Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/op...rssnyt&emc=rss

Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military

By JOHN M. SHALIKASHVILI
Published: January 2, 2007


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.

I think most of us can see this day coming - indeed, it will come - as it has come to other Western nations, already.

It is fait a compli, I suppose.

However, to me at least - it is sad, disappointing and scary...

Three Soldier Dad...Chuck


::c:v::

In a "verbal" debate...I'd destroy his theory!:lifter

Stay safe.

So if I have this right, GEN Shali is advocating that gays should be allowed to serve openly because he had a few meetings, decided that "that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers", and backstops the position with:

"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."

Well GEN Shali, the problem with this policy is not just at the "peer" level.

I wonder how many company commanders and first sergeants he interviewed, and how many were represented in the poll. At a sample size of roughly 0.001 of the Army, probably not many.

Implementation of this policy by those charged with maintaining "good order and discipline" at the company level may bring with it a few challenges.

The "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy briefed well at senior levels and inside the beltway, but was and is a nightmare for those at the tip of the UCMJ spear at the company level.

There is a lot more homework that needs to be done here.

A good place to start would be the HQDA Inspector General's report on the command climate at Fort Campbell in the aftermath of the death of PFC Barry Winchell on 5 July 1999.

There are good reasons for UCMJ restrictions on sex, religion, and politics.

One of the best is keeping the services, through the maintenance of good order and discipline, focused on preparing for and executing combat operations in support of national objectives.

He’s a JAFO following in the footsteps of Wesley Clark.

Probably trying to set himself up for a VP spot on the 2008 Dem ticket.

Well he can't do that...He was born in Warsaw, Poland to Georgian parents.

Well, I am sure that a former GO interacts with gays a lot different from a guy who involuntarily has one for a roommate in the barracks.

Nothing like having an few new members of the squad who happen to be meatgazers as well.:rolleyes:

Has anyone seen that many gays beating the doors down to join the military? The thousands discharged every year that they base the claims on tend to be new enlistees looking for a quick and non-punitive way out. I suspect that more than 90% of them lose their newfound orientation and are completely cured by the time the signature on the Chapter paperwork is dry.

I would expect sexual harrassment and discrimination complaints to increase tenfold with the implementation of this policy.

TR

I disagree...LOL!
 

As a man! Any inappropiate "sexual" advances made (by a man) towards ME...will be met with a "stern" verbal warning the first time....

If he does it again.:confused: I'm being brought up on assault/battery charges.

Stay safe.

I will not elaborate, but a homosexual in the barracks is bad for morale. GEN Shalikashvili doesn't have a clue.

But what would I know? I was just a "dumb" EM who lived in the barracks, and obviously do not have the breadth of social knowledge and experience the General has. Maybe the "General Officer Barracks" are a different place.

:munchin bingo.

What straight guy would want to room with an openly gayish faggot? Would they let two flamers room together?

This is stupid and will cause more trouble than it's worth.:boohoo

Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military
 

Like I hav said before, we had 16 queers in the same platoon At Gordon. Worst Platoon in the Co. till the queers were exposed and moved into the dayroom. ;-))

BMT

WOW:eek: Holy shit......

no......just well packed!:D

Israeli miltary
 

From my experience, the "openly" gay soldiers in the Israeli army are those working desk jobs. They would not survive in a combat unit if it were known. I am liberal, in that I don't care if you are gay or not. But, I really believe it does not work well in a combat unit.
Brothers in arms are "brothers" not lovers!

Shali was/is a Clinton butt-boy.. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that he and Wes Clark were sharing a bed..

Self-serving sons-a-bitches that they are..

roflmao

xDD


I have gotten into numerous arguments with people who believe homosexuals should be allowed in the military, what I tell them is: "what would you rather have, a straight man covering you, or a gay man checking out how your butt is proportioned?"

I was the only one talking agaisnt the cause on that matter, (anti racism thing last year full of "hippies").

Ello