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

[MrFun]

I watched tonight (Sun., Dec. 16) an excellent news report on United States' military "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The reporter asked questions to people on both sides of the issue; the ones who fully support this ridiculous policy put forth arguments that didn't make any sense.

One example is when one politician explained that because United States military forces see so much more direct combat and battle than NATO forces, American gays and lesbians would undermine front line successes. Thus, he implicated that NATO military soldiers are "soft" or inexperienced in frontline combat; he insulted not only the bravery of gay and lesbian soldiers, abut also NATO forces in general.

Below is a link to the report:

News Report on CBS

[Wezil]

NATO forces need to be insulted. It is a failed alliance.

[MrFun]

Well, the issue of whether or not NATO forces are effective or not, is beside the point to the topic of this thread. My point was, that regardless of whether or not NATO forces are effective, the politician who made the above statement insulted NATO leaders in Europe in addition to the courageous U.S. gay and lesbian soldiers who know all about frontline combat.

[MrFun]

Even a besieged country like Israel, with overtly hostile neighboring countries allows gays and lesbians to serve openly. Talk about frontline conflict experience.

[DanS]

(1) Who was the politician?

(2) Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a Clinton idea. I don't know why CBS doesn't make that clear.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DanS
(1) Who was the politician?

(2) Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a Clinton idea. I don't know why CBS doesn't make that clear.

They should have made it more clear that Bill Clinton signed the law, but it was by the pressure of a REPUBLICAN Congress.

I cannot remember the politician.

[SlowwHand]

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

Originally posted by MrFun
I watched tonight (Sun., Dec. 16) an excellent news report on United States' military "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The reporter asked questions to people on both sides of the issue; the ones who fully support this ridiculous policy put forth arguments that didn't make any sense.

One example is when one politician explained that because United States military forces see so much more direct combat and battle than NATO forces, American gays and lesbians would undermine front line successes. Thus, he implicated that NATO military soldiers are "soft" or inexperienced in frontline combat; he insulted not only the bravery of gay and lesbian soldiers, abut also NATO forces in general.

Below is a link to the report:

News Report on CBS

NATO forces are generally worthless.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by MrFun
Well, the issue of whether or not NATO forces are effective or not, is beside the point to the topic of this thread.

Well since a good number of them won't put their troops in frontline combat roles I would argue they aren't effective.

[DanS]

Originally posted by MrFun
They should have made it more clear that Bill Clinton signed the law, but it was by the pressure of a REPUBLICAN Congress.

No. It was Clinton's idea. He proposed it.

[MrFun]

I should have picked another example of a fallacious argument; apparently the example I chose makes my thread ripe for a threadjack.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DanS


No. It was Clinton's idea. He proposed it.

I wonder why he brought forth this idea though. Hint -- it wasn't because of pressure from a Democratic majority Congress.

[David Floyd]

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. The one and ONLY thing that should matter is comat effectiveness. Not equal rights, not equal pay for equal work (men vs. women, for example), not the ability to conduct peacekeeping operations, but pure and simple, combat effectiveness.

While it is sad that homosexuality is such a divisive issue, the fact remains that it IS a divisive issue. Don't ask, don't tell is a policy that seems to have worked, in the sense that it keeps such divisiveness out of the military. Yes, it's ridiculous that tens of millions of people in this country have a problem with gays. Yes, it's ridiculous that the military has a high proportion of those people. But no, it's NOT ridiculous to call a spade a spade, and say that allowing an extremely divisive issue such as open homosexuality to thrive in the US armed forces, where the only standard that should matter is combat effectiveness, is not going to be allowed to happen.

If repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, will reduce the combat effectiveness of the US armed forces, for whatever reason, then it should not be repealed. I don't think that combat effectiveness necessarily HAS to be reduced by allowing homosexuals to serve openly, but I do recognize the potential for that to happen, and I think that potential is a FAR greater concern, from the context of military readinss, than any other factor.

MrFun, I know you're going to disagree with me, but I hope you at least see the point I'm making.

[DanS]

Originally posted by MrFun
I wonder why he brought forth this idea though. Hint -- it wasn't because of pressure from a Democratic majority Congress.

Why are you doing rhetorical contortions to excuse him for proposing it?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd
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. The one and ONLY thing that should matter is comat effectiveness. Not equal rights, not equal pay for equal work (men vs. women, for example), not the ability to conduct peacekeeping operations, but pure and simple, combat effectiveness.

While it is sad that homosexuality is such a divisive issue, the fact remains that it IS a divisive issue. Don't ask, don't tell is a policy that seems to have worked, in the sense that it keeps such divisiveness out of the military. Yes, it's ridiculous that tens of millions of people in this country have a problem with gays. Yes, it's ridiculous that the military has a high proportion of those people. But no, it's NOT ridiculous to call a spade a spade, and say that allowing an extremely divisive issue such as open homosexuality to thrive in the US armed forces, where the only standard that should matter is combat effectiveness, is not going to be allowed to happen.

If repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, will reduce the combat effectiveness of the US armed forces, for whatever reason, then it should not be repealed. I don't think that combat effectiveness necessarily HAS to be reduced by allowing homosexuals to serve openly, but I do recognize the potential for that to happen, and I think that potential is a FAR greater concern, from the context of military readinss, than any other factor.

MrFun, I know you're going to disagree with me, but I hope you at least see the point I'm making.

But there is no logical argument on WHY gays and lesbians openly serving would undermine combat effectiveness. Homophobic soldiers should be able to continue doing their duty, just as racist or sexist soldiers do their duty today, in spite of racial minority and female soldiers.

In fact, once gays and lesbians are allowed to openly serve in the United States military, the effectiveness of our forces should improve, as we will gain more highly qualified recruits who will bring their valuable skills and knowledge.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by MrFun
I should have picked another example of a fallacious argument; apparently the example I chose makes my thread ripe for a threadjack.

I'm sorry to pee on your agenda but the example you chose is demonstrably an ineffective fighting force and you want to point to this as what the US military should aspire to. Your call.