So the new study is out on DADT and yet there is still opposition to overturning the out-dated policy. Senator McCain is quoted as saying "We send these young people into combat. We think they're mature enough to fight and die. I think they're mature enough to make a judgment on who they want to serve with and the impact on their battle effectiveness." Sorry Mr. McCain, but by your own argument I think they’re mature enough to deal with it if the guy fighting next to them has a boyfriend instead of a girlfriend. It’s not like they’re suddenly going to have pink camo. For the great majority of the military population, it’s not going to make a difference.
And more power to Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen when he said that "You do not have to agree with me on this issue, but don't think for one moment that I haven't carefully considered the impact of the advice I give on those who will have to live with the decisions that advice informs." The military leaders who have been looking into it aren’t closeted guys looking for a way to come out themselves. They’re looking for the best policies to serve their troops with as much inclusion as realistically allows. (I phrased it that way since there are many willing to serve that can’t because of physical reasons, not because of sexual orientation ones).
I understand the basis behind the argument that it will hurt unit morale and cohesion, but what about the fact that none of current military personnel were asked how they felt about going for a 3rd deployment and being over there for 15 months and away from their families? I think there are some decisions that you’re never going to get 100% agreement on, but if you can get a supermajority, then why not try to implement it. They’re even willing to phase it in regarding combat units – much like they did with ethnic and gender minorities.
92 percent of troops in the survey who believed they had served with a gay person said they never saw an impact on their units' morale or effectiveness. That’s a nine followed by a two. How is 92 percent not a proper representation of the military population as a whole?
If the Joint Chiefs of Staff thinks it will work for his troops, why can't we trust his opinion
And more power to Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen when he said that "You do not have to agree with me on this issue, but don't think for one moment that I haven't carefully considered the impact of the advice I give on those who will have to live with the decisions that advice informs." The military leaders who have been looking into it aren’t closeted guys looking for a way to come out themselves. They’re looking for the best policies to serve their troops with as much inclusion as realistically allows. (I phrased it that way since there are many willing to serve that can’t because of physical reasons, not because of sexual orientation ones).
I understand the basis behind the argument that it will hurt unit morale and cohesion, but what about the fact that none of current military personnel were asked how they felt about going for a 3rd deployment and being over there for 15 months and away from their families? I think there are some decisions that you’re never going to get 100% agreement on, but if you can get a supermajority, then why not try to implement it. They’re even willing to phase it in regarding combat units – much like they did with ethnic and gender minorities.
92 percent of troops in the survey who believed they had served with a gay person said they never saw an impact on their units' morale or effectiveness. That’s a nine followed by a two. How is 92 percent not a proper representation of the military population as a whole?
If the Joint Chiefs of Staff thinks it will work for his troops, why can't we trust his opinion
RSS Feed