E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Defense Secretary Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen are speaking now about the release of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" report.
Here are a few quick highlights -- more to come:
- "When coupled with prompt implementation of the recommendations" the "risk of repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell to overall military effectiveness is low."
- "In the short term repeal will "bring about some limited and isolated disruption to unit cohesion and retention" but the disruption will not be widespread or long lasting and U.S. military members can adjust.
- The repeal "will not have a negative impact" on the overall ability to conduct a military mission.
- In the open forums, found they don't have a problem with the a gay service member serving, that the concern is with them serving openly
- "Repeatedly we heard service members express the view that 'open' homosexuality would lead to widespread and overt displays of effeminacy among men, homosexual promiscuity, harassment, and unwelcome advances within units, invasion of personal privacy, and an overall erosion of standards of conduct, unit cohesion, and morality."
- On moral and religious objections: "we cannot and should not expect individual service members to change their personal, religious, or moral beliefs about homosexuality," but they do expect them to treat all others with dignity and respect.
- gay men and women are often discreet and guarded with who they share information about their sexual orientation with, and that "would be true even more so" in a military environment. 15% of gay service members would want their sexual orientation known to their unit. Most would be private and discreet "to fit in, co-exist, and succeed."
- A higher percentage of service members in warfighting units predict negative effects of repeal
- Training, education and leadership will make implementation work. "Most surveyed know nothing but a military at war."
SURVEY RESULTS
* 70% believe impact of repeal on ability to work together and get the job done will be positive/mixed/or no effect
* 69% have worked with a service member they believed to be gay
* 92% had very good/good/or neither good nor bad feelings about co-worker they have served with they believed to be gay
* 50-55% believed repeal would have mixed or no effect
* 15-20% believed repeal would have positive effect
* 30% overall believed repeal would have negative effect
* 12% of spouses would want their spouses to leave earlier if DADT is repealed
* 40-60% of the Marine Corps and various combat arms specialties believe repeal will have a negative impact ...
==> 43% of the Marine Corps overall believed it would have a negative impact
==> 48% soldiers in Army combat arms units said negative impact
==> 58% Marines in combat arms units said negative impact
* 67% Marines in combat arms units said negative impact in the field or at sea
SURVEY INFO
- about 400,000 active and reserve service members were sent surveys;
115,052 responded (28%)
- about 150,000 spouses were sent surveys;
44,266 responded
- margin of error is +/- 1%
Leave a Comment:
Wonder what distraction the right wing nuts will come up with to continue to block & stall DADT!
Hey... how about we keep doing reviews until we get the results WE WANT!
If they are REALLY listening to the people then they need to pay attention that approx. 70% of Americans are in FAVOR of repealing DADT!
But who am I kidding...? lol
Everybody that do not believe this policy should be reversed IS NOT a F'ing right wing nut as you call them.
Do you hear anyone in here calling you a F-ing left wing nut?
I have no dog in this fight because I do not have to serve and implement these policies anymore. It will get repealed and when the POTUS changes hands, Gates and Mullen are gone; the military will implement an additional UCMJ provision that will put something similar back in place.
I see no glaring survey result that would indicate problems with repeal especially since a large majority within the military believe repeal will have little to no impact. As for the Marines, all I can think of is they always project the really "macho, tough guy" persona; nothing wrong with that but it makes me thing few gays or lesbians join the marines.
Gays and lesbians have been serving in the military since militaries began. Our allies do not have such an arcane attitude, they allow gays to serve openly and deal with any problems as they occur. McCain keeps saying he will listen to the military but that is only if the military tells him what he wants to hear--no doubt he'll latch on to the Marine's view while ignoring the Navy, Army, Air Force.
Why is this such a hot issue with you Liberals? Is it because Maddow bit**es about it day in and day out? The suvery looks about right when I was in, but why the "stand on my soap box and bit**" until I get my way.
Middle would probably agree with me on this one, the percentage of the result are probably based on what MOS/Rate/Job they hold. I bet you ask SF guys that percentage would be high like the Combat MOS's. I think it would be close to 60-70% against it in my MOS, but that's just me. Do I have an issue with it-No, but there's limitations on it.
Yes, there's homosexuals in the Military, but what does "open" mean? Does that mean they can fly the rainbow flag in their housing unit? Make Gay Pride Day a day off? Hold hands in the PX? Explain "open"?
If there are over 300 million people in the U.S.A., and only 4 % are gay...why all the fuss over a small minority of people making bad choices?
I say repeal DADT,
It will be easier to know who to throw the old soap-in-the-sock party for.
I'll say it again: If the sexuality/race/gender/whatever of another soldier affects your ability to do your duty and complete the mission, then YOU need to hang up your gun, NOT them.
Well said, Grand Moff Joseph
Either Jody, Iowa or Grand Moff Joseph ever spent time in the military or combat?
If not.....then hold you tongue.
How about the officer that snuck into my tent about 3am and tried to vampire me? After I beat the S... out of him, I was arrested and ten they covered it up and released me.
When the crap hits the fan, does it really matter what a persons sexual persuasion is?
Worried about aids? Just require everyone to have a blood test based on aids incubation time lines.
Concerned about VA benefits after they leave the service. Why?
There are already gays in the military. That's why 80,000 have been separated by DADT, many of them with more important skills and medals for bravery being badmouthed by some drunken redneck lowbrow privates who never distinguished themselves in combat at all.
It is clear that many officers in the military VIOLATED THIS LAW, they did ASK, they witchhunted private emails from people who never TOLD. If you are kicking out somebody, let's kick out every officer who violated the law and revoke their pension! Gay taxpayers should not be supporting homophobe haters who break the law!
I'll trade you, one hatefilled homophobe kicked to the curb for ever gay you bully. This policy ends fast when the ASKERS get their ASK kicked!
80,000 gays in the military.......I don't believe that. Obviously you have never been in a shower on a Navy ship knowing there is a gay dude checking you out. Happended to me! And I'm not gay!
This is just part of the plan to force ALL to accept this behavior as NORMAL when it isn't.
Don't ask, don't tell.
So, if a soldier doesn't ask, doesn't want to know - he/she is forced to hear about it anyway?
The American people are more concerned with a gay's ability to come into the barracks and tell everyone (including most that don't want to know) about their same sex date to the museum than the 407 service that have come home in body bags this year alone?
During the Bush Administration, we got daily death updates - every morning, every evening when a service member was killed. We got milestone reports, on an on everyday.
Now, when Americans are dying in Afghanistan at a rate 7 TIMES the averaged rate under the previous administration - nothing.
Well we get DADT - A progressive social agenda.
The progressives here at FR give their thanks and respect to the military - until the military is in opposition to their progressive agenda, then there doesn't seem to be much respect for the 67% Marines in combat arms that said it would have a negative impact in the field or at sea.
Respect their sacrifice, especially since it is their sacrifice, their lives that are being lost in Afghanistan, not yours.
You took the only number from the entire article that supports your position. Every other number presented above indicates that the militarty would support the repeal of DADT.
My comments were in support for the 67% Marines in combat arms. I don't have a dog in the fight, it doesn't effect me.
I respect their opinion - not progressives worried about a social agenda in a time of war.
I respect their duty to country and sacrifice.
Bob, we do get daily updates, watch the news--they report it; in addition, now the military allows the family to decide if caskets or funerals may be watched not the president or congress. So only the Marine's view matters--nuts to what the Army, Navy, Air Force members say and nuts to what the majority of military personnel think.
No Jody, Bob is right and it's reported as NATO Soldiers, not U.S. until days later. MSNBC was the front runner on reporting casulities and Keith bitc***** about the War. Weird, you don't see that anymore do you? The media should be in a combat zone anyways, didn't work to well for them in 05'-'06, some of them got shot.
That statement should say "picture of a flag drawn coffen", your statement below if false.
"now the military allows the family to decide if caskets or funerals may be watched not the president or congress"
Jody,
No we don't. What's wrong with you?
Are you even aware what a lie that is?
Exactly! Why should the straighties be the only ones blown to bits by an IED?
I say put "them" on the front lines.
If they had surveyed the armed forces prior to desegregation, I wonder how many of them would have been in favor of that? I think it is good to know where the issues are and what attitudes will be with the repeal of DADT, but that shouldn't stop the repeal.
And isn't is sad that so many of those serving have never known a peace-time military?
I believe they did do surveys, they also surveyed about Jewish people in the service but President Harry Truman told them to get over it and desegregated the military anyway.
Discretion is the better part of valour
Shakespeare, in Henry IV, Part One, 1596:
Let me see if I understand this. If DADT is repealed then the military services go back to where it was prior to DADT. Prior to DADT gays could not openly serve in the military and any homosexual misconduct was handled under the UCMJ. So now we need a new law or at least a directive from the Commander-in-Chief that gays can serve openly if DADT is repealed? Seems like we have just went around in a circle. Also for those that say gays should be allowed to serve openly need to weigh the facts that they will still be discriminated against because of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Same sex married personnel will not be given the same rights as married straights since the federal government does not recognize same sex marriages. Will gays married in states where it is allowed be given same benefits as straights get? (Government qtrs, hospital visitation, dependent alws, access to PX/BXs, commissaries, family separation alws and burial rights, etc.,).
It is complicated and we spend to much time and energy on this issue.
Complicated? Are you serious? What is complicated about abnormal behavior.
Sounds as though you drank the coolaid of tolerance.
Isupport DADT. I just think this issue is a low priority and we spent more time and money then it deserves.
this is my rifle, this is my gun....
this is for fighting, this is for fun..............
This is as important as any other gay issue........NOT!
How will this play out for all the Muslims who want to join our Army?
On the other hand...How will this play out with all the Muslims who want to kill our Army?
In 1970, I was the executive officer of an Army basic training company. We had one cook I wondered about. He would ease up to the new basic trainees on KP duty and say "Want to see my magazine". Figuring he was straight, they said "Hell, yes". It had a lot of naked pictures, but only of guys. His magazine show-and-tell was played out in the end-of-cycle party and he was 'persuaded' to get off of it. So I feel we should really change the UCMJ to eliminate/exclude gays from ever serving. Army officers don't need anymore trouble. AND if you are not a vet, why are you commenting on this board.
Incidently, gays do serve in the Israeli Army since all young people are subject to conscription. So if they are physically OK they have to serve and accomodations are made. If we return to the draft, I might re-think my stand, but I don't see the draft coming anytime soon.
My two cents from an vet.
BS
State side KP was outsourced before 1970.
Salt:
BS to you. KP wasn't taken over by civilians until 1988. I went to basic in 1985 and PULLED KP.
@salt grass....
I had KP at Fort Bragg in 1969, and our trainees had it in 1970. Thanks inthemiddle, I wasn't sure of the exact date, but it was well after the 70's.
Im a VA nurse. I can tell you that i will care, honour, and appreciate any soldier that comes my way. its only the Father's right to judge any of these soldiers-He knows what has made them choose such a life style.
i find it odd that anyone thinks they are better than a gay by hating on them. your hatred is part of what is wrong with this world and why we have so much war. In any case even these gay soldiers are giving their life for your rights. No im not gay. im a middle age, 28year married female with 3 grown kids and a conservative republican-socially and economacly. if any of my kids were gay i would love them heart and soul just as much. Please just stop all the hate and judging.
oh by the way Bigun6605--non vets are commenting on this board because soldiers such as yourself have fought and even died for their right to do so.
Sher46...
You are quite right, but those who have been in get tired of seeing draft dodgers talking about something they don't know a thing about.
My three cents.
Let's see, the President has never been in the military, SECDEF has never been in the military, Chairman Joint Chief is afraid of losing his job (no juevos), the Speaker and Senate Majority Leader never wore a uniform and we don't know who counted the responses, the Demos just lost their a..es in the last election and need more votes. Our President is more interested in getting votes than he is protecting our country and respecting our military, so....pushing the repealing of DADT on the front burner must be very, very inportant to us all.
Have they considered that many of our chaplains cannot perform services for these new found voters, ooops, I mean gay military members? Have they considered that we have two wars ongoing and they want to push a social program that doesn't mean crap to anyone?
The leadership needs to look at other things lilke the Rangels, the Waters and Conyers who lets his son use a government car, a Cadillac Escalade, no less. I was a senior civil service employee and I drove a government vehicle, but it sure was not that great. Hey, Mr. Prez, save some money, take the car away from Conyers.
I may be nuts, but this is why we are going to have a Second Coming...and it might not be too far away.
usnedspec...
Sorry, but Robert Gates was an AF officer, but I like your opinion. And I did like Gates until he rolled over on the gay issure. As for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, I would not trust a Navy officer with any social issue. Why? Navies are on the periphery of power and would do anything to stand up and be counted. Specifically look at the Revolt of the Admirals when the AF bomber program was getting all the funding; Tailhook where they had to show how progressive they were for females in combat and now Gays. At least the Commandant of the Marines is no wimp on this issue.
If you ever wonder why Social Security is broke look at all the subs and carriers we bought. Maybe we need to stand down from being the world cop, it gets us no-where except the poor house.
My four cents.
Homosexual rights should be far down the list of important issues for the US. Aside from the facts that they all the rights or normal citizens, why do they need more? Rampant spending by a feckless US Congress is a far bigger problem or threat to the future of the US than worrying about abnormal sexual behavior.
This is a waste of time, catch up to the rest of the free world - our allies - and 2010. Talk is just that - we spent money and time on something that will be repealed if not now then sooner than prejudiced bigots would like it. We need to get up to speed, stop being the world cop, and respect other lifestyles. Repeal it, get it done with, and move on. for god's sake we can't keep paying for studies, time away from real problems when this is a no-brainer, which is about what we have in Washington - no-brainers making no decisions.
One Marine said when he started homosexcuality was illegal, now it is optional and he is getting out before it it is mandatory. Well put gunny.