Pentagon: No Harm in Letting Gays Serve Openly - CBS News
Now the real game begins.....remember John McCain."..I'll follow the Pentagon
lead! " Don't hold your breath on that one. Lets see who can really lead
on this.
Secretary Gates' statement today makes it clear that he wants immediate action on DADT before the courts pick the policy apart because of the study commission findings. This puts the issue on no different footing than was the integration of the military by Harry Truman--a straight civil rights issue. The great thing about the Gates statement is that he has huge credibility and respect in DC. He was Secretary of Defense for both Bush and Obama, and is universally recognised as a square shooter. The fact that the repeal remains part of the defense authorization bill makes it all the more easy for members of the Congress to vote for it. This should be butressed by the testimony of the Joint Chiefs and other heavyweights. It appears the only service chief to oppose it is the Marine Commandant, and recently he has said that he opposes change mainly because he doesn't think we should change policy while we are waging two wars--a pretty weak argument now that Iraq is virtually over and the study results don't support the claim that change would affect fighting ability. I remain cautiously optimistic. The Marine Corps had a situation that arose at Camp Lejeune about 40 years ago during the Vietnam War in which groups of black and white Marines were waylaying eachother at night. The whites were beating the brains out of black Marines with entrenching tools, and vice versa. After the Corps came down hard on the perpetrators and the dust settled, the commander of the Second Marine Division was asked how he expected his troops to fight together in wartime when they were at eachother's throats in a non-combat zone. His response, undoubtedly true, was that in a combat situation they'd work together because if they didn't they'd get killed. No further problems were reported after that. Fact is, when a straight guy is under enemy fire he isn't going to ask the rifleman covering him what his sexual preferences are, nor will he of the soldier hooking him up to an IV. The one who doesn't pull his weight in the field will be the one who is condemned.
I agree Stew. I guess they figure they will lose some power if they push this thing through.They will be the one to blame. I know US politics are different from Canadian politics in a number of ways. I do not know that difference. What is stopping the political supporters from going to the Supreme Court to determine if DADT is against individual civil rights and in conflict with the principles of the Constitution of the United States? Jim
_The study also draws a strong correlation between troops who have worked with a gay service member and those who support repeal. According to the assessment, 92 percent of troops who have served with someone they believed to be gay thought that their unit's ability to work together was either very good, good, or neither good nor poor._
6 comments:
Secretary Gates' statement today makes it clear that he wants immediate action on DADT before the courts pick the policy apart because of the study commission findings. This puts the issue on no different footing than was the integration of the military by Harry Truman--a straight civil rights issue. The great thing about the Gates statement is that he has huge credibility and respect in DC. He was Secretary of Defense for both Bush and Obama, and is universally recognised as a square shooter. The fact that the repeal remains part of the defense authorization bill makes it all the more easy for members of the Congress to vote for it. This should be butressed by the testimony of the Joint Chiefs and other heavyweights. It appears the only service chief to oppose it is the Marine Commandant, and recently he has said that he opposes change mainly because he doesn't think we should change policy while we are waging two wars--a pretty weak argument now that Iraq is virtually over and the study results don't support the claim that change would affect fighting ability. I remain cautiously optimistic.
The Marine Corps had a situation that arose at Camp Lejeune about 40 years ago during the Vietnam War in which groups of black and white Marines were waylaying eachother at night. The whites were beating the brains out of black Marines with entrenching tools, and vice versa. After the Corps came down hard on the perpetrators and the dust settled, the commander of the Second Marine Division was asked how he expected his troops to fight together in wartime when they were at eachother's throats in a non-combat zone. His response, undoubtedly true, was that in a combat situation they'd work together because if they didn't they'd get killed. No further problems were reported after that.
Fact is, when a straight guy is under enemy fire he isn't going to ask the rifleman covering him what his sexual preferences are, nor will he of the soldier hooking him up to an IV. The one who doesn't pull his weight in the field will be the one who is condemned.
Everyone wants a change.... No one wants to be the one to change.
I agree Stew. I guess they figure they will lose some power if they push this thing through.They will be the one to blame.
I know US politics are different from Canadian politics in a number of ways. I do not know that difference. What is stopping the political supporters from going to the Supreme Court to determine if DADT is against individual civil rights and in conflict with the principles of the Constitution of the United States?
Jim
_The study also draws a strong correlation between troops who have worked with a gay service member and those who support repeal. According to the assessment, 92 percent of troops who have served with someone they believed to be gay thought that their unit's ability to work together was either very good, good, or neither good nor poor._
Nuff said.
I was jus thinking(oops, sorry). An openly gay man, under DADT, wouldn't qualify to be Commander-in-Chief. Thus, couldn't run for president.
That's true, Jimm. But what's wrong with the US introducing royalty and having a queen?
Post a Comment