50 Years of Pentagon Studies Support Gay Soldiers

Why are men and women in separate barracks?
#10 | Posted by Petrous at 2009-10-21 07:45 PM

You mean, the same rationale that high school gym class keeps the sexes separated since before and then even after puberty applies to military persons? It's estimated that 10% of kids are gay, both sexes, and it appears that they endure the presence of straight people, mainly with success. In the case of the military it might be argued as a way to avoid blame for any accidental pregnancies, rape and other misconduct that may or may not be happening. For a "lifestyle" that holds discipline so highly, it's frankly a completely inexcusable sham to exclude gay people who are willing to go through with it all just to serve their nation.

Eliminating those translators remains key to the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. How many lives have been lost by removing homosexuals from the military?

"The service should not move ahead of civilian society nor attempt to set substantially different standards in attitude or action with respect to homosexual offenders.

As in we can't be employed in civilian life, so we can't be employed in the military either? This concept of separation is intended to dissolve our military capability, not enforce what might be "respectful to military society". I'm going to say this is probably being enforced by "wicked queens" in the upper command who dictate from their closet, just as we see in the Christian communities and in government.

In 1988, the Defense Personnel Security Research Center -- a DoD agency -- conducted its own study on gay soldiers to determine whether their service under current policies created security risks, for instance in terms of blackmail. It also discussed, based on the military and wider social data available, whether the military's policies were sustainable. The study returned again and again to the facts of conduct: "Studies of homosexual veterans make clear that having a same gender or an opposite-gender orientation is unrelated to job performance in the same way as is being left or right-handed."

The study also owned the lessons of racial integration: "The intensity of prejudice against homosexuals may be of the same order as the prejudice against blacks in 1948, when the military was ordered to integrate," it found. "The order to integrate blacks was first met with stout resistance by traditionalists in the military establishment. Dire consequences were predicted for maintaining discipline, building group morale, and achieving military organizational goals. None of these predictions of doom has come true."

"Traditionalists" arguments are very similar to what is used to resist gay equality. A major setback is that our "leadership" haven't been at all acclimating people to the concept of unity, but rather "army of one" bullshit. They should not only be evicted out from government, but especially where their fundamentalist criticism allow for such broadly sweeping judgment against 10% of the population to impact the very stability of our nation as well as to national security. Soldiers continue to die because of this blinding bigotry.

if they support them, then it sounds like they must be biased. don't you just love english?
raro. :)
#26 | Posted by emesee at 2009-10-21 11:24 PM

"They", being military command who condone DADT, need to be replaced with better minds, more flexible to the requirements of leadership.

The problem is the policy is the source of the security risk itself.
If a secretly homosexual man rises to a position of responsibility within the military and the enemies of the nation discover this, then because of his risk of exposure and dismissal, they can leverage this into his betrayal.
Its a self fulfilling prophecy.
And the whole unity and Unit cohesion routine is horse shit as well.
The guys and girls who like the same team are already there, doing the job, and no one is the wiser.
Frankly the Hetro's have done far more damage to the military in the last few years.
According to Lynndie England when she was interviewed by This American Life, she participated in the photos she was seen in at the direction of her then Boyfriend, who as it happened (according to her) liked to take kinky photos with her.
had their relationship been as verboten as some man on man lovin, then it is possible that the public relations nightmare that was spawned as a result of the abuses at the prison never would have occurred.
Of course, that would also mean that the abuses would have continued.
so i guess there is a silver lining after all.
#28 | Posted by Valisk at 2009-10-21 11:54 PM

Since there are around 90% probability that any sexual affairs in question would be heterosexual, the vast majority of security risks should be focuses therein. But you are 100% correct - kicking around gay rights appears to be preventing that real issue from being addressed.

Bobby Inman, who built the NSA, was a complete three-dollar bill and can not be called anything but one of the most loyal and valuable military officers ever. ..
#31 | Posted by Diablo at 2009-10-22 12:48 AM

Wow, from reading this excellent summary Inman seems quite different, imo:

In early 1981, Israel suddenly bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor. Puzzled, Inman, then deputy head of the CIA, realized that Israel could only have known where the nuclear reactor was located by having gotten access to U.S. satellite photographs. But Israel's access was supposed to be limited to photographs of direct threats to Israel, which would not include Baghdad. On looking into the matter, furthermore, Inman found that Israel was habitually obtaining unwarranted access to photographs of regions even farther removed, including Libya and Pakistan. In the absence of Reagan's head of the CIA, Bill Casey, Inman ordered Israel's access to U.S. satellite photographs limited to 250 miles of its border. When Casey returned from a South Pacific trip, his favorite journalist and former campaign manager, Bill Safire, urged Casey to reverse the decision, a pressure that coincided with complaints from Israeli Defense Minister General Ariel Sharon, who had rushed to Washington to try to change the new policy.

Secretary of Defense Cap Weinberger, however held firm, supported Inman, and overruled Casey, and from then on Safire pursued a vendetta against Bobby Ray Inman.

And we also have his take on Plame/Wilson:

I was utterly appalled during the 2004 election cycle at the number of clearly politically motivated leaks from intelligence organizations "mostly if not all from CIA" that appeared to me to be the most crass thing I had ever seen to influence the outcome of an election. I never saw it quite as harsh as it was. And clearing books to be published anonymously "there was no precedent for it. I started getting telephone calls from CIA retirees when Bush appointed Negroponte, talking about how vindictive the administration was in trying to punish CIA, and I was again sort of dismayed by the effort to play politics including with information that was classified. What is the impact on younger workers who see the higher-ups engaged in this kind of leaking?

(HT: The New Editor)

Inman was not saying that revealing Valerie Wilson's name was right:

[The leaking of Plame's identity] is still one I would rather not see, but she was working in an analytical organization, and there's nothing that precludes anyone from identifying analytical officers. I watch all the hand-wringing over the ruining of careers ... there are a lot of operatives whose covers are blown. It doesn't mean the end of their careers. Many move to the analytical world, which is where she already was. It meant she couldn't deploy back off to Africa, but nothing I've seen indicated that was possible in the first place.

There was a bit on the radio the other day about the IDF allowing homosexuals to serve. They said it helped troop morale across the board, and also increased tolerance of homosexuals in society at large.
Of course, if you don't think homosexuals should be tolerated in society, I guess the Israeli experience is a strong argument against permitting gay soldiers.
Liberty and Justice for all*!
*Homosexuals need not apply.
#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2009-10-22 01:12 AM

That's incredible! I'm going to obviously modify my stance towards Israel as they out-Democratize us.

It's obvious to everyone that there are no street-roving gangs of gays looking to recruit, the military already has that bag. We aren't your shower-rapist - that might be the felon with the MS-13 tattoo. That clergy, however..:]

Dumper,
Your ruck would be green, not pink. They don't let you carry your shih tzu around in your purse, either.
Nobody needs to know whether you're gay, democrat, happy, ad, etc Just shut the fuck up and do your job.
#51 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2009-10-22 10:46 AM

Right, so repeal DADT and cease eliminating people based on non-logic and obvious bigotry. The military doesn't need to pick and choose based on a non-issue such as sexuality. All are equal, all are cared for equally.