Let military leaders decide best policy

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
I'm glad that our Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin voted to allow Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to make decisions regarding different proposals regarding the position of homosexuals in the military.

Gates served in his post for Republican President George W. Bush before agreeing to continue on for our President Barack Obama.

Gates is the only CIA career officer to rise from an entry-level position to service as director of Central Intelligence.

Gates had earlier loyally served our country as an Air Force Officer. He has also been President of Texas A&M University.
Fortunately, I firmly believe that the vast majority of South Dakota residents will back the actions of Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin and Secretary of Defense Gates in this matter.

Secretary Gates will do what is best for our patriotic men and women in uniform and I'm glad that Herseth Sandlin supported him.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Let those who have to live with the situation make the decisions on this issue. The military is NOT the place for social experiments.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
I agree that the military is not the place for social experiments but I absolutely do not agree that this is a decision for the Sec of Defense or anyone else in the military.

IT IS not their place to make military law, that is exclusively the congresses job and only their job.

Gates is a political appointment, he has a chain of command that goes directly to the president and answers to the congress - all political. He should not meddle into things that the people should decide on.

The same goes for the BS idea of a survey of active personal, it is not their opinion that counts at all. They are to follow what the congress (the people's representives) and the admiinstraion tell them to do; follow orders.

NOW with that said, the military has reflect our society but lagged behind the times. When we had integration from the end of the civil war to 1913, we had gains within our society and society accepted these gains. When we segregated the military in 1913, we had an upswing of hatred towards a number of groups and a government who accepted ignoring serious social issues. Sine desegregation in 1948, our society didn't fight it but accepted it. Our society has evolved since 1948, now women have been in combat, so if society wants gays to serve, it is the right of congress to pass the law saying that it is alright for it to happen. IF you don't want it to happen, then it is our people who need to tell congress what they want.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
According to my nephew the UCMJ would have to be changed. I can see problems if this is changed. MANY problems. They should, at the very least, allow a "vote" from serving members to find out how they feel. It may be prudent to allow some to leave the service if they have TOO much of a problem. Putting the wrong "mix" of people together in a small room could be asking for trouble.

They need to move slowly on this, for the good and protection of all involved.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Layout,
Our system is clear, the civilians are in control of the military. If we allow them to 'vote' on any issue, it will lead to less and less control that we have over them.

Already within 60 years we have gone from a strong fighting force that followed most reasonable orders and followed the policies from those who control the military, regardless what they were, to what we don't consider as treasonous acts within the military. We have allowed people to speak their mind, ignore orders and help the enemy without applying the proper punishments for their acts.

IT is not the place of the solider to recommend, suggest or even speak of the policies that the congress or the president changes across the board within the military, it is their job to protect and serve the country.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Layout,
Our system is clear, the civilians are in control of the military. If we allow them to 'vote' on any issue, it will lead to less and less control that we have over them.

Already within 60 years we have gone from a strong fighting force that followed most reasonable orders and followed the policies from those who control the military, regardless what they were, to what we don't consider as treasonous acts within the military. We have allowed people to speak their mind, ignore orders and help the enemy without applying the proper punishments for their acts.

IT is not the place of the solider to recommend, suggest or even speak of the policies that the congress or the president changes across the board within the military, it is their job to protect and serve the country.

Under current UCMJ there are no protections for gay people. That would HAVE to be changed. What happens when, and it will happen, a gay soldier does or suggests something to a straight soldier that he/she is NOT open too? Should a straight soldier be forced to live in the same two man room with a gay? What about the other way around?

This is a HUGE can of worms. The Congress is in charge, they should tread lightly and think this thing out. This is NOT an issue to troll for votes with. Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer force, how would these changes affect recruitment? Do you think that there would be enough gay enlistments to offset the almost sure to be drop in straight enlistments? This is just a game for Obama and the congress. They don't have to live with the results.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Well first off define what is gay?

Can you?

How about the guy with red hair or the gal who has a big bottom, is there any protection for them?

If one soldier solicits another for a sexual favor, there are already rules of conduct that can be applied, transfer or expulsion for the action is rightfully due. There are channels that need to be used, and protocols to be followed. I understand the culture a bit so it isn't difficult to me as much as the blue brotherhood is.

When we start worrying about what happens if, then we will become like France or Canada and worrying who we will offend by any one's actions and define behavior - I and you do not want that in the military.

I wasn't in the military but my exposure has been enough to understand that a lot of these issues can be a reflection of the leadership in units themselves. I have a few stories, like you would about how some are singled out because the Sargent or the Lt had a specific attitude towards them.

I would expect anyone in uniform to put away some of these differences and live with it or not put on the uniform in the first place. I have the right to say that because it is my, your military, not their military.

There are so many things that we should be concerned about with our military, like vets being cared for, taxes they should not pay and so on, but this is one issue that a compromised has been reached a while ago and it seemed to work.

For the militant gay rights individuals who set themselves up and make it an issue with the people around them, especially a couple specifically who I feel joined to make this an issue in the press by becoming marters, not one of them has convinced me that there should be a change in policy and if that change is needed, then it comes from congress and no one else.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Greg, we all know what a homosexual man or woman is. The cause of this is unproven. It is unlikely that it is only "learned". Never the less, you cannot force people to do what they cannot handle. There are 3 solutions: LEAVE IT ALONE, allow those who cannot handle living under those conditions, for any reason, to be allowed to leave without any legal problems OR have a "gay" division.

I have no problems with what CONSENTING adults do in the PRIVACY of their own homes. There is NO privacy in a barracks. There will be problems, LOTS of problems. I WAS in the military, I DID live under those conditions. I see FAR more problems than making people "feel good" about themselves is worth.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Layout, See that's the exact problem, we don't.

NO one seems to want to put it into context of human nature when at the group or herd mentality level.

I will give people like Cheri the "born with the gene thing" for some but there are far too many people who want to belong but be different in our culture, cash in on the fad of being different to belong to a group and a lot of times it is a choice for that person. It can be construed as a lifestyle choice on many levels but for those who want it, I have no issue with it at all. The issue is for me is simply that they equate all of as a civil rights issue and including some groups who are on the fringe of society or asking for special laws to protect you because of the choices someone makes.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Layout, See that's the exact problem, we don't.

NO one seems to want to put it into context of human nature when at the group or herd mentality level.

I will give people like Cheri the "born with the gene thing" for some but there are far too many people who want to belong but be different in our culture, cash in on the fad of being different to belong to a group and a lot of times it is a choice for that person. It can be construed as a lifestyle choice on many levels but for those who want it, I have no issue with it at all. The issue is for me is simply that they equate all of as a civil rights issue and including some groups who are on the fringe of society or asking for special laws to protect you because of the choices someone makes.

I look at it in real terms only. I don't give a flip either way. NO WAY should anyone be FORCED BY LAW to live in such a way that THEY are not comfortable with. This is basic. Straight people have rights too. It will cause problems, LOTS of problems. FAR more problems that make this silly idea worth the effort.

I know the role of Congress, I lived with it for 20 years. I know not being allowed to participate, I was a second class citizen, by choice, for years. NOT allowed to participate in politics other than to vote. Doing the bidding of total idiots like Carter and friends. Knowing that what we were doing was not right and would lead to trouble and NOT being able to say a word. It is how this Nation is set up. Obama and those who back him in this stupid experiment are wrong. Obama 'taint got a clue what life is like in the military. He just needs to shut his mouth. He is a wacko. Let him play his games where it is not important, like in Americorps or something.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
I agree with most of what you are saying, the second class citizen thing if I remember right is a protection more than it is a hindrance.

But you made my point, everyone has the same rights - period.

True, Obama is just like carter but at least carter served and I give him that much. I also think that Obama surrounded himself with the exact type of people who Clinton used to formulate the policy in the first place.

I do care for a reason, I don't want cohesion within the military to break down.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
"the second class citizen thing if I remember right is a protection more than it is a hindrance"

It was written to be a protection but it is a double edge sword.

I will tell you what is going to happen. Somebody is going to put an uninvited hand where it does not belong. That the somebody is going to get the snot kicked out of him, or worse. NO different than if a man does that to a woman to be sure, BUT, you can bet your booty that it will NOT be handled the same way. This is NOT a good idea. It is asking for trouble and I thing it is by design to cause further break down in the military and make it less effective. Obama does not give a flip about people, just destroying the military. He sucks.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
I understand the double edge sword but that never really was the intent, protection for both parties is the intent.

Well even if the case was as you described, it would happen anyway.

We can't control every one's behavior, and shouldn't.

There isn't an excuse for something like that now, in the past or future but the military has a reasonable set of laws that are there to deal with problems like that.

If we start acting like France, putting emphasis on what offends people, we lost our freedoms. When we start worrying about it, that's when we start thinking like the French. The only issue is cohesion and from the people I have talked to at the VA, that doesn't seem to be a problem at this point with many of them.

The problem isn't the policy but how it is handled when something does happen. I don't recall a massive attack on people claiming to be gay, however I do know that people do set themselves up to be marters for causes and this is one area that has a few of them.

We are making special considerations for someone who will have the upper hand by accusing someone else for offending them or agitating them into a physical altercation.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
As you increase the numbers you increase the chance of it happening. It will happen and the "offended" person will take the brunt of the legal action, NOT the "offender", who caused the problem. UCMJ is not up to the task. It must be updated as the very least.

Not matter what Obama and the wacko left says, it is a VERY bad idea.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Well they are asking the troop and completely expected, the gay support groups including those from the GOP are up in arms crying...

You've Got Mail: Pentagon Surveys Troops On Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Christina Bellantoni
July 9, 2010, 8:30AM
You've Got Mail: Pentagon Surveys Troops On Don't Ask, Don't Tell | TPMDC

More than 400,000 members of the military this week received email surveys about Don't Ask, Don't Tell that contained 100 questions ranging from how troops would handle group showers to how knowing your fellow serviceman was gay would affect morale -- as though troops weren't already serving (and, yes, showering with) gay men and lesbian service members.

But like so many of the twists and turns in the Don't Ask, Don't Tell saga, the surveys have been met with frustration from the LGBT community and the Pentagon is trying to defend its system as critical to the review process for repealing the Clinton-era policy.

Although some gay rights groups want LGBT troops to boycott the surveys out of concerns that revealing their sexuality could result in more dismissals, Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith says they are strictly confidential, run by a third-party firm called Westat and hosted on the company's non-military server.

"Complaints are completely off base," Smith said in an interview. "We've gone to great lengths to ensure that any service member who submits the survey will be protected." The Pentagon also has set up an "online inbox" for people to submit their thoughts on Don't Ask, Don't Tell online. It takes several steps, but service members can get a confidential login for that process as well, also run by Westat. But, as the Denver Post reports, those comments are limited to 1,000 characters - less than 250 words.

However, Smith added that of course, since "the law is still in effect," officials would need to start the discharge process if someone were to out themselves during the process.

Among the questions, according to CNN:

-Would a repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell" prompt a soldier to reconsider serving in the military?
-Would serving under an openly gay commander adversely affect morale?

-How would troops feel about sharing a bathroom or open-air shower with an openly gay comrade in a war zone?


The surveys were sent to about 200,000 randomly selected active-duty troops and 200,000 guard and reservists and the answers will be used to complete the much touted review of the policy banning gays from serving openly in the military. The review is due Dec. 1, though Congress may repeal the policy by then. Critics of largely Democratic efforts to repeal the ban say it shouldn't be done before the review is complete.

Citizens for Repeal and the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network say that they cannot recommend that LGBT service members answer the questions, because it would in effect out them and risk discharge under the (still enforced) policy. "There is no guarantee of privacy and DOD has not agreed to provide immunity to service members whose privacy may be inadvertently violated or who inadvertently outs himself or herself," SLDN officials said in a statement.

On the other hand, Servicemembers United, which also represents LGBT troops and veterans, is encouraging the participation of its members. Executive Director Alexander Nicholson, who was himself discharged under the policy, said in a statement, "While Servicemembers United remains concerned about unintentional bias in the question wording within this survey, we are satisfied that sufficient measures are in place to protect the confidentiality of any gay and lesbian servicemember who would like to fully and honestly participate in this survey."

The the Log Cabin Republicans agree that it's crucial for service members to fill it out. Army Reservist R. Clarke Cooper, the group's executive director, wrote a blog post saying he will complete the survey with his personal log on information. "Not doing the survey abdicates terrain to those who want to keep DADT in place," he wrote.

The Pentagon is keeping the questions secret, but Military Times reviewed a draft copy. According to the paper:

f the draft version is any guide, the general tone of the survey questions -- developed by the independent research group Westat in cooperation with the Pentagon -- leans toward the potential impact that repealing "don't ask, don't tell" might have on unit performance.
That, of course, rests on the assumption that many troops aren't already out within their units, if not to command.

"We're trying to get this right," Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen said at a recent briefing sponsored by The Hill when describing the review process.

CNN goes into some detail about the surveys here, and here's more from Military Times:

In the draft version of the survey, nearly all of the questions were multiple choice, with 23 of 73 questions concerning teamwork, performance and completing the mission, and seven asking about morale. There were questions on leadership challenges; attitudes toward gay co-workers if repeal takes place; the impact of repeal on the respondent's unit's ability to complete missions, both deployed and non-deployed; off-duty social impact; and how repeal will affect the spouse's, family's or "significant other's" attitude toward the respondent's continued military service.
The draft survey also asked how a repeal will affect the respondent's likelihood of recommending military service to family members or close friends and their own continued service; and whether they personally know any gays, served with any gays and whether they were a leader or co-worker, and how well the unit performed.

The draft survey included a question widely voiced by troops, including those who took part in Military Times focus groups last winter and whose opinions, along with those of gay service members and poll respondents, were the basis of a February story on the potential impact of repeal: "If Don't Ask Don't Tell is repealed and a gay or lesbian service member attended a military social with a same-sex partner, which are you most likely to do?"


The Pentagon also plans to survey military families.
 
Last edited:
Top