Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
A good editorial from one of my favorite all-time politicans, Alan Simpson--
Quote:
Bigotry That Hurts Our Military
By Alan K. Simpson
Wednesday, March 14, 2007; Page A15
As a lifelong Republican who served in the Army in Germany, I believe it is critical that we review -- and overturn -- the ban on gay service in the military. I voted for "don't ask, don't tell." But much has changed since 1993.
My thinking shifted when I read that the military was firing translators because they are gay. According to the Government Accountability Office, more than 300 language experts have been fired under "don't ask, don't tell," including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. This when even Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently acknowledged the nation's "foreign language deficit" and how much our government needs Farsi and Arabic speakers. Is there a "straight" way to translate Arabic? Is there a "gay" Farsi? My God, we'd better start talking sense before it is too late. We need every able-bodied, smart patriot to help us win this war.
In today's perilous global security situation, the real question is whether allowing homosexuals to serve openly would enhance or degrade our readiness. The best way to answer this is to reconsider the original points of opposition to open service.
First, America's views on homosexuals serving openly in the military have changed dramatically. The percentage of Americans in favor has grown from 57 percent in 1993 to a whopping 91 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds surveyed in a Gallup poll in 2003.
Military attitudes have also shifted. Fully three-quarters of 500 vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan said in a December Zogby poll that they were comfortable interacting with gay people. Also last year, a Zogby poll showed that a majority of service members who knew a gay member in their unit said the person's presence had no negative impact on the unit or personal morale. Senior leaders such as retired Gen. John Shalikashvili and Lt. Gen. Daniel Christman, a former West Point superintendent, are calling for a second look.
Second, 24 nations, including 12 in Operation Enduring Freedom and nine in Operation Iraqi Freedom, permit open service. Despite controversy surrounding the policy change, it has had no negative impact on morale, cohesion, readiness or recruitment. Our allies did not display such acceptance back when we voted on "don't ask, don't tell," but we should consider their common-sense example.
Third, there are not enough troops to perform the required mission. The Army is "about broken," in the words of Colin Powell. The Army's chief of staff, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, told the House Armed Services Committee in December that "the active-duty Army of 507,000 will break unless the force is expanded by 7,000 more soldiers a year." To fill its needs, the Army is granting a record number of "moral waivers," allowing even felons to enlist. Yet we turn away patriotic gay and lesbian citizens.
The Urban Institute estimates that 65,000 gays are serving and that there are 1 million gay veterans. These gay vets include Capt. Cholene Espinoza, a former U-2 pilot who logged more than 200 combat hours over Iraq, and Marine Staff Sgt. Eric Alva, who lost his right leg to an Iraqi land mine. Since 2005, more than 800 personnel have been discharged from "critical fields" -- jobs considered essential but difficult in terms of training or retraining, such as linguists, medical personnel and combat engineers. Aside from allowing us to recruit and retain more personnel, permitting gays to serve openly would enhance the quality of the armed forces.
In World War II, a British mathematician named Alan Turing led the effort to crack the Nazis' communication code. He mastered the complex German enciphering machine, helping to save the world, and his work laid the basis for modern computer science. Does it matter that Turing was gay? This week, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said that homosexuality is "immoral" and that the ban on open service should therefore not be changed. Would Pace call Turing "immoral"?
Since 1993, I have had the rich satisfaction of knowing and working with many openly gay and lesbian Americans, and I have come to realize that "gay" is an artificial category when it comes to measuring a man or woman's on-the-job performance or commitment to shared goals. It says little about the person. Our differences and prejudices pale next to our historic challenge. Gen. Pace is entitled, like anyone, to his personal opinion, even if it is completely out of the mainstream of American thinking. But he should know better than to assert this opinion as the basis for policy of a military that represents and serves an entire nation. Let us end "don't ask, don't tell." This policy has become a serious detriment to the readiness of America's forces as they attempt to accomplish what is arguably the most challenging mission in our long and cherished history.
March 13, 2007 — In a rare rebuke of the nation's top military officer, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., says he strongly disagrees with Gen. Peter Pace's views that homosexuality is "immoral."
"I respectfully, but strongly, disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral," Warner said in a statement released by his office.
Warner was reacting to Pace's unusual defense of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military.
Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an interview with the Chicago Tribune that he supported the policy because he believed homosexuality was "immoral" and that the military "should not condone immoral acts."
And Pace is not backing down. In a statement released this afternoon, he clarified his comments, saying, "In expressing my support for the current policy, I also offered some personal opinions about moral conduct. … I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views."
During his interview with the Chicago Tribune on Monday, however, Pace talked at length about his personal views.
"My upbringing is such that I believe there are certain things, certain types of conduct that are immoral," Pace said. "I believe that military members who sleep with other military members' wives are immoral in their conduct, in that we should not tolerate that. I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts."
Military experts, however, say morality was never the basis of the policy, which says gays may serve in the military only if they keep their sexual orientations private and don't engage in homosexual activity.
"Morality was never the basis of the policy," said retired Gen. Jack Keane. "It was about unit cohesion."
In fact, in July 1993, Colin Powell, who was then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and drafted the "don't ask" policy, endorsed the policy with these words to the House Armed Services Committee: "It is not in place in the military, those of us in senior leadership positions, to make moral or religious judgments with respect to homosexuality. Our perspective, and the only perspective we should bring to this issue, is the unique perspective of the military and what is best for military effectiveness."
Some in the military argued that having openly gay service members living in military barracks could cause a breakdown of "good order and discipline."
Gates: 'Personal Opinion … Doesn't Have a Place'
The "don't ask, don't tell" policy was drafted in 1993 by Powell, and it was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton.
In an interview with the Pentagon channel today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was asked his views on the policy. He offered a much different answer than Pace.
"I think personal opinion really doesn't have a place here," Gates said. "What's important is that we have a law, a statute that governs 'don't ask, don't tell.' That's the policy of this department. And it's my responsibility to execute that policy as effectively as we can. As long as the law is what it is, that's what we'll do."
In the interview with the Chicago Tribune, however, Pace offered a unique rationale for the policy. His answer came in response to a question about whether he thought the policy should remain in place.
"I do," he said.
"Can you tell me why?" the Tribune interviewer asked.
"I do not believe the armed forces of the U.S. are well served by saying through our policies that it is OK to be immoral in any way not just with regard to homosexuality," Pace said. "So from that standpoint, saying that gays should serve open in the military says to me that we by policy would be condoning what I believe is immoral activity and therefore as an individual I would not want that to be our policy."
"Just like I would not want it to be our policy that, 'if so and so were sleeping with someone else's wife,' that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior between members of the armed forces."
Pentagon Official Refuses to 'Judge Morality'
Pace has not commented publicly since his interview with the Tribune, which took place on Monday. He does not, however, seem to be backing away from his comments.
"Gen. Pace was asked for his personal opinion, and he provided," said Col. Katie Haddock, a spokeswoman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Asked for comment, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman would not say whether or not it was Defense policy that homosexual acts are immoral.
"Look, you're wanting me to judge morality," Whitman said. "I'm not going to do that."
So, what does the Pentagon think about the fact that Pace made a moral judgment on homosexual acts?
"I'm not going to comment on anyone's personal opinion," Whitman said. "Personal opinion is not what the issue is here, it's not what's important. What is important is that we have a policy that we will continue to implement that says we will continue to discharge people based on conduct and not on orientation."
More than 10,000 people have been discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy since it went into effect, but the numbers have gone down since the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A Statement From Gen. Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
“Yesterday, during a wide ranging interview with the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board, I was asked if I think the current policy as codified in U.S. Code, generally referred to as “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” should still hold.
“People have a wide range of opinions on this sensitive subject. The important thing to remember is that we have a policy in effect, and the Department of Defense has a statutory responsibility to implement that policy.
“I made two points in support of the policy during the interview. One, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” allows individuals to serve this nation; and two, it does not make a judgment about the morality of individual acts.
“In expressing my support for the current policy, I also offered some personal opinions about moral conduct.
“I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views.”
A Statement From Gen. Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
“Yesterday, during a wide ranging interview with the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board, I was asked if I think the current policy as codified in U.S. Code, generally referred to as “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” should still hold.
“People have a wide range of opinions on this sensitive subject. The important thing to remember is that we have a policy in effect, and the Department of Defense has a statutory responsibility to implement that policy.
“I made two points in support of the policy during the interview. One, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” allows individuals to serve this nation; and two, it does not make a judgment about the morality of individual acts.
“In expressing my support for the current policy, I also offered some personal opinions about moral conduct.
“I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views.”
Understandable IMO.
__________________
The greatest lies are told before a marriage, after a hunt and during an election - Count Bismark
OK, so I asked some military people and psychologists in Israel about how Gay soldiers worked out. The consensus was that after some early trepidation, it truly was a non-issue for straights and gays, except that it is definitely harder for openly gay officers to get promoted to upper levels -- just as it is for women, etc. Basically, it's still who you know that breaks a tie vote; however there are one or two open Gays at the Colonel/Brig. General level. One of them forced the Ministry of Defense to offer spousal rights to his long-time partner.
One of my sources then said his son was gay, and made it to a low-officer standing, but had been very private about it until he was out of the army --I guess basically once he decided the military would not be a career path. There are still individual cases of bigotry, but it's equally as likely to be about ethnicity (LOL - Russians are still sometimes snubbed -- not Ethiopian blacks. I thought that was really funny.) or religion as about someone being gay, and is not systemic.
It's a weird military -- I was told by several people that high-level officers wear full uniform at all times, quite 'formali.' Then I sat and talked with a major who commands a PTSD unit -- scuffed black army boots, black nike swoosh socks, unpressed dark green slacks, light green cotton shirt with the sleeves rolled up, collar open and white T-shirt showing. I asked what his 'full uniform' looked like, and when did he wear it, and he looked at me in bewilderment -- the translator started laughing -- that IS 'full uniform.'
They also don't handle acute PTSD at all the way we do, and seemed sort of disgusted at us. In broad terms, preventing lasting psych disability trumps manpower needs whenever it's possible. They never give someone meds and send him back out to the front lines -- if you need meds, you are out of the combat picture, period. If you can return to your unit, you are not immediately back in the front, but have a few days in near-combat support to monitor you while letting you feel close and involved with your buddies.
Commanders are trained in identifying and preventing early signs of PTSD -- they have found that sometimes just moving the soldier off the combat line for 24 hours of uninterrupted sleep, food, and water can stop the development of incipient PTSD completely.
Within 24 hours -- sooner if possible -- of any high-casualty battle or engagement, there are mental health group debriefings including the officers, both to re-establish a sense of communality and trust, and to allow the assessment of people who may need more care at once. Each unit has at least one full-time mental health officer, who circulates among the troops all the time, so it is not seen as unusual or as a black mark. All this in theory.
Nevertheless, they have already seen a high number of new PTSD referrals from last summer, and their history says that may be less than 25% of what will come forth in the next 18-24 months. Plus, MH contact still depends on the commanding officer's cooperation, and despite pressure to participate, "Their training is based on denial," and sometimes the MH staff have to go behind a commander's back. For ex., one special forces unit lost 13 men in one engagement -- the commander rejected MH debriefing, so as soon as the war stopped, the PTSD unit staff contacted all the surviving soldiers and got a group together without the commander. By then, several were developing clinical PTSD because they also had been told not to grieve, which is a set-up for PTSD, it turns out.
__________________
oderint dum metuant (Latin for 'let them hate, so long as they fear').
Well, in truth I'm actually not a total hawk, but I'm not a dove either -- I'm more like an angry pigeon flying over the political arena after a really big meal. -Abba Gav
Last edited by AZZenny; April 4th, 2007 at 07:20 AM.
Reason: security
Moon Lander Champion!
All Hell is breakin loose!!!!!
Linear Mode
