Troop study: 70 percent say ending 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell&

[DC Tom]

BTW - 12,500 service members dismissed under DADT since it was made law.

 

http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/EfficacyofDADT.pdf

 

Less than I thought. Once knew a court reporter in the Marines; it seemed an easy half the cases she was involved discharging a gay servicemember. It always struck me as a ridiculous waste of time.

 

 

No expert here, but I would think that any code or procedure that has to do with housing of troops would have to be reviewed and changes possibly made. Then issues dealing with health and retirement benefits of those gay members who are in a domestic partnership would need to be looked at and changed. Im sure there is losts of stuff like that I would assume needs to be reviewed and changed.

 

In all seriousness: changes to regulations and training wouldn't be insignificant. There's going to have to be a whole new body of regs and training materials covering a whole new set of possibilities for harrassment, for example. And, given the type of society we live in, there's likely to be a mandate for a whole new "Department of Gay Warfighers" (I'm being facetious with the name, not the concept), and probably a whole new bunch of bull **** w/r/t medical services and the VA.

 

All petty types of Mickey Mouse bull ****? Absolutely. But it's not cheap petty Mickey Mouse bull ****.

[/dev/null]

Had a pretty spirited discussion about this at work today. There are several military vets there and all but 2 wanted to keep DADT. Conversely non Vets like me were in favor of lifting the ban.

[UConn James]

And yet, there's a war going on that many of those in the military have seen firsthand. A war against people who believe it's a war of religion and who will do anything to kill Americans. Vague threats of what percentage might be less inclined to re-up or join because some Tim who's nine bunks over is dating a dental hygienist named Steve... well, it just holds very little water. People join the military to defend much higher values than who's boinking whom.

 

And it's not like this stuff isn't known w/in a unit anyway. DADT is a macrocosmic policy. In the microcosm, it plays a little differently.

[OCinBuffalo]

Looking at at this from an historical perspective,

 

Do you think it would be a bigger morale problem for the Services integrating Gays today, than integrating Blacks in 1948?

Notably in both cases, the driving consideration wasn't some sort of social justice, but military exigency. So looking at this (gays in the military) from a historical perspective...it's a load of bull ****.

Since everything the military does, at least in this country, is based on "historical perspective". I am not sure WTF Tom is saying here.

 

Again, as I said, "military exigency" is priority #1. "Social Justice" is priority #1235...if it is even on the list. All of this "Democrats decided it was time for black men to..." stuff makes for great HBO Series/Movies, but it's fiction.

 

So X., your answer is: Yes. Because, gay has not been proven to be inherent. But really, it's not about morale directly. That's an after affect and will only be a problem if the process is completely FUBAR. Company and Field grade officer training will be vital and that will cost serious $$$ that I am not sure makes logistical sense.

 

If we are to assume that since 10% of the population in general is gay...then we can also assume that only 3-5% of the Army is, because come on, we can't be giving gays all the credit for the arts...and also accept that they want to be sitting in a muddy firing position eating pork loaf MREs, instead of dancing on Broadway.

 

So, again, it's about bang for the buck. Women soldiers means more men in the field, and smarter men as well. Smarter men in combat means less dead soldiers, which in turn means less soldiers that have to be trained, which means the soldiers we have get more training, which means less dead soldiers and more elite soldiers, all of which costs less $$$. Say what you want, but when you get done talking, that simple, cold arithmetic, remains, like it or not.

 

At some point here, if we aren't already there, 40-50% of the enlisted troops will be women. That's a big deal, and the cost of changing around the BOQ, for example, was clearly worth it. In contrast, gays will only ever make up, at best 5% of enlisted, and maybe 10% of officers?

 

Here's the real problem: how the hell does a 24-year old(adjusted for war time) company commander explain to a 34-year old first sergeant that his life is going to be a living hell for the next 1.5 years, and the only thing the company will get is a 3-5% retention rate? The sergeant has already started thinking of the army as "his", and the sheer lunacy of spending that kind of money and time on political douchbaggery will make that top kick crazy. That's where the morale problems start, and that company commander had better be one hell of a salesman, hence the training I mentioned above.

 

If anything, and ironically, I can hear the argument from some grizzled Command Sergeant Major: "Sir, we should take the money they want to spend on gays, and spend it on women. Screw the politics, that's what got my buddies killed in Viet Nam."

Edited December 1, 2010 by OCinBuffalo

[X. Benedict]

Interestingly enough....

 

the Pentagon's own report goes into the 1948 Racial Integration History experience,

as well as the experience of the more Weiner-Grabbing Friendly Armies of the world.

 

Ch. 8 + 9

 

http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt/DADTReport_FINAL_20101130%28secure-hires%29.pdf

[OCinBuffalo]

Had a pretty spirited discussion about this at work today. There are several military vets there and all but 2 wanted to keep DADT. Conversely non Vets like me were in favor of lifting the ban.

Please understand this is an attack on you or anybody, but,

a.) you really have to live it to understand it, this is not something you can read in a book

b.) I'd love to know the ranks and units, ships whatever of those for/against, cause it's real easy for an enlisted chairborne ranger who worked in an office all day, or in garrison, to act as though this is no big deal. It's a whole other ballgame for a combat officer. Office personnel don't get calls a 3am to come sort out a blanket party that got out of hand. They don't have to call parents and tell them that their kid, and the officer's responsibility, is in the hospital, and they don't have to stand at attention while the Division commander squishes them for an hour.

c.) since non-vets like you haven't had to deal with b.), perhaps you should defer to those who have?

 

Or, better, if you support lifting the ban, you must also support training and support for the company grade officers that are going to have to deal with this mess...while they are also preparing to go to war.

[OCinBuffalo]

Interestingly enough....

 

the Pentagon's own report goes into the 1948 Racial Integration History experience,

as well as the experience of the more Weiner-Grabbing Friendly Armies of the world.

 

Ch. 8 + 9

 

http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt/DADTReport_FINAL_20101130%28secure-hires%29.pdf

Their armies aren't our army. It's as simple as that. The problems here are incremental based on size of force. The larger the army, the more and larger the # of problems. If this is handled poorly, then the problems become exponential, and if they become pervasive, then that's when the real morale problems start.

 

Perhaps you don't understand how big the army is? Put it this way: just getting the training I want done will take at least 2 years, and that's pushing it. Talking about the experiences of our allies is great, but the simple fact is that our army is near as big as all of theirs, combined. And, we have a diverse culture, they don't. We have a huge range of religious beliefs, they don't. And on and on. This isn't really helpful, and I think it's in there more for a nod to our allies than anything else.

 

Also, from your pdf, end of chapter 8:

Fourth, issues of proper relationships, public displays of affection, and harassment that arose after integrating women will certainly surface after repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Just as military leaders continue to be vigilant in addressing incidents of sexual harassment and assault, we must remain committed over the long term to leadership, professionalism, and respect, regardless of sexual orientation.

 

The bold tells you all you need to know. Look, just because the military gets shot at, doesn't mean they are dumb. They spent a whole chapter doing a historical compare and contrast that would make any PR exec proud...and whose to say it wasn't written by one? But the reality is what's in bold. It's a plain as day.

Edited December 2, 2010 by OCinBuffalo

[X. Benedict]

 

Or, better, if you support lifting the ban, you must also support training and support for the company grade officers that are going to have to deal with this mess...while they are also preparing to go to war.

 

Actually the Pentagon doesn't predict a mess at all if it were repealed.

 

In relative terms the Support Plan is pretty thin and comes down to training the officer Corps and not anticipating any new "partner" benefits which would be a Congressional matter.

 

Support Plan For Repealing DADT

 

BTW ...the Marine Corps doesn't like the idea - only 53% think it won't be a problem.

Edited December 2, 2010 by X. Benedict

[OCinBuffalo]

Actually the Pentagon doesn't predict a mess at all if it were repealed.

 

In relative terms the Support Plan is pretty thin and comes down to training the officer Corps and not anticipating any new "partner" benefits which would be a Congressional matter.

 

Support Plan For Repealing DADT

 

BTW ...the Marine Corps doesn't like the idea - only 53% think it won't be a problem.

Uhh...you do understand that if the President asked the Pentagon for a "Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with the Systematic Ass-raping of 60-80 Year Old Women"....they'd also not predict a mess, right? And, the Pentagon, both geographically and ideologically, is a loooooong way away from Ft. Hood, Texas, or Ft. Benning, Georgia.

 

My initial reaction:

Don't tell me that you don't realize that the request for this report came directly from the political office of the WH. The table of contents of this thing gives it away. On second thought, maybe they aren't so slick after all. Well, then again, I'm a veteran consultant, and I am used to writing, never mind reading these docs.

 

Reading......

 

EDIT:

Yep

I stopped reading about halfway through, and it's as I said. There's lots of what, where, when, and very little how. Well, let's say: it's all the W's made up to look like how. You just take any W, say it in reverse, and wham! That's how! Douchebag VPs are very fond of this activity...which is why they are douchebags.

 

I don't doubt the veracity of this work, but it's also largely based on theory, not practicality.

 

And, "giving guidance" is not how, and it sure as hell isn't: "what happens when the guidance fails to guide" , and what are the actual regs, and who is in charge of, and which sergeant is designated training NCO, etc.

 

Example: Saying things like, "you shouldn't make big changes to the shower and bathroom facilities beyond low-cost, unit-funded adaptations where appropriate"....is just about the most subjective thing I have have ever heard. This could be interpreted a 1000 ways. Worst case: a unit funds crappy outhouses and and forces the gays to use them, because that is the base commander's interpretation of low-cost, unit-funded, appropriateness. Any "prediction" based on this language is, by definition, inaccurate.

 

To sum it up: without knowing exactly what the regs are, and what they mean, and testing them in the field, and then reporting the feedback, and analysis, etc., saying that "we don't predict problems" is...

 

...exactly what the political hack who ordered the report wanted to hear. However, there's no REAL way to know what to expect, or what's happening until you get back all of the data and it's been analyzed. I want to see things like readiness reports Xref disciplinary action as a deployment date approaches. That will get us some answers.

 

Only then will we know how well the program is doing. Only then will we know the size of the "the problem".

Edited December 2, 2010 by OCinBuffalo

[X. Benedict]

Uhh...you do understand that if the President asked the Pentagon for a "Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with the Systematic Ass-raping of 60-80 Year Old Women"....they'd also not predict a mess, right? And, the Pentagon, both geographically and ideologically, is a loooooong way away from Ft. Hood, Texas, or Ft. Benning, Georgia.

 

My initial reaction:

Don't tell me that you don't realize that the request for this report came directly from the political office of the WH. The table of contents of this thing gives it away. On second thought, maybe they aren't so slick after all. Well, then again, I'm a veteran consultant, and I am used to writing, never mind reading these docs.

 

Reading......

Of course Obama wants to repeal this thing.

 

But he didn't fill out 400,000 surveys by himself.

 

Pentagon leadership says it is no big deal. Most of the Officer corps has already been to college and probably doesn't give gay issues too much thought as it is. In practice most people have a hunch about who is gay around them and neither they nor the gay person is likely to much press the issue. If you find out someone is "really" gay. The response is usually not "that's it! I can't work with that wiener-grabber!" but, "I kinda figured."

 

Either way the military leadership response amounts to: "Print the literature and we'll make it work."

 

No recommendations to re-create the Sacred Band of Thebes, however.

[DC Tom]

Actually the Pentagon doesn't predict a mess at all if it were repealed.

 

In relative terms the Support Plan is pretty thin and comes down to training the officer Corps and not anticipating any new "partner" benefits which would be a Congressional matter.

 

Support Plan For Repealing DADT

 

BTW ...the Marine Corps doesn't like the idea - only 53% think it won't be a problem.

 

Without reading the link (because Acrobat Reader is broken on this machine)...I find any statement by the Pentagon to the effect that repealing DADT can be done cleanly to be suspiciously optimistic, for no other reason than the Pentagon is the quintessential diarrhetic elephant.

 

And actually, now that I reflect...it's really four diarrhetic elephants. Policies that work for a fighter squadron or civil affairs battalion probably aren't going to work for a SEAL team or ballistic missile sub (though the submariners should be pleased as punch to finally come out of the closet ).

[X. Benedict]

Without reading the link (because Acrobat Reader is broken on this machine)...I find any statement by the Pentagon to the effect that repealing DADT can be done cleanly to be suspiciously optimistic, for no other reason than the Pentagon is the quintessential diarrhetic elephant.

 

And actually, now that I reflect...it's really four diarrhetic elephants. Policies that work for a fighter squadron or civil affairs battalion probably aren't going to work for a SEAL team or ballistic missile sub (though the submariners should be pleased as punch to finally come out of the closet ).

 

I always wondered what hotbunking really meant.

[Nanker]

Can the repeal of "

" be far behind?

[/dev/null]

Without reading the link (because Acrobat Reader is broken on this machine)...

Damned IT support!

 

 

ballistic missile sub (though the submariners should be pleased as punch to finally come out of the closet ).

Across the North Atlantic, Russian Boomers are picking up the sonar of scores of US Subs joining together in a verse of In the Navy

Edited December 2, 2010 by /dev/null

[RI Bills Fan]

Well don't we have a bunch of witty lubbers here today.

 

If any of you could tell a binnacle from a barnacle (without googling it, Monkey-Boy) your opinions might be worth something.

Edited December 2, 2010 by RI Bills Fan

[X. Benedict]

Well don't we have a bunch of witty lubbers here today.

 

If any of you could tell a binnacle from a barnacle (without googling it, Monkey-Boy) your opinions might be worth something.

Cue Orchestra ....

 

To hell with your Ma, I'll do your Pa said Barnacle Bill the Sailor.

[....lybob]

Well don't we have a bunch of witty lubbers here today.

 

If any of you could tell a binnacle from a barnacle (without googling it, Monkey-Boy) your opinions might be worth something.

as long as they know the difference between the poop deck and the head.

[/dev/null]

as long as they know the difference between the poop deck and the head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmh7A1w9csA

[DC Tom]

Well don't we have a bunch of witty lubbers here today.

 

If any of you could tell a binnacle from a barnacle (without googling it, Monkey-Boy) your opinions might be worth something.

 

I even know the differene between port and larboard.

[OCinBuffalo]

Well don't we have a bunch of witty lubbers here today.

 

If any of you could tell a binnacle from a barnacle (without googling it, Monkey-Boy) your opinions might be worth something.

Oh please. We know all about you squids.

 

Without reading the link (because Acrobat Reader is broken on this machine)...I find any statement by the Pentagon to the effect that repealing DADT can be done cleanly to be suspiciously optimistic, for no other reason than the Pentagon is the quintessential diarrhetic elephant.

 

And actually, now that I reflect...it's really four diarrhetic elephants. Policies that work for a fighter squadron or civil affairs battalion probably aren't going to work for a SEAL team or ballistic missile sub (though the submariners should be pleased as punch to finally come out of the closet ).

But hey, a political document that was ordered by political professionals, and was created by the military professionals who work for their boss, and who sure as hell aren't looking to get put on record as for/against whatever the next set of political professionals want...

 

...says it's no big deal. Why bother with things like context, nuance, ulterior motives and military CYA games? Let's just take this document at face value.

 

And why not? Apparently X. Benedict thinks everything the Pentagon writes is sacrosanct. Including everything that came out during the Bush years, including the WMD findings.