(Crossposted at your flippant and irreverant Ohio source for politics and humor, Athens Runaway )
One of the highest forms of patriotism, aside from dissent of course, is military service.
As George Orwell said, “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” But in America, if these “rough men” happen to love another man, they’re not allowed to ensure our safety and liberty.
President Obama initially said he planned on having this repealed, but changed his stance to a tentative “we’ll see.” I’m about to say something that may shock some ofyou that may be faint of heart, so make sure you are sitting down. Are you ready for this?
It does not make sense for the military to exclude non-closeted gays from military service. That’s right; I’m “coming out of the closet” against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
More importantly, I agree with Obama on this issue.
Think about it.
Back in 1993, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was created, allowing gays to serve in the military, as long as they didn’t serve “out of the closet.” The military couldn’t investigate soldiers’ sexual orientations, and the soldiers couldn’t be true to themselves.
However, according to an unscientific survey taken by retired Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard Vincent Patton III, on behalf of Commander of the U.S. Central Command Gen. John Abizaid and the United Service Organizations, most of the younger enlisted troops really don’t care if their fellow soldiers are gay or straight.
Today, US Central Command David Petraus—hardly a pot-smoking Dennis Kucinich-esque peacenik, by any measure—testified before the Armed Services Committee that, quote:
I believe the time has come to consider a change to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I think it should be done in a thoughtful and deliberative matter that should include the conduct of the review that Secretary Gates has directed that would consider the views in the force on the change of policy. It would include an assessment of the likely effects on recruiting, retention, morale and cohesion, and would include an identification of what policies might be needed in the event of a change and recommend those polices as well.
And really, does it matter if the guy who has your back in the foxhole or “got your six” up in the clouds is sexually attracted to someone of the same gender? No.
As University of Florida psychologist Bonnie Moradi and Rand Corporation sociologist Laura Miller commented in the report, “the data indicated no associations between knowing a lesbian or gay unit member and ratings of perceived unit cohesion or readiness.
Instead, findings pointed to the importance of leadership and instrumental quality in shaping perceptions of unit cohesion and readiness.” According to that report, war veterans ranked “training quality” and “equipment” as way more important on the battlefield; to compare, “knowing a lesbian/gay unit member” was ranked by ex-soldiers as the least important factor, much less important than the quality of the unit’s non-commissioned officers.
In other words, if the soldiers don’t care about having a gay teammate, and it doesn’t affect the unit’s teamwork, then why bother with it to begin with? Sheer inertia, that’s what.
Maybe you think that repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a liberal position, and that I’ve sold out to “the man.”
Well, you’re wrong. Mister Conservative himself, Barry Goldwater, is famous for saying, “You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to shoot straight.”
A strong military is a key to a strong America, that’s something I think that most people can agree on. If the best people for the job are being turned away or discharged because of who they love, then we’re handicapping our defenses, all because of a difference that makes no difference.
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” should be repealed, but not because of civil rights. It should be repealed so that the military can operate with peak performance, not as “heterosexual” and “homosexual” divided, but as Americans united against those who would do us harm.

Steve Maley
KnightsofMalta
"Liberal" position
jsanzone (Diary) Wednesday, March 17th at 4:08AM EST (link)It’s a bit puzzling that it’s seen as the “liberal” position to be for gay equality (or non-discrimination) in anything…
I do understand both sides of the marriage argument; however, when it comes to DADT it only takes a little bit of digging to uncover that, aha! opponents of repeal largely consist of those who have a fundamental problem with homosexuals or open homosexuality, and not those whose true single priority is ‘unit cohesion’ or ‘readiness.’
If we are going to have honest politics, we have to have honest discussions on issues like this. If you are for protecting the sanctity of marriage, don’t use it as simply a front for believing gays belong swinging from a rope. If you believe that unit cohesion or military preparedness is truly at stake if DADT is repealed, do research on the topic and listen to commanders and military representatives, and again, don’t use it as a front for disdain for gays.
http://www.2010blog.net
20/10 Blog
Post-change isn't the same as pre-change
Fla Mom (Diary) Wednesday, March 17th at 9:29AM EST (link)Here’s why: pre-change away from DADT, if a service member reveals gayness, he or she is booted. Those gay service members who are in the military pre-change and remain on active duty for long periods are, in my experience, patriotic and exceptionally devoted to duty, as they have to live their lives without even being able to talk about their personal lives to their colleagues. It’s a more difficult life, but they choose to continue to serve. (How do I know some were gay? Some revealed it to me as a close colleague, for others I made what I think were reasonable assumptions.)
Post-change, what’s to keep anti-military types from trying to be something like the gay Shannon Faulkner (the young woman who went to court to be the first female admitted to The Citadel, only to quit immediately because she ‘loved’ military life so much she didn’t do one day of physical training before arrival and couldn’t hang)?
These new folks who will come in to ‘teach the military something’ (and, believe me, people do this) won’t have to go to court to be able to join openly, and they won’t necessarily (and conveniently for the military) quit immediately like Shannon Faulkner did. No, what some (not all, not all) will do instead is come on board and then act flaming – maybe first only off-duty, but how do you write rules about tone of voice, hand gestures, etc., that shout ‘gay’ from the rooftops when being gay is allowed? And who will get disciplined and kicked out? The young Marine or soldier who at at some point beats the guy up, because that’s easier to document and counsel for.
Imagine the idiocy that is current sexual harassment training in the military, but revised for gay folks. (Hmm, will the subject of harassment still get to be the final arbiter on whether harassment exists? ‘I feel harassed, therefore I am.’) More time wasted sitting in big auditoriums listening to stupid stuff that DOES NOT improve combat effectiveness. (Does anybody remember that awful kindergarten-like social training program that thankfully-now-retired Major General Claudia Kennedy forced on the Army?)
Keeping DADT actually is the easy way to ensure that gay folks on active duty are the patriotic, devoted types who are currently in, and not those who will push every boundary just for the fun of sticking it to the military.
And that’s *my* conservative’s case *for* DADT.
Fla Mom