Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military

    Op-Ed Contributor
    Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military

    By JOHN M. SHALIKASHVILI
    Published: January 2, 2007

    Steilacoom, Wash.

    TWO weeks ago, President Bush called for a long-term plan to increase the size of the armed forces. As our leaders consider various options for carrying out Mr. Bush’s vision, one issue likely to generate fierce debate is “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the policy that bars openly gay service members from the military. Indeed, leaders in the new Congress are planning to re-introduce a bill to repeal the policy next year.

    As was the case in 1993 — the last time the American people thoroughly debated the question of whether openly gay men and lesbians should serve in the military — the issue will give rise to passionate feelings on both sides. The debate must be conducted with sensitivity, but it must also consider the evidence that has emerged over the last 14 years.

    When I was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I supported the current policy because I believed that implementing a change in the rules at that time would have been too burdensome for our troops and commanders. I still believe that to have been true. The concern among many in the military was that given the longstanding view that homosexuality was incompatible with service, letting people who were openly gay serve would lower morale, harm recruitment and undermine unit cohesion.

    In the early 1990s, large numbers of military personnel were opposed to letting openly gay men and lesbians serve. President Bill Clinton, who promised to lift the ban during his campaign, was overwhelmed by the strength of the opposition, which threatened to overturn any executive action he might take. The compromise that came to be known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” was thus a useful speed bump that allowed temperatures to cool for a period of time while the culture continued to evolve.

    The question before us now is whether enough time has gone by to give this policy serious reconsideration. Much evidence suggests that it has.

    Last year I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew. These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers.

    This perception is supported by a new Zogby poll of more than 500 service members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, three quarters of whom said they were comfortable interacting with gay people. And 24 foreign nations, including Israel, Britain and other allies in the fight against terrorism, let gays serve openly, with none reporting morale or recruitment problems.

    I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces. Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.

    But if America is ready for a military policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation, the timing of the change should be carefully considered. As the 110th Congress opens for business, some of its most urgent priorities, like developing a more effective strategy in Iraq, share widespread support that spans political affiliations. Addressing such issues could help heal the divisions that cleave our country. Fighting early in this Congress to lift the ban on openly gay service members is not likely to add to that healing, and it risks alienating people whose support is needed to get this country on the right track.

    By taking a measured, prudent approach to change, political and military leaders can focus on solving the nation’s most pressing problems while remaining genuinely open to the eventual and inevitable lifting of the ban. When that day comes, gay men and lesbians will no longer have to conceal who they are, and the military will no longer need to sacrifice those whose service it cannot afford to lose.

    John M. Shalikashvili, a retired army general, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/op...=1&oref=slogin
    A very tricky issue.

    But if draft is to be avoided and troops in Iraq have to be bolstered, then gay or otherwise have to be accepted.

    This article by such a respected soldier is a mere testing the waters and shaping the public opinion to ensure that draft does not come into place to make up for the shortage of troops and who knows what are the plans for Iran!


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

  • #2
    I wonder how hard the new congress will push this issue as the consequences of a misstep could be severe.
    Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

    Comment


    • #3
      IMO I have no problem with them wanting to serve. However dont turn our military upside down to accomidate you. AKA Leave home at home leave work at work. We work as a team not as individuals.
      Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
        IMO I have no problem with them wanting to serve. However dont turn our military upside down to accomidate you. AKA Leave home at home leave work at work. We work as a team not as individuals.
        Agreed. And what's the percentage anyway of those who would but won't because they'd have to keep their preferences quiet? Would those guys even make good soldiers anyway?

        -dale

        Comment


        • #5
          Hmmm tricky indeed.

          Personally its not that Gay men or women would be less capable. Just issues of sexuality itself might come into play.

          Ok this might sound stupid, but don't folks in the military shower together (as in in one open-ish space)? You wouldn't expect women to shower with men, then can you expect them to shower with lesbians? Same case with locker-rooms. Or assigning roommates?

          I'm not saying that simply because of close proximity there'd be an increase of fraternizing between lesbians or gay men, I think the same rules apply that heterosexuals don't hit on each other all the time. But there are instances where sexuality openly comes into play.

          Don't ask, don't tell is stupid. It's like allowing homosexuals in but just not acknowledging it. And what happens when someone faces a court-martial and has to explain his whereabouts, which might be with his gay partner the night before... So there by he admits being gay to save his neck and gets fired for being gay.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by dalem View Post
            Agreed. And what's the percentage anyway of those who would but won't because they'd have to keep their preferences quiet? Would those guys even make good soldiers anyway?

            -dale
            IMO Im not so sure about the first part. I do believe they would serve well in various capacities.
            Last edited by Dreadnought; 02 Jan 07,, 19:35.
            Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

            Comment


            • #7
              Gays in the SADF

              Originally posted by dalem View Post
              Agreed. And what's the percentage anyway of those who would but won't because they'd have to keep their preferences quiet? Would those guys even make good soldiers anyway?

              -dale
              I believe there has always been gays in the military. I just don't know how they handled in the past. I had two gay guys in my company, there might have been more but if so they weren't talking.

              The first we called "The Poof" although most wouldn't say it to his face. He was a Corporal, one of two H2H combat instructors and our medic. A third year medical student who was caught "playing doctor" he was given the choice of the Army or jail. He was without qualification a superb soldier. Knowing as much as most doctors he was a asset to our unit. A usually peaceful fellow he would turn his cheek at mo stinsults. That is until it came time for Silat instruction. Then he would pick the offender to demonstrate and in the process thoroughly kick his ass!

              The second was trouble. Always in some kind of difficulty he was given to me as his last chance. I told him with me he got a clean slate. I said no sex (with the troops), no drugs, no stealing or he would beg me for a discharge.

              For me he was a good soldier. He stood up and flew right. He was dependable, brave under fire against frightening odds and supported his comrades in the most trying conditions.

              He was shot by a sniper while standing next to me, one who was probably aiming at my stripes. I took his personal effects home to his father (a retired Sgt Major) in De Aar. I'm glad I could truthfully tell his father that he died the good soldier he was.
              Last edited by sappersgt; 02 Jan 07,, 21:36.
              Reddite igitur quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo
              (Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                IMO Im not so sure about the first part. I do believe they would serve well in various capacities.
                No, I mean the ones who are insistant on their sexuality being accepted as opposed to simple background.

                -dale

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                  IMO I have no problem with them wanting to serve. However dont turn our military upside down to accomidate you. AKA Leave home at home leave work at work. We work as a team not as individuals.
                  I think this should be the case for anyone in the military...gay, straight or someone or answers both doors. I dont much care who someone goes home to spend the night with as long as they can put on a uniform and shoot at an intended target in the morning. I dont think that they should be hanging rainbow flags off their uniforms, but I also would not expect, or want, to see a straight person decorating themself with an "out through the back door only" sign across their chest either.

                  The problem I see is that there will most certainly be that one loon forming a gay pride parade Ft McCoy and then yelling about discrimination when the operation is halted.
                  "To dream of the person you would like to be is to waste the person you are."-Sholem Asch

                  "I always turn to the sports page first, which records people's accomplishments. The front page has nothing but man's failures."-Earl Warren

                  "I didn't intend for this to take on a political tone. I'm just here for the drugs."-Nancy Reagan, when asked a political question at a "Just Say No" rally

                  "He no play-a da game, he no make-a da rules."-Earl Butz, on the Pope's attitude toward birth control

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X