DISGRACEFUL: Defense Secretary Robert Gates Tells Troops Not To Worry About DADT Repeal

[Bluebear]

Regarding "homosexuality in the military:...unit cohesion, recruitment, all the old buzzwords in play.

Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ83Gs6rETo&feature=player_embedded

In a videotaped Memorial Day message to the nation's soldiers, Defense Secretary Robert Gates urges his audience not to to "become distracted" over the possible repeal of DADT. Gates then asks that active duty soldiers participate in the repeal study so that "changes can be done right."

http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/

As one YouTube visitor commented:

"Let us know how to do this right." - - - How many times in the history of any military has the leader asked the lower rung folks how to do anything right? Shameful and embarrassing.

[aquart]

1. Tone deaf ass.

Gates is another Obama decision I don't love.

[pnwmom]

2. Isn't the repeal less likely to cause conflict if the soldiers' involvement

helps them buy into the changes?

Young soldiers today have grown up in a totally different world than Gates -- so I doubt that many of them will have a real problem with this.

[Bluebear]

3. The soldiers don't need to "buy into" the changes. They have to follow orders.

[pnwmom]

4. The soldiers are human, not robots. They will do a better job following orders

if they feel they've been a part of the changes.

[BR_Parkway]

5. But the lower rank soldiers are the ones who predominately don't give

a rat's ass - it's the older cadre like Gates that still are clueless about how much of a sea change has happened without them noticing. They still have issues with it and project them on the next generation.

[emulatorloo]

7. That's probably the best argument for asking for their participation then

The lower rank soldiers can tell the brass that they just don't give a rat's ass, so get rid of DADT already.

[Dr Morbius]

14. That, and the fact that no one will later be able to claim the "brass"

...implemented a policy all the "real guys" hate. The best argument for getting soldiers to participate is that once you do participate in something, you are invested in the outcome. From the top to the bottom, the military has to embrace a policy of inclusion.

Repealing DADT is only the first step. The second, and far more important step, is getting the military mind to tolerate and not to discriminate against homosexuality. If DADT is repealed and the "official" policy is to accept and tolerate, that's one thing, and a very good thing. But the "unofficial" policy has to match the official policy. We cannot tolerate a situation where gays are allowed to serve openly, but then find discrimination or mistreatment when they get there.

[pnwmom]

32. Exactly. Let them hear from the majority of soldiers who think it's a non-issue. n/t

[itsrobert]

58. They are having the forums at Chapels

The forums are being manipulated by the Religious right in the military.

[Renew Deal]

10. Maybe that's the point.

To show that the lower ranks are supportive. :shrug:

[jonnyblitz]

16. and what if it is determined they are NOT supportive. should

they be the ones to decide either way? I seriously can't believe you see NOTHING WRONG with this.

[emulatorloo]

18. Who said they are "deciding"?

[Bluebear]

27. See reply one, "tone deaf ass". Thank you.

:hi:

[emulatorloo]

73. You apparently don't know much about building consensus in a large organization

[BR_Parkway]

31. Considering some 70% of the population - including over 60% of the

self identified tea-baggers support allowing them to serve openly - along with the very high percentage of troops 25 years and younger - I have a hard time imagining that they'd find more than 5% who outright opposed - at least along any lines outside of "my religion says it's wrong"

[pnwmom]

33. That's what I think. n/t

[marshall]

19. Those folks are part of the sea change

Gates may not get it, but the little people under them do.

[leftstreet]

52. Would you take this same line if soldiers refused an order to kill?

:shrug:

[Renew Deal]

9. How does that conflict with asking for input?

I advise my boss all the time. Sometimes he doesn't agree. I live with it. That's life.

[muffin1]

24. I have never in my life

heard of soldiers being asked their opinion on ANYTHING. Ever. The military does not work like the private sector. Orders are given, and orders are followed.

[pnwmom]

36. How close are you to members of the military? n/t

[Stargazer09]

43. Military members are always getting asked questions

I used to get a new survey at least once a year, more often if I did anything unusual.

And I was just in the Reserves.

I think Gates is doing the right thing by asking all military members for their input. Sure, we know it won't matter that much in the long run, but it's nice to be asked.

[hack89]

61. The military routinely does command surveys

I did many over my career - and they touched on a lot of sensitive issues.

[muffin1]

28. I'm also going to guess

that your boss never called you into his office and said, "Gee Jim, we've been discriminating against a bunch of people since we opened, and I was wondering if you think we should stop now or keep discriminating."

They need to repeal DADT now. If there are some knuckle-draggers who need help 'dealing' with it, then have an class to educate them at that point.

[pnwmom]

37. That isn't what Gates is asking. Maybe you should re-read the OP. n/t

[Radical Activist]

41. So you aren't worried about hate crimes against soldiers who come out?

Yeah, I think they do need to buy into it.

[Solly Mack]

6. k/r

I saw it on AFN.

Thanks for finding a video.

I think the study is bogus. Congress can change the UCMJ and the troops have to follow those changes/laws/rules/regulations. Those who have a problem with a repeal and act on it are then in violation of the UCMJ and should be dealt with accordingly....along with all additional charges the UCMJ already has established for various offenses.

Troops follow laws/rules/regulations/orders now they have had absolutely no say in creating. In basic/iet, there is no 'golly, gee, how do you feel about this rule/regulation/law?'..it's 'you will follow orders!'


I still want to see what questions they ask on that study though. I'm curious to what they ask and how it is asked.

[jp11]

11. It is an opportunity to look at the military culture and environment then maybe/hopefully enact

policy changes to counter the bigotry in both the people coming in and already there that might have or instill ideas that gay or lesbian people are less than heterosexuals. I also look at it, perhaps mistakenly, as a chance for the military to make changes about the culture that might help reduce the rate of sexual assault on females. IF they can find a way to educate and train troops to accept people that they might otherwise not, perhaps they can also build a better mentality that everyone in the military is a family member and sexual assault or physical assault on them is reprehensible.

The aspect of effectiveness/readiness etc are mostly BS, other countries that allow openly gay/lesbian servicemen/women and don't have issues with it. To my mind the readiness/effectiveness cohesion crap is a tool from those against ending the repeal trying to scare people into believing that it would make our forces unable to fight, recruit, retain or work effectively anymore. I don't doubt that some closed minded and hateful people will choose not to join knowing that gay and lesbians no longer have to keep to the shadows, or that some people will cause problems about an openly gay/lesbian member but that is that person's problem, the military's is to make sure they don't let them cause problems or get away with hateful behavior. Some consideration should be used to see if there are ways to lessen any problems that might come up from openly gay/lesbian servicemen and women, the problems in my mind are most likely on the side of those who can't deal with it, but I may be wrong so it doesn't hurt to try and see if there might be issues that were not considered by the people in charge.

As I said perhaps I am mistaken in my hopes for the report, even if it does come up with some issues it then falls on the military to implement those recommendations/changes and they can easily screw that up, only time will tell.

[Solly Mack]

25. None of what you written has any bearing on the troops never having any say

in writing the UCMJ. The ranks just don't get to decide that....and they never have.

So a repeal of DADT depending in any way on what the soldiers think is indeed bogus. To believe that soldiers do get a say is people showing their ignorance of how the military works.


Now, how to best expand and implement the already existing programs for teaching/training against discrimination/sexual assault/harassment, such an internal study might have some merit. But such a study shouldn't be promoted as a condition for repealing DADT....and it is being promoted as just that.

Two entirely different things.

The repeal of DADT being promoted as based (in part) on a study of what soldiers think - and using an internal study to better expand soldier training in ways to decrease the permissive culture.

Except the study isn't internal is it? It's been widely talked about outside the military in an effort to appease and mollify bigots who want to pretend it's about what the soldiers think. Who want to stall and have an excuse not to repeal legal discrimination - which is all DADT is...legalized bigotry.

I'm involved with internal studies for bettering soldier life all the time ....but the civilian world doesn't hear about those studies do they? Nope..they sure don't. Studies where soldiers and their families actually do have a say...because they're command directed and local....and in NO way pertain to federal law (which is what the UCMJ is)



The culture of permissiveness that allows the bigotry, that allows the sexual harassment and assault of women isn't because the soldiers aren't required to take classes/training against such thinking and actions (because they are required to take the classes) - it's because the command structure refuses to follow through on punishing the offenders in a consistent manner. The penalty would go a long way into adjusting attitudes. The classes and training already exist but those classes and training won't change everyone....and they aren't enough.

If command doesn't discipline offenders then an environment exist where such actions are not only tolerated but are seen as acceptable...even encouraged.

You can't teach the classes and implement the training and expect positive results if you fail on the follow through...and the military, as a whole, fails miserably on the follow through.

I'm a military spouse. My soldier is the Equal Opportunity Adviser/trainer....and he'll tell you right now, it's the follow through...the slapping on the wrist, the minimum punishments for even the serious offenses that is one of the major problems. There are other contributing factors, of course.

It's not enough to have laws - you have to enforce those laws.

[jp11]

39. Thank you for the response.

I never meant to say that what the report or individual soldiers/officers was going to decided what gets changed in the UCMJ. I don't know who writes it, military lawyers, the joint chiefs, pentagon, secretary of defense etc. Unlike many people on the internet I don't have a mastery of all things in the world, nor do I attempt to make the case that I do(this isn't an attack on you). I ignorantly/logically thought that a report that included useful or insightful information about ideas from the military community, especially officers might be taken into consideration(by those who do write UCMJ) in how to implement the changes for the better, not whether it gets implemented or not.

I haven't heard/read that DADT is dependent upon the report, when I looked up what the report was about and such I saw nothing about the report HAD to be done before a change could happen. All I've seen/read is a report was requested/ordered by the military to study how to do it/change laws, and from what I understood 'how' was about what they might do to keep everything running smoothly, assuming that a report was needed which maybe it wasn't. Again in my mind it could be a good thing to get input from soldiers on how to do something, maybe you get a good idea, maybe not. I'd like to think that a report like that could help make the change easier and go more smoothly than repealing it today and then having unclear rules/policy/law that need to be rewritten overnight. The obvious downside is not doing it now means more people suffer from DADT policies, I'm sure that is where a lot of the anger at the report comes from as well as the simple fact that DADT should never have happened.

It is only now that DADT is 'repealed', pending the completion of the report, the President signing it and some other legalese is a repeal of DADT specifically said to be dependent on that report, but only in a certain sense. If it isn't submitted the repeal can't go through as it was passed on those terms by congress, if it isn't signed off on DADT isn't repealed, I'm being sloppy with the actual law because I frankly don't feel like digging up articles on the law and parsing it to get everything I'm saying 100% correct. If the report isn't completed/submitted for review to the pentagon/president the DADT cannot be repealed by the congress's vote as the repeal requires the report be submitted. (maybe I'm wrong I'm fairly certain I read several threads about that here and even an article online)

I admit I didn't know the following:

The Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits sodomy and oral sex, even among consenting adults and married couples.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35693656/

before a few minutes ago, but a report about this issue might offer the suggestion that it be changed and is the kind of thing I had hoped would be considered when looking into how to implement the changes to repeal DADT. among other things.

Anyway, thank you for enlightening me about the internal reports and pointing out the inconsistencies with punishments in the military. As I said I'm not an expert on the military or really anything else for that matter. I try to find out the facts of a subject and make my opinion/case/argument from there, sometimes I start from my own experiences or feelings, but often I still need to lookup things and all this is just my thoughts.

[Solly Mack]

50. Congress enacted the UCMJ - it's federal law. Congress can add to or repeal

anything in the UCMJ and it doesn't require a study to do so. The DOD implements the changes to the UCMJ once Congress votes on a change. The chain of command is told, "Do this" and they do - all the way down to basic training.

Yes, the UCMJ does prohibit "sodomy/oral sex" - but removing that from the UCMJ only requires the repeal of DADT and changing the UCMJ...once repealed the UCMJ is also changed and poof, it's gone. Nothing complex about it. Congress can change the UCMJ. (and it would be pointless to repeal DADT without also changing the UCMJ)

The study linked to repeal is nothing but a stall tactic and something for bigots to use as an excuse. Congress doesn't need the study to vote for the repeal DADT. There are some members of Congress who latched on to the study, and if you've watched the hearings a few months ago, it was obvious they were wanting an excuse to put off repealing DADT or were counting on working up sentiment against a repeal by claiming the troops didn't want it....when what the troops want plays no part in the process of changing the UCMJ. None.

The House Armed Services Committee - Don't Ask, Don't Tell Working Group hearing

Heads up: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Hearing: C-SPAN3 12pm ET

Now, the vote(s) held about 2 weeks ago was a deferred vote contingent on completion of the study and the say-so of Gates and the Joint Chiefs...that's what Gates said in a service announcement on AFN. But here's the thing about that...Gates has no say so either. Neither do the Joint Chiefs. Congress makes law (to include the UCMJ) - not the DOD and not any cabinet member of the executive office. Even as some members of Congress are pretending - hiding like cowards - that their job as lawmakers is somehow based on how the military may or may not feel, the fact remains that it's Congress that make the laws - not the military.

That's why the study as a condition to repeal is bogus...it's nothing but an excuse for some members of Congress to hide behind. To pretend they are just trying to do what's best for the military...to pretend they are concerned about the troops and how they feel or what they think. It's bullshit.


Secretary of Defense Gates is making a service announcement on Armed Forces Network (DADT)


Like I already said, it is up to the DOD to implement the changes once made. (Issue orders, expand EO training, etc.) In other words, it's up to the DOD to follow orders.


Congress could repeal DADT tomorrow, Obama sign it into law in his role as President , and the DOD would have no choice but to do so. And frankly, it's insulting to many of us connected to the military to claim the change couldn't be implemented without months and months of study. Gays and Lesbians already serve. They are already integrated into the military - the only thing that will change is they will no longer have to serve in fear of being "found out."

As to any bigots that can't adapt (regardless of their rank) - use the tools already in place and punish (both judicial and non-judicial, as the case warrants) the pieces of shit.

[Renew Deal]

8. What's wrong with his statement?

I don't know why it's necessary, but other than that it's OK. It's non-controversial. I did find it ironic that he asked for advice "how to do this right." But that's harmless too.

[jp11]

17. There are a couple of messages I see in his address:

One, to allay confusion that might exist, but really shouldn't as no change has been enacted so clarification isn't needed, ie the DADT policy isn't repealed so all servicemen/officers must adhere to the current code and proceed accordingly. Basically this doesn't mean you can come 'out' and be safe from DADT it isn't repealed yet and the current policy will be enforced.

Two, to convince troops/officers that the report is still important and they should cooperate with those conducting it regardless of the repeal that will come when it is complete and everything is signed etc. Troops might feel, in Gates' mind, that their opinions/concerns don't matter the repeal has passed and all that is needed now is for December to roll around for it to be effective, so why bother cooperating with those trying to assemble the report.

Three, some might see this as pandering to the troops, 'tell us what you think'-code for voice your opposition to this, be it based on the issues of unit cohesion/effectiveness etc or the fact that the repeal was put into play before the report and subsequent pentagon plan could be designed/implemented.

[Bluebear]

26. It's OK with you because you don't hear what we hear. See the other reply to you

[unhappycamper]

12. Mullen's pushing back also:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/05/ap_military_gay_ban_vote_mullen_053010/

[tularetom]

13. A "study" is just a way to defer a decision nobody has the balls to make

Kind of like appointing a "commission".

I'm just curious WTF they need to "study". They've experienced this thing for almost 20 years, they should know by now whether repealing it would cause any problems.

I think the problems that repealing it would cause are only in the minds of some of the higher ups.

[marmar]

15. Equal rights, deferred to a committee.......

I despise military culture.

[Mari333]

20. ugh . chest beating fake macho.

I laugh at them, then shake my head that it still exists.

[emulatorloo]

22. Gates or the "You Tube visitor"?

Seems like this is Gates' way of getting everybody on board w the repeal of DADT

[WeDidIt]

21. So where's the problem?

The idea is to get the regular troops invested in the changes that are coming and insure the new policy is implemented correctly.

It's historic that the military would do it this way and insures a smooth transition.

I see absolutely no problem with this. Getting the rank and file to input their thoughts into this will insure the old timers have little say in whether or not it can be done. In fact, in guarantees DADT will go away.

[FreeState]

56. So while they repeate a study that's been done over and over again our families continue to be fired

That's not how anything wih any minoriety should be done.

[muffin1]

23. More bull fucking shit.

I cannot think of another occasion where the lower ranks were asked their opinion about anything.

Watch, they will blame failure to repeal on the soldiers. "Well, WE wanted to do it, but THEY were against it, and since THEY'RE doing the sacrificing...".

:evilfrown:

[wmbrew0206]

29. "How many times in the history of any military has the leader asked the lower rung folks how to do

anything right?"

It happens all the time.

When Petraeus was writing his book on COIN operations, he consulted with junior officers and NCO's that had served in Iraq. When the military had to redo their suicide prevention training, they had a lot of import from junior soldiers.

Any time that a significant change in military policy happens, the junior ranks are given an opportunity to weigh in on them. This normally happens through symposiums where different units select an outstanding Sgt or Petty Officer to represent they views of their unit on different issues.

I know the Marine Corps does this on a regular basis, just to keep the brass up to speed on the current issues facing the Marines. They do it with junior Marines, NCO's, SNCO's, and Warrant Officers. These symposiums can cause a lot of controversy within the Marine Corps by themselves. The Warrant Officers pissed off the SNCO's after they recommended that non-combat arms MOS 1st Sgt's and SgtMaj's not be allowed to serve in Combat Arms Battalions.

[Bluebear]

30. Writing a book & asking subordinates whether to continue discrimination are 2 different things.

[pnwmom]

35. But he is NOT asking subordinates "whether to continue discrimination."

He is very likely trying to build support for the changes by making the average soldier feel s/he is a valued part of it.

[Bluebear]

48. Whatever. The "average soldier" should feel valued for not being affected by DADT.

[pnwmom]

53. Why? Why should the value of a soldier depend on whether s/he's affected by DADT?

[Bluebear]

54. Yeah OK, word circles. We will see how this all shakes out.

[pnwmom]

55. I hope you're being too pessimistic -- but I understand why you're skeptical. n/t

[Radical Activist]

42. Why are you so determined to stetch the truth when it comes to Obama and this issue?

As another person pointed out, no one is asking troops if DADT should continue or not. Gates said DADT is being repealed. Why lie?

[amborin]

34. yes, shameful and embarrassing

[Skinner]

38. This really isn't that complicated. Let's think a little bit.

As Bill Clinton liked to say: "You can't take the politics out of politics." This is politics.

Here's the deal: DADT is dead. It was decided long ago (November 2008) that it was going to be repealed. The President, the Congress, the SecDef, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs all want it repealed.

What we are experiencing now -- with the report and the timing and all that -- is about MAKING IT WORK. Getting everyone on board. Giving them some time to FACE REALITY. Smoothing the way so the backlash will be small, and more importantly... Making sure GLBT soldiers are not ostracized when the policy is finally put in place.

I know it would feel really awesome if President Obama got on TV and said, "fuck all you bigots, I'm the Commander in Chief, I'm going to cram this down your throats, and you all can bite me." Arguably, it is his right to do so. But I would submit to you that that approach might not be the most effective way to ensure that GLBT soldiers are treated with respect when they show up for service.

If I were a GLBT soldier, I would feel much more comfortable coming out of the closet if I knew the DADT repeal was carefully planned, and I knew almost everyone was (more-or-less) on-board. If, on the other hand, the President just said "fuck all you bigots," and looked like he was cramming it down everyone's throats, I would be pretty concerned about how the backlash might affect me personally.

When it finally gets repealed, it's going to be fine. And some people are going to say, "See? It was totally fine. Why did they need to waste so much time planning?" What they will fail to realize is that the repeal will have gone well *BECAUSE* they spent the time and effort to make sure it did.

[wmbrew0206]

45. Just to add on to this line of thinking.

This is also about allowing the Obama administration some political cover.

Let's take Skinner's example of President Obama signing off on the repeal before the military has a chance to finish its study. The first time, and every time afterward for a while, a gay service member is attacked, the military brass will blame it on Obama. They will claim that they were trying to prevent this from happening but could not because the White House and Congress would not listen to the military. They will say it is a result of the DADT being repealed before the military could figure out who to do it correctly. It will turn into a huge finger pointing contest and who do you think the MSM will side with?

Allowing the study to finish before officially repealing DADT, will allow the military to have buy in and take away any ability to blame the Obama administration or congress if there are any problems after DADT is repealed.

[Orsino]

46. But how much time is enough time to face reality?

And why can't the previous five thousand years count toward it?

[wmbrew0206]

47. The study is due to be on the SecDef's desk in December. Give it a month or two

due to the Holidays and then look for the official repeal to happen in February or March.

[FreeState]

57. At the coy of how many GLBT families and their jobs? n/t

[Orsino]

59. I'm not "giving" it time...

...it's taking time.

Meanwhile, careers and lives are being ruined.

[Bluebear]

49. 'the SecDef, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs all want it repealed'

You absolutely cannot convince me that Gates wants this repealed.

[LooseWilly]

51. You forgot to mention the election in November... then the study scheduled for December.

Your quote about politics is very apt, but I don't think you bothered to consider the ramifications.

Obama, and Emmanuel, and maybe every other ex-Clintonite, seem to be terrified of losing the "the center"... while Emmanuel very eloquently judged the Left to be fucking retarded. Witness the inclusion of Rick Warren, in order to "reach out", while vigorously defending DOMA and so on in court (as compared with Jerry Brown refusing to defend Prop. 8 in CA).
The political evidence of the administration reaching out to whatever elements of the right that they think they can "win" is overwhelming.

The elections in November make the predicted study completion timeframe of December seem convenient. It allows Obama to (barely) keep his word about repealing DADT this year, while minimizing the expected reaction from those he hopes to woo (obviously, the tent is big enough for fence sitting homophobes... as far as the administration is concerned).

The two most disconcerting things that I, personally, draw from this choice is that - first, the administration is willing to allow that desire to woo to shape policy moreso than any loyalty to the left— DADT will keep and LGBT soldiers will continue to be purged and separated from the military in order to soothe the potential bigotry of "the center." Second, if there are losses in the November elections, I fear that the administration will lose their nerve and use it as an excuse to determine that further studies are needed. Probably until December of 2012... because the military is so big and "insert PR spin here".

The notion that the soldiers will be more likely to follow orders eliminating DADT after filling out a questionnaire, than they would be without the questionnaire is kind of laughable, if you ask me.

The fact that Congress has decided to pass this law now, while they have the votes they have, rather than wait, shows me that Congress has more nerve/faith in the public than the Whitehouse... and has more good sense, as now the law will be repealed no matter how the elections turn out. Seems to me that the Congress is more concerned with the "fucking retards" of the Left than the Whitehouse.

Unfortunately, if the November elections go sourly in the Whitehouse's opinion, I predict that there will be no sign off on any study for years.

These statements by Gates and Mullen seem to be preliminary "feelers" for a retreat from DADT repeal, reminiscent of Emmanuel's "feelers" for a HCR bill without a public option.

[Prism]

60. You're being awfully cavalier with other people's equality

DADT is not dead.

I think what is frustrating for many of us in the community is that we are not trusted to know our own issues. No matter what is happening, no matter how many times we see it, no matter how many code words we have heard before, there is always a cadre of people waiting to tell us that we're not hearing what we know we're hearing.

It reminds me a bit of the public option. We heard the administration getting ready to jettison it way back in August. Anyone who was listening could've easily discerned where that was all headed. But no, we were hearing it wrong. Who are we going to believe, talking points or our own lying eyes?

So it is with DADT. You're asking us not to hear what we've been hearing all our lives from politicians. Now is not the time for "Don't worry, it'll be fine." Now is the time to put more pressure than ever on the politicians. This administration has resisted and dug in its heels and pushed against Congress and the LGBT community at nearly every opportunity. It is only through sheer perseverance and pressure - pressure that this cavalier attitude we see had absolutely zero role in producing - that the administration is being brought further along the repeal path.

Remember, the administration didn't want Congress to do anything until after the study. So Dec. 1st comes the study, then Congressional gobbledy gook, and then a new Congress with who knows how much Republican power.

Our lives and equality are not President Obama's to play these political games with. He's either that fierce advocate, or he is not.

There are decades of studies. What Gates is asking for is tacit permission from the troops. That is unprecedented for a Commander-in-Chief and his Secretary of Defense to sit there and go "Well, as long as you're ok with it, then maybe we will." What? No. God damn. What is it about LGBT issues that our equality is always put up to these ridiculous votes?

And why is it, whenever it happens, people are bizarrely ok with it?

We know these words, we know these attitudes, we know this hemming and hawing, we know all the little qualifications and conditions attached to our equality that always, Always, ALWAYS results in even more delay.

Enough already. Help us or don't. Pressure the administration or apologize for it.

But stop bouncing around with this attitude like you know how LGBT issues are gonna be and our life experiences and those of the activists and the writers and the posters here are some kind of group hallucination, and only "thinking" heterosexuals are able to discern the truth.

That was old two decades ago. Now is the time. Help us already. Jesus.

[Skinner]

62. This has nothing to do with trusting you to know your own issues.

This is a fairly straightforward case of differing points of view. It seems pretty obvious that there are (at least) two ways of interpreting Secretary Gates' comments:

1) He's a bigot or a coward, and he wants to delay the repeal of DADT as long as he can. Possibly forever.

OR

2) He wants to repeal DADT, and he (and the rest of the Administration) are laying the groundwork so it will happen with minimal disruption.

It is my opinion that all the available evidence is completely consistent with Interpretation #2. But it's just my opinion, and you can give it as much or as little weight as you like. Obviously, neither us us knows for certain what is going to happen. I understand it is frustrating to watch as politicians play politics with your rights. But they don't call it "politics" for nothing. Like it or not, successful politicians -- the ones that actually get stuff done -- are the ones that know how to "play these political games." If we didn't live in a country full of morons, then politicians might not have to play all these political games. But we do, and they do.

Is it appropriate to put pressure on the Administration to increase the likelihood that DADT does get repealed? Of course it is. In fact, it's the right thing to do. But I don't think we are required to assume bad faith on the part of the administration when we do.


(To revise my earlier post, you are correct that DADT is not dead yet. But IMHO, neither the Obama Administration nor the DOD are going to be the problem. The real question mark is the US Senate, with its 60-vote supermajority. Much of the current dog-and-pony show is for their benefit.)

[zipplewrath]

66. Alot of investigations still going on

For all the "death" announcements, there are still alot of investigations going on. I'm very friendly with a lesbian soldier, and she laughs every time this topic comes up. She, and alot of other folks, have no intention of "coming out" when DADT is repealed. They have very real concerns about what comes next, and all this "hand holding" of the bigots doesn't make it any better. And in all of these surveys, and all of the "input from the troops", they don't have a prayer of getting any significant "input" from the GLBT members who are in service. They are basically still being ignored, and don't think they don't notice.

Several of the top concerns and no one is addressing them:

1) A lot of forms have been filled out, a lot of statements have been made over the years, and there's been alot of ommissions in order to cover their sexual orientation. Will there be "amnesty" for these acts? Right now they constitute a crime.

2) Will there be a requirement for either new recruits, or existing members to "self identify"? This becomes a very real possibility if the military intends upon any form of "segregation" in housing, duty assignments, or treatment of dependents.

3) Will there be "segregation"? Either in duty assignments (women are already segregated in this way), in facilities, or in services? Will chaplins be required to provide services to all service members?

4) What will be the treatment of "partners"? Since DOMA and state level laws prevent to a great extent any recognition of "marriage" how will partners be treated? How will they be treated with respect to "next of kin"?

5) How will harrasment be handled? What will be considered harassment? How about fraternization? Will there be parity in the rules?

[Skinner]

67. I would assume that all of those concerns you mention are being considered now.

I don't know, of course. But one would hope that these are the types of things that they are trying to figure out now, before the official repeal.

As for not soliciting input from GLBT servicemembers, it's obviously a damn shame if they aren't. But anyone can see the awful catch-22 that GLBT servicemembers face: right now it's forbidden to admit that you're gay, so they can't participate openly in this process. One can only hope that openly gay former servicemembers, and gay rights organizations are advocating effectively on their behalf.

I hope that when DADT is repealed, it is done in such a way that your friend will not be reluctant to serve openly.

[zipplewrath]

68. Not to call you out specifically

More as a general question. I'm not sure what would lead one to assume that these concerns are being considered now. It has been plainly obvious for some time that the WH and the military have been predominately concerned with the "politics" of this, and really the "straight" politics. I'm not sure where the impression that anyone involved in planning the implimentation of the policy has had the interests of the GLBT members of the military best interests at heart. The last time a democratic WH worked out a plan, we ended up with DADT. That turned into a disaster. What would lead one to believe it will "go better" this time?

[Skinner]

71. Well, for one thing...

...I don't think the last Democratic White House actually put much thought or effort into planning. If they had, we might not have ended up with DADT. At the time, it sure didn't look like they were in control of the process.

(I like Bill Clinton a lot, but I think they blew it on this. My impression is that most of what the Obama Administration is doing on this issue is intended to avoid the perceived mistakes made by the Clinton Administration.)

[zipplewrath]

72. They weren't then, and they aren't now

The obviously aren't "in control" this time either. They are being pushed by congress, and they are deferring extensively to the military. There is obvious deference to those who DON'T want this passed, or at least want the MOST restrictive policy possible. Where in any of that is some obvious concern or attention being paid to the victims of this policy? I just don't see where the assumption that the political process will produce the results that are needed here. Especially if we just all sit back and assume "they" are handling it.

[Skinner]

74. My impression of the Administration is different from yours.

But I agree with you that it would be unwise to sit back and assume "they" are handling it.

[zipplewrath]

75. What leads you to that conclusion?

Where is the "fierce advocacy" on this issue that would leave you with a different impression? They have been, and are being deferential to the military on this issue. (We're going to do this "with you" not "to you" is how I remember it being expressed). The entire process, on the executive side, has been on the DoD time line. And no public expression of what the "minimum acceptable" outcome must be. Even this current process is ENTIRELY focused on those who will be expressing concern or opposition, and the victims are effectively being ignored, including allowing the investigations and expulsions to continue. If not for congress, the ONLY action that would currently be underway is this study on what changes could be made, and how to make them, to the satisfaction of those who are NOT victims of the current policies. I'm at a loss to see where any confidence in this administration is located in all of that. As you suggest, the politics have not been removed from this issue, and can't be. But even that suggests that the process will more likely be only "smooth" for the military, not for the GLBT community. And what in any of that suggests that the larger issues I outlined are "being worked"? The issues "being worked" is how to do it with the least amount of resistence from the rank and file.

[Radical Activist]

40. So Gates restated that DADT definitley will be repealed

and he's doing his best to build support for that change in the military to make an easy transition. Awesome!

Some people are able to see the worst in good news. It's a personality issue.

[zipplewrath]

69. Where is the word "definitely"?

"Defense Secretary Robert Gates urges his audience not to to "become distracted" over the possible repeal of DADT."


What it that statement reflects the word "definitely"?

[Mojeoux]

44. The Transition to the Non-DADT Military have been "Highly Successfully"

http://www.palmcenter.org/publications/dadt/what_does_empirical_research_say_about_impact_openly_gay_service_military



- Research has uniformly shown that transitions to policies of equal treatment
without regard to sexual orientation have been highly successful and have had no
negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat
effectiveness. No consulted expert anywhere in the world concluded that lifting
the ban on openly gay service caused an overall decline in the military.

- The updated research conducted for this study confirm that early assessments by
both military and independent analysts hold across time: none of the successes
and gains of transitions to full inclusion were reversed by any of the nations
studied, or yielded delayed problems over the years in which these militaries
allowed openly gay service.

- Evidence suggests that lifting bans on openly gay service contributed to
improving the command climate in foreign militaries, including increased focus
on behavior and mission rather than identity and difference, greater respect for
rules and policies that reflect the modern military, a decrease in harassment,
retention of critical personnel, and enhanced respect for privacy.

- All the countries studied completed their implementations of repeal either
immediately or within four months of the government’s decision to end
discrimination. These experiences confirm research findings which show that a
quick, simple implementation process is instrumental in ensuring success. Swift,
decisive implementation signals the support of top leadership and confidence that
the process will go smoothly, while a “phased-in” implementation can create
anxiety, confusion, and obstructionism.

- None of the countries studied installed separate facilities for gay troops, nor did
they retain rules treating gays differently from heterosexuals. Each country has
taken its own approach to resolving questions of benefits, housing, partner
recognition, and re-instatement. Generally, the military honors the status afforded
to gay or lesbian couples by that country, and the military rarely gets out in front
of the government or other institutions in the benefits offered.

- There were no instances of increased harassment of or by gay people as a result of lifting bans in any of the countries studied.

- The U.S. military has a long tradition of considering the experiences of other
militaries to be relevant to its own lessons learned. While there is no doubt that
the U.S. military is different from other militaries, such distinctions have not
prevented the U.S. military from comparing itself to and learning from foreign
armed forces. Using resources like the Foreign Military Studies Office, the U.S.
military itself has commissioned research on matters of personnel, health policy,
housing, weapons innovation, technology, counter terrorism, and the question of
gay service.

[walldude]

63. Unbelievable...

I see a number of posts that apparently missed this statement:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates urges his audience not to to "become distracted" over the possible repeal of DADT.

THE POSSIBLE REPEAL. POSSIBLE. POSSIBLE. Yeah but it's definitely going to be repealed. Right? I mean we just need to do a study to see how it's going to work I mean it's not like we have ever had gays in the military, it's not like we know what is going to happen, it's not like gays are just people, they have TEH GAY! We have to make sure people who have TEH GAY fit in with the normal people...

This is disgusting, and what's worse is the pathetic defense of treating our GLBT brothers and sisters like they are not "normal". No fucking "study" is needed, this is all political bullshit and I wonder how many people on this board would be defending this if it were say.. a religious group or a nationality that were being discriminated against.

Maybe we need a study to see how the Jews are going to fit in with the Christian soldiers. Or one on how black and white soldiers will work together. Or men and women. Gimme a fucking break with this bullshit. It's high time people stopped treating Gays like they have a fucking disease.

[phleshdef]

65. "Or one on how black and white soldiers will work together." Desegregation of the military took 5 yr

[jp11]

70. It isn't definite, DADT is dependent upon the report being

submitted and what signed by the President and JC right? So it isn't definite, it is dependent upon conditions, his saying possible instead of eminent is correct. As for not becoming distracted, what is wrong with telling people on either side to not let this issue take a hold on you so that you lose focus on your mission, while you are doing what you are doing? Some people will be upset/angry over any 'possibility' of the repeal and some will be happy telling them to not be distracted by it isn't a bad thing, it simply reminds them to do their jobs, of course maybe they don't need the reminder.

[TwilightGardener]

64. I don't have a problem with this--whatever helps grease the skids.

There's nothing wrong with listening to input from those most affected by a big change.

[Bluebear]

76. Of course you don't have a problem with it, not being gay. PS what "big change" will impact them?

Do tell how the straight soldiers will be impacted by this "big change".

[wmbrew0206]

77. I'd like to add a different prespective here.

First, I believe we all can agree that the passing of the law that will end DADT needs to be passed before November. This assures that no matter what the outcome of the mid-term elections are that President Obama has the ability to end DADT.

Now comes the hardest part. Implementing change in any organization is extremely difficult. It becomes even harder when it HAS to happen in one of the largest organizations in the world that takes a lot of pride in its culture. The US Military has a horrid history with accepting cultural changes to its culture. The integration of the military was very difficult even after many segregated units proved they were not only equal but better than their white counterparts (ie Japanese American battalion in WWII and the Tuskegee Airmen).

To make matters even more complicated, you are now dealing with a military engaged in two separate wars where an 18 year old service members can be in charge of the life and death of units member in the size of four to thirteen in number. These are the service members the DoD and the White House have to reach in terms of preparing them for the repeal of DADT.

The power these young NCO's have need to be developed with the understanding that DADT is gone and the ability to ensure that the ways that units can legally (for lack of a better term) target unpopular members of a unit is no longer acceptable. Any veteran will tell you that there are ways that are not punishable by the UCMJ to get rid of unpopular members of a unit. An example of this would be the cold shoulder: where no member of a unit will socially interact with an unpopular (ie targeted) member of a unit. There is no UCMJ regulation that forbids this and it can be extremely devastating in a combat zone where you rely on the trust of the members of your unit for your sanity.

This is the kind of thing that the military needs to prepare the force to combat. The law can be changed instantly but the culture of the military cannot be changed so quickly. To make it worse is that all it will take is one highly publicized incident where a gay or lesbian service member was harmed for the Pentagon brass to claim that it is not their fault but the White House and Congress' fault for trying to moved to quickly. The brass will say it is the fault of politicians for forcing the change before the military could implement the changes needed to be ready for the repeal. It will be a media firestorm and the MSM will blame President Obama.

I hate to say this because gay service members have desired the right to service openly for far too long. However, I think the best course of action is to ensure that President Obama has the ability to end DADT and then do it when the DoD tells him that the military is prepared for the repeal. I think that will be in the beginning of 2011.