February 3, 2010

How much is the Obama adminstration doing to change Don't Ask, Don't Tell?

I'm following the news stories, but, I realize, I've been resisting blogging about this because I can't figure out what is being changed. This whole we'll get back to you in a year business strikes me as a political feint. And there's:
The Senate, which invited Gates and Mullen to testify Tuesday, is moving cautiously. Worried that they lack the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster, Senate leaders said they might try to add a temporary moratorium on discharges of gay service members to a defense spending bill, whose passage would require only majority approval.
It's Congress that must act to change the policy, so the Obama administration can get out whatever message it thinks sounds best without dealing with any real change. (Ah, change. That word! It's so wonderful as an abstract idea.)

64 comments:

c3 said...

I noticed that too. When will our President stop talking about what he's going to do AND DO IT!

Its gone from being the bully pulpit to becoming the bullshit pulpit.

jag said...

We have a philosopher king in the White House. Always thought I would like that until it actually happened. As it turns out, philosopher kings spend a lot of time ruminating. Action? Not so much.

Matt said...

If you want to poke fun at Andrew Sullivan (always enjoyable) note the way he's totally rolling over for Obama here, making as much effort as he can to provide political cover for the president on an issue you'd think he'd be a little less accomodating about.

Freeman Hunt said...

How much is the Obama adminstration doing to change Don't Ask, Don't Tell?

He's thinking about the possibility of making some effort to seriously consider a plan to frame a discussion he might have with some lawmakers about the hypothetical scenario in which he could maybe intimate that he'd prefer it were changed.

c3 said...

Has he appointed a czar yet? What would we call that czar?

SteveR said...

I'm being entirely sincere when I say Obama is making Clinton look like a great president. Grow a pair Barack.

Roger J. said...

two levels this conversation I think--First is the actual impact of gays in the military. I served 25 years on active duty and had some number of gay soldiers in my commands--I never prosecuted a gay soldier for their sexual orientation as long as they were good soldiers--I didnt then, and do not know, think gay soldiers were ever a threat to good order and discipline.

The second level to this conversation is the politics of the issue--that will not be pretty and my concern is that both the president and the congress will pander on this issue--and that is NOT a good thing for gays in the military.

Fred4Pres said...

I would have the balls to just change it if I was President. You can let gays serve without our military turning into this. As Barry Goldwater said, all I care about is if they can shoot straight.

President Obama seems to be caught between resistence from certain members of the JCOS and gay groups that helped get him elected and he is not being very forceful about it.

brer rabbit said...

Obama will appoint a Gender and Orientation Director

The Crack Emcee said...

"(Ah, change. That word! It's so wonderful as an abstract idea.)"

What else was it, ever?

It certainly wasn't a political platform,...

Roger J. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Opus One Media said...

Hey let's vote..up or down...remember that you GOP faithful here. We now have a 41% majority.

Roger J. said...

This seems to me to be a chance for Mr Obama to not vote present--yes: congress makes the law; but If Mr Obama sees this as an important issue that provides gay people some protection, he needs to use his (shrinking) bully pulpit--perhaps he could criticize congress like he criticized the supreme court--whatever the case, I honestly doubt Mr Obama lacks the cojones to take a stand on behalf of gay americans.--time will tell, of course. Or as Mr Obama would say: "with all due deference to separation of powers...."

Joaquin said...

The pundits on MSNBC (doctors office) this morning were all in a tizzy about not letting gays serve.
Mike Barnacle even commented that it's an outrage that gays can't serve. Honestly, that's what he said.
WTF! Do they bother doing ANY homework?

rdkraus said...

A thought. If he's serious.

Have staff draft the legislation (how difficult could this be - maybe one hour of work?). Send to Congress and post online and have press conference and say, "I want Congress to pass THIS BILL, MY BILL.

I know, this approach would be too simple, and not nuanced enough for THE SMARTEST PRESIDENT EVER EVER EVER.

Opus One Media said...

And on a kinder and gentler note to the GOP morons...

Until Mr. Obama decides that he can force every issue and watch you folks run up the filibuster delay no matter what, and then hang you with your obstructioniam in November, then we get what we get but if he ever figures out the tactic of "the party of 'no'", then you guys are doomed.

Joan said...

Of course there are now and have always been gays in the military. This is a political issue, and the big question is, how will a change in policy affect military readiness? J. E. Dyer wrote on this at Commentary, and also here, shedding some light on the Arab linguists story.

It seems pretty obvious that bringing up DADT in the SOTU was just Obama trying to mollify his base. It's not as boneheaded as other things this administration is doing, but it's not exactly smart, either.

Roger J. said...

The estimable HD writing as opus, opines about Mr Obama forcing every issue. HD: perhaps Mr Obama should take a definitive stand on issues that require moral clarity, and not force them the prisim of political expedience.

Lem said...

This whole we'll get back to you in a year business strikes me as a political feint.

DADT Hearings.

Watch MacCaskill take a mallet to Mullen. This bit is gold.

Well hang on a second..

Scott M said...

The most important question, from the point of view of actually getting anything done on this would be...does the administration really want to spend it's precious little political capital on this issue now?

I'm certainly libertarian enough not to care who marries who (as long as gay marriage advocates will remain consistent in their logic and support polygamy), but the military is another matter.

Simply put...and please know that I'm open for reasoned debate on the matter...please explain to me how we implement openly gay recruits in basic training (communal dressing areas, communal shower facilities). Further, explain how it works in the barracks (as many as four to a room and communal bathing areas). Then, if you would, please explain the implementation on, oh, I don't know, submarines.

We keep men and women seperate for a reason. Why is allowing openly gay people of either sex, different? Women aren't forced to shower with men, who would generally find them sexually attractive. Why do straight men have to shower with gay men, who would generally find them sexually attractive?

Other than this sticky issue, I really don't care. Unfortunately, what I'm describing above is a good chuck of the foundation the military is based on (basic training, barracks, ships, etc).

Roger J. said...

Scott: if I may respond to your concerns. Again I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but I joined the army in 1961 and retired in 1986--Gay soldiers existed then and they exist now--In my entire experience it was NEVER a signficant problem. In my opinion, the concerns are primarily theoretical and rely on some stereotypical thinking about what induces homosexual behavior.

My base station radio operator in Viet Nam was gay--and his quick thinking and concern for the mission and welfare of the troop pulled my ass out of more than one nasty firefight--all the troopers knew he was gay, and none of them gave a damn because he was very good at what he did.

The "problem" IMO is theoretical and not real.

Hoosier Daddy said...

then we get what we get but if he ever figures out the tactic of "the party of 'no'", then you guys are doomed.

Let me help you out hdhouse since you're retarded. The tactic is easy, its called compromise not telling the opposition "I won.' Then again Bambi isn't the brightest light in the harbor so that's probably expecting too much.

gaywrites said...

Carl Levin suggested at the hearing that 60 votes is not necessary to repeal. He noted that 60 votes is necessary “unless there’s a provision inside the defense authorization bill [which is how the ban was passed in 1993], that goes to the floor which would then require an amendment to strike it, in which case the 60 vote rule would turn the other way.” Republicans need 60 votes. So it’s not really about the 60 votes after all.

MadisonMan said...

DADT will be history before Guantanamo closes.

Salamandyr said...

It seems to me that now would be a great time for Democrats to embrace changing "Don't Ask Don't Tell". For one thing, they believe it's the right thing to do. And I support people doing what they think is right.

But second and most importantly, it's a strong gambit to get the November elections looking back in their favor. It gets the debate off the economy and on to social issues, which fires up their base, who are all for freedom that doesn't involve keeping what's in your pocket. It triggers Republicans into making long-winded bloviations about "moral values" that really don't have much to do with the issue at hand, which gives the news media the opportunity to portray Republican ascendancy as one step away from stringing gays to fence posts. All in all, it's just the kind of circus atmosphere that will help the DNC in the fall...and they're going to wait a year? All that will do is dishearten their base, supress their turnout, and let the Republicans stay focused on the the economy, where the Democrats are incredibly weak.

Scott M said...

@Roger

I served two tours of duty. My youngest brother did his four and got out. My middle brother is a special forces sniper. My father was delta and a career EOD troop. My grandfather trained a Currahee and was a career officer. I don't mean to have a time-in-grade pissing contest, but with all due respect, it's not theoretical. I'm talking about the day to day life in uniform for openly gay service members and straight service members. Anything before a change in this policy was different by default.

Again, I'm not against it. I just asking that someone explain the difference between making straight men shower with openly gay men...or reverse it for women. If you can't, please explain why we can't save a shitload of money on facilities and utilities and make everyone use the same showers?

It's said half tongue-in-cheek, I admit, but it's a legitimate concern.

Joan said...

It gets the debate off the economy and on to social issues,

Because the general population rates gays serving openly in the military as important as the economy? Don't be absurd. Most people see this is the distraction that it is.

Roger J. said...

Scott: thanks for your reasoned comments--I guess my point was that I never saw soldiers who were "openly gay." Perhaps that was the constraint forced on them by the existing UCMJ and its strictures on "sodomy."

I would respond to your point with a counter example: when one goes to a locker room in a public gym, how many men who are disrobing, changing, showering are openly gay, and how many of them are sizing you up for a liaison? I submit most guys dont think about that, and I submit most gays do not concern themselves with straights.

I think existing UCMJ regulations against fraternization are appropriate to cover gay relationships in the military as well as heterosexual relationships.

As long as the criteria are good order and discipline, both gays and straights can be held accountible.

Peano said...

I yield to no one in my enthusiasm for body-slamming Obama at every available opportunity. But commenters who say Obama (and Congress) should immediately abolish the "don't ask" policy are naive. Give a listen to a grown-up discussion on Special Report last night (Feb. 2).

Scott M said...

@Roger

Key word..."public" gym. Not a platoon ready room or bathroom. Not a barracks. You have to admit that there is a difference.

I agree that this whole thing is a sideshow and a desperation move by the administration which takes me back to does he really want to do this issue right now? If the GOP was smart, they would embrace it, talk about how important the military is, that attitudes can and do change, and turn a lemon into lemonade.

That still doesn't answer the implementation issue. Once again, you're forcing the majority, straight people, to accommodate the minority, openly gay people, in areas of maximum personal space (living quarters and bathing areas). This is not trivial.

Henry said...

A change to Don't Ask, Don't Tell could be filibustered in the Senate. Nevertheless I'd still like to see the House take up and pass the issue with the same enthusiasm they passed Cap and Trade.

I'd also like to see House and Senate Liberals get out in front of the White House this time. I don't want Barney Frank or Russ Feingold complaining about the White House not showing leadership AFTER the effort fails. Go after Obama now, guys. Don't let him off the hook and gripe later.

Maguro said...

I agree with Roger that it won't be a big deal. You'll see very few actually come out of the closet, just because most gays in the military won't want to draw a bunch of attention to themselves.

Roger J. said...

Scott: I suspect we are going to have agree to disagree on the concept of public space and the whole accomodation issue--those are genuine concerns, and I take your point. I confess that it coming up on 30 years since I served, so I do not know precisely what accommodations have been made.
I can only go back to my fundamental point that the UCMJs strictures against fraternization apply equally to gays and straights.

It has been a very good discussion and I have appreciated engaging with you on it. The interesting thing will be to see what our political beasts do with it.

Scott M said...

@Roger

I can check with my brother who's still on active duty, but when I was in during the 90's, the general rules of thumb were, officers with enlisted = verboten. You can date/marry/whatever two or three grades up or down as long as that person is nowhere in your CoC. I've heard older guys talking about fraternization applying to purely social things as well, such as drinking in bars, etc, but I know for a fact that's gone, especially on the athletic field. My two-man vball partner for years as an Air Force officer.

Salamandyr said...

Because the general population rates gays serving openly in the military as important as the economy? Don't be absurd. Most people see this is the distraction that it is.

Joan, it doesn't matter if the public realizes it's a distraction. It'll still work as one. Arguing about social issues is fun...it sells papers, and people like having something to talk about besides how dreary the outlook is.

Roger J. said...

Scott: if you tell me you had a female vball partner (I'm thinking beach volleyball here) I am going to really regret retiring :)
Colonel Blimp out

peter hoh said...

If he pushes the issue too hard, then he'd be accused of arrogance or something. He's planting seeds for the eventual change that will take place.

AllenS said...

I was an Army paratrooper. I got out in 1968. A long, long time ago. I knew of no gay soldiers in my outfit. I don't believe it would have been tolerated at all. In fact, somebody might have lost their front teeth, by making their homosexuality known.

Maybe they could serve in leg outfits.

Roger J. said...

Yo AllenS: just because you were foolish enough to jump out of a perfectly good aircraft, don't come down on legs :)

The Drill SGT said...

@ Scottm,

Again, I'm not against it. I just asking that someone explain the difference between making straight men shower with openly gay men...or reverse it for women. If you can't, please explain why we can't save a shitload of money on facilities and utilities and make everyone use the same showers?


I think I'm taking Scott's side when I pose a different question. If there aren't going to be any issues with openly gay folks serving in cramped quarters, etc, etc. That seems to immediately demolish the prohibition on women serving on Nuke Subs. No physical strength issues there, just the fraternization and close quarters problems. and of course the fact that the sailor's wives object strongly and it will cause retention problems as a result. But that barrier would also seem to go instantly as well.

So there would seem to be no future requirement to seperate male and female soldiers in barracks situtations because everybody is an enlightened adult now?

The Drill SGT said...

On the Obama question, this is one place where he should not be allowed to vote present. It is not unusual for a POTUS to draft legislation and send it to Congress for consideration. changing DADT impacts the executive. Obama can't do that stand back and go tisk tisk as sausage is made this time. Act like you have a pair and propose the change with a draft bill.

AllenS said...

Yo AllenS: just because you were foolish enough to jump out of a perfectly good aircraft

Have you ever been in a C-119?

Roger J. said...

Drill and Scott: I fully understand the issue of females bunking and showering in the same quarters as men. I assume that these are heterosexual troopers and sailors--I don't support that at all, for all the reasons both of you have put forward--I can only assert (mind you, not prove) thatthe issue does not apply to gay soldiers and sailors bunking and showering with their fellow troopers and shipmates.

I also acknowledge that I may hold a minority position on this: I blame Bush

Roger J. said...

AllenS: OK, will give you that one--you might have had a good reason to unass a C-119 (were you guys still jumping from 119s in 68? or when you were at benning)

Scott M said...

@Roger

Drill and Scott: I fully understand the issue of females bunking and showering in the same quarters as men. I assume that these are heterosexual troopers and sailors--I don't support that at all, for all the reasons both of you have put forward--I can only assert (mind you, not prove) that the issue does not apply to gay soldiers and sailors bunking and showering with their fellow troopers and shipmates.

Now, I get that you’ve probably got a few more tree-rings than I do (ha ha), but how can you not see the similarities of the situations? We don’t let men bunk/shower with women because of the sexual aspect and visa versa. If you change the players in the play to openly gay men bunking/showering with straight men. The problem in both cases is exactly the same…sexual attraction. Women don’t want men in their showers as a rule. Why would straight men be any different if not more so in many cases?

edutcher said...

FWIW, I had a prof in college who served in WWII, and he went out of his way a couple of times to make mention of the fact that at least one (possibly more) NCOs which he encountered were homosexual and used their rank for the purposes of sexual harassment. Obviously, they hid it, but they got what they wanted, apparently.

On the larger issue, I think we can all agree Barry doesn't like homosexuals and isn't going to push this farther than lip service. Certainly, the public is against the idea and, except for probably DiFi and Boxer in the Senate and you-know-who in the House (whom I wouldn't want championing my cause, in the first place), Congress is probably scared to death of going near it. How much the JCS is for it is only measurable by how much they think it will bump the defense budget.

Opus One Media said...

And on a kinder and gentler note to the GOP morons...

Until Mr. Obama decides that he can force every issue and watch you folks run up the filibuster delay no matter what, and then hang you with your obstructioniam in November, then we get what we get but if he ever figures out the tactic of "the party of 'no'", then you guys are doomed.


Bet you didn't say that when Tommy Daschle was Senate Majority Leader. Besides, the public seems to like the idea of the Republicans acting like a real opposition, for a change.

holdfast said...

I see Roger's comments as coming from an officer, not one who spent years living in the barracks, and from that perspective, I endorse Drill and Scott's comments, but would note one thing. In 10 years in the Cdn Army (combination of reserve and active) I never once met an openly gay male soldier, despite there being no prohibitions against them serving openly. There were a lot of lesbians and bisexual females, especially in the MPs, and there were a few guys you suspected might be gay, but no openly gay males. The explanation would seem to be a general belief (correct or not, I don't know) that any openly gay males would be immediately subjected to harassment and abuse, or at least shunning. Maybe this was not the case in the rear echelon trades, but in the engineer/infantry/armour/arty circles in which I traveled this was commonly understood to be the case, which is why if you suspected that someone was gay, you would never, ever, mention it.

Do folks think that this would also be the case in the US?

AllenS said...

Roger, I have a picture that is dated July 67, with us loading on C-119s. That would put me at Ft. Bragg.

AllenS said...

All jumps I made at Benning (jump school, 1966) were out of C-130s. The best airplane ever made.

peter hoh said...

The Israelis manage without a ban on gay soldiers. Do they have separate showers?

virgil xenophon said...

RogerJ is 3 yrs my senior and my experience was USAF as opposed to Army--but I don't think he has thought this thru very well. All he says is true--insofar as it goes. But such conditions as he describes took place under a regime which forbade legalized openness. Wait until homosexuality is legalized. Then an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT set of social dynamics will come into play--none of it good. Some will flaunt it, causing fighting in enlisted ranks. Homosexual instructors in basic tng will bring even more pressure THAN THEY ALREADY DO to their" vulnerable charges to "participate." At the officer corps level many capable "heteros" will resign in disgust for religious and/or moral reasons--many for not wanting their children exposed to such things in base housing: "Mommy,why are those two men living next door hugging and kissing?" Or what happens when two uniformed male officers kiss at the O Club on New Year's Eve?

And then there is the legal aspect and promotions. Do not think for a minute that intense pressures--both informal and formal via the courts and upper command level fearful of a leftist Congress--will not push for "quotas" or their "fair share" of promotions. Statistics will be kept--at every level of command, and one square that commanders will have to fill in order to get promoted in an armed services in which the Superintendent of the Naval Academy says "diversity" is his #1 objective (NOT combat readiness or education) and the Chief of Staff of the Army said it would be a GREATER LOSS if "diversity" were damaged by the Ft. Hood shootings than the deaths of HIS OWN SOLDIERS at the hands of Muslim Maj. Hasan's terrorist act is the square delineating the numbers of homosexuals he promotes--just as it is with women. The same will go for admissions to the service academies. Already a faculty member at the USNA has blown the whistle on the fact that the USNA is breaking federal law in setting up quotas for women and blacks and denying admission to higher scoring,more qualified white males. And be not deceived by polls and statements that "attitudes have changed" Those espousing
such attitudes know only civilian experiences. NO ONE has seen this play out yet in a military "closed-loop" context.

NOTHING GOOD WILL
COME OF THIS.

What the Law does not forbid it will eventually promote."

---------Anon

AllenS said...

I know nothing about the Israeli military, but there's a possibility that gays are working in military jobs that are in the rear area, and do not have to take group showers. I'm just guessing, of course.

WV: slyspie

Wow.

holdfast said...

Well, in Israel everyone (in theory) does a stint in the Army, so you should probably assume that some of your fellow troops will be gay. The Israeli military does not have the same sort of attitude as the western volunteer militaries like the US, UK, Canada and Oz, where one joins the infantry because you want to be personally challenged and kick some ass - in Israel you are in the Army because you have to and to protect your family from being killed or driven into the sea. The Israelis are undoubtedly good (compared to their neighbors - battles are graded on a curve, based on the participants), but it is a very different military culture, at least outside the elite units.

As I commented above, in the Canadian Army, the law and the "rules" are not exactly the same. I imagine that this is also the case in the UK, though I have no specific evidence.

traditionalguy said...

Letting gays serve is not a problem.Sexual harrasment and favoratism is the only problem. We should be able to handle that like we handle the same problems with men and women serving together in the Armed forces. If we can handle one, then we can handle the other. It's too bad that this is becoming a way to demonise reputations if people do not also affirm that the homosexual lifestyle is a Constitutional right legally requiring approval by everyone at all times like skin color is. Gays don't need that, but the demagogues in political campaigns attempting to divide people do use that.

Scott M said...

@traditinalguy

Fine...but please address the concerns listed above dealing with the day to day life of said service members, particularly living quarters.

Additionally, I was more concerned with this, as I have always been with this issue, but Virgil brought up a good point. Readiness should always and forever be number 1 (mission first, people always). Diversity, if achieved, is secondary...but this crew seems to think it's the best way to win a war.

I'm not anti-diversity in any regard save diversity for no other reason than diversity's sake.

virgil xenophon said...

traditional guy/

The armed services are "successfully" "handling" the male-female problem? Surly you jest. What alternate universe do you live in? You ought to get out more. You should visit some milblogs--especially the Navy ones--as there is currently a raging contraversary going about the USNA admissions "diversity" scandal and the promotion to Flag rank of a female officer thought to be, shall we say, less than qualified.

holdfast said...

Well, the Canadian Army handled the integration of women by lowering physical standards across the board, to the benefit of women and weak men, and the detriment of the service in general. Not to mention numerous instances of harassment and favor-buying (yes, an 18 year old Pvt does know how to manipulate a sex-starved 22 year old Sgt).

As a result, the infantry essentially seceded from the rest of the Combat Arms and preceded to set up customs and practices that have the effect of excluding any woman who is not a professional athlete.

Scott M said...

If memory serves, this was also tried in the US Army back in the mid-70's. The same thing happened. Fortunately, someone realized what that was going to do to our combat ability and put a stop to it. Men and women still train together, in as much as they are in the same areas using the same gear, but the standards are tougher for men.

The military is the very last place, if anywhere at all, that a government should pursue social engineering.

Nomilk said...

Thanks to Drill, Scott, and Virgil for some common sense based on long experience.


My ETS was 20 years ago now, but my service was as an enlisted man, which is simply another world from what the officers saw and lived.

I'll just make a couple of points:

(1) Some of the DADT repeal advocates seem to forget that we have an all-volunteer force that is manned to a great extent by ethnic Catholics, white Southern Protestants, and black evangelicals. Those men are not going to take kindly to in-your-face open homosexuality. The current economy will keep many in, but there will be attrition--just as the field-grade officer ranks were decimated under Clinton. What percentage of our trained forces can we afford to lose over this?

(2) The DADT repeal advocates either don't realize or don't want to talk about the fact that sodomy will still be a crime under the UCMJ. I think it was Clinton's queer consigliere David Mixner who said that he hadn't worked his whole life for homosexual rights so that gays could remain celibate. But guess what? That's the state that the repeal of DADT will bring. Where are all the big brave advocates of gay rights demanding the repeal of the sodomy laws as well as DADT?

(3) Finally, just as with SSM, the demand for change in the status of homosexuals in the military has very little to do with the rights of gays to serve and everything to do with seeking to quash all public opposition to homosexuality and to obtain a government seal of approval on the lifestyle.

It's a damn shame that homosexual activists are willing to attack the very institutions that keep us safe domestically (the family) and abroad (the military) to usher in their Sultanate of Sodom, where religious believers and other moral people of conscience will be reduced to dhimmi-like second-class citizenship.

Palladian said...

"It's a damn shame that homosexual activists are willing to attack the very institutions that keep us safe domestically (the family) and abroad (the military) to usher in their Sultanate of Sodom, where religious believers and other moral people of conscience will be reduced to dhimmi-like second-class citizenship."

And I'm the Sultan of Sodom and I can't wait to take my scimitar to the tender necks of you poor, huddling "moral people of conscience".

Seriously, where do you people get this crap?

There were queers in the military in the past, there are queers in the military now and there will be queers in the military in the future, that is until you "moral people of conscience" invent some sort of naughty faggot thought detector, whereupon you'll find you have to dismiss quite a number of soldiers from military service, including religious believers and other "moral people of conscience", people who you'd never suspect of being One of Us!

You see, many of Us are not all "in-your-face" about it. Hell, some of Our numbers are married to members of the opposite sex, Marines with skull and bulldog tattoos, and even Republicans! The numberless subjects of the Sultanate of Sodom have thoroughly and irrevocably infiltrated your ranks and are busy sharpening Our scimitars as we speak...

Sleep lightly!

traditionalguy said...

Palladian..LOL. The point is that the gays serve now and do good jobs under the current system. The denial of their full acceptance is unnecessary and cruel, provided that the harassment and favoritism issues can be handled by adults in command and leadership and not be used as a political football.

Ralph L said...

not be used as a political football.
Fat chance. Thirty years of "Diversity" crap say otherwise.

The Drill SGT said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Drill SGT said...

Fat chance. Thirty years of "Diversity" crap say otherwise.

The Army is a very black and white institution. Things are good or bad. In this case today, open homosexuality is a bad thing. If the polarity flips, it will be a good thing. Meaning we will see diversity training, punishment for any soldier is not fully on board with Homosexuals in the unit are a goodness thing, then since homosexuals are clearly underrepresented in the Army, it will be a plus to be gay when getting into West Point or on a promotion board. Give it 10 years.

This is a big social science experiment.

Some percentage of soldiers will not be happy with the new regime and will walk.

- Will unit morale improve with open gays in the squad bay?
- will the number of new gays joining be larger than the number of bigoted Christians and Muslims leaving?

Bottom line, will the Army be more effective?