Obama and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy

[DMB]

He says he's going to end it. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/us/politics/11speech.html

Does he mean it?

[Celsus]

Yes

[LoneWolf]

He means it. But I'll celebrate when he actually does it.

[diana]

Here's a recent Bill Maher rant (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-everyone-deserve_b_315406.html) about this very thing.

d

[lpetrich]

I'm inclined to believe it when I see it. I remember when Bill Clinton brought it up early in his Presidency. There was so much outrage over it that he backed down and instituted "don't ask, don't tell".

[munnki]

Bill Hicks said it best...

"Anyone dumb enough to want to be in the military should be allowed in..."

[Jobar]

That was a damn good speech.

I hope like hell he gets a second term. I expect him to tackle the drug war if he does; that's at least as great an injustice as official discrimination against gays. But it's an even hotter potato; I won't blame him if he doesn't try it until his second term- despite the fact I'm more likely to suffer government persecution because of it, than anything else.

[Celsus]

People don't seem to realise what a remarkable thing it is for a sitting POTUS to speak before a gay advocacy group. Basically there was no need for Obama to consciously restate a campaign promise and remind the world about it unless he actually intended to follow up.

But he can't give a timetable, that's not how decision-making in Congress and the military works. And there's numerous spoilers out there who will be doing everything they can to try to block Obama. Indeed the longer they can delay him and turn his supporters against him for such delays, the better for their long-term fight against Obama (if it's not dead obvious by now, the current Republican strategy involves splitting the left vote, so hopeless do they see the posibility of a straight victory).

That's why despite the seeming non-productiveness of just being one big wall of "No" in Congress, it's currently working at making Obama's supporters disillusioned and hopefully in the long term, less likely to vote. It was the high turnouts that defeated them, they need to turn back the clock and that's exactly what their stonewalling, playing on unrealistic expectations of the left and turning them against Obama is achieving.

[Joykins]

Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a megastupid policy and accelerated the ejection of gays from the armed forces.

[Notta]

I'll believe it when I see it.

I read an article linked on Fark that said women in the air force were kicked out more than any other group under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Do you suppose it's because the air force is inherently more macho than the other services, or has fewer women overall? Or for no apparent reason whatsoever?

[dug_down_deep]

When I said "watch my back", I didn't mean that! LOL

It's about time. Third-graders run the world, I think.

[LoneWolf]

I'll believe it when I see it.

I read an article linked on Fark that said women in the air force were kicked out more than any other group under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Do you suppose it's because the air force is inherently more macho than the other services, or has fewer women overall? Or for no apparent reason whatsoever?

Actually the AF has the highest percentage of females out of the services. And I've never quite heard the AF refered to as "macho".

[Goodchild]

I'll believe it when I see it.

I read an article linked on Fark that said women in the air force were kicked out more than any other group under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Do you suppose it's because the air force is inherently more macho than the other services, or has fewer women overall? Or for no apparent reason whatsoever?

Actually the AF has the highest percentage of females out of the services. And I've never quite heard the AF refered to as "macho".

When I was in the Army we always rated the AF as the least 'macho' service lol, even below the squiddies.

[Notta]

Okay. Then why more females kicked out for violating DADT than the other services, I wonder?

[Goodchild]

Okay. Then why more females kicked out for violating DADT than the other services, I wonder?

Because percentage-wise there's more females in the AF than the other services?

[Daydream]

If Obama means it then what in the hell is he waiting for?

[LoneWolf]

Okay. Then why more females kicked out for violating DADT than the other services, I wonder?

Because percentage-wise there's more females in the AF than the other services?

Yep. There are more females to kick out. Now, maybe the AF kicks out a higher percentage of females than the other services? I don't know. There may be something to the argument that the AF is more evangelical than the other services, given what I have heard about their Academy.

[diana]

Oh now, LoneWolf. Stop it. :)

The Academy did have some serious problems in this vein, yes. A bunch of high-ranking officers were forced into early retirement over it, too. I suspect it started because the chaplains here (in the Springs) are so close to Focus on the Family and since they have a strong local base, they begin to feel their oats at the Academy. (I understand that the problem was exacerbated for a while because the upperclassmen evangelicals took the cue of their chaplains--which was where the real danger lay--and exerted their considerable influence on underclassmen.) Otherwise, the AF has no more problem with their chaplains knowing where to draw the line than other services do.

But...I don't think our small evangelical contingent which has gotten so much press has anything to do with more females being kicked out for violating DADT.

If I were to venture a guess, I'd say that it has something to do with the fact that we are perceived as the most "civilian" of the services, the one where a higher number of lesbians are willing to enlist to try it out, and therefore the service which has the highest number of lesbians who decide they really don't like it after all for which they have a built-in "out" which consists of coming out.

d

[Notta]

I know two lesbians who were kicked out of the army after someone found out their letters from home were from their girlfriends. To this day, they regret begin forced out.

[Jobar]

Huh. I never thought of that being used as a method of intentional 'de-enlistment'. Do you think that's the reason for a significant number of those cases, diana?

I'm curious as to what is considered "telling". Does it take some sort of written statement from the person in question to get official notice? How about verifiable evidence from an anonymous source- would that trigger a discharge for homosexuality?

And does the discharge specifically mention homosexuality, or is it just a general 'unfit to serve' sort of thing?

[His Noodly Appendage]

So, how many people simply claim to be gay in order to get out, I wonder?

I mean, that'd be pretty hilarious.

"Lt. Anders, we have it on good authority that you are merely a lipstick lesbian, and in truth love teh c0ck..."

[premjan]

Obama doesn't do anything that is not deliberate, he will work all the levers before pushing it through. The Nobel seems to have made him bolder about opposing the right-wing and working without them. Which is good.

[LoneWolf]

Point taken, diana. I stand corrected.

[diana]

Huh. I never thought of that being used as a method of intentional 'de-enlistment'. Do you think that's the reason for a significant number of those cases, diana?

I'm curious as to what is considered "telling". Does it take some sort of written statement from the person in question to get official notice? How about verifiable evidence from an anonymous source- would that trigger a discharge for homosexuality?

And does the discharge specifically mention homosexuality, or is it just a general 'unfit to serve' sort of thing?I don't have any idea what the statistics are, John. I think people are kicked out for going to their commanding officer and coming clean (and depending on the CC, they might be told to leave the office and think it over and only come back if they really want the discharge). I think if someone pushed up verifiable evidence, it would at least trigger an investigation (despite the "don't pursue" portion of the current rule), possibly a discharge.

The discharge probably falls under "Inability to Adapt." That used to be the euphemism for it, anyway.

d

[diana]

My comments above, btw, are from hearing what some friends and commanders have done. I don't know how widespread it is, but from my limited experience, DADT is treated as a loophole to get out of the service and a loophole by the service to get rid of undesirables. Occasionally, I remember seeing a desirable get kicked out under the previous policy, and it destroyed unit morale for quite some time.

d

[munnki]

Again...we're talking about the military... if a gay person is happy carpet-bombing civilian populations and training Israelis in using advanced weapons to kill their neighbours then let him in. He can bling up his Ak-47 in a pink sheen or put an Elton John poster on his gun turret... The basic requirements are not sexuality based... the ability to be brutal, to harm other humans without remorse and to accept a low grade income and cauterized GI Bill would be enough... Sufficient brain-washing in the obvious goodness of American foreign policy is also helpful but not a necessary condition...

I see no reason why we can't find such people among the gay community... it's better to get already abused and damaged human beings though... so I would suggest gay communities in poorer communities... They are normally more savage when they've been hungry for a while...

Seriously...it's the army... I would have thought gay people would be glad to be excluded from murder groups...

[Bane]

The thing is, the option should be there for them--if that's how they believe they should serve their country.

[TySixtus]

Again...we're talking about the military... if a gay person is happy carpet-bombing civilian populations and training Israelis in using advanced weapons to kill their neighbours then let him in. He can bling up his Ak-47 in a pink sheen or put an Elton John poster on his gun turret... The basic requirements are not sexuality based... the ability to be brutal, to harm other humans without remorse and to accept a low grade income and cauterized GI Bill would be enough... Sufficient brain-washing in the obvious goodness of American foreign policy is also helpful but not a necessary condition...

I see no reason why we can't find such people among the gay community... it's better to get already abused and damaged human beings though... so I would suggest gay communities in poorer communities... They are normally more savage when they've been hungry for a while...

Seriously...it's the army... I would have thought gay people would be glad to be excluded from murder groups...

Lol. I guess I'm giving you what you want by responding, but it's funny how your first attempt at pissing people off didn't garner any attention. I guess you figured you'd turn it up a notch, huh?

[munnki]

Just expressing my point of view... I think the first position should not be 'should gays be in the military?' but 'should there be a military and, if so, what should it's role be?'. The 'gays in the military' is a tinsel issue and not a tree one - if you get my metaphor.

I don't mind disagreement...but I'm surely not the only one who feels how I do about the subject. I'm sure not everyone who agrees with me feels like hopping in just as everyone who disagrees with me won't necessarily be bothered to comment. I wouldn't assume I'm alone... I've never had that big of an ego... I regularly assure myself that I'm not special... I'd be happy to post a poll on the subject if you wish... (i.e. the role of the military and foreign policy - not the 'gays in the military issue'.)

I'm not against the idea of gays in the military. I just don't think it's all that important in the larger scheme of things. It's not what sexuality of person is being killed in Iraq that's important and nor is the sexuality of the killer... no? Is a dead gay member of a family less or more valid than a non-gay one?

[Celsus]

You should start a thread if you want to discuss that, not keep interrupting this or trying to turn it into a thread about your pet peeve.

[munnki]

Am I interrupting you? If you don't like what I have to say then you have the freedom to disagree or ignore? Is that not so? Telling me to shut up I wouldn't have assumed to be part of this forum. If it is, I'm happy to leave. The issue is 'don't ask, don't tell' and I have expressed my opinion. May I not?

[Celsus]

Well you're obviously agitating for a reaction that's not forthcoming and has nothing to do with this thread. Note, I mean you should start a separate thread in this forum to discuss "should we have militaries" instead of trying to get a reaction in a thread about "will Obama remove discrimination against sexual orientation in the US military". Not quite sure where you see the stfu/get-out-of-this-forum part in my post above.

[munnki]

I'll try to make the point in another way. If the ira or Taliban suddenly decided that they were admitting gay members (and I don't know if they exclude them cf dining with terrorists by P. Rees) then we wouldn't be discussing whether that was good or bad but would be shouting out what these organisations do. The president has just won a noble peace prize for good intentions but hasn't yet ended what amounts to a false and harmful policy. Let me point out that a former partner was thrown out of the military for being gay - I'm no stranger to the issue. But there's something chilling (and we came to agree on this point) about debating surface issues on an organisation that does so much harm to the world. The harm is multi-ethnic and multi-cultural. It is no respecter of gender or sexuality. So hate me if you will but I felt compelled to point that out. Peace, munnki.

[dug_down_deep]

But just because George Bush was a warmonger doesn't mean there isn't a legitimate reason to have a standing army, and the issue is whether or not it is intelligent and/or fair to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

[munnki]

But just because George Bush was a warmonger doesn't mean there isn't a legitimate reason to have a standing army, and the issue is whether or not it is intelligent and/or fair to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

A standing army sounds great... and probably legitimate under certain conditions... but we're not talking about a standing army are we? If we are please define it... my understanding was that this army had bases throughout the world and was active in over 20 different conflicts... I'll wiki it and check.

As to the general issue of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We are not talking about it. I'm sure we're talking about discrimination in the military but if we want to talk about the general issue I'm down and I'm sure that in general it's unfair to discriminate. The OP seemed to indicate the particular case of the US military but I may have misread it... apologies if I have.

[dug_down_deep]

I mean in theory, of course. If the military is being misused, it is no reflection upon the people in it, except inasmuch as they signed up being aware of that. In any case, it is their job now, and they ought not to have to hide the fact they're gay.

[munnki]

I'm in agreement with that to a certain extent. My partner was thrown out before the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy was instigated. I'm not entirely sure if individuals within the army can be considered entirely absent from the policy of that army however. It's an often said thing, to be sure, but I'm not sure if I'd excuse the einsatzgruppen from what they did because it was an order from on high and, playing an even hand, I'm not sure if I'd forgive a lowly marine from opening fire on a tribal family in Afganisthan because it was army policy to 'take a region'. I'm not saying you're wrong...but it's complex and the principles set down in the Nuremburg trials only made it more complex. We all know the familiar leftist joke here that Blair and Bush would be condemned as war criminals by the Nuremburg principles. What's more uncomfortable is that so would a whole hell of a lot more people (up to and including Obama if he doesn't follow through on his manifesto quickly)... If we encourage the principle of only blaming the leaders I don't see that as a positive way to make the killing end... making soldiers and leaders accountable might have better results. And making ourselves as accountable as those we 'don't like' would have almost miraculous results (if you'll forgive the mildy ironic use of the term in here)

I think we share more common than uncommon ground here...

[dug_down_deep]

Many of them haven't committed any such crimes. In any case, the two issues are unrelated. It's a question of civil rights. It must be applied equally, no matter what you think of what someone does.