Don't Ask - Don't Tell is Repealed

[Maximus]

I dunno- sounds to me like he did exactly what he is paid to do. From that WP article:

Right, it was a fact finding poll (weighted too) and opinions were asked for to inform Congress and the JC on the feasability. I guess this Congress/Admin/JC are so used to a rubber stamp when trying to put in place sweeping changes, that anyone giving an honest and informed opinion after being asked, has their "days numbered" Thank God there are still a few good men that allow honesty to outshine PC, The Comm thinks this is not the best time to implement the social engineering this admin. is desperately trying to push, let them implement agenda in society by allowing Gay's to marry. Till then, don't dare tell me this Marine is a biggot or homophobe,
the Comm is a stand up guy for an Airedale.

Some might want to do a little more than a Google or Wiki to reply on this simple facet of a huge agenda to call it a day.

 

[Mongo]

Unit Core[sic] God Country

Supporting ones troops is the easy part of leadership. Almost as easy as being a "yes man" to your boss. It is when these two conflict that true leaders will shine. And poor leaders will fall on their sword. General Amos has created a fork in the road making it almost impossible to take both paths. Time will tell.

The commandant made clear Tuesday, however, that he would not resist if Congress formally integrates gays into the military

His job is not to "not resist" but to actively support. If he can not do this, he should step down (or be removed).

Again, Maximus, as I have stated before, testifying in Congress is one thing, call a press conference is entirely different. And inappropriate. With that said, if one wants to keep their job, tempering their comments to Congress to accomodate all possible outcomes might be prudent.

 

[Maximus]

It's sickening to watch rags like the Washington Post smear hero's like Amos with the far left OP's talking about "John Wayne" and how Hollywood portrayed the Military 60 years ago Cohen et al are merely pushing an agenda on the Military to facilitate what Obama won't do directly, push the Gay agenda on the American public. They are using the back door, no pun intended. Let this very vocal minority push this on rank and file citizens and for the umpteenth time, see how they (majority of American's) don't want this agenda forced down their throat with Courts and the Military. Let the people decide, clearly almost 70% of Marines don't want to be fighting a shooting war on the ground, while having half their day filled with "Homosexual Sensitivity" training while back from a mission!

There is nothing wrong with this statement:

"When your life hangs on the line," said Gen. James F. Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps, "you don't want anything distracting. . . . Mistakes and inattention or distractions cost Marines' lives."

In an interview with newspaper and wire service reporters at the Pentagon, Amos was vague when pressed to clarify how the presence of gays would distract Marines during a firefight. But he cited a recent Defense Department survey in which a large percentage of Marine combat veterans predicted that repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" law would harm "unit cohesion" and their tight-knit training for war.

"So the Marines came back and they said, 'Look, anything that's going to break or potentially break that focus and cause any kind of distraction may have an effect on cohesion,' " he said. "I don't want to permit that opportunity to happen. And I'll tell you why. If you go up to Bethesda [Naval] Hospital . . . Marines are up there with no legs, none. We've got Marines at Walter Reed [Army Medical Center] with no limbs."

Amos had said previously that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly could cause "distractions" and "risks" for combat units. But his remarks Tuesday were the first time that he or any other senior military leader has suggested that repealing the 17-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" law could directly endanger troops and cost lives.

 

[Maximus]

Here is another OP from a Lesbian that gets it...sort of. Now is not the time to force Marines to accept the latest agenda Washington is pushing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/19/AR2010111902930.html

The agenda will change but, don't play social engineer when people are fighting and dying (with their hands tied behind their backs...once again..another issue...) to make it easier for Congress to push this on the American people once the hard issues are forced in/on by a captive audience, the Military.

 

[Luigi59]

Here is another OP from a Lesbian that gets it....

Her conclusions:

• "I have researched the implications of repealing the law, willing to land wherever the facts led me. The argument that we can't repeal the policy because it would impair troops on the ground from carrying out their missions is specious"

(spe·cious (spēˈshəs) adjective 1. Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious: a specious argument.)​

• "The key to reconciling Marine culture with the open service of gay men and women will not be found among the rank and file or even among closeted service members; it must come from Corps leaders. Most research on how to integrate minority groups into the military has a common thread: the utmost importance of leadership to the process. The fact that the current and prior Marine commandants have expressed discomfort at the prospect of the demise of "don't ask, don't tell" is unfortunate because the generals risk creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, hurting the Corps they desire to protect."

 

[Mongo]

I think the portion of the survey that many, including senior USMC leadership, is ignoring is that 85% of the gay respondents stated that they would remain closeted. The real issue is both the possibility of involuntary separation and honor, not whether they can 'cruise' foxholes for dates.

 

[scoutpilot]

Eat Crow? Marines would call that "Intestinal Fortitude"

From what I've read, the man is supporting his Marines and their wishes from the DoD surveys. I guess it's not PC to support popular opinion of your subordinates?

That's called piss poor leadership. The Marine Corps is not a democracy. The majority of his subordinates would like a lot of things...more pay, less PT, and beer at lunch. But that's not how we do business as a military. I'm glad that 60 years ago the leadership had the courage and "intestinal fortitude" not to listen to the subordinates' views on blacks.

Leadership is about doing what's right, not what's popular. You don't lead soldiers by committee.

 

[scoutpilot]

All in all, is this not just a continuation of the childhood game as to whose is bigger?

We all know that you'd argue the color of the sky on here if it came up.
I'll defer to your expertise at that game. Maybe one of these days yours will actually win at that game and you can move on.

Service academies are not service. They're college. Difficult, demanding college...but college nonetheless. I suppose if Sam studied for two years at USCGA and walked away, the nation would owe him a debt of gratitude for his "service" as a cadet? A hearty thanks for all the national defending he did from the classroom? (he rates the NDSM, right?). I mean, beyond the tens of thousands of dollars of free college that constituted his "service"...

Service academies are college. Service begins when you start paying it back.


(Sam I used you as a hypothetical. I think your attitude is spot-on).

 

[SamAca10]

We all know that you'd argue the color of the sky on here if it came up.
I'll defer to your expertise at that game. Maybe one of these days yours will actually win at that game and you can move on.

Service academies are not service. They're college. Difficult, demanding college...but college nonetheless. I suppose if Sam studied for two years at USCGA and walked away, the nation would owe him a debt of gratitude for his "service" as a cadet? A hearty thanks for all the national defending he did from the classroom? (he rates the NDSM, right?). I mean, beyond the tens of thousands of dollars of free college that constituted his "service"...

Service academies are college. Service begins when you start paying it back.


(Sam I used you as a hypothetical. I think your attitude is spot-on).

Exactly Scout. And Thanks! I think that people should be realistic and realize that it's college. More strenuous and difficult than a typical college, but college nonetheless. On days when I'm feeling overwhelmed by the experience I think about that. I'm getting my tuition, books, room and board paid for. I'm even lucky enough to get paid while doing it. How many college students can honestly say that? Of course, I didn't come to the USCGA for all of those reasons; I came to serve my country and (hopefully) save some lives. I know that the best I can do is give everything they give me 100 percent effort, and hope that those around me do so as well.

Going along with this idea, isn't the tour after grad school called a "payback" tour for a reason?

 

[scoutpilot]

You get it, Sam. Great post!

 

[Luigi59]

Anthony Woods, is an Iraq war veteran who was discharged in 2008 under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Woods served two tours in Iraq, earning the Bronze Star and Army Commendation Medal for serving our nation in battle and working with Iraqis to help rebuild the nation. Woods volunteered for his first deployment to Iraq in 2004, leading a platoon of West Virginia National Guard soldiers in Diyala province northeast of Baghdad.

Woods was born on Travis Air Force base in Fairfield, California, and raised by a single mother who worked long hours as a housekeeper. Overcoming numerous obstacles, such as a lack of health insurance for most of his life, Woods fought to realize his dream of a quality education and the chance to serve his country by earning a Congressional Appointment to the United States Military Academy at West Point, where he served on the Honor Committee, and eventually graduated on the Dean's List.

Upon his return from Iraq, Woods continued his education at Harvard University, where he was awarded a Master's Degree from the Kennedy School of Government, and was selected to give the 2008 Graduate Commencement address. He was a co-recipient of the Robert F. Kennedy Public Service Award for his work mentoring low-income minorities applying to college and numerous other community leadership activities.

Q - Have you considered re-joining the military?

A - "My partner and I are exploring our options and looking forward to the day that I can once again serve our country in uniform."​

http://parkerspitzer.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/22/woods-discharged-soldier-is-ready-to-serve/

 

[scoutpilot]

Anthony Woods, is an Iraq war veteran who was discharged in 2008 under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Woods served two tours in Iraq, earning the Bronze Star and Army Commendation Medal for serving our nation in battle and working with Iraqis to help rebuild the nation. Woods volunteered for his first deployment to Iraq in 2004, leading a platoon of West Virginia National Guard soldiers in Diyala province northeast of Baghdad.

Woods was born on Travis Air Force base in Fairfield, California, and raised by a single mother who worked long hours as a housekeeper. Overcoming numerous obstacles, such as a lack of health insurance for most of his life, Woods fought to realize his dream of a quality education and the chance to serve his country by earning a Congressional Appointment to the United States Military Academy at West Point, where he served on the Honor Committee, and eventually graduated on the Dean's List.

Upon his return from Iraq, Woods continued his education at Harvard University, where he was awarded a Master's Degree from the Kennedy School of Government, and was selected to give the 2008 Graduate Commencement address. He was a co-recipient of the Robert F. Kennedy Public Service Award for his work mentoring low-income minorities applying to college and numerous other community leadership activities.

Q - Have you considered re-joining the military?

A - "My partner and I are exploring our options and looking forward to the day that I can once again serve our country in uniform."​

http://parkerspitzer.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/22/woods-discharged-soldier-is-ready-to-serve/

You've missed a big part of Tony's story. The picture isn't quite that rosy.

 

[sprog]

I suppose if Sam studied for two years at USCGA and walked away, the nation would owe him a debt of gratitude for his "service" as a cadet?).

I don't know about "gratitude" in the ethereal or spiritual sense; however, we would possibly owe him VA benefits.

One of your favorite topics, I know...

 

[Mongo]

One of your favorite topics, I know...

Arguing degrees of active duty is a lot like a bunch of Ensigns arguing seniority.

 

[freedomtruck]

What confuses me regarding the "don't ask don't tell" controversy is that the military shouldn't be a place to propagate personal life at all in the first place.

The US Military is a professional work environment. Bringing personal lifestyles and customs into this work environment allows soldiers to detract from their objectives and priorities, especially when personal matters are brought into the chain of command.

Even with "Don't ask don't tell repealed", that should not permit people to bring private matters into a military setting, just as soldiers do not wear civilian clothing when on duty.

Just my two cents.

 

[temp]

What confuses me regarding the "don't ask don't tell" controversy is that the military shouldn't be a place to propagate personal life at all in the first place.

The US Military is a professional work environment. Bringing personal lifestyles and customs into this work environment allows soldiers to detract from their objectives and priorities, especially when personal matters are brought into the chain of command.

Even with "Don't ask don't tell repealed", that should not permit people to bring private matters into a military setting, just as soldiers do not wear civilian clothing when on duty.

Just my two cents.

Yes, and now the inequality is solved. Instead of one group being punished with discharge for mentioning their loved one or someone else mentioning it while the other has an ambivalent/apathetic response, both experience the same level of treatment. If personal life should be kept at home, how come discussion of family, spouse/fiance/bf/gf is so normal and encouraged? Tired of a double standard. Leave your opposite sex loved one and family out of all work environments just as you demand gay couples do!

Just my two cents.

 

[kevster]

Interesting point. Instead of repealing DADT why didn't they just make it apply to all service members.

If my understanding is correct DADT meant that if you suspect someone is Gay/Lesbian ..... dont ask and if you are Gay/Lesbian .....dont tell. So why not just tell everyone in the military to remain silent in about their personal lives. If you are Gay keep it quiet and if you are straight ..... keep it quiet as well. In no way am I anti-homosexual but I'm intrigued by freedomtruck's point. If you "discriminate" against everyone ..... well its not discrimination any more.

 

[temp]

Interesting point . Instead of repealing DADT why didn't they just make it apply to all service members.

If my understanding is correct DADT meant that if you suspect someone is Gay/Lesbian ..... dont ask and if you are Gay/Lesbian .....dont tell. So why not just tell everyone in the military to remain silent in about their personal lives. If you are Gay keep it quiet and if you are straight ..... keep it quiet as well. In no way am I anti-homosexual but I'm intrigued by freedomtruck's point. If you "discriminate" against everyone ..... well its not discrimination any more.

And this is a good point. I always felt stunned by people willing to say DADT was good because your personal life should not be brought to work and is no one's business while in the same breath the person would talk about children, their wife/husband, their hobbies, etc. I'd just look at them and say, "so why are you telling me about your personal life if it is no one's business?" Of course I couldn't go get him booted for it either! But I'm just happy now that I can live my life and spend time with my partner without fear of being booted and can continue to keep my personal life to myself as I believe, gay or straight, that professionalism in the work-place is king.

 

[TheKnight]

What confuses me regarding the "don't ask don't tell" controversy is that the military shouldn't be a place to propagate personal life at all in the first place.

The US Military is a professional work environment. Bringing personal lifestyles and customs into this work environment allows soldiers to detract from their objectives and priorities, especially when personal matters are brought into the chain of command.

Even with "Don't ask don't tell repealed", that should not permit people to bring private matters into a military setting, just as soldiers do not wear civilian clothing when on duty.

Just my two cents.

The military is not your average work place. It necessitates that, at times, you live 24/7 with the same group of people. Talking about the job can only take up so much time when you are with someone 24/7 on a 15 month deployment.

I've never been on a deployment like that, but I'm certain that personal matters almost inevitably will become a part of the day to day discussion.

At that point the gay service-member must decide just how much they will reveal. Imagine if you had to keep quiet about a significant other in your life.

For most normal people, a person with whom they are sexually involved in a relationship takes up a significant amount of personal thoughts. It is only natural that they will spend time with such a person. But if the person is gay, they must ensure that they are careful how they talk about this person, if at all.

If they talk at all, it will become obvious to any person who isn't oblivious that there's more than just a friendship going on. It's not like having a relationship with someone is the same as having an addiction to candy corn. It's a significant part of a person's life. And to have to hide that part in order to serve in the military is a little ridiculous. Especially when we have the SecDef talking about how recruiting numbers are dropping and the Armed Services have to give waivers to people who have committed crimes like burglary and robbery in order to meet numbers requirements.

No one has a right to serve in the military, but why stop those who want to from doing so especially when it violates rights that they would otherwise have? And rights that, whether given or taken away, do not add or subtract to the military's ability to do its job?

Interesting point . Instead of repealing DADT why didn't they just make it apply to all service members.

If my understanding is correct DADT meant that if you suspect someone is Gay/Lesbian ..... dont ask and if you are Gay/Lesbian .....dont tell. So why not just tell everyone in the military to remain silent in about their personal lives. If you are Gay keep it quiet and if you are straight ..... keep it quiet as well. In no way am I anti-homosexual but I'm intrigued by freedomtruck's point. If you "discriminate" against everyone ..... well its not discrimination any more.

If the law were applied as it was intended when it was written then I doubt many would have had a problem. The problem was that in all actuality, it was more like "We won't ask, but you can't tell us, let us find out or even let us suspect you to the point that an investigation is started because if we investigate we'll go through personal emails and the like to find out."

 

[AcademyFriend1]

Lawyer and veteran (USMC, via PLC in an era with really puffy hair) here. A clarification of one minor point that has arisen during this discussion--the Constitution is applicable to the decision to join the military up to a point. It is well established under Constitutional law that the courts must and should give significant ( though not total) deference to the views of the uniformed services as to what regulations are necessary to fulfillment of the military mission. So, for example, there was a Supreme Court decision stating that a military officer did not have the right to wear a yarmulke when in uniform on duty. The decision was not that the officer had no first amendment rights at all, but that the those rights must yield in certain circumstances to the needs of the service. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment would be the relevant clause, and despite the deference to the military, it would probably be invoked by courts to strike down a prohibition, say, on Catholics joining the military. Whether or not the Supreme Court would have used the 14th Amendment to strike down DADT is not clear, given (1) some of the views on unit cohesion; (2) the aforesaid deference; and (3) the fact that sexual preference does not have the same Constitutional stature as, say, race or religion (and was not recognized as having any Constitutional protection until relatively recently). With that said, I also believe that in a moral sense, it is indeed an honor and privilege to serve in the armed forces.