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

[SlowwHand]

I have news for you, Buckwheat; the military is running out of MEN.

[David Floyd]

My problem was his premise. Although he may have a point that letting homosexuals openly serve is no problem for cohesiveness and morale - I probably lean more that way than you think - his answers to my posts basically told me that he felt that the US military should be subject to the same rules and regulations regarding equality and such as businesses and civilian government agencies are. I'm arguing that certainly, in the PAST, there have been very compelling reasons to keep gays out of the military, just as there have been very compelling reasons not to integrate the armed forces, and just as there have been and still are compelling reasons to prevent women from serving in combat roles (or even any role). The question is whether we are at the point where open homosexuals can be integrated into the armed forces without impacting unit cohesiveness and combat effectiveness, not whether they SHOULD be.

[Imran Siddiqui]

there have been very compelling reasons to keep gays out of the military

Not really. The British allowed gays into the military and found out that all of the perceived problems were complete BS and things worked out absolutely fine.

[David Floyd]

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?

A small number is not equal to the vast majority. The vast majority of both the rank and file and the officer corps, as recently as both World Wars, were strongly opposed to integration. Yes, racism, had a lot to do with that, but that isn't the point - the point is, trying to force those social changes on the military (even though they would have been morally valid) would have been detrimental to the combat effectiveness of the United States Army.

Today, racism isn't prevalent to the extent it was even 60 years ago. The vast majority don't even think twice about a black soldier fighting alongside a white soldier. True, when the armed forces were desegregated in 1948, there was some blowback. I'm not even convinced that the desegregation of the armed forces was, in 1948, necessarily the right decision to make, AT THAT TIME. At the same time, there were hundreds of thousands of blacks who had served the US in some capacity during WW2, and the US was at peace, so the decision was certainly understandable.

Either way, you can't apply the racism argument to the sexual orientation argument, because the issues are apples and oranges. There are a ton more homophobes than racists around, to put it bluntly. It's wrong, it's stupid, but maybe - JUST maybe - we need to consider military effectiveness as the primary concern.

[/quote]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?[/quote]

To paraphrase Wiglaf, that's a retarded analogy. History shows that allowing combat soldiers to rape, loot, pillage, and massacre is ultimately detrimental to their effectiveness as combat soldiers. For a WW2 example, the Western Allies went to great pains to prevent their soldiers from looting and pillaging Germany, whereas the Red Army did not. Every reasonable historian agrees that the US Army was, by and large, a far more combat effective organization - man for man and unit for unit - than the Red Army, and most would argue that unit discipline had a lot to do with that. Discipline ties directly in with preventing troops from running wild in conquered territory.

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).

I can theoretically see your point, but I'm having trouble coming up with a reasonable example that bears this out. Most restrictions on what rank and file soldiers want to do in enemy territory are ultimately good for combat effectiveness.

[David Floyd]

Not really. The British allowed gays into the military and found out that all of the perceived problems were complete BS and things worked out absolutely fine.

British history, culture and social mores are /= American history, culture, and social mores.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

there have been very compelling reasons to keep gays out of the military

Not really. The British allowed gays into the military and found out that all of the perceived problems were complete BS and things worked out absolutely fine.

The British are the most liberal, godless people on Earth.

[SlowwHand]

Are you drunk?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by David Floyd
British history, culture and social mores are /= American history, culture, and social mores.

Their believes on homosexuality was not much different than ours when they allowed gays to serve openly into the military.

Furthermore, allowing the racists and bigots to determine what is best for military cohesiveness is just ridiculous. If they can't get along with their fellow soldiers, let them leave.

the point is, trying to force those social changes on the military (even though they would have been morally valid) would have been detrimental to the combat effectiveness of the United States Army.

So our combat effectiveness sucked in Korea?

History shows that allowing combat soldiers to rape, loot, pillage, and massacre is ultimately detrimental to their effectiveness as combat soldiers.

Moving goalposts much? Like you told MrFun, it was a hypothetical. WHAT IF it was determined to be detrimental to effectiveness... but now since it is shown that killing civilians is not detrimental it invalidates this hypo? Don't think so.

And no one said "allowing combat soldiers to rape, loot, pillage, and massacre", though I'm sure you'd like if I did say that. I said allowing military units to kill civilians without charges. I'm guessing in places like Vietnam or Iraq currently, it wouldn't mean a breakdown in discipline if a commander instructed troops to not worry about if there were civilians in the crossfire in some cities/villages/etc.

[David Floyd]

Furthermore, allowing the racists and bigots to determine what is best for military cohesiveness is just ridiculous. If they can't get along with their fellow soldiers, let them leave.

But what happens when the overwhelming view the armed forces is racist and bigoted?

So our combat effectiveness sucked in Korea?

Umm, actually, for the first half or so, it certainly did.

Moving goalposts much? Like you told MrFun, it was a hypothetical. WHAT IF it was determined to be detrimental to effectiveness... but now since it is shown that killing civilians is not detrimental it invalidates this hypo? Don't think so.

But unlike my hypothetical yours has been conclusively proven to be false. Your hypothetical is more like a counterfactual, in the sense of, "Yes, yes, I know the Union won, but if the CSA won, would secession have been Constitutional?" Kinda irrelevant, yes?

OTOH, I have stated that I have absolutely NO problem with the military torturing terrorists, even for the sole purpose of revenge, so I guess I can see your hypothetical point to a limited degree.

I said allowing military units to kill civilians without charges. I'm guessing in places like Vietnam or Iraq currently, it wouldn't mean a breakdown in discipline if a commander instructed troops to not worry about if there were civilians in the crossfire in some cities/villages/etc.

Well, this has happened in numeous occasions in US military history, most notably during the carpet bombings of German cities, the fire bombing of Japanese cities, and the atomic bombings.

On the other hand, again, military history dictates that allowing combat soldiers to enforce their will upon occupie populations is ultimately detrimental to combat effectiveness.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by David Floyd
But what happens when the overwhelming view the armed forces is racist and bigoted?

They'll have to change. Simple as that. Somethings just aren't up for debate or to be on the sacrificial alter for "combat effectiveness". If torture was determined to be good for combat effectiveness, would that be a good thing to do? Later on in your post, you say it wouldn't bother you, but do you think most people would think in such ways?

Umm, actually, for the first half or so, it certainly did.

Because of integration or generalship?

And if you believe it was integration, well, they got over it pretty damned quick, didn't they? And if it was because of integration, you think Truman was wrong?

And of course, one of the big reasons that public opinion changed in regard to race in civilian matters is because of the experience of integration in military (ie, everything didn't fall to **** as a result of it).

But unlike my hypothetical yours has been conclusively proven to be false. Your hypothetical is more like a counterfactual, in the sense of, "Yes, yes, I know the Union won, but if the CSA won, would secession have been Constitutional?" Kinda irrelevant, yes?

No, not really. You are throwing hypos without any empirical backing. You are asking MrFun, "what if" this without anything backing it up.

Basically you WANT the answer to be that the US military should kowtow to the bigots. Any other hypos... well, those are just irrelevant counterfactuals.

Frankly, I think hypothetical assertions which are not backed by any facts are irrelevant just the same.

Well, this has happened in numeous occasions in US military history, most notably during the carpet bombings of German cities, the fire bombing of Japanese cities, and the atomic bombings.

On the other hand, again, military history dictates that allowing combat soldiers to enforce their will upon occupie populations is ultimately detrimental to combat effectiveness.

Did Japanese firebombings result in reduced combat effectiveness? So why would napalming civilian villages in Vietnam? Or not giving a damn if civilians get in the way in a battle with insurgents in Iraq?

[MrFun]

great postings, Imran

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd


But what happens when the overwhelming view the armed forces is racist and bigoted?

Imran beat me to this with his post. I thought it was due to bad generalship that led to the poor start of the American effort in Korean War, and not integration.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And if you believe it was integration, well, they got over it pretty damned quick, didn't they? And if it was because of integration, you think Truman was wrong?

And of course, one of the big reasons that public opinion changed in regard to race in civilian matters is because of the experience of integration in military (ie, everything didn't fall to **** as a result of it).

Yep; our military did not collapse, and our country did not become defenseless because of racial integration . . . .

just like repealing the "don't ask don't tell" policy will not cause the sky to fall down either.

[David Floyd]

They'll have to change. Simple as that. Somethings just aren't up for debate or to be on the sacrificial alter for "combat effectiveness".

Fair enough. You are General George Marshall in 1942. You *KNOW* that integrating the armed forces is the *RIGHT* thing to do. You also know the turmoil it will cause in the middle of WW2. What's your decision?

If torture was determined to be good for combat effectiveness, would that be a good thing to do? Later on in your post, you say it wouldn't bother you, but do you think most people would think in such ways?

Typically, torture is NOT good for combat effectiveness, in the same way that mass executions are not. Even the SS had to rotate personnel quite frequently when conducting pre-gas chamber mass executions, as the troops could not take the strain.

Because of integration or generalship?

Neither. Integration was too new to be having that much of an impact, and the generalship was actually not all that bad. It was more a result of the military drawbacks following WW2, and the fact that the US Army - Far East Command (8th Army in Japan and numerous independent formations) had very little substance. Also, even in 1951-52, black soldiers weren't all that prevalent, so I'd say that the integration of the armed forces wasn't too relevant either way to the conduct of the Korean War.

Basically you WANT the answer to be that the US military should kowtow to the bigots. Any other hypos... well, those are just irrelevant counterfactuals.

No, I want the US military - and the civilian leadership - to "kowtow" to military necessity before political expediency or even moral right and wrong (which, IIRC, you don't really believe in anyway). Hypos which suggest that allowing professional military forces to loot, pillage, rape, or kill civilians at will is a positive reinforcement to morale and cohesiveness are ridiculous in the sense that they are demonstrably wrong. Hypos which suggest that forcing the military to accept changes it is not, by and large, ready for (such as desegregation, women in combat, homosexuals serving openly, etc.) is detrimental to cohesiveness and effectiveness is neither irrelevant nor disproven.

Did Japanese firebombings result in reduced combat effectiveness? So why would napalming civilian villages in Vietnam?

One VERY obvious difference is that there were no US troops on the ground in Japan in 1944/1945, whereas US troops saw first hand what happened in Vietnam. It's also true that US troops on the ground in Germany were typically pretty compassionate towards German civilians. In fact, US airmen rescued by the Soviets in Eastern Europe did their very best, in many cases, to protect German civilians from the Red Army.

[David Floyd]

Yep; our military did not collapse, and our country did not become defenseless because of racial integration . . . .

just like repealing the "don't ask don't tell" policy will not cause the sky to fall down either.

These are related points, in the sense that desegregating the armed forces WOULD have been extremely detrimental in 1942. OTOH, repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" MAY not be detrimental now. It all depends on how the US military, by and large, accepts such changes. If the motive of such changes is political in nature, then my guess is that the military will suffer.

I'd be very interested to hear the opinion of Poly's veterans on this issue - seems to me that their opinion could shed some light on the subject.