Laz, I understand what you’re saying...but I would say that their personnel are not as good as ours because of the social experimentation/mores/values that goes on in their armed forces.
The missions of other NATO nations, whether we like it or not, is different than OUR mission. We are the bad ass, the big dog, the one who does the WORK. They are, for most purposes, doing the small stuff. Their load is not as heavy.
Do we want our military personnel more concerned with killing terrorists or with not offending their fellow soldiers? I think this will turn us into a “small nation” military—if not immediately, then eventually.
Think of the cost: will our military now pay for AIDS treatment for openly gay soldiers? For housing for domestic partners and their health care? For “adoption services” for gays? This is a big hot mess that takes away from the military’s mission.
IMHO.
Your comment here though, "Think of the cost: will our military now pay for AIDS treatment for openly gay soldiers? For housing for domestic partners and their health care? For “adoption services” for gays? This is a big hot mess that takes away from the military’s mission." deserves more attention and others have mentioned the cost to the military for this nonsense. This is for the FisCons who always keep reminding us that we should focus on the economic issues and don't bother with the social issues. Here's how a social issue ties directly with an economic one.
This nation is broke. Period. That is a fact. How are we going to afford this change in policy, which will run into the billions? Remember now, the same bunch in Congress pushing for homosexuals to serve openly is usually the same bunch who always, without fail, want to cut the defense budget, stop funding weapons and defense systems and make sure our troops don't have what they need to win.
So, they will vote to stop funding missile defense systems, etc. but they will order the Pentagon to allow homosexuals to have housing, BAQ, and order sensitivity training to those who refuse to bow at the altar of political correctness, etc. all of which COSTS MONEY?! Not to mention the increase in sexual harassment lawsuits because homosexuals are a "protected class" now and anything they do, it's the other guy's fault. The unintended consequences of this is going to be very costly.
And something else. Let's say folks do start dropping out of the military because they refuse to work with open homosexuals. Suppose recruitment numbers fall below target, then what? Reinstate the draft? Okay. Make sure open homosexuals and those who cheered them on are the FIRST ones drafted though. Wonder how many of them will flee to Canada, after cheering for this crap?
And I value (both of) your side(s) of the discussion. I will consider your words.
The Army already has a policy where if a soldier contracts HIV (not full-blown AIDS), then they will not discharge him/her. Not only that, but that soldier also becomes PERMANENTLY nondeployable and will not be assigned to duty outside of the United States. So, now, they’re basically taking stateside assignments away from other soldiers and other soldiers have to deploy more often because these soldiers cannot deploy. I don’t know what the policies are in the other branches, but I would guess that they’re probably similar.