[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
War, War, War See other War, War, War Articles Title: Pentagon may ease ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ WASHINGTON - Pentagon officials are expected to announce today that they will significantly relax enforcement of the ban on gays serving openly in the military, according to sources inside and outside the military who have been briefed on the plan. The move, independent of Congress, comes a week after President Obama called on lawmakers to repeal the controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell’’ law. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are expected to announce at least two specific policy shifts: No longer will a “third party,’’ such as a spouse or informant outside the military, be able to prompt investigations of service members by saying they are gay; and only generals and admirals will be authorized to decide whether someone should be discharged for being gay. Such decisions are now often made lower in the chain of command. By barring third-party testimony from initiating investigations of service members’ sexual orientation, the Pentagon could cut down on the “witch hunts’’ that gay rights advocates say have resulted in the ouster of soldiers who have followed the policy by keeping their private lives private. Meanwhile, requiring more-senior officers to review proposed discharges would probably mean that fewer discharge cases - only those in which soldiers have flagrantly violated the policy - would be brought forward, according to specialists. While expected to generate criticism in Congress and among conservative groups, the revisions could accelerate an evolving change in attitudes at the Pentagon. Already, the number of gays and lesbians expelled from the military is dropping; last year’s total was the lowest on record, plunging by a third, and specialists said the new policies will drive those rates even lower. “The executive action taken . . . could be seismic,’’ said Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, a think tank at the University of California, Santa Barbara, that has long advocated for repeal of the gay ban. “Don’t ask, don’t tell has rested on the belief that the presence of openly gay service members is always bad for the military.’’ The new approach, he added, “would mean a shift in the military’s focus toward keeping gay troops, reflecting the military’s belief that they are as essential as their heterosexual peers.’’ The latest figures on discharges, obtained by the Globe yesterday, show that in fiscal year 2009, 428 service members were kicked out of the military under the terms of the 1993 so-called “don’t ask, don’t tell’’ law, which requires gay military members to keep their sexual orientation secret or risk expulsion. The number of discharges last year was the lowest since the Pentagon began tabulating the annual data in 1996. The peak number of expulsions was 1,227 in 2001. Some believe the lower discharge figures demonstrate a shift in philosophy among many commanding officers, who may now consider soldiers’ sexual orientation irrelevant, as long as they do their jobs. “I think there is a pragmatic approach out in the field,’’ said Rudy deLeon, who served as undersecretary of defense for personnel in the Clinton administration. “The key element is whether this man or woman is doing the job and supporting me, rather than are they gay.’’ He likened the broader acceptance of gays in the ranks to the integration of blacks by presidential order in 1948. Initial resistance from some white officers melted away several years later during the Korean War, he said, when it became clear that blacks already serving in the military were more prepared to fight than fresh recruits. “The second issue,’’ deLeon added, “is there is a generational divide. For younger persons, this is not as much of an issue.’’ Still, any moves to limit gay discharges or repeal the law are certain to spark a vigorous fight with opponents of allowing gays to serve openly, including influential members of Congress in both parties who have said in recent days that they oppose Obama’s calls for repealing the ban because they think it could harm military discipline in the midst of two wars. Senator John McCain, a Republican of Arizona and senior member of the Armed Services Committee, has expressed opposition to changing the current policy and is expected to raise those concerns when Gates and Mullen appear before the committee today - the first testimony on the policy by high-ranking Pentagon officials in 17 years. McCain’s office did not respond to a request for comment yesterday. Meanwhile, Representative Ike Skelton, the Missouri Democrat who chairs the House Armed Services Committee, which also has jurisdiction over the issue, has likewise said he is not prepared to back a repeal. The “don’t ask, don’t tell’’ law was passed as a compromise after President Bill Clinton’s proposal to lift the ban on gays in the military in early 1993 backfired. Top officers and members of Congress resisted and polls showed a majority of Americans did not support the move. Since then a growing number of military officers have said they believe that the policy, meant to preserve good order and discipline, actually undercut the military code of honor by forcing people to lie. A number of conservative groups, however, are stepping up their efforts to fight a repeal, arguing that openly gay service members would undercut the warrior creed. Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council and a retired Marine Corps officer, said “the timing of the president’s call in the midst of two wars shows that he is willing to jeopardize our nation’s security to advance the agenda of the radical homosexual lobby.’’ The policy changes to be announced today are considered a first step in what Gates has called creating a more humane treatment for gay service members. It comes as the Obama administration lobbies Congress to overturn the law, which has led to the discharge of an estimated 13,000 troops over the past 16 years. Today’s expected announcement would not be the first time the Pentagon has taken steps to limit the discharge of gays. For example, prior to the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the Pentagon temporarily halted the gay discharge process, according to a forthcoming study published by the Air University at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. “Scholarly evidence shows that the ban on service by openly gay personnel is unlikely to impair military effectiveness or harm recruiting, retention, or unit cohesion,’’ according to the report. “Yet questions remain as to how best to execute and manage the transition from exclusion to inclusion of openly gay personnel in a way that takes into consideration the concerns and sensitivities of the military community.’’ DeLeon, for one, believes that the concerns are manageable. “If we can manage the wedge politics, I think this problem is resolvable so that Americans who want to serve can serve, so that the readiness of the armed forces is protected and enhanced.’’
Poster Comment: Obama voters need to suffer the consequences. On stage right we have gay folks who don't want to live a lie. Raise your hands who want to come out of the closet and be counted and be sent to the front lines of your Messiah's new war front - Iran. See you around...some day...maybe...march on...
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 16.
#2. To: scrapper2, TwentyTwelve, James Deffenbach, Lod, Cynicom, bluegrass, HOUNDDAWG, christine, farmfriend, all (#0)
With a queer in the White House I am just sooooooo surprised. The NWO wants to use the U.S. Military up and destroy it. That, I am convinced, is why they want to rotate as many soldiers through the Depleted Uranium Dust Clouds as possible. The resulting disabilities and shortened life spans makes them less of a danger to their takeover plans. It is ghoulish and I firmly believe done with malice aforethought. It is no mystery that a large proportion of the more vocal elements of the Patriot Movement are Veterans.
You may be right about ulterior motives. It's not just TheLiarInChief and the civilian suit in charge of the DOD who are posturing PC idiocy. Today the military's top uniformed officer - Admiral Mike Mullen, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - enthusiastically embraced Messiah's grand idea. www.usnews.com/articles/n...ban-should-be-lifted.html Some cut and paste: The military's top uniformed officer on Tuesday made an impassioned plea for allowing gays to serve openly in uniform, telling a Senate panel it was a matter of integrity and that it is wrong to force people to "lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens." The comments by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, set the stage for the Defense Department's yearlong study into how the ban can be repealed without causing a major upheaval in the military.
During my military time, I never met ONE straight that cared to shower with "gays". It was always uncomfortable.
I don't doubt it, cyni. On the one hand, the military tries to attract/appeal to very masculine men - good fighter stock. But then the military higher ups like Mullen turn around and say "but you machismo guys are going to be bunking in with openly gay guys and you must also have confidence in and respect these same guys to watch your back in a fox hole." Like wow! A testosterone laden military being forced to incorporate PC air fairy ideals is not going to function effectively, imo. Indeed, I don't quite understand why the military would appeal to gay guys in the first place. In any event, there must be something that is attractive that I'm not seeing because the night of Messiah's State of the Union address, I lurked at kos and almost all the posts were about Messiah not being emphatic about getting rid of the don't ask, don't tell policy. Of all the things wrong with Obama's speech, that's what the kossacks were all a-twitter about. I could not believe what I was reading. That and the color of their mod's tie - he was interviewed by Olbermann after the SOTU speech.
It is not just that, but that normal men are uncomfortable around them. It is a perverse flow to have another man eye you as a bedmate. As well queers are simply not trustworthy - their sexual hang-up/perversion is a very low order of sexuality and it is reflected in their personalities - snideness etc., .... I served with several such and while I did not dislike them I did not trust them either. In the military you have to be able to trust your team mates.
I never had problems with the few who were well known but not talked about. They didn't bother me as my perspective is they are just as discriminating about whom they go out with as I or any other heterosexual man was. I never saw them as dumb enough to screw with someone who would get ugly if they got stupid and assumed wrong.
#18. To: Ferret Mike (#16)
I have - we had this Gunner's Mate, nicknamed Psycho, whom a gay guy on my ship made the mistake of fondling when he was passed out in his bunk. The guy lived, but they had to escort him off the ship the next day.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||