CBS News Report on U.S. Military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy

[David Floyd]

Yes; women are adults and are perfectly capable in deciding for themselves whether or not they should enlist in any branch of the U.S. military forces with possibility of being placed in frontline combat situations.

Sadly, there's a little more to it than that. Or are you going to argue in favor of forcing them to use contraceptives - ie, back to the whole Norplant thing? Or are you going to argue that the military should be flexible enough to handle pregnant soldiers serving in combat units?

I do not believe that repeal of "don't ask don't tell" would undermine effectiveness of combat of soldiers because some of them are homophobic, anymore than racial integration undermines combat effectiveness because even today, some soldiers are racist.

I understand you don't believe that, but you didn't address either of my points. First of all, I asked a hypothetical - IF it were shown that abolishing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, undermined effectiveness, would you still be favor of abolishing it. Secondly, racism is not something that is prevalent in society to the same extreme that it was in, say 1917 or 1942 - the question was, would you have supported integrating the armed forces in the face of major opposition 80 years ago?

[SlowwHand]

Whatchu talkin' bout, Willis?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by MrFun


Gay men are already sharing showers with straight men in the military though; and this includes not only those who are closeted but also those who are open/honest with their comrades within their unit until they were discharged, or perhaps have never been punished at all under the "don't ask don't tell" policy.

Believe it or not, most gay men are professional in whatever career they choose to work in, and can control themselves. Saying that gay men lack as much control as horny dogs dehumanizes gay men in a gross, bigoted manner.

Do men and women shower together in the military? They should be professional and control themselves and not act like horny dogs. I see no problem.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Wezil


Do men and women shower together in the military? They should be professional and control themselves and not act like horny dogs. I see no problem.

Gay men and straight men use public showers at fitness centers without an outcry for separate showering facilities.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Sadly, there's a little more to it than that. Or are you going to argue in favor of forcing them to use contraceptives - ie, back to the whole Norplant thing? Or are you going to argue that the military should be flexible enough to handle pregnant soldiers serving in combat units?



I understand you don't believe that, but you didn't address either of my points. First of all, I asked a hypothetical - IF it were shown that abolishing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, undermined effectiveness, would you still be favor of abolishing it. Secondly, racism is not something that is prevalent in society to the same extreme that it was in, say 1917 or 1942 - the question was, would you have supported integrating the armed forces in the face of major opposition 80 years ago?

Women should be permitted relief from duty in case of pregnancy. Businesses have such policies here in United States; why can't the same flexibility apply in the military, especially when they already provide flexibility in other life changing instances for both, men and women? It's not that unreasonable.

As far as would I have supported racial integration in the U.S. military in an entirely different historical era, say, 1942, I would say that it would have been feasible. Even in another earlier era such as in year 1917, I would advocate integration even in the face of harsh reality. Civil rights activists had always been at work for their causes, long before the ends had materialized.

[Asher]

Well, setting aside the fact that I am absolutely in favor of "gay rights" (that such a distinction needs to be made is patently ridiculous), the fact of the matter is that the US military is not and should not be a proving ground for social experiments.

I agree, which is precisely why the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell experiment is the wrong direction. Ban them outright (see if I care), or let them serve openly. Don't be a ***** with this experimental plausible deniability ****.

[David Floyd]

Women should be permitted relief from duty in case of pregnancy. Businesses have such policies here in United States; why can't the same flexibility apply in the military, especially when they already provide flexibility in other life changing instances for both, men and women? It's not that unreasonable.

First of all, the military is an entirely different entity from businesses. Just because corporations are required to make reasonable obligations for preganancy, etc., doesn't mean the military should have to.

Secondly, what "life changing events" allow combat soldiers to be relieved of duty for 9 months, plus whatever amount of time is deemed necessary for post-pregnancy? None that I'm aware of, outside of a discharge.

This opens up the next can of worms - how do you write regulations to address women intentionally getting pregnant to avoid combat duty?

The point is, there are a number of valid reasons to keep women out of combat units. This isn't the argument at hand, of course, and I don't mean to go off on a tangent, I'm just trying to show that it is not, in fact, reasonable to subject the military to the same "fairness" and "equal rights" policies that civilians are subjected to.

As far as would I have supported racial integration in the U.S. military in an entirely different historical era, say, 1942, I would say that it would have been feasible. Even in another earlier era such as in year 1917, I would advocate integration even in the face of harsh reality. Civil rights activists had always been at work for their causes, long before the ends had materialized.

Whether or not it would have worked is beside the point. The point is that it would have caused a MAJOR drop in combat effectiveness. Case in point - entirely black infantry squads were introduced in the ETO in 1944/1945. This was done as part of the US Army's attempt to provide additional infantry replacements, especially after the losses incurred during the winter of 1944. These squads were quickly combined to form platoons, and the platoons into companies. Other than in ISOLATED examples in 6th Army Group (Jacob Devers commanding), by and large these combat units were looked down upon as useless, lazy, and cowardly by the white units they served with. This, in turn, became a self-fulfililng prophecy, in many of the units. Whether or not they did, in fact, perform worse than white units is beside the point, in that introducing those black units into a combat role in the face of major opposition from both the rank and file and many of the senior officers, combat effectiveness was negatively affected.

Now, black individuals and units did serve with distinction elsewhere in WW2 - Dorrie Miller at Pearl Harbor and the Tuskegee Airmen come to mind - but again, this is beside the point. The point is that regardless of whether integration was the right thing to do, morally or for other reasons, it really wasn't feasible.

The military is charged with the defense of the security of the United States, and as such, in the interest of defense, it may be somewhat "behind the times" in terms of what is acceptable, in some ways. I'm OK with that, and I think history bears me out.

[David Floyd]

Asher,

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is distinguised by the fact that, by and large, it has worked. Many senior officers have testified to that fact. It may not be the most fair policy in the world, but again, that's not the point. It defused a hot button issue in an organization that cannot afford controversy.

[Asher]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Asher,

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is distinguised by the fact that, by and large, it has worked.

It's an experiment. I'm just backing up your point that the military is no place for social experiments.

I don't care for the rest of your nonsense. I'm just pointing out your arguments are disingenuous and incredibly dull.

[David Floyd]

I don't think my argumens are disingenuous. Dull, perhaps. I think I've been clear that I don't care if the military allows gays to serve openly, bans them outright, or goes for the middle ground. My concern is combat effectiveness.

[Asher]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I don't think my argumens are disingenuous. Dull, perhaps. I think I've been clear that I don't care if the military allows gays to serve openly, bans them outright, or goes for the middle ground. My concern is combat effectiveness.

That's wonderful and all, but you basically said you didn't care about the subject of the discussion and want to discuss an unrelated issue.

If you honestly think "combat effectiveness" will be affected by if another soldier was gay, then that's wonderful and all but I need you to explain why and then back that up with something other than fear of the unknown.

[David Floyd]

No, you aren't listening. That wasn't even my point.

My point was that IF combat effectiveness is at stake, THEN issues like equal rights for gays in the military should not be considered.

Whether or not such effectiveness is at stake is a different argument, but if MrFun won't acknowledge my premise - that the be all, end all, of the military is it's combat effectiveness, and everything else is secondary to that - then I see no need to make an argument one way or the other, as it would be pointless.

[Asher]

Originally posted by David Floyd
No, you aren't listening. That wasn't even my point.

My point was that IF combat effectiveness is at stake, THEN issues like equal rights for gays in the military should not be considered.

The reason you think I'm not listening is I ignore people who don't contribute. It's nice that "IF ___, THEN ________", but this is a discussion...

If you disagree with MrFun's stance that gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military, it's up to you to provide the meat to say that it's BAD and affects military effectiveness.

Right now you're simply not saying anything. Hence the "not listening" part. Comprende?

[Imran Siddiqui]

My point was that IF combat effectiveness is at stake, THEN issues like equal rights for gays in the military should not be considered.

I don't think so. That'd be giving the prejudiced people all the power. If having integrated troops even TODAY hurt combat effectiveness because an small number of racists wouldn't want to fight as hard for a black man, should that mean we should return to keep blacks out?

Lets change the argument a bit. Let's say that allowing military units to wantonly kill civilians without charges would increase combat effectiveness (because they wouldn't be worried about killing the "wrong" people). Would that mean you'd be in favor of allowing that practice?

Even though combat effectiveness is the main goal, it is subject to restrictions and should be (just like free speech should be subject to "fire in a crowded theater" restrictions).

[Wiglaf]

Oh, not this debate again. You people might as well stick a hot poker up my ass until I scream.

The military is full of MEN something like 80% of the military is MEN. Accordingly, it makes sense to not have them creating uneasy situations. Or having a commander not sending this kid into battle because HE HAS THE HOTS FOR HIM. It has the potential to undermine our army and our tanks and quite frankly put people at risk unfairly.

Lets change the argument a bit. Let's say that allowing military units to wantonly kill civilians without charges would increase combat effectiveness (because they wouldn't be worried about killing the "wrong" people). Would that mean you'd be in favor of allowing that practice?

What a retarded analogy.