higher rates of concern about repeal. “Implementation of the repeal of DADT would be a major cultural and policy change in the middle of war,” he said, adding that it is also doable.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Create all-homosexual and all-lesbian units in the respective services and then measure their combat effectiveness and efficiency. Re-evaluate later.
That way they can serve and still leave everyone else alone.
Something like this could have possibly worked in WW2’s style of war but no longer would be feasible. You have teams being deployed on missions that consist of members from multiple forces such as the Army Navy and Air Force, on the ground in combat operations.
placemark.
I’ve met a few lesbians during my lifetime, and think some of them could outlast zero in the military. Maybe even some men. However, I’m not for repeal of this policy. Just what does it mean - serve openly? Does it mean these deviants can flaunt their deviant behavior without fear of punishment? Does it mean they can commit acts of sodomy and not be punished? Just what does it mean?
Would they wear pink ribbons on their uniforms to identify themselves?
You guys are funny... WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
It could mean all sorts of things, depending on other regulations. What is “flaunting,” by the way? If I ask Pfc. Johnson if he has a girl back home, and he says “yeah, his name is Jim.” Is that flaunting? If so, what should he say?
WOBBLY, one serves as openly hetero by having a girlfriend that people know about, getting engaged, having a wedding, having a child, etc. People don’t look at that child or that ring and think “look at them flaunting their lifestyle! Throwing their heterosexual sex in my face!” Why don’t they think that? Because it’s normal.
Being gay is not normal, but that doesn’t mean that a gay guy saying “I have a boyfriend” is “flaunting.”
It would mean they could “commit acts of sodomy” without being punished, at least when they’re on their own time. Just like everyone else in the country. Each service no doubt has its own regulations on on-base hanky panky of any type, which no doubt should be enforced.
Pink ribbons on uniforms? Are you serious? I guarantee you the vast majority of gays wouldn’t “come out” to more than very close friends, if that. Those that do would still be subject to uniform regulations and such.
The one thing I’d worry about is faked incidents of harassment/overly-PC HR-type stuff.
I’d suggest reading the report.. it pretty well lays out what the concerns of the troops are, and how the military would deal with them. You can take that as you like, but it’s pretty hilarious to see these hundreds-of-posts long threads with nothing but conjecture.
“They were probably all admins (no).. I bet most of them were gay! (that would be astounding).. Did they ask about troop retention? Did they ask about morale? What about showers? Why didn’t they ask them flat out whether they wanted to repeal the policy?”
The DoD answers all of these questions in the report. Of course, one can choose not to believe it, or to attack it for its methodology, but that would be better than guessing.
Having been combat arms, I have concerns of divived loyalty.
Is priority one the boyfriend or following orders lawful ,but dangerous orders?
Can one tell their boyfriend to go walk point on patrol at night in a known Taliban stronghold ?
Mullen: Troops Who Balk at Change in Gay Service Policy Can Find Other Work
Published December 02, 2010 | FoxNews.com
Military members who have a problem with a change in policy to allow gays to serve openly may find themselves looking for a new job, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned Thursday.
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.