Pentagon Study: Low Risk to Ending 'Don't Ask'

[stanmaxkolbe]

Pentagon Study: Low Risk to Ending 'Don’t Ask’

WASHINGTON – Following a survey of U.S. troops and their families, a Pentagon study group has concluded the military can lift the ban on gays serving openly in uniform with only minimal and isolated incidents of risk to the current war efforts, The Washington Post reported Wednesday.
The newspaper quoted two people familiar with a draft of the study, which is to be completed for Defense Secretary Robert Gates by Dec. 1., but with an uncertain public release date.

More than 70 percent of respondents to a survey sent to active-duty and reserve troops over the summer said the effect of repealing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays and lesbians in uniform would be positive, mixed or nonexistent, the sources told the newspaper.

The newspaper said the survey results have led the report’s authors to conclude that objections to openly gay colleagues would drop once troops were able to live and serve alongside them.

The long, detailed and nuanced report will almost certainly be used by opponents and supporters of repeal legislation to bolster their positions in what is likely to be a heated and partisan congressional debate. And it is expected to reveal challenges the services could face in overturning the long-held policy, including overcoming fierce opposition in some parts of the force – primarily in the Army and Marine Corps – even if they represent a minority…
Read rest of article:
foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/10/pentagon-study-little-risk-ending-dont-ask/?test=latestnews

 

[Ridgerunner]

And the commander in chief over those who did this study and upon whom they depend in this stage of their careers is whom?

“Low risk” implies “some risk”. I guess sooner or later we’ll know what they mean by “low risk”. Probably that’s throwing a bone to the elite forces who oppose it absolutely. One assumes, of course, that this means “low risk” to the military itself and does not include the risk to society of further attempts to get the government to endorse homosexuality. But then, that’s a moral risk, isn’t it, and secular relativists don’t believe in that.

It probably won’t matter in the long run anyway. Obama is determined to get rid of DADT by whatever means he thinks he has, and will. This is largely just a dog and pony show geared at giving him some coverage and also delaying implementation until we’re out of the Middle East or irreversibly on our way, where the image of “a homosexual army” (as it will be represented) won’t play too favorably.

But when it’s plain that we’ll soon retreat to our own borders (or, in the case of the southwest, somewhere short of that) and tacitly declare ourselves pacifists and hand the world over to its worst dictators and aggressors, DADT will absolutely be repealed. We’ll need to stay out of the Middle East forever, of course, but it seems Obama intends that anyway.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

And the commander in chief over those who did this study and upon whom they depend in this stage of their careers is whom?

Immaterial in my opinion.

“Low risk” implies “some risk”…does not include the risk to society of further attempts to get the government to endorse homosexuality. But then, that’s a moral risk, isn’t it, and secular relativists don’t believe in that.

There are also Christians who are comfortable with homosexuals serving openly. As there are already homosexuals serving under DADT, I fail to see what sort of a"risk to society" they are. Are they going to spend their leave time raping young boys and men?

delaying implementation until we’re out of the Middle East or irreversibly on our way, where the image of “a homosexual army” (as it will be represented) won’t play too favorably.

Israel is part of the Middle East, and it has openly gay soldiers in its army.

We’ll need to stay out of the Middle East forever, of course, but it seems Obama intends that anyway.

Even Pat Buchanan is against our staying in that part of the world indefinitely. So, what’s the problem?

 

[Ridgerunner]

There are also Christians who are comfortable with homosexuals serving openly. As there are already homosexuals serving under DADT, I fail to see what sort of a"risk to society" they are. Are they going to spend their leave time raping young boys and men? I don’t know what they meant by “low risk” and said I didn’t. Incidentally there are also Christians who are comfortable with homosexual “marriage”, abortion and, crediting Obama with being a Christian, infanticide.

Israel is part of the Middle East, and it has openly gay soldiers in its army. And is utterly hated.

Even Pat Buchanan is against our staying in that part of the world indefinitely. So, what’s the problem? I don’t agree with a lot of what Buchanan says. He comes pretty close to being a 1930s-style isolationist. We should not desire to stay in the ME indefinitely. But we can’t say “never” either, particularly with Iran wanting to dominate it. We have no worse enemies on earth than the Mullah/businessmen who run Iran.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

I believe what they mean by low risk is there would be low risk in esprit de corps.

The reason is that most people in the military really don’t care as long as you accomplish the mission.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Incidentally there are also Christians who are comfortable with homosexual “marriage”, abortion and, crediting Obama with being a Christian, infanticide.

So what? The Church is adamantly opposed to gay marriage, abortion, and infanticide, but hasn’t said that it’s a sin to be a homosexual soldier. As far as Obama’s Christianity goes, if he says he’s one, I’ll accept his statement.

Israel is part of the Middle East, and it has openly gay soldiers in its army. And is utterly hated.

Accepting homosexuals is hardly part of the hatred.

We have no worse enemies on earth than the Mullah/businessmen who run Iran.

And if there were a war with them, I have no problem with a gay soldier shooting any one of them!

 

[Lancer]

stanmaxkolbePentagon Study: Low Risk to Ending 'Don’t Ask’
Pentagon Study: Low Risk to Ending 'Don’t Ask’

More than 70 percent of respondents to a survey sent to active-duty and reserve troops over the summer** said the effect of repealing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays and lesbians in uniform would be positive, mixed or nonexistent**, the sources told the newspaper. …

Soldier…

1. This part of the news article is false…why…because the “respondents” were never asked this question…about the effect of repealing DADT.
2. Here is some “rest of the story” perspective…
   **

Politicizing the Pentagon:

Obama cadre allows leak attack on military’s homosexual policy**

By Frank J. Gaffney Jr. The Washington Times
The homosexual-exclusion legislation was crafted back at a time when Congress actually held comprehensive hearings, in this case, 12 of them, and engaged in extensive and informed debate on such important public policy bills. Members even read the draft legislation before voting on it -** including its 15 findings, which are as relevant today as they were then in enumerating why homosexuality is incompatible with the good order and discipline essential to the U.S. military’s effectiveness.**

Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen have fallen into line behind the president’s insistence that this statute be repealed**. Adm. Mullen has gone so far as to declare that those who disagree should “vote with their feet” - in other words, get out of uniform and end the sacrifices they and their families are making to serve our country in time of war.**

Such behavior by top Pentagon leaders constitutes what the armed forces call “command influence.” It is being manifested in what is becoming increasingly clearly a politicized study of the effects of repealing the homosexual-exclusion law. This study is being performed by the so-called Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG), co-chaired by the Pentagon’s general counsel, Jeh Johnson, and the commander of U.S. forces in Europe, Gen. Carter F. Ham. Its report is due to be submitted to the secretary of defense on Dec. 1.

But the results of the CRWG study have begun leaking already. Or, more accurately, false reports about the study’s findings have lately made their way into the press. Specifically, Associated Press reported last week that a survey conducted at the behest of the working group had found significant support in the military for repeal of the homosexual-exclusion statute.

In fact, the survey did not ask that question. Worse yet, in one or more of the “town hall” forums where service personnel were able to express themselves on the issue, a senior member of the CRWG, Lt. Gen. Thomas Bostick, who is in charge of personnel matters for the Army, reportedly engaged in his own bit of command influence by declaring, according to The Washington Times, that personnel who oppose repeal are “racists” and “bigots.” Echoing Adm. Mullen’s exhortation, Gen. Bostick reportedly said that anyone who doesn’t “get with the program” should "get out."
​

These are excerpts …full story…
washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/9/politicizing-the-pentagon/
​

Lastly…I simply hope that the process is bipartisan and objective…and before they repeal DADT…let the decision makers…as a show of true understanding about their decision…live with a “practicing gay lifestyle” couple under their roof for 30-60 days and see if they have no reservations/feelings about putting 95% of our heterosexual troops in such a situation 24/7/365…besides the family issues…the chaplain/moral compromising issues…etc. If repealed…it will be the beginning…not the end of the story.

Semper fi,

Pax Christi

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

stanmaxkolbePentagon Study: Low Risk to Ending 'Don’t Ask’
Pentagon Study: Low Risk to Ending 'Don’t Ask’
Soldier…

1. This part of the news article is false…why…because the “respondents” were never asked this question…about the effect of repealing DADT.
2. Here is some “rest of the story” perspective…
   
   These are excerpts …full story…
   washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/9/politicizing-the-pentagon/
   ​
   Lastly…I simply hope that the process is bipartisan and objective…and before they repeal DADT…let the decision makers…as a show of true understanding about their decision…live with a “practicing gay lifestyle” couple under their roof for 30-60 days and see if they have no reservations/feelings about putting 95% of our heterosexual troops in such a situation 24/7/365…besides the family issues…the chaplain/moral compromising issues…etc. If repealed…it will be the beginning…not the end of the story.

Semper fi,

Pax Christi

I subscribe to the Washington Times online edition I know about this story and if you go by his logic we should ban married couples from the military also.

There are regulations of conduct; have been for years.

What do people think is going to happen; orgies in the tanks?

Like I posted before on these boards I served with homosexuals since Private to Senior Non-Com and nobody really cares about it—just kill the enemy—complete the mission and try to bring everybody home standing up.

I could care a rats butt who anyone sleeps with as long as it’s not my wife. That’s between them and God.

I don’t care about what questions or think tanks anyone’s talking about I just know from boots on the ground experience inside and outside of combat I also did seven years in the barracks—it’s not a big deal and when it goes away it’s going to be the biggest yawn we will never hear.

If you think about it a lot of the same stuff people are saying today was said about females serving side by side with males—another big yawn.

 

[TMC]

I subscribe to the Washington Times online edition I know about this story and if you go by his logic we should ban married couples from the military also.

There are regulations of conduct; have been for years.

What do people think is going to happen; orgies in the tanks?

Like I posted before on these boards I served with homosexuals since Private to Senior Non-Com and nobody really cares about it—just kill the enemy—complete the mission and try to bring everybody home standing up.

I could care a rats butt who anyone sleeps with as long as it’s not my wife. That’s between them and God.

I don’t care about what questions or think tanks anyone’s talking about I just know from boots on the ground experience inside and outside of combat I also did seven years in the barracks—it’s not a big deal and when it goes away it’s going to be the biggest yawn we will never hear.

If you think about it a lot of the same stuff people are saying today was said about females serving side by side with males—another big yawn.

You are exactly right. Another interesting point in the study is that it said that gay servicemembers overwhelmingly did not want to be classified as a special group or be given any kind of special considerations - gay servicemembers just want to be allowed to serve and treated like everybody else. That makes sense to me.

 

[SamH]

If you think about it a lot of the same stuff people are saying today was said about females serving side by side with males—another big yawn.

And that has worked out just peachy.

military.com/news/article/no-penalty-for-pregnant-soldiers-in-iraq.html

Over 100 depoyed soldiers had to be returned from Iraq after getting pregnant.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

And that has worked out just peachy.

military.com/news/article/no-penalty-for-pregnant-soldiers-in-iraq.html

Over 100 depoyed soldiers had to be returned from Iraq after getting pregnant.

Ok that’s comparing apples to hammers. Some females very, very few will get pregnant to get out of combat.

So when homosexuals start getting pregnant with each other that would be a good trick.

So Sam should we ban women from the military now?

Females serving along side men has worked out very well.

 

[SamH]

Ok that’s comparing apples to hammers. Some females very, very few will get pregnant to get out of combat.

I don’t think anyone stated their intention, but it is what happened.

I was simply pointing out how one of your “good” examples wasn’t so good.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So what? The Church is adamantly opposed to gay marriage, abortion, and infanticide, but hasn’t said that it’s a sin to be a homosexual soldier. As far as Obama’s Christianity goes, if he says he’s one, I’ll accept his statement. The Church has not said it’s a sin to be a homosexual soldier, and I never said it did. It’s not too approving of scandal, however.

Accepting homosexuals is hardly part of the hatred. Oh, the Arabs hate Israelis for all sorts of reasons, to be sure. I have not researched whether any of the Islamic propaganda against Israel has to do with homosexuality, but it’s a fairly obvious thing to add to their other hate campaign issues, and I would be mightily surprised if they haven’t.

And if there were a war with them, I have no problem with a gay soldier shooting any one of them! **Sure. But that’s not the question. The big question is whether government sanction of overt homosexuality in a “captive crowd” is something a Catholic should support. The subsidiary question raised by this thread, and which is not yet answered entirely is what, exactly, “low risk” means. Obviously “low risk” includes “some risk” of some downside effect, combined with a subjective judgment whether it’s an acceptable downside or not. But as of this moment I do not know what they meant by that. **

I think we can be pretty sure that overt homosexuality in the military will dissuade some from ever joining the military; some of them desirable soldiers, sailors and airmen. Repealing DADT may or may not encourage additions to the military by competent homosexuals who would not join without repeal of DADT. I’m not sure why the Marine Corps Commandant and special forces types oppose repeal, but I suspect they don’t see it as a net plus for recruitment or retention of the kinds of people they want.

Knowing, as I do, that a very large segment of the military comes from traditional kinds of folks, for some of whom homosexual activity is viewed as “gravely disordered” and profoundly sinful (Catholics), condemned by the Bible as an “abomination” (Fundies, Southern Baptists, Mormons, Muslims, many Evangelicals) or culturally unacceptable (many, many, many Hispanics) I very much doubt there will be a net gain by forcing the military to approve of open homosexuality and enforce treating it the same way it treats heterosexual relationships, particularly marriage.

As an aside, I recall an interesting conversation I once had with a very high placed guy in the intelligence and enforcement part of the Treasury Dept. He told me quite frankly that they like recruiting at Brigham Young and Fordham (and some others) because the percentage of traditional minded people there is fairly high. They feel that traditional minded people have high moral standards and are, on the whole, worthy of trust for that reason. They don’t even bother recruiting at a certain very renowned “Catholic” university which I will not name, because they tend to be moral relativists and, for that reason, are not deemed a good pool of trustworthy individuals. And the guy isn’t Catholic or Mormon, either one. I’m not saying the military looks at things that way, but it’s a troubling thought.

But I remain convinced that Obama will do his very best to impose it on the military eventually, and once he is rid of his ill-conceived pre-election declaration that he thinks the Af/Pak war is the “good war”, I doubt he’ll much care what happens to the military. So, I guess we’ll just have to see what this pointless, politically driven social experiment does. Whether people will be honest about the result remains to be seen.

But if the experiment fails, it will be irreversible anyway.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

I don’t think anyone stated their intention, but it is what happened.

I was simply pointing out how one of your “good” examples wasn’t so good.

Ok Sam you’re reaching here.

So because of 100 female soldiers all female soldiers serving in our military beside male soldiers is a bad idea?

I know you don’t mean that because that’s just silly. Ok what I post next is for everyone not just you Sam, I don’t want to offend you bro; this is not about you. It’s about me.

As I stated on other threads I have no agenda I am stating from my experience of over twenty years as a dogface. I’ve been in combat units and combat support units from carrying a backpack radio on my back to satellite communications; I’ve been at Cavalry Squadron level busting track on armored vehicles to General Staff I never went above a combat division level. There were homosexuals at all those levels.

Ok War Story:
In the Army you shoot, move, and communicate:

My last combat tour was Desert Storm I had remote signal teams spread across the battlefield some with units others by themselves. Had a Staff Sergeant in charge of a team of five men that was alone at the FLOT [Forward Line Of Troops] the MLRS’s would come to the FLOT, right down from my teams location, fire missiles and move back to the rear.

My team had to stay to provide communications the only thing between my team and three Iraqi Armored Divisions was one Bradley Fighting Vehicle from the Second Armored Division we were at their fallback position. This was done numerous of times before G-Day to draw Iraqi Divisions to the Tri-border; a deception plan.

This Staff Sergeant was awarded yes I recommend it THE BRONZE STAR MEDAL for the outstanding service this Non Commissioned Officer did going beyond the normal line of duty.

This Sergeant is female and lesbian has never done any misconduct let alone sexual misconduct. Today she is still active duty and a Command Sergeant Major with three tours of Iraq under her belt.

Should we kick her out just because of her sexually? If we do it; that is discrimination and that is against Church teachings.

BTW; I had another team on the other side of the Divisions AO that did same thing the Staff Sergeant was a heterosexual male and he was also awarded and yes I recommend it THE BRONZE STAR MEDAL for the outstanding service this Non Commissioned Officer did going beyond the normal line of duty.

That was just to show you I recommend promotion or awards on peoples duty performance not their sexually!!!

If these young men and women want to serve putting their lives on the line for our and their freedom—let them serve man. How is that going to harm anyone?

 

[Orleans_Attny]

And that has worked out just peachy.

military.com/news/article/no-penalty-for-pregnant-soldiers-in-iraq.html

Over 100 depoyed soldiers had to be returned from Iraq after getting pregnant.

Over 100 . . . out of what? 125,000.

So what?

The best officer I ever served with is an academy graduate and now a Two-Star - and a black woman.

Pax,
OA

 

[bbarrick8383]

I’m wondering if it wouldn’t be best left to the commanders. Upon assignment to a certain unit a soldier would be made aware of it’s rules on this situation and could request a different assignment if need be.

I like the idea, but it’s not exactly uniform which may be a problem.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

typical of the culture of death to use a rigged public opinion poll to determine what’s best for society. why not ask them if occasional drug use is ok or if limited prostitution and alcohol on navy ships would seriously affect the mission. it’s all about obama’s world view. he decides, much like the oriental dictator, how soceity ought to be. too bad so many americans are useful idiots for the powers of darkness and death

president obama is a disgrace.

 

[cyberwolf001]

Knowing, as I do, that a very large segment of the military comes from traditional kinds of folks, for some of whom homosexual activity is viewed as “gravely disordered” and profoundly sinful (Catholics), condemned by the Bible as an “abomination” (Fundies, Southern Baptists, Mormons, Muslims, many Evangelicals) or culturally unacceptable (many, many, many Hispanics) I very much doubt there will be a net gain by forcing the military to approve of open homosexuality and enforce treating it the same way it treats heterosexual relationships, particularly marriage.

An Southern Baptists, Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Jews and many Evangelicals rarely get along yet they do.

The above also do not get along with Buddhists, Hindus and us Pagans. Yet in the military they learn.

The repeal of DADT just means one more group of people they will adjust to dealing with. An if some folks don’t join big deal others will come and take their place.

I am expecting to soon here on Fundi radio and other Right Wing outlets that the Military is now brainwashing people to be liberal.

 

[Ridgerunner]

An Southern Baptists, Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Jews and many Evangelicals rarely get along yet they do.

The above also do not get along with Buddhists, Hindus and us Pagans. Yet in the military they learn.

The repeal of DADT just means one more group of people they will adjust to dealing with. An if some folks don’t join big deal others will come and take their place.

I am expecting to soon here on Fundi radio and other Right Wing outlets that the Military is now brainwashing people to be liberal.

Let’s be serious. There is no comparison between a Buddhist and a Hindu learning to live peacefully side by side. It’s quite another to put a SSA person in the shower with a person of his/her same gender.

Well, you THINK others will come and take their places. Nobody has proved that yet. Government endorsement of overt homosexuality in the military is nothing but a social experiment. If it works, it works. If it doesn’t, there will be no turning back, no matter how disastrous it might prove to be.
It may be observed that the military is already having difficulty recruiting enough qualified people.

The military is the only thing that stands between you and the earth’s state-dominating murderers. It may please you to toy with that for the sake of the amorphous concept of “gay pride”, but it does not please me. I realize this is regional and anecdotal, but I live in the Bible Belt, where a very significant portion of the most dedicated soldiers come from. Parents actually encourage enlistment on the part of their children. I think I know these people well enough to know that when the military accepts open homosexuality as part of its culture, many, if not most of them, will strongly discourage putting their children into that. Call them what you want, but they stand between you and Al Quada, among others. You will not be better off when they’re no longer there. A previous poster showed a source stating that 10-15% of the present military would leave if DADT is repealed. What would be the multiplier among those who don’t enlist in the first place?

Want to feel the business end of a machete? Be a homosexual and even appear to solicit a non-homosexual young Hispanic male. It’s the ultimate insult, in their eyes, worse than groping their sisters (which can get you killed too)

I’m not defending gay bashing, but I really don’t think those who so blithely support repeal of DADT have fully thought through what a cultural mismatch acceptance of homosexuality as “just a variant of normal” is with much of the U.S. population; a segment upon which much of the military depends.

And you couldn’t possibly know any significant number of Fundamentalists or you would not dismiss them so cavlierly. They’re serious people who actually do try to live moral lives. They take the Bible as their moral guide. Secular relativists take society’s whims as theirs. As between the two, I would prefer to live with the former over the latter.

 

[cyberwolf001]

Let’s be serious. There is no comparison between a Buddhist and a Hindu learning to live peacefully side by side. It’s quite another to put a SSA person in the shower with a person of his/her same gender.

Well, you THINK others will come and take their places. Nobody has proved that yet. Government endorsement of overt homosexuality in the military is nothing but a social experiment. If it works, it works. If it doesn’t, there will be no turning back, no matter how disastrous it might prove to be.

Well I myself am on the way in sometime next year and Stanmaxkolbe who has done his time an he points out we already have many gays in the service it is an open secret.

It may be observed that the military is already having difficulty recruiting enough qualified people.

The military is the only thing that stands between you and the earth’s state-dominating murderers. It may please you to toy with that for the sake of the amorphous concept of “gay pride”, but it does not please me. I realize this is regional and anecdotal, but I live in the Bible Belt, where a very significant portion of the most dedicated soldiers come from. Parents actually encourage enlistment on the part of their children. I think I know these people well enough to know that when the military accepts open homosexuality as part of its culture, many, if not most of them, will strongly discourage putting their children into that.

From the same area as you man, and you’d be suprised how many current GAY service men and women come from here also and again the military will find a way to replace those numbers.

Call them what you want, but they stand between you and Al Quada, among others. You will not be better off when they’re no longer there. A previous poster showed a source stating that 10-15% of the present military would leave if DADT is repealed. What would be the multiplier among those who don’t enlist in the first place?

Oh good less bigots in the military can only be a good thing. I’m sure we will find recruits from other places to take there spot.

Want to feel the business end of a machete? Be a homosexual and even appear to solicit a non-homosexual young Hispanic male. It’s the ultimate insult, in their eyes, worse than groping their sisters (which can get you killed too)

This post of yours is just chalked full of threats. Bud I aint scared of you, so stop the tough talk. These guys you mention are so bloodthirsty they have no place in the military and will be lucky if they don’t end up getting shot doing this. (Also way to generalize an entire race!)

I’m not defending gay bashing, but I really don’t think those who so blithely support repeal of DADT have fully thought through what a cultural mismatch acceptance of homosexuality as “just a variant of normal” is with much of the U.S. population; a segment upon which much of the military depends.

Again we got members on this board that point out it is already a fact of life, but I see your ignoring them.

And you couldn’t possibly know any significant number of Fundamentalists or you would not dismiss them so cavlierly. They’re serious people who actually do try to live moral lives. They take the Bible as their moral guide. Secular relativists take society’s whims as theirs. As between the two, I would prefer to live with the former over the latter.

The times are changing, an I got a feeling we are about to see the Right and Left switch sides on how they feel about the military in the near future.