[Updated list of signatories]
The milblog community doesn't speak with one voice on the topic of DADT.
Over at A Soldier's Perspective, CJ offers up *his* statement, co-signed by some other members of the milblog community. CJ doesn't have as many names signed up on his - but some of that is due to he's responding to the other statement, and didn't have the two weeks to put it together and polish it and staff it around that Jimbo had.
I guess that means CJs MDMP* process is more efficient and less bloated... Consider this effectively a guest-post from CJ.
Yesterday, milbloggers released a joint statement on the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. The administration and senior members of the military are investigating the possibility of overturning the DADT policy on banning homosexuals from openly serving in the military. You will notice that our signatures are nowhere to be found on the document. You can read the original statement by clicking on any of these links: Matt Burden- Warrior Legacy Foundation & BLACKFIVE, Jim Hanson- Warrior Legacy Foundation & BLACKFIVE, Blake Powers- BLACKFIVE, Fred Schoenman- BLACKFIVE, David Bellavia- House to House, Bruce McQuain- Q&O, JD Johannes- Outside the Wire, Diane Frances McInnis Miller- Boston Maggie, Mark Seavey- This Ain't Hell, Michael St. Jacques- The Sniper (strangely forbidden on my military computer), Mary Ripley- US Naval Institute Blog, John Donovan- Castle Argghhh!, Andrew J. Lubin- The Military Observer, Marc Danziger- Winds of Change, Greta Perry- Hooah Wife.I love my fellow milblog brethren and sistren (made that up, I think), but I can't sign on to this under any circumstances. Because articles are coming out (pun intended) publicizing this statement by some prominent bloggers, I thought it appropriate to throw around my "4th Annual Milbloggie Army Blog of the Year" weight in opposition.
The leftie blogs are throbbing with excitement (more punnery) over the news. As a way to provide some balance and levity to the argument and show that the milblog community isn't a talking point community, I respectfully submit the following alternative statement on the policy:
JOINT STATEMENT FROM OTHER MILITARY BLOGGERS
12 MAY 2010
Like all Military Bloggers, we consider the US military the greatest institution for good that has ever existed. No other organization has freed more people from oppression, done more humanitarian work or rescued more from natural disasters. We also want that to continue.Today, it appears inevitable to us that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and law restricting open homosexual behavior from serving will be changed. We believe that the changes resulting from the repeal or amending of this policy will cause unnecessary burdens upon the current force and readiness.
Homosexuals have always served in the US Military and in many instances were severely ostracized or worse when found out. The current policy of preventing disclosure of sexual orientation is in keeping with good order and discipline.
The service chiefs are currently studying the impact and consequences of changing the DADT policy, and how to implement it without compromising the morale, order and discipline necessary for the military to function. The study is due to be completed on Dec. 1st. We also ask Congress to withhold action until this is finished, but no longer.
We urge Congress to oppose any efforts to repeal the law and lift the policy of openly homosexual service in the military. A large number of associated concerns and costs are associated with the repeal, among them housing, legal status in various states, and moral objections from the majority of the force. The policy would also open doors to legitimate objections from polygamists and other groups who would feel discriminated against. The time is not now to consider such actions while our military is at war on more than two fronts.
We don’t believe the US Military is ready to adapt to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell without compromising its mission. We disagree with Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen about lifting the ban but will welcome any and all lawful orders that may be given as a result of any repeal. The US Military is a professional force, but would take years to adjust to these extreme changes.
C.J. Grisham – A Soldier's Perspective and You Served
Troy Steward – Bouhammer and You Served
Bob Miller – Eagles Up: Talon
LL -Chromed Curses
Ponsdorf – Another Voice
Buzz Patterson – BuzzPatterson.com
Cassandra – Villianous Company
Carrie – Villianous Company
If you are a milblogger and would like to add your name to this list, let CJ know (link provided below). Due to the last minute nature of the rebuttal, he could only muster a few preliminary signatures.
CJ's post is here
Susan Katz Keating decided to strike out on her own, with her "Stand Alone" statement. Heh. Anarchist.
CDR Salamander, an early adopter of the "Repeal DADT" position, can be read here.
CJ is right - the leftish side of teh 'sphere took one look at Ben Smith's headline, then proceeded to just copy his work without really bothering to really *read* what was said and pretty much bloviated from the headline. That is in itself an instructive event in how news and views work in the blogosphere. Uncle Jimbo and Bruce McQuain do in fact (and have for years) called for repeal. The rest of us, figuring that it's inevitable, want it implemented in a rational, and just, fashion.
Which pretty much means ignoring the loud advocacy groups on both ends of the spectrum.
We've done it before with blacks and women, and we'll handle this, too. And society in general, especially the younger set, are far more prepped (ergo, care a lot less as gay issues have been streamed before them all their lives - many of them just don't get the kerfuffle) for this than they were for Truman's integration order. Yes, I know the argument about pigment and gender aren't choices, vice what many believe about homosexuality. Leaving that argument aside as unsettled, the reality is that a lot of the arguments offered regarding letting the gay warrior serve openly are recycled arguments about blacks and women, and it didn't play out as predicted in the event. So to, I suspect, here.
We survived that, and the US Armed Forces still kick butt. As ever, when and if things fail - it fails at the senior and upper leadership level. The same will be true here. From my discussions around the water cooler and elsehwere, I think it's the older members of the force who, in general (always exceptions, and a large number of them) will have more angst about this than will the bulk of the troops.
I lived with the Army as a "brat" as they grappled with race in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. I was in the Army for the integration of women through the 70's, 80's, and 90's. And many of the things that CJ's group are concerned about:
..were or have been true during the previous two integration events, in one way or another, as society at large grappled with the larger issues. As fish who swim in that larger sea, the services did so too - and while fighting wars.A large number of associated concerns and costs are associated with the repeal, among them housing, legal status in various states, and moral objections from the majority of the force. The policy would also open doors to legitimate objections from polygamists and other groups who would feel discriminated against. The time is not now to consider such actions while our military is at war on more than two fronts.
There is one hugely significant difference, which I think is a strength, but some are concerned might be a weakness - this time we do it with a volunteer, professional force.
And we have two iterations of experience, good and bad, to draw from. I think that makes a huge difference. I the decision is made to go forward, if we can keep the politics of grievance and advocacy out of it, we will make it work this time, too.
*MDMP: Military Decision Making Process
This is the portion of the U.S Code that MUST be repealed prior to homosexuals serving openly.
See: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=Homosexual&url=/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000654----000-.html
This isn't about "discrimination" by the military, it's a friggin' agenda-based move, and the people pushing for it are lying through their teeth.
I'm glad the military went through the logistical trouble of letting women in- or I'd still be a waitress making less than minimum wage. :P
I admit to not having the intimate knowledge of the military most here do, but I do understand how leftists work. This is simply them priming the real offensive. As for defending when it comes, does anyone disagree that PC has infiltrated the functioning of the military to a dangerous degree? Seems like we had an object lesson in that subject not too long ago, one with deadly results.
As it stands, DADT can essentially be cast as "You Don't Tell, and We Won't Care", which appears to be how it largely works. That view should be played upGoing to open service, even ignoring all of the legal and logistical hoops, turns things into a culture war as leftists use the rare "statement soldier" (or flat-out plants) to bring a stream of lawsuits. Tell me how this doesn't hurt the rest of the homosexuals who simply want to serve, because I can't see any way. As for the military as an institution, that PC infection makes it a much softer target to manipulation and damage via those lawsuits than it used to be. If an officer showing clear signs of radicalization can't be dealt with because sacred "diversity" renders him part of a protected class, what chance is there of avoiding special treatment for the left's other favorite classes, especially with their puppet installed as the military's head?
I'm not opposed to homosexuals serving, or even serving openly. I look at it the same way I do women serving: If they can pull their weight and don't hurt unit cohesion (this should be decided on a platoon level, in my opinion), rock on. If there is a problem of any sort, put them in non-combat positions, and ensure the codes of justice, honor, and professionalism are uniformly enforced. What I am opposed to are people with a purely political agenda using the issue to implement top-down changes without regard to combat considerations and opening the military to lawsuits intended to force acceptance of a favored class. If I thought there was any chance of this stopping at reasonably-implemented open service, I'd support it. I just can't pretend not to see it for the cudgel it is going to be.
I.e., they can serve as warrior-monks (and I've known several) but they can't be the randy hump-bunnies the heteros get to be.
And that's just the price they pay for service.
Those of us who were on the support side simply feel the military had been down this path before, twice, and learned some hard lessons. We ask that the Services be allowed to apply those lessons.
Your position (and please correct me if I'm reading it wrong) seems to be: "Well, since I don't believe they're going to do it right, even though they're going to do it anyway, then I'm just opposed to doing anything."
Which essentially amounts to the status quo - in that I think it's going to happen. And I don't think that even if the current uniformed leadership was up to a spirited defense, that this time around it would make a difference in the fact of the policy being repealed - but would end up costing them a voice in the implementation.
Things in society at large are different now than they were back when DADT was implemented. Accounting for the realities of the Current Operating Environment seems to be to be a rational approach.
Just like using the Cold War Army to fight an urban insurrection because that's what we were comfortable with wasn't a winning play in Iraq, I don't think that play will work out here.
There's going to be damage and dislocation, regardless. Let's at least try to shape the battlefield.
You're not fooling anyone. We *all* know you're just in it for the free ammo and the splodey things.
And getting paid to go camping. And playing with cool toys. I actually just got back from a ruckmarch/warrior task training event. 297th won- go us!!
Beats the hell out of being a waitress.
*Not* keeping a civil tongue in my head is my *job*. You think people come here to see politesse and gentility? NO! They come for the confrontation that results from me saying "Nam Can was the armpit of the U Minh!" and you responding, "Wrong -- Song Ong Doc was!"
Okay, that, and the guns, And Boq's Spanish lessons...
Beats the hell out of being a waitress.
Only if you got to heel-stomp HSC's PAC when you passed them.
integration- for the record, I view that word as inapplicable (it's not like they aren't already there) and used in an effort purely to stir up emotion - unveiling/revelation/coming-out/whatever is carried out. I still think it's begging for years of frivolous lawsuits, but there's not really any way around that without changing the tortuous nature of our legal system.My first, last, and only concern right now is that the same lawyer-driven policy is going to extend to the combat arms, and that is going to get people killed. Like I said, we just had an object lesson on the subject of lawyer-driven, PC-minded policies and how they get people killed. I rather doubt there will be any homosexual maniacs going on a shooting spree, so ignoring warning signs of a protected class probably won't be the issue here. However, the same mindset and policies threaten unit cohesion and esprit de corps. Can you imagine anything that would generate more resentment than having a useless lump thrust on your unit and rendered immune to discipline and transfer because the higher-ups are afraid of lawsuits? It won't just be resentment of the specific person, either. It'll be aimed at the cowardly officers, the civilians forcing the situation, and, most importantly, every decent person in that protected class who would never rely on its special privileges. That's where we're headed. It can probably be worked through, but not without years of damage.
So, that's what I don't want. What do I want? Two things: First, iron-clad changes in the UCMJ that make it glaringly clear that special privileges will not be allowed, that homosexuals will be held to identical standards as heterosexuals, that any officer or NCO who tries to wimp out of enforcing the standards will be destroyed, and that any legal attack on those who do enforce the standards will have to become an attack on the UCMJ and Congress. The threat for enforcement should be shunted away from the person, save in cases where it can be clearly shown that the standards were not being disobeyed. Some language to the effect of prohibiting the consideration of those lawsuits (same exception as above) when evaluating an individual for promotion and what-not would be nice, too.
Second, the decision on accepting openly homosexual individuals into a combat unit should be kicked down to the lowest immediate commanding officer's level. For example, it's the lieutenant's job to know the ins and outs of his platoon members, and this should extend to how they will handle openly homosexual members. If he thinks open service will be a problem, that should be the end of it. However, the alternative to open service in combat units should not be no service. If a person is willing to abide by a modified sort of DADT, he should be able to still be allowed to become a member of the unit, so long as there are no problems. I would also like to see this structure (sans the provision for modified DADT, obviously) extended to women.
Once both of those structures are in place, I would happily support the overall repeal of DADT and removal of associated restrictions in the UCMJ. I just think what we're looking at doing is roughly chopping out the restrictions and letting the lawyers sort it all out in a destructive field day of lawsuits. I agree with you that some change is most likely inevitable in the fairly short term. I disagree with you that an administration that forced healthcrush through against the will of the people and, you admit, would ignore the military on removing DADT and baggage would abruptly about face and give a rip about the military's suggestions on implementation of the change. I think the battle should be fought not over whether or not a change is needed, but also not over nit-picking a plan dictated by a brutally indifferent administration intent on remaking the military, consequences be damned. That strikes me as surrendering because you hope to negotiate better terms of imprisonment. At that point, you've already lost and have nothing with which to bargain. Better to offer up an entire alternative plan and pound the point of it accomplishing the same goal without damaging our warfighting ability and (further) endangering our troops. Go on the offensive and portray the other side as uncaring towards the damage and lost lives they will cause. Having the truth on your side there can't hurt, either.
Last, but not least, ditto on OFS's sentiments; both of them. To keep a civil tongue, you first must have one, isn't that right Bill? (I keed, I keed. ;) )
The difference I see is that the groups that are the most vocal about repeal (of both DADT and the law) are those that are the least likely to want to enlist -- and they're advancing an agenda that doesn't have "equal opportunity and fairness" as its basis. The last thing the military needs is another Protected Class.
In the early '70s, I sat through weekly lectures by *DA* bureaucrats on how biased I was just because I was white. I got fed up with one particular lecturer telling me what a prejudiced individual I *must* have been because of my Anglo-Saxonish ancestry and stood up, announced that I had been insulted enough for that day, and I was going to depart. As I was leaving, the lecturer began to pontificate about what a perfect illustration I was for his point, then shut up as my six drill sergeants -- all blacks -- stood up and fell into step behind me.
SFC Collier counting cadence was probably a bit over-the-top, buuuut...
In the mid-'80s, I sat through a repeat of the lectures, this time being told what a sexist I was just because I was a white *male*. At one lecture, I stood and asked the lecturer if she had ever been in a helicopter crash. She said, "No." I replied that, in a crash, the cockpit was a messy place, full of crushed and twisted metal, with the possibility of a fire erupting at any second. I asked her to picture herself in that situation, then I asked, "Who would you rather have sitting next to you to pull you out if you were stuck -- 6-foot-4, 230-pound 1LT Alan here, or 5-foot-nothing, 90-pound SFC Theresa over here?"
The
moderatorfacilitator announced a coffee break.In the '90s, after DADT kicked in, I was lectured on the importance of Diversity and Appreciation for the Feelings of Others. After the first one, I made sure I was on the flight schedule whenever another lecturer was due to appear.
The appearance of another Protected Class will result in another flurry of year-long lectures from pompous a$$es on how badly we acted in the past and yadda-yadda-yadda -- but there will be no *positive* result or general acceptance until the new Protected Class proves itself as the others did.
In combat.
By dying for their brothers and sisters.
I don't see *any* of the current drum-beaters willing to sign on to take that final step, and that's why I'm angry -- they're gaming an honorable institution in which they have no stake and most of whose current members they hold in contempt, and they're doing it for their *own* political reasons, not for any benefit that will accrue to either the military or the country.
Heh. Best rank in the Army. Everybody from an E-2 to an O-9 knows what to expect from -- and of -- an old, grey-haired W4...
It would be neat to just go, "Bye". To me, this is just not right, John has been a good man, in *spite* of the fact, he was an officer.
Where is the battlefield? This reminds me of epoxy, where you mix two parts to make a super strong bond. The real battlefield is the mind. This is not just for here, but everywhere, around the World. This is both the "Hometown View" and a "Mega-Macro View" together. One of the things going for the Military were the Veterans and Military *Tradition*. You take away those *Traditions*, you have nothing. Those very same *Traditions* are the very foundation of our relations around the World.
Politician, this is *NOT* a political issue, but a *National Security* issue.
"Grumpy"
I know all that. I'm a fat guy descended from dead white euro males. I get a double-whammy of hate these days. Fat is the new safe whipping boy. Even Mrs. Obama hates me.
Of what you said, here's the crux for me:
In combat.
By dying for their brothers and sisters.
Just like blacks, just like the gurls. Only the blacks and girls were easier to discern, visually (and hopefully, teh gheys that are easy to discern visually are not the ones lining up to enlist....).
And, at least in the case of teh gurls:
The difference I see is that the groups that are the most vocal about repeal (of both DADT and the law) are those that are the least likely to want to enlist -- and they're advancing an agenda that doesn't have "equal opportunity and fairness" as its basis. The last thing the military needs is another Protected Class.
...were also the ones pushing the change.
As I said - we've done this before, twice. It's not an overnight thing, and we were grappling with race issues during Vietnam and Korea. And we were/are grappling with girl/boy issues during Gulf War I, Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yes there will be teh stoopid. Which will be the stuff of legendary TINS and keep us in blogfodder for decades.
But just because we know it will be a path littered with potholes doesn't mean we don't head down it.
Because - as we've all acknowledged in this thread and the other one, when it comes to this:
In combat.
By dying for their brothers and sisters.
They've been doing it. But we don't know how much and in what numbers. Because they have to keep it hidden.
But a point of order - which aforementioned letter?
The one in this post (which is not signed by me) or the one that this one refers to? The one in this post is in opposition to the one I signed.
This one I posted simply because I don't mind showcasing voices that express a different view from mine.
Does that change your, um, analysis?