Jim Webb To Kill DADT Reform?!

Unbelievable!

Comments

[HisRoc]

Calm down, Ben. Webb isn't trying to kill DADT. He just wants Congress to step back and let the White House and the DoD work the process that they have outlined.

Managing change in the military is not easy. Webb knows that and does not want the Senate jostling the President's and Secretary Gates' elbows.

[TomPaine]

HisRoc, for once, has it right!

[HisRoc]

Crap. Now I have to totally rethink my position. Thanks a lot, TP.

[Spock]

I am not going to tell you all I told you so...

[HisRoc]

Spock,

The problem is that the Dems want to make this happen before the mid-terms in November. Typical rush to "do something." Clinton's rash attempt to turn an aircraft carrier on a dime is what brought about DADT.

Meaningful social change takes time, regardless of whether you are dealing with the rather hide-bound military culture or civilian society. People forget that it was over ten years after Brown v. Board of Education before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed.

If the Dems in Congress push this thing too hard too fast, the blow-back will kill it for another 15 years. They should listen to one of the few Democratic Senators who has cred in military affairs, not just as an Annapolis graduate and former combat Marine, but as a former Navy Secretary.

[Rtwng Extrmst]

This is such a waste. Obama said months ago that this was going to be repealed. I dpn't know why given that that he is even bothering with the Pentagon study first...

[GOP SUX]

Fer crist sake, calm down and let the process play out. The DOD promised to bring forth a repeal plan.... let them do it.

We wait for decades (maybe centuries) to repeal this stain of discrimination and everyone is going apesh-t becasue we can't wait a for more months?

[HisRoc]

Rtwng Extrmst,

He is bothering with the Pentagon study for two reasons.

First, to provide political cover for members of Congress who want to support it but have to worry about repercussions among their constituents. They need documentation that this policy change was adopted only after it was demonstrated that it would not have adverse effects on recruiting, retention, morale, and readiness.

Second, to socialize the senior military leadership with the policy change. Despite stereotypes to the contrary, senior military officers are thoughtful, intelligent, and open-minded. They will look at the results of the study and, regardless of their personal bias, get behind the policy change if the evidence demonstrates that it is a net gain for the military.

On the second point, this might seem like a trivial example, but it illustrates how the senior leadership thinks. When the Army adopted a new recruiting campaign several years ago called "An Army of One," the senior officers had a fit. They maintained that it undermined the core Army values of teamwork and cohesion. However, once the commanding general of Recruiting Command (a relatively junior two-star) showed them that the campaign resonated with the current generation of 18-26 year-olds and increased their proclivity towards the Army as their preferred service, they calmed down and got behind the campaign.

Managing change in a large, complex organization is like that.

[Rtwng Extrmst]

Hisroc,

Then why did Obama publicly state he was going to end the policy and remove the ban? He was heckled at an even a few months ago by gay activists and he made the statement? This undermines the whole Pentagon study as not being worth the paper it's printed on since he's alerady made up his mind. Waht a waste of the taxpayer dollars! Of course that hasn't stopped Obama to this point...

[HisRoc]

Right Wing,

For the same reason Obama made that remark at a fund-raiser in California in 2008 about people in Pennsylvania "clinging to guns and God." He's a politician and sometimes politicians say stupid things, teleprompter or not.

[Gretchen Laskas]

I agree these issues take time, and I'm usually someone who understands that incremental change is better than no change at all. But c'mon, this is a policy that has been on the books for far longer than the 10 years HisRoc mentions between BROWN and the CR Bill.

I realize that the new Republican talking points are to insist that every aspect of running the government is "ramming through" and other expressions to make it sound as though these aren't decided through traditional channels of the Congressional branch, but just because you repeat the talking points doesn't make them true.

[HisRoc]

Gretchen,

With all due respect, I most assuredly do not subscribe to Republican talking points. As for this DADT policy being on the books longer far longer than 10 years, the predecessor policy, "ask, pursue, investigate, and discharge," was on the books for over 200 years.

Give me some credit here, lady. If I was a Republican I would be ranting about morale, unit cohesion, and retention and making asinine assertions about showers and bunks.

[Martin Lomasney]

HisRoc

The banishment of homosexuals from the military is a product of the 20th century and not a 200 years old policy.

DADT is 18 years old.

Those seeking its repeal fear that, if they wait'til January, the Wingnuts will control one or both houses of Congress and any repeal of DADT would be blocked by the homophobes. A rational analysis.

[HisRoc]

Martin,

You are correct that the regulatory exclusion of gays in the military was first adopted in the Articles of War in 1916. However, homosexuals were shunned in almost all aspects of American society prior to that, the military included. I won't bore you with a military history lesson on the exclusionary recruitment policies of Army regiments prior to 1916. Suffice to say, joining most regiments in peacetime was more difficult than gaining an apprenticeship in a trade union or joining a fraternity today.

Regardless, the predecessor policy of DADT lasted far longer than 18 years.

Reform of DADT is an idea whose time has come. If Democrats try to slip this in before a change in the majority in Congress, then how long do you suppose the new policy will survive?

[Bubberella]

What about the executive order desegregating the military in WWII? How many studies did that take? Happened WELL before the civil rights act of 64. All these "got to take our time and study" arguments are an excuse of perpetuating an irrational prejudice.

[Tatum]

I don't believe it either. He'll buckle just like he did on health care. No one can ever accuse that Marine of standing on principle.

[Spock]

I am with Bubberella on this one...

[Jack]

What say we let the MILITARY decide what is best for the MILITARY, instead of making the military a political football for the latest social engineering?

[Brian W. Schoeneman]

Has there ever been a clear reason given as to why this repeal would take so long? I have a hard time understanding why it would take so long to accomplish.

Granted, the DoD has a recipe for brownies that's 27 pages long, but this is just a personnel policy - as far as I can tell (and correct me if I'm wrong) all they need to do is rescind the DoD directive and then let Congress repeal the portion of the Defense Auth bill that required it.

I don't get what the hold up is.

[Spock]

Jack- The military is not a private entity, it's a federal service using federal tax payer funds to support it.

The military works for you and me, not for itself.

It is up to other officials, who are also supposed to work for us, to decide the military policy that the majority of the people support.

Now, as we all know this is not always, or even usually the case, but it is the theory.

Our society has reached a point where sexual orientation is no longer an issue, it is a well excepted human condition.

The majority of the population wants the military to repeal it.

It is what the people want and that is the most important thing.

[Jack]

Yes, Spock, and I want it to work WELL. I do not care to make it a laboratory for social experiments.

You're right about one thing, it is an "excepted human condition." However, it IS not ACCEPTED.

[strongerthandirt]

This diary writer at Firedoglake thinks the whole bill is a sham: http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/50768 Once again it looks like Obama is splitting the baby down the middle.

Harry Truman desegregated the armed forces with an executive order (though it took years to implement). But HST believed in things and I don't think Obama has much of a political heart other than the thrill of the campaign.

[Spock]

Jack- Sorry, it was early when I wrote that, "accepted".

And yes, it is a very well accepted as a part of the human condition.

Maybe not with your buddies at "Townhall.com" but with the majority of the population it is.

Even with the conservative younger set it is.

Social conservatives are losing, because their so called standards and boundaries of how people were supposed to fit their lives into go against the human condition.

As Bob Dylan says, "the times they are a changin"

"Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'."

[Spock]

Jack- Just after I posted that this came over my twitter...

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/05/chart-of-the-day-3.html

[TomPaine]

"Despite stereotypes to the contrary, senior military officers are thoughtful, intelligent, and open-minded. They will look at the results of the study and, regardless of their personal bias, get behind the policy change if the evidence demonstrates that it is a net gain for the military."

By this statement, one might conclude that non senior military officers therefore are not thoughtful, intelligent, and open-minded.

However, a number of presidents (Harry Truman for one) and senior military officers (General Billy Mitchell for one) have learned to their lasting consternation that senior military officers therefor often are not thoughtful, intelligent, or open-minded.

[Spock]

More:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/135764/Americans-Acceptance-Gay-Relations-Crosses-Threshold.aspx

[Jack]

If it is so "accepted," why does gay marriage lose every time it is put to a popular vote? Why are gays afraid to let the issue go to a vote in DC?

I have no problem with repealing Clinton's DADT law -- just leave the policy up to the military to decide.

[Spock]

Jack- Gay marriage will pass with public approval, give it a few years.

Look at the poll numbers, they prove the trends are not in the social conservative favor.

The military isn't a private club, I know this is hard for you to understand, but the government and military are not a private enterprise they are paid for by the public and are here to serve the public.

[Gretchen Laskas]

The latest Gallup poll released this week shows that 52% of Americans believe that homosexuality is "morally acceptable." What is significant about that number is that this is the first time that the number has crossed the 50% threshold. More important, the trend lines over the years show a greater acceptance across all gender and age, even across religious and political idenitification demographics.

Now, this is not the same as Americans thinking that gay marriage is acceptable (same poll -- 53% do not think it is).

But let's not confuse a specific legal issue (which is what marriage is) and the idea that homosexuality itself is not accepted in our society. It is. And it's being more accepted with every passing year, from people from every walk of life.

(And HisRoc -- I am indeed grateful that you did not talk about bunks and showers!!)

[HisRoc]

I find it interesting that those posting here that the way to end DADT is for the President to "just do it" are citing the example of Truman's Executive Order ending racial segregation.

Read your history. Truman's Secretary of War ordered a commission to study the aspects of a new policy concerning African-Americans in the Army in September 1945. The Gillem Board, as it came to be known, issued its report in April 1946, essentially recommended equality in assignment and treatment, but did not recommend ending segregated units. In December of 1946, Truman appointed the President's Committee on Civil Rights. That Committee issued a report almost a year later in late October 1947 recommending the elimination of segregated units. In July 1948, Truman finally issued EO 9981, after almost three years of study.

Even then, the implementation of the EO was not immediate. The implementation plans dragged on for years and the full integration of military units was not completed until 1953.

If you want to follow Truman's example, we should be able to end DADT sometime in 2017. How's that for "just do it?"

[TomPaine]

"Read your history."

I don't know about the Army, but, in general, HisRoc is right.

When I enlisted in the Navy in 1951, desegregation was just starting. Total or even substantial integretation was not even close to being achieved when I was discharged (honorably) in 1955.

The military establishnment just is not as flexible as the civilian establishment, despite being more authoritarian in nature.

[HisRoc]

Gretchen,

The polls can be very interesting. The one you cite is actually better news than you think because when the sample is limited to men and women aged 18-49 (military age), the acceptance rate rises to 62% and 59% respectively.

However, it all depends on how the question is asked. Another Gallup Poll in March found that 70% of all Americans favor gays serving openly in the military. Now then, if 48% find homosexuality "morally unacceptable," then the two polls combined tell us that 18% of all Americans favor morally unacceptable behavior by members of the military. Maddening, isn't it?

I used to work in a consulting practice with a guy who had a Ph.D in Statistics. He routinely amused the office by conducting the same poll twice with what appeared to be identical questions, but weren't. And he frequently got almost opposite results.

[Jack]

As you say, it is all in how the question is phrased. If someone asked me, "Is homosexuality morally acceptable," I would say YES. However, if asked whether homosexual ACTS are moral, I would say NO. (Of course, ALL sexual acts outside of marriage are immoral.)

For those who believe that homosexual acts are moral, I ask the question, "Upon what do you base that morality?"

[Gretchen Laskas]

HisRoc, I love polls and statistics for the very maddening nature of them. They help keep us all on our toes!

But I don't think it is surprising that simply because I find something morally unacceptable that this means someone doing that should be dismissed from the military. For instance, I find someone who abandons his or her children to be morally unacceptable, but that wouldn't, in my opinion, be grounds for a dishonorable discharge from someone currently serving.

[HisRoc]

TP,

You are killing my credibility here by agreeing with me. Knock it off.

Seriously, there was a significant difference between ordering integrated units and achieving an integrated force. The Army Chief of Staff, General Omar Bradley, warned Truman in 1948 that desegregation would come to the Army only when it became a fact in American society as a whole. He was right. If you read Colin Powell's autobiography, "My American Journey," you will find accounts of how he had to deal with racial discrimination years after EO 9981 had been fully implemented.

This is an important point. Don't delude yourselves into thinking that once DADT is repealed then homophobia and prejudice in the military will somehow vanish. As long as a large percentage of Americans think that homosexuality is immoral, gays in the military will have a tough time.

BTW, for what its worth, I knew plenty of gay men and women in my 25 years of active duty. In fact, I'm sure that I knew even more than I realized. I practiced DADT long before Clinton made it official.

[HisRoc]

Actually, Gretchen, abandoning your children, either physically or financially, IS currently grounds for administrative discharge from the military. And, adultery is still a felony under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Conduct that is generally deemed morally unacceptable is not, and I hope never will be, tolerated in the military.

[Notbubby]

Folks, the rules that apply to civilian life simply DO NOT APPLY to the military. The sooner you all understand that, the better off you'll be.

[Gretchen Laskas]

(HisRoc, I knew it was grounds for removal, but in my opinion, don't think it is a given that it should be.)

Again, I get that this is one of those topics that is in transition in most American's consciences. So I'm not saying it is simply a matter of "just do it.". On the other hand, just because something is difficult or unsettling doesn't mean we simply, as a nation, do nothing. Even as regards the military.

[Spock]

I hate to admit it, because I am in the core of my beliefs "anti-military", but the military as a whole is the most diverse and to some degree accepting institutions in our country.

As HisRoc stated, he knew of fellow military personal who were gay and I am guessing it probably didn't matter that much to him as long as everyone was respectful.

The military has a long way to go, but, in some ways they have also lead the way in proving how many different kind of people can work together for a common ideal.

My concern is the white supremacists in the military which are a real problem.

And, no, they are not there to serve, they are there to get training and bring it back to their own groups, scary stuff!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/washington/07recruit.html

[HisRoc]

Gretchen,

No one (at least no one who matters) is saying do nothing. We have a Republican Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who have presented a plan for reforming DADT and, presumably, allowing gays to serve openly in the military. And, unlike Truman's EO, it won't take seven years to study and implement. The problem is that people want to play politics with this and force the President's hand in time for the mid-term elections.

This is not the first time, BTW, that this has happened. The reason that Truman finally issued EO 9981 in July 1948 (almost 10 months after the Civil Rights Commission issued their final report) was because he was convinced that it would help the Democrats (and him) in the general elections that November.

BTW, Notbubby makes an important point that is support by volumes of Federal case law, to include decisions of the US Supreme Court. It holds that the military services are "a special and unique" situation and are not ordinarily subject to the same standards as American civilian society. Going back to my earlier post, that is why adultery is still a criminal offense in the military.

[Spock]

Jack- All sex between consenting adults is "moral" as long as it is as often as possible!

What is immoral?
Rape
Pedophilia
Bestiality

Everything else is everyone's own private business.

[Gretchen Laskas]

HisRoc - (grin) Well, given that Truman went on to a narrow victory in 1948, maybe his political instincts were right!

[HisRoc]

Spock,

You're right. Sexual orientation never mattered to me as long as everyone was respectful and it didn't become an issue. And I believe that I was the norm rather than the exception as an officer.

You are right to be concerned about white supremacists in the military. Despite what the Times article says, it is not a new problem like the militia movement. We saw resurgences of it during the post-Vietnam racial problems of the 70s. We saw another resurgence of it in the 90s. I take issue with the Times assertion that commanders are tolerating white supremacists because of recruiting and retention pressures. Believe me, commanders at all levels are aware of it and take aggressive action when they identify bad actors. Only an idiot of an officer would knowingly allow such people to remain in his unit, esp. in a combat zone. Nobody needs those kinds of headaches when everyone is armed and the locals are trying to kill you. BTW, the zero tolerance policy mentioned in the Times includes procedures for administrative discharge for someone who simply has a racist tattoo, even if it is in "code."

[Spock]

HisRoc- we uncover soilders who are active in the skinhead and Nazi movements all the time.

There are a number of them posting on the neo-Nazi forum "Stormfront" and quite openly admit in their posts on the forum their service and ranks and are active.

But, they post anonymously using "handles" so they are not that easy to ID.

This is an actual threat to our society, who people are partnering up with for life is not.

I am glad my instincts about your thoughts of your fellow soldiers who were gay were correct.
I am also guessing that most people in the military have the same approach, and only a few are homophobe and have an issue with the sexual orientation of others.

A few students at my school are there on the GI bill and are also gay, and were also quite proud to serve.

[TomPaine]

"You are killing my credibility here by agreeing with me. Knock it off."

I just want to be fair and objective and to recognize that there are rare times when you are actually right.

People can talk all they want about the threats from right wing militia types in the military: right-wing "christianists", such as former Lt. General Jerry Boykin-- definitely a senior officer -- are almost as dangerous.

[change]

Spock,
Any concern about Muslim extremists in the military (who we have seen kill our soldiers) or just bald headed nutcase white guys?

We are going to need all the folk we can get in our military (gay or not) as this administration is so inept that N. Korea and china are spitting in our face as our president “bows” to their leaders on every occasion, and they are pushing us closer to another war we can ill afford.

It is sad that Obambi got elected before he grew up. I sincerely believe with another ten years of maturity he might have been a great president.

But, hey… it’s all Bush’s fault….

[HisRoc]

Spock,

There are many people in our republic who are threats to our society, including some anti-military Socialist anarchists.

:)

In a democracy, we tolerate them until they break the law. Preventive law enforcement is unconstitutional.

[HisRoc]

TP,

Okay, we finally have found common ground. Boykin is a nutcase and a disgrace to the stars he wore on his uniform. Unfortunately, he wasn't the only officer I knew who had the "Jesus Problem." He was just one of the few who was promoted to general officer. Most got filtered out much earlier than that.

One of my commanders, also a three-star like Boykin, said it best: "Religion is a very personal and intimate aspect of your values system. It is to be respected. However, it is unprofessional for an officer to publicly proclaim his religious beliefs and it is a totally inappropriate topic of conversation with your subordinates."

[Spock]

HisRoc- Yeah, we anti-military socialist anarchists who research and expose racism are very threatening!

Google is our arsenal! ;-)

Change- we go after the Timothy McVeigh types.
We uncovered people who were connected to that Hutaree militia group, so the cops should be nice to us now.:-)

The guy who went bananas and shot the military base, who happen to be Muslim, was mentally ill, it was not a situation that involved a racist group.

What is happening with the boneheads is they are getting military training because they believe they need to be prepared for what they call "The Day of the Rope" which is a race war concept from the book "The Turner Diaries".

Same book that inspired Tim McVeigh.

They are preparing to have their day to attack and kill all nonwhites and Jews, as well as who they perceive as "race traitors" aka white people who believe in diversity.

[HisRoc]

C'mon, now Spock. Lets keep an even strain on the lines here. Saying that Nadal Hisan "happened to be Muslim" is like saying David Koresh happened to be Christian. This guy didn't go off the deep end and start killing soldiers because he was having a bad hair day. He was attacking US soldiers who were preparing to deploy to Muslim countries and kill fellow True Believers.

BTW, please expand on how "we uncovered people who were connected to that Hutaree militia group..."

I think that you might be off your meds and suffering delusions of grandeur again.

[Spock]

HisRoc- Nope, it is true, we did, it was people who we were keeping an eye on and Hutaree had links to them on their site.

The militia movement is an interesting bunch...

[Jack]

"Everything else is everyone's own private business."

Except that homosexuals are not willing to keep it private, are they? That's what this is all about.

[HisRoc]

Spock,

Uh-huh. I guess that I missed that connection at the US Attorney's news conference when they announced the Hutaree arrests.

Good job, Junior G-Man. Keep up the surveillance. May I suggest that you and your crew keep an eye on the North American Man Boy Love Association. Try to find out why they and NLS agree on pushing forward with the immediate repeal of DADT, regardless of the President's plan.

Bonus points if you can find a tie-in between NAMBLA and Dick Black. (God, does that sound like a porn star name or not?)

[TomPaine]

" Boykin is a nutcase and a disgrace to the stars he wore on his uniform."

The question is how Boykin made it all the way to Lt. General without someone catching on to the fact he was a "nutcase."

[Gretchen Laskas]

Jack,

I hear this a lot- that homosexuals can't "keep it private.". But what that essentially means in reality is that they are not permitted to speak at all about their DOMESTIC life, which is not at all the same as their sexual life.

Think of how often we all mention our domestic worlds (our partners) during the course of the day. Even on blogs, where we are more anonymous than not (or at least, some of us are) we talk about our domestic space. Most people, for instance, probably know that I'm married. I know, for instance, that you have mentioned that you are also married and you and your wife have at least discussed adopting a child.

I don't know this because I'm stalking you, but because it came up in conversation on a blog or that you refused to "keep" your life "private". We were just two peoe talking (posting.) It has nothing to do with your sexual life. Bbut these are the same ordinary stories a gay man or woman simply can't share in many situations. That small piece of DOMESTIC casual conversation, were it spoken by a gay service member, could get them dishonorably discharged.

[Spock]

HisRoc- It was after the arrests, it is a group out of PA.

I don't know if Dick Black has any connections to NAMBLA, it wouldn't surprise me, he is that twisted in the membrane.

I could, however, see Black connected to Donald Spitz from Army of God.

Black IS most likely connected to Larry Pratt who does have pretty strong WP (White Power) ties.

Black is pretty much out of commission except for the clowns he is trying to puppet for him.

Glad he is gone, but, I wish Roemmelt would run again and take Marshall out.

[HisRoc]

Spock,

For God's sake, stand down. I was joking.

Black is obviously a "family values" right wing kook, but most of them, believe it or not, actually walk the talk. The Vitters, et al, are the exception.

My biggest problem with Dick Black is the enormously inflated bio he has on his web site. I could take my own Army career and make it sound like I personally orchestrated the dissolution of the Soviet Union. What a phony.

[Spock]

Sorry HRoc, when the wheels get turning its hard to put on the brakes... :-)

[HisRoc]

Spock,

Thank you. Don't you people ever have homework to do over there at St. John's?

[Spock]

HisRoc-Is there a problem with racism there?

[Bubberella]

His Roc, Tom Paine and others. Thanks for answering my questions about the desegregation of the military. I asked because I didn't know.

Still, I suspect like every other matter where people drag their feet, that the matter has already been studied to death.

[Jack]

"I hear this a lot- that homosexuals can't 'keep it private.' But what that essentially means in reality is that they are not permitted to speak at all about their DOMESTIC life, which is not at all the same as their sexual life."

If I had multiple wives or were married to my niece, I'd keep quiet on that, too, because such things are not accepted in our society.

"But these are the same ordinary stories a gay man or woman simply can't share in many situations."

Such stories are NOT ordinary when the domestic situation is not ordinary.

"That small piece of DOMESTIC casual conversation, were it spoken by a gay service member, could get them dishonorably discharged."

And they knew that risk going in. An adulterer takes the same risk.

[Spock]

Jack- you're sort of living in a bubble. Not everyone is going to fit into your "ordinary" mold.
The recent polls have shown the majority of the population is not with you.
Most people really don't care what consenting adults are doing.
Heck, even CPAC this year had pro-gay rights Republican groups co-sponsering their weekend.
Usually, if men are that bothered about gay people it means they fear something in themselves.

[Jack]

"Not everyone is going to fit into your 'ordinary' mold."

Of course not, but 95+% of the population does.

"The recent polls have shown the majority of the population is not with you."

Then why does that majority keep voting AGAINST gay marriage?

"Most people really don't care what consenting adults are doing."

But they don't want to hear about it, either, especially when what those consenting adults are doing is WAY out of the ordinary.

"Usually, if men are that bothered about gay people it means they fear something in themselves."

That is pure BS, and merely a way to try to shut down the conversation via ad hominem arguments.

[HisRoc]

"Usually, if men are that bothered about gay people it means they fear something in themselves."

Spock, not necessarily. Dick Black is afraid that a gay will rape him. Are you insinuating that he fears that he might enjoy it?

:)

[Spock]

HisRoc- Well, it does seem to be on his mind an awful lot ;-)