An About-Face on Gay Troops

[groovedaddy]

GENERALS are scolded for preparing to fight “the last war,” but if President Obama intends to keep his promise to allow gays to serve openly in the military, he would do well to study President Bill Clinton’s attempt of 16 years ago.

The Clinton argument, based largely on protecting the civil rights of gay troops, was systematically dissected by senior officers and legislators, who focused on how the presence of homosexuals could affect combat readiness. Generals circulated videos made by conservative groups depicting “gay agendas.” Senators brought television crews into cramped berthings. Congress reached a bizarre compromise: a law rendering homosexuality incompatible with military service, but allowing gays to serve under a closet-friendly “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

The lesson for President Obama is that this fight is not about rights, but about combat readiness. This is a propitious moment for seeking change: a nation at war needs all its most talented troops. Last year the principal architects of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” former Gen. Colin Powell and former Senator Sam Nunn, said it was time to “review” the policy.

That’s a polite way of saying they’ve changed their minds. So have many of us who wore the uniform in 1993 and supported a policy that forced some of our fellow troops to live a lie and rejected thousands who told the truth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/opinion/09west.html?th&emc=th

[Ian David]

1. Why not gays-only combat units, like The all-Black Tuskeegee Airmen? n/t

[stray cat]

2. segregation - i think that is worse than the current policy

[Ian David]

3. What about if DADT was applied equally to straight people?

So you'd be discharged for kissing someone of the opposite sex, or casually mentioning your spouse in conversation?

[TheWraith]

4. Then our military consists of about 300 people.

Even with gay people in the military, a lot do NOT abide by the terms of DADT, and it's a non-issue as long as the "wrong" people don't take notice.

[keepCAblue]

5. "It's a non-issue..." ???

Today's headline. In this case, the "wrong" person was some civilian co-worker who complained after seeing the lesbian soldier kissing her girlfriend in a Wal-Mart. I'm sure to this particular soldier, and to the 12,500 others who have similarly had their civil rights violated, that DADT is NOT a "non-issue."

Kansas Guard discharges first gay soldier

TOPEKA | The Kansas Army National Guard has discharged its first gay soldier under the federal “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Amy Brian, who served nine years in the Guard, including a stint in Iraq, was investigated and “separated” last month after a civilian co-worker told authorities they had seen her kissing a woman in a Wal-Mart checkout line.

Brian joins almost 12,500 other lesbian, gay and bisexual service members discharged from 1994 to 2007.

President Barack Obama has said he generally opposes the policy and more than 100 retired U.S. military leaders have signed a statement asking for the policy to end.

http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/1024452.html

[TheWraith]

6. Okay, now would you like to read what I actually said?

My point was that a lot of gay people in the military already don't practice DADT: their colleagues and/or superiors know they're gay any don't care. For those people, DADT isn't an issue unless somebody higher up gets a bug up their ass. Thus my original point being that if anyone was foolish enough to try and really enforce DADT against everybody in the military, the "military" ends up being 300 people.

[bluedawg12]

8. Sorry, but DADT is enforced and living with that cloud over ones head is BULL!

[Yes We Did]

7. Why Not?

Seriously... With as many bigoted people in high places... That would be a disaster. Just think about that for a minute. What could possible go wrong?

[sui generis]

10. but what if you're only gay on Tuesday's? /nt

[bluedawg12]

9. Best answer: dump DADT it is better for the military

and better for the troops who serve in secrecy and better to meet future recruiting needs.

[Cato the Younger]

11. I am for allowing us to serve on ONE condition...

ALL of our civil liberties are fully protected at the same time. That includes full marriage rights and adoption rights NATIONWIDE. There is no f*cking way we should allow ourselves to be drafted and killed in a corporate war (which is all we fight now) unless we have the same rights and same stake in this country as everyone else.

No rights? Then screw me or any of us having to die for the rights we aren't allowed to have.

[donco6]

12. You've got a point.

Though usually the "serving" part comes before the "rights" part - at least historically. Not that we haven't already served for many generations - and are still doing so.