Compare what this fellow has to say…

“U.S. Army Maj. Daniel Davis, speaking to Stahl out of uniform to emphasize that he does not speak for the U.S. military, says don’t ask, don’t tell is necessary to achieve cohesion among soldiers, especially those in combat. Most service members are conservative, he says, and won’t readily accept gays. ‘If you have a moral or religious issue, you cannot order me to [bond] with that [gay] person,’ says Davis, a specialist in battlefield tactics. ‘Our purpose in the military is not social engineering….It’s about fighting and winning the nation’s wars.’”

…with this from testimony by Kenneth C. Royall, Secretary of the Army, before the President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity In The Armed Forces on March 28, 1949:

“At the outset I want to make it clear that in my opinion the policies which should be applied to the use of all Army personnel, regardless of race, are those policies which best promote a sound national defense. Our basic mission is to win battles and to establish an organization capable of winning battles.

Specifically the Army is not an instrument for social evolution. It is not the Army’s job either to favor or to impede the social doctrines, no matter how progressive they may be – it is not for us to lead or to lag behind the civilian procession except to the extent that the national defense is affected…

Another – and an important – factor to be considered on the question of segregation is the morale of the troops as a whole – their satisfaction with Army life, and the spirit with which they perform Army tasks. In war, when the chips are down, this morale factor may well be the difference between victory and defeat.

We must remember that soldiers are not mere bodies that can be moved and handled as trucks and guns. They are individuals who came from civilian life and often return thereto. They are subject to all the emotions, prejudices, ideals, ambitions and inhibitions that encumber our civil population throughout the country.

Solders live and work closely together. They are not only on the same drill field also in the same living and eating quarters. From the standpoint both of morale and of efficiency it is important in peace and in war that the barracks and the unit areas be so attractive to them that they will devote not only their duty time but a reasonable part of their optional time at the post – that they will not be watching the clock for a chance to get away.

In war it is even more important that they have confidence both in their leaders and in the men that are to fight by their sides. Effective comradeship in battle calls for a warm and close personal relationship within a unit…

In this connection we must remember that a large part of the volunteers in the Army are Southerners – usually a larger proportion than from any other part of the country. Whether properly or not, it is a well known fact that close personal association with Negroes is distasteful to large percentage of Southern whites.

A total abandonment of – or a substantial and sudden change in – the Army’s partial segregation policy would in my opinion adversely affect enlistments and reenlistments not only in the South but in many other parts of the country, probably making peacetime selective service necessary. And a change in our policy would adversely affect the morale of many Southern soldiers and other soldiers now serving…

[I]n my opinion – and I believe in the opinion of a great majority of the experienced Army men and officers – it would be most difficult – and unwise from the standpoint of national defense – to require any substantial proportion of white soldiers – whether from the South or from other sections of the country – to serve under Negro officers or particularly under Negro non-commissioned officers.”

Sound familiar? Hmm…

Ben Janken Photography
510-482-9041 http://www.jankenphoto.com

First of all Congress can act anytime. The stated objective of the military within the Department of Defense and Secretary Gates with respect to DADT is to develop a post-DADT-repeal implementation plan and policies within the military. Congress can choose to go ahead and craft legislation repealing the ban subject to whatever input the DOD wishes to offer. There are a lot of ways that might be handled, and Congress could even vote before the DOD plan is in place. The replacement law, which would include repeal of DADT, could include and help coordinate elements of the implementation plan developed by the military.

What might such a law look like? Well, it could do things like restore pensions for those discharged under DADT. It might go on to make special provisions for readmitting valuable personnel that are still interested in serving their country, and whose skills are needed, even vital to national security.

In our emotional zeal to see this wrong righted, we may be thinking in dimensions that are too low and miss important opportunities to help shape a more nuanced and effective response. Thoughtful proposals might lead to more comprehensive legislation which is better for GLBT service members, the military, and our country—and more likely to be supported by the rest of America.

Perhaps its time to take a step back from the rhetoric and Obama bashing to consider just what we can do to help instead of simply predicting failure.

▼

This won’t create divisiveness among Republicans, if the Democrats don’t bring it up for a vote.

Well, at least I get to vote in November.

Yes, its slow; but as Gates said, it is a matter of “when” not “if”.

“Hello, Great Britain? Did you have any problems when you dropped your ban on gay people in the military? Anything special you had to do besides give an order? No?

Thanks. Buh-Bye.”

Translation: Both claimed to agree with the president, but then pulled an excuse out of their ass to keep from actually doing anything. A year from now President Spinelss will have forgotten all about those uppity homos.

Bingo!

How convenient for the President were that to happen. He could say “well, I tried but look at the bad republicans blocking it. You gays should keep voting for us democrats because we love you, really we do.”