Loading...

Thursday, December 23, 2010

On DADT



As someone who supports gay rights, including marriage, several of my friends expressed shock when I said I opposed the repeal of DADT.

My opposition is simple. The aupporters of the repeal claim that gays have had their civil rights violated by DADT. And they have a right to proclaim their sexual orientation.

There is no right to serve in the military just as there is no right to drive a car.

Both require a person to pass certain universally applied tests and demonstrate certain qualifications.

One of the universally applied requirements is to be able to fit into a functioning unit within the military and contribute to its success.

DADT allowed gays to do that at all levels. Now that is gone.

My ten years experience in Naval Aviation tells me  this will hurt our effectiveness.

I hope I'm wrong. But it's a gamble and only time will tell.

In my long life I have learned one thing.

You don't gamble with the rent money.



submit to reddit OnTwitter I am Lesabre1 "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." - Karl Popper

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves.” - William Pitt

"Logic. There is little logic among the cultural elite, maybe because there is little omnipresent fear of job losses or the absence of money, and so arises a rather comfortable margin to indulge in nonsense." - Victor Davis Hanson

6 comments:

  1. The aupporters of the repeal claim that gays have had their civil rights violated by DADT. And they have a right to proclaim their sexual orientation.

    No, the claim is that they have a right to serve in the military, regardless of their sexual orientation.

    If you can find anywhere on the Internet the formulation you stated, that would be interesting, but I'm rather doubtful that an actual liberal anywhere stated their opposition to DADT in that way.

    OTOH, the Log Cabin Republicans aren't liberals, but they came out against DADT:

    Attorneys representing Log Cabin Republicans, which won a court victory last week over DADT, will ask a federal judge Thursday to halt all discharges of gay and lesbian service members serving at home and abroad.

    Last week, U.S. district judge Virginia A. Phillips wrote in an 85-page opinion that the DADT statute, passed by Congress in 1993, violates both the First Amendment and due process rights of gay service members. Phillips further ordered a permanent injunction barring enforcement of DADT but gave Justice Department attorneys until September 23 to object to that order.

    "We want her to block any further enforcement or application of 'don't ask, don't tell' wherever we have military operations — not just in California, not just in this country but wherever we have military bases anywhere in the world," Log Cabin Republicans attorney Dan Woods told NPR.

    The Justice Department has not yet indicated whether it will appeal Phillips' decision.

    In her decision, Phillips wrote, "The evidence at trial demonstrated that [DADT] does not further significantly the Government's important interests in military readiness or unit cohesion, nor is it necessary to further those interests."


    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/09/16/Log_Cabin_Republicans_End_DADT_Discharges/


    One of the universally applied requirements is to be able to fit into a functioning unit within the military and contribute to its success.

    DADT allowed gays to do that at all levels. Now that is gone.


    Funny, even the Israeli Armed Forces manages to work with gays in their military(as do many countries throughout the world, including our NATO allies fighting alongside us in Afghanistan), but the American Armed Forces will be weakened by doing so as well in your
    eyes.

    Makes perfect sense.

    The US military needs to learn from the IDF and the tolerant Israeli model regarding homosexual soldiers and officers, concluded a research project on gay and lesbian service in the IDF, undertaken at the University of California, in Santa Barbara.

    According to a Florida newspaper, the St. Petersburg Times, a brigadier general quoted in the pair’s study said Israelis show a "great tolerance" for homosexual soldiers.

    David Saranga, a former IDF officer and now Israel’s consul for media and public affairs in New York said, "It's a non-issue... You can be a very good officer, a creative one, a brave one and be gay at the same time."

    The paper referenced the California study's survey of 17 heterosexual IDF soldiers: Only two said they would have a problem serving under a gay commander and three expressed concern about showering with a gay colleague. None objected to gay soldiers in general.

    As one officer put it, "They’re citizens of Israel, like you and me. The sexual orientation of the workers around me doesn’t bother me."

    Israel is one of 24 nations that allow openly gay individuals to serve in the military. Since the early nineties, sexual identity presents no formal barrier in terms of soldiers' military specialization or eligibility for promotion.


    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3362505,00.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. Harry, the IDF is a rather small force composed of a very homogenous group of people. Yet even with that we find two of 17 that admit they would have a problem serving…. That’s close to 10%. An additional 3 had concern about showering with openly gay members…. And Harry, we don’t have separate showers…. So that’s 5 of 17 and that is 34%. And that is a significant number.
    Our military is composed of a much larger force and is not homogenous. Thus comparing the two proves nothing.
    One the most difficult tasks of our military is to blend various elements into an effective unit capable of performing their assigned tasks.
    DADT removed one of the potential problems while allowing the gay member to serve. Now that potential problem has been reinstated.

    What we are doing is gambling with our armed forces.

    And I hope I am wrong on the outcome but my experience tells me otherwise.

    Merry Christmass Harry, or Dark Avenger, who ever you are.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Harry, the IDF is a rather small force composed of a very homogenous group of people. Yet even with that we find two of 17 that admit they would have a problem serving…. That’s close to 10%.

    Uh, they're all Jews descended from different Jewish groups around the world, for one thing.

    Also, to use that as a representative statistic is neglecting the fact that the sample size is so tiny as to be virtually useless as a meaningful number.

    That's like if I have a group of 20 people from my town and 10 of them smoke, can say from that fact that the population of my town consists of 50% smokers?

    You're smarter than this, but you let your prejudices override your mathematical and logical reasoning.

    One the most difficult tasks of our military is to blend various elements into an effective unit capable of performing their assigned tasks.
    DADT removed one of the potential problems while allowing the gay member to serve. Now that potential problem has been reinstated.


    But it hasn't cropped up in the other military forces that have allowed gays to serve in the military, has it?

    If it has, I'm sure you have the research skills to find out which country that has gays in the military is facing this issue.

    That study reveals the current U.S. fighting force to be far more accepting of serving with openly gay comrades than lawmakers believed. In the survey, 50 to 55 per cent of U.S. military personnel believed that lifting 'don't ask, don't tell' would have little or no effect on the forces, while another 15-20 per cent believed it would have a positive effect. Another 30 per cent believed changing the policy would have a negative effect.


    Read more: http://www.canada.com/life/soldiers+with+soldiers+poll/3906687/story.html#ixzz19Vw3Biw5

    Sorry if introducing base facts disturbs your POV

    Let me also remind you that your 10 years in the military(which makes you ex-military, BTW) don't give you special powers to know how they feel , but a poll, OTOH..........

    And yes, ex-Generals should be seen and not heard. That understanding has been around for years. But then the same used to be said about ex-Presidents.

    To paraphrase what a commentator said in that thread, 10 years in the military don't make you an expert on the military.

    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/04/14/918/52254

    I also remember that you always dismissed criticisms from people who were in the military that were against the Iraq war with the fact that they were "ex-military", which somehow meant that any military experience they had vanished when they left the Armed Forces, I guess.

    As for your experience:

    Men are wise in proportion, not to their experience, but to their capacity for experience.

    If we could learn from mere experience, the stones of London would be wiser than its wisest men.


    http://www.bartleby.com/157/6.html

    Thanks for making the case for gays in the military, I couldn't do it without you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Harry, or DA as the case may be, your new words do not alter your old words/quote. My response was and remnains:

    "Harry, the IDF is a rather small force composed of a very homogenous group of people. Yet even with that we find two of 17 that admit they would have a problem serving…. That’s close to 10%. An additional 3 had concern about showering with openly gay members…. And Harry, we don’t have separate showers…. So that’s 5 of 17 and that is 34%. And that is a significant number."

    You can say that the IDF is not homogenous but that doesn't change the numbers. Five of 17 had problems.

    So your homogenous argument is moot.

    And while 10 years in the military doesn't make me an expert it does make me more of an expert than the average Leftie who has not served.

    To be blunt, the military doesn't exist to be a proving ground for societal change. It exists to protect us. To understand that takes only common sense.



    Again, as someone who supports gay rights I hope I am wrong. But I don't think I am.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You can say that the IDF is not homogenous but that doesn't change the numbers. Five of 17 had problems.

    Uh, again, the sample size is too draw any kind of conclusion, you could ask someone with a better understanding of statistics than you display here.

    So your homogenous argument is moot.

    Um, you're the one who brought up the homogenous arguement above.

    And while 10 years in the military doesn't make me an expert it does make me more of an expert than the average Leftie who has not served.


    Oh, it's not just lefties without any military experience who feel that way.

    By that standard of reasoning, you are less of an expert than the many people out of the military who were in it and attained a higher rank than you did in Naval Aviation:

    Retired Army Gen. Colin L. Powell, whose opposition to allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military helped lead to adoption of the "don't ask, don't tell" legislation 17 years ago, said Wednesday that he now thinks the restrictive law should be repealed.

    "Attitudes and circumstances have changed," Powell said. "It's been a whole generation" since the legislation was adopted, and there is increased "acceptance of gays and lesbians in society," he said. "Society is always reflected in the military. It's where we get our soldiers from."


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020302292.html

    No charge for the education.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why is that only Leftie Polls mean anything??

    And anyway ypu cut it the IDF is more homogenous than the US military so quit making dumb claims.

    Powell hasn't been in the REAL military for 30 years or so and even then wasn't in touch with the averatge service person.

    ReplyDelete