U.S. Politics, 14

[Swordfish]

Well, it appears that the Chief of Staff of the Air Force also agrees with the Chief of Staff of the Army and the Commandant of the Marine Corps.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2010/1203/Not-so-fast-on-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-repeal-say-top-Pentagon-brass

Ok. So all three of them are wrong.

i think all this talk about combat effectiveness and the effect of gays on military effectiveness is even dumber than the same basic discussion that occurred about women because as we all know, gay people are ALREADY serving.

Talk about debating the merits of installing a lock after the horse has already escaped from the barn and eaten all your children.....

[TrueMetis]

Okay. So presumably, you'd agree that the question of how much or whether combat effectiveness is impacted is really the key question. So would I. And that really was my point -- "legality" doesn't matter. Combat effectiveness does.

I guess I should expand that I'm referring to the combat effectiveness of that individual soldier not the effect it's having on other soldiers in his unit because he's gay.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLoW,

Isn't there a differece between being combat ineffective due to physical disability and combat ineffectiveness because the guy next to me is "icky"? After all by that logic the U.S. Military should never have been desegregated by the order of Pres. Truman.

Well, I think there are two completely separate arguments.

The first is the reaction of current service personnel based on irrationality or prejudice, which may (or may not) include the "icky" thing. As deplorable as that may be, it still is part of the reality that must be dealt with in time of war. Would it affect recruitment, retention, or unit cohesion? Will there be a significant number of socially conservative, perhaps hyper-macho troops for whom "letting in the fags" will be a determinative factor in some of their decisions? This sort of goes back to the point I made earlier about saying "we don't need them".

Of course, there are really two questions embedded in there, the first being the extent to which that may be true, and the second being whether or not we should care even if it is true. But in the latter regard, I'd point out that Truman integrated the military during a time of peace, and also during a time when we had a draft and so could meet manning levels regardless of whether people liked serving or not.

The second argument has nothing to do with prejudices, but rather with problems inherent in expanding the scope of romantic/sexual problems within the military itself, and the difficulties of applying the reasons for gender segragation in assignment, billeting, etc., to account for the issues presented by gay servicemembers. Prejudices, as I described in the first paragraph, tend to dissipate over time. This second categories of problems do not, however.

I guess I should expand that I'm referring to the combat effectiveness of that individual soldier not the effect it's having on other soldiers in his unit because he's gay.

Oh, that does make a difference. Personally, I think the idea that gays can't fight as well individually as straight people is just plain loony. The only debateable issues related to integration.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FLoW,

The executive order was signed in 1948 but the actual execution of the order took place in the midst of the Korean War. So, again, what's the objection?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLoW,

The executive order was signed in 1948 but the actual execution of the order took place in the midst of the Korean War.

The military had black soldiers long before Truman serving in various MOS's, including combat MOS's. In some cases, that change was actually introduced during wartime because of manpower needs. Whatever deleterious effects might come about due to integration were outweighed by the massive numbers of new troops this made available. I don't believe that argument has been made with respect to DADT.

In any case, Truman was not permitting the enlistment of a whole group that previously had been banned from enlisting. All Truman did was order the integration of combat units that previously had been segregated, and even then, at least during the war, that integration wasn't completed. They sort of did it piecemeal, unit by unit.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FLOW,

There are homosexuals in the military now. It's not as though there haven't been for decades. They just can't serve openly.

[Shryke]

Look Scot, if you repeal DADT, it will have a seriously deleterious effect on America's Goal Post Moving Industry. The US can't afford that in this economy.

[Lord O' Bones]

Well, it's not illegal to be colorblind or have a trick knee either.

I stand by that statement as simple fact, and mention it precisely because being gay is not a physical hindrence to service. What other than physical limitations and illegality do we use to deny service?

[TrueMetis]

I stand by that statement as simple fact, and mention it precisely because being gay is not a physical hindrence to service. What other than physical limitations and illegality do we use to deny service?

You guys use sexual organs, which in my opinion is pretty messed up.

[Lord O' Bones]

You guys use sexual organs, which in my opinion is pretty messed up.

Not in this context. Our "straight" women can serve all over the place, but so-called combat units. Our lesbians have to hide to do even that.

That other thing is a whole other lengthy debate and done on this board eleventy-four times already.

[TrueMetis]

Not in this context. Our "straight" women can serve all over the place, but so-called combat units. Our lesbians have to hide to do even that.

Denying them service in the combat arms is still denying them service.

That other thing is a whole other lengthy debate and done on this board eleventy-four times already.

Right I and do not feel like going through that again.

[Lord O' Bones]

Denying them service in the combat arms is still denying them service.

The important distinction here is that women can serve, absolutely. Just not in a "combat unit." That can be irritating and certainly discriminatory. And we know both sides of why that is/why that should not be, so fuck getting into that again.

The lesbians deal with all of that too. And so much more. Fear. Possibly shame. Hell, just the stress of the extra work it takes to hide who you are from people with whom you will be very close.

Leave that other thing alone; it doesn't belong here.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Thor,

That's not entirely true. They can't serve in combat units for ground forces in the Army or Marine Corp. They most certainly can serve in combat roles in the Air Force (Fighter Pilots) and Navy (Naval Aviators and on combat vessels).

[Lord O' Bones]

Thor,

That's not entirely true. They can't serve in combat units for ground forces in the Army or Marine Corp. They most certainly can serve in combat roles in the Air Force (Fighter Pilots) and Navy (Naval Aviators and on combat vessels).

Dang it Scot.

I was talking about oranges, and it seems to me that FLoW thought I was talking about, not apples, but let's say tangerines. I attempted to clarify.

Now you and Thor are talking about Vidalia Onions. And we don't need to talk about Vidalia Onions for a while.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

When I get home I'll start a new thread.

[MinDonner]

Scot, you might want to work on your reading comprehension there.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Min,

Sorry, I misinterpreted what he said. Rather than ceasing conversation I took the conversation elsewhere.

Oops.

[Lord O' Bones]

Min,

Sorry, I misinterpreted what he said. Rather than ceasing conversation I took the conversation elsewhere.

Oops.

Dude, we know you were just being polite you. Just we've beaten this one to death fairly recently. But who knows? New people join all the time. Maybe the thread will have legs. But I suspect many of the usual subjects may take a pass this time.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLOW,

There are homosexuals in the military now. It's not as though there haven't been for decades. They just can't serve openly.

Of course there are, but I don't understand the point. Are you saying that the way people react when they are unaware of a fact is an accurate predictor of how they will react when they are aware of that fact?

By definition, won't the behaviors of gay servicemembers change if they are free to be open about their sexuality? Isn't the simple fact of being open itself a change from what is currently permitted?

Btw, the only service head to endorse an immediate repeal was the Chief of Naval Operations. From his testimony before Congress:

The chief of naval operations, Adm. Gary Roughead, said it was likely that some highly trained combat sailors, including Navy SEALs, might refuse to re-enlist in protest of the personnel change. But, he said, he did not think any long-term damage would occur if certain steps were taken, such as increased training, and he recommended repeal.

Now again, people can legitimately argue about the magnitude of any problems that might result, and also regarding how to weight the rights of gay citizens versus arguments regarding military efficiency/effectiveness. But you can't have a legitimate debate on any level if there is no acknowledgment that some problems will occur, and somewhat facile points like "well, there are gays in the military right now and it doesn't cause any problems" don't really help.

[Lord O' Bones]

By definition, won't the behaviors of gay servicemembers change if they are free to be open about their sexuality? Isn't the simple fact of being open itself a change from what is currently permitted?

Yes. Mostly at home; with people they trust; and most importantly, internally. If you think they'll start playing grab-ass at will, or talking with lisps... well, I think you're not like that. So what are you getting at?