12:21: We've just adjourned. Thanks for following along for the last two days. And keep visiting First Read often for updates on all the latest news in politics.
12:16: McCain chuckles at the conclusion of this 3 hour-plus hearing, "thanks for listening." Notes other problems apart from DADT that Republicans have with the authorization bill.
12:12: "We've got to find a way to get it done before we leave here," Lieberman says of the underlying Defense Authorization bill to which DADT repeal is attached.
12:11: Lieberman cites a number he also mentioned yesterday: Only 15 percent of gay and lesbian servicemembers say that they would want their sexual orientation known. He doesn't believe that there will be a great "outing."
12:10: Lieberman, who differs with his frequent ally John McCain on this issue, says that Congress is capable of addressing jobs as well as DADT at the same time. "We can do both," he says.
12:04: Noting his recent re-election campaign, McCain says none of his constituents have pleaded with him to get to work on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He also mentions this morning's unemployment numbers.
"We should not be questioning anybody's integrity or motives," McCain says, adding that he disagrees with Roughead and Cartwright but that he "respects" their opinion. He says the panel's candor restores his faith in the "professionalism" of military leadership. He reiterates his request for further hearings to hear more from active troops.
"Our economy is in the tank and the American people want that issue addressed," says McCain.
"To somehow believe that this is a compelling issue at a time when we are in two wars ... we should not be exercising a rush to judgment."
He says he will not vote for this to move forward and that he does not think that a majority of his colleagues will either.
12:03: McCain is back, opens with a wry remark about how the chiefs must have enjoyed their "lecture on the legislative process here in the United States Senate."
11:58: Levin presses Schwartz on his suggestion that implementation be delayed: To delay those things to 2012 is "arbitrary," Levin says.
Address DADT during the lame duck "wasn't our timing" Levin says, noting that legislation has been in front of the committee for months. "We didn't set the time for the report" either, he adds.
11:55: Levin again quotes the "big, mean, kills lots of bad guys" anecdote. Always gets a little giggle from the audience.
11:51: Brown says that if the courts act to repeal the policy first: "It would be exceedingly disruptive to the force." But he urges the chiefs to insist to Gates and the other signers of certification (if there is legislation passed by Congress) that their concerns are addressed.
Casey: "I'm very comfortable that we have access" to Gates, as he has said several times today.
11:48: Brown says the only issue that is "important in my mind, when we're fighting two wars, is the safety and security" of the men and women serving abroad.
"If in fact we do move forward with this point ... I'm hopeful that when or if this does get repealed that you will be given the proper respect and input with the three signers who are going to certify, to let them know what your concerns are."
11:47: From Brown's bio:
Senator Brown is a 30-year member of the Massachusetts Army National Guard and currently holds the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps.
11:45: Brown argues that, as a member of the military, he understands this issue better than many lawmakers on the Hill who have not served in uniform.
He asks why the survey was voluntary. He says that during his service, surveys were mandatory.
Casey: "I honestly don't know why they chose to do it the way they did it."
11:45: Sen. Scott Brown is now up.
11:41: Hagan mentions Mullen's argument that war facilitates change rather than hinders it.
"Frankly, I think that's a bit of a stretch," Casey responds.
11:38: Would it be preferable for Congress to repeal the law before the courts address this, Kagan asks. That's the argument that's been made by Gates and Mullen.
Service chiefs say that the ambiguity of the fluctuating court decisions and injunctions in the past must be clarified.
11:36: Hagan asks Casey if there's a timetable for implementation with which he's comfortable. He declines to name a time period.
"It would be a matter of months" at least in the case of the Navy, Roughead says.
11:34: Sen. Hagan of North Carolina is up. Key senators on the GOP side from whom we have not heard: Collins, Brown, and Graham. Brown is in the room, no sign of the other two.
11:30: Sessions, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is speaking about an ACLU case about the policy that was not appealed. He slams Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan "whose personal views on this were so well known" before her confirmation hearing -- which Sessions led for the GOP side earlier this year.
11:26: Republican Sen. Sessions up now. He's using one of his questions to ask Schwartz about an issue involving the disclosure of competitive procurement information about a tanker.
11:24: Yesterday's discussion centered around the methodology of the Pentagon survey and the question of 'whether' the ban should be repealed. Today's is more focused on 'when' the best time to repeal and implement the changes might be.
11:21: Manchin also asks about the impact of a repeal on military chaplains. They appear to agree that the impact would be "modest" and that each chaplain has a mandate to minister to the entire flock.
11:19: Manchin asks about budget issues for additional benefits offered: "Is this going to be a cost-effective measure?"
11:18: New Sen. Manchin of West Virginia up. Yesterday he joked that he's "the new kid on the block."
11:11: Wicker opposes repeal, but he appears to agree with Gates in saying that there will be high levels of intense continued combat in the future: "We're always going to be asking that kind of fighting man to be operating under those kinds of conditions."
Amos: "This is a bad time, senator."
11:07: Sen. Wicker up now. Wicker says addressing the ban now, during a time of war, is akin to last year's discussion of health care reform while unemployment was at crippling highs.
11:05: Breaking now: As the nation's military top brass discusses the impact of policy on combat troops, President Barack Obama arrives in Afghanistan for an unannounced visit to U.S. forces there.
11:01: Sen. Udall up for questions now.
11:00: Thune: "I think I know where all this is headed" he says during the conclusion of his questions.
10:55: The chiefs have reiterated that they believe that they have an open line of communication to Gates, and they have not advocated to be included in the list of officials who must certify legislative wording of repeal.
10:53: Thune: "How should we as members of Congress weigh the fact that there is not consensus" between each branch of the military?
Casey: "I think you should be grateful for that ... I think we'll get a better decision out of it."
10:52: Republican Sen. Thune now up for questions.
10:45: Webb asks if any of the service chiefs believe that any gay or lesbian servicemembers currently serving without violating standards of conduct should leave the service. None say yes.
So, if we keep the policy as it is now, Webb asks, "What is it we should be doing when [someone serving] are 15 years into their service and they want to be able to live an honest and open lifestyle?"
Casey: "Senator, we'll follow the law."
10:43: Sen. Webb up next. He initially voted against moving forward on DADT legislation before the Pentagon report was released, but yesterday he praised the report's writers and said the Working Group on the issue had done "excellent" work.
10:39: Chambliss asks Casey and Amos if repeal would have a positive or negative impact on the readiness of troops.
Casey says "It would increase the risk on the safety of our troops," as he said in his opening statement.
Amos: "I think it would absolutely have an impact on the combat forces" although he does not want to say the same of the non-combat Marines.
10:38: Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia next up for questions.
10:36: "In terms of the policy, change is coming," Reed says.
10:35: Amos notes that rigorous Marine Corps recruiting "tends to winnow out" much of the American population.
10:33: Cartwright: "Leadership is going to be the determinative factor" in implementation.
10:32: Casey points out that there's a difference between "thinking someone is gay or lesbian and knowing it." Says that distinction is worth considering when viewing survey results.
10:30: Sen. Jack Reed next up to ask questions.
10:23: Inhofe brings up the opinion -- voiced most strongly by McCain -- that the survey should have included a more direct question about whether or not the policy should be repealed. Both Casey and Amos side with Gates, that a "referendum" would not have made sense.
Casey: "I believe the way the survey was executed gave us sufficient information to make our judgment.'
Amos: "I don't think we needed a referendum-type question on it."
But Amos attributes the under-30% response rate to "a sense of inevitability" about the results.
10:20: Next up: Sen. Inhofe. He cites data that a sizable portion of combat forces say they would consider leaving the force earlier than planned if the ban is repealed.
Casey notes that those numbers are probably overstated. Amos agrees.
10:17: Lieberman asks whether each of the chiefs has felt comfortable speaking openly about his views with Gates. They say that they have.
10:16: Lieberman notes that the six witnesses appear to agree that the law will and should eventually be repealed, but the question at hand is whether that should be done immediately or later, at a time when the nation is not as heavily engaged in combat.
10:14: Amos says his "suspicions are that the law will be repealed" but "I just ask for the opportunity to do that with with my forces when they're not singularly focused on combat."
"This is serious business for them."
10:11: Lieberman next up.
10:10: McCain just voiced agreement with Casey and Schwartz that the policy should eventually be changed. Just not now.
10:09: McCain asks the same of Schwartz. The Air Force chief responds that it would not "be prudent" at this time to change the law but that it should eventually be repealed.
10:07: Casey responds to McCain's direct question about his views on repeal : "I believe that the law should be repealed eventually."
"I would not recommend going forward at this time given what the Army has on its plate," he said.
10:06: McCain now up for questions. He says he wants to hear what the theater commanders have to say on this issue as well.
10:04: Amos's last response addresses the same question posed by Gates yesterday. But Gates was pessimistic that such a less combative time would be coming to the nation's military anytime soon.
“If not now, when? When we’re out of Afghanistan?” Gates asked yesterday. “I don’t see the world getting to be a safer, easier place to live in, where our troops are necessarily under less stress.”
10:02: Amos says he has thought about the question of "if not now, when?" He says he would prefer implementation during "a time when our Marines are no longer focused on combat."
"My recommendation would be that it begins when our singular focus is not on combat operations," Amos said. At that time, he said, he would be comfortable with repeal.
10:01: Casey just reiterated the point below but said that he "worries about the implications" in Iraq and Afghanistan.
9:58: The service chiefs may disagree on whether or not the ban should be repealed, but one thing they agree on: If Congress acts, their leaders are capable of implementing the ban and their forces are disciplined enough to carry out the law.
9:52: Levin asks each member if they have consulted allies in other countries about integration in their own forces. Casey said that commanders of other countries' military forces said that implementation of gay and lesbian integration went smoothly and that it should be done as simply as possible.
Roughead notes that in other countries, "there was broad national consensus before the law was repealed." But repeak was exceptionally smooth in those countries, he said. It was "a non-event," he reports.
9:48: Cartwright quotes the same anecdote from the report mentioned by Sen. Collins of Maine yesterday.
"As one special operations force warfighter told us, “We have a gay guy [in the unit]. He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay."
9:47: On to questions. There will be 7 minute rounds.
9:43: Adm. Robert Papp, Commandant of the Coast Guard, signaled that he believes repeal would "remove a significant barrier" to Guardsmen already serving, who should not have to "compromise our core values of Honor, Respect, and Devotion to Duty."
But he warns that implementation "will not be achieved without encountering significant challenges along the course ahead."
9:39: Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz: "It is difficult for me ... to recommend placing any additional discretionary demands on our leadership cadres in Afghanistan at this particularly challenging time."
He recommends a deferral of implementation of any changes until 2012.
But he also echoes Gates's point that legislative action is "far more preferable to a decision by the courts."
9:36: Amos emphasizes that Marines would faithfully support the law if Congress changes it. He says the military is capable of implementing repeal.
But, he concludes: "Based on what I know about the very tough fight on the ground in Afghanistan, the almost singular focus of our combat forces as they train up and deploy into theater, the necessary tightly woven culture of those combat forces that we are asking so much of at this time, and finally the direct feedback from the survey, my recommendation is that we should not implement repeal at this time."
9:34: Now, Amos. "Of particular concern to me is that roughly 56% of combat arms Marines voiced negative concerns ... What the survey did not identify is the risk to the ranks within the combat arms communities."
"I cannot reconcile, nor turn my back, on the negative perceptions held by our Marines who are most engaged in the hard work of day-to-day operations in Afghanistan."
9:30: Adm. Roughead, the Chief of Naval Operations, supports repeal. He notes that a "sizeable minority" of Navy members think that repeal would have negative effects -- 24 percent. "I believe these concerns can be effectively mitigated through engaged leadership, effective communication, training and education, and clear and concise standards of conduct. While we will engage all Sailors, regardless of their points of view, it is this minority upon which our leaders should focus."
He concludes by saying: "I assess the risk to readiness, effectiveness, and cohesion of the Navy to be low." He recommends repeal.
9:28: But, Casey adds, the discipline of the force and the seasoning of the military leaders would allow a controlled implementation. "We could could implement repeal with moderate risk to our military effectiveness and long-term health of the force."
9:26: Next, Gen. Casey, the Army Chief of Staff. "Implementation of repeal of DADT in the near term will 1) add another level of stress to an already stretched force; 2) be more difficult in combat arms; and 3) be more difficult for the Army than the report suggests."
9:25: Here's a quick bio of Cartwright, the nation's second highest ranking military officer.
9:22: Gen. Cartwright, first up with an opening statement, offers praise for the Pentagon survey group. He supports repeal.
In his remarks, he echoes the concern of Gates and other Pentagon officials that, without quick legislative action, the courts will overturn the policy first and disrupt an orderly implementation of repeal.
9:20: McCain also took a shot at critics who say that he has cherry-picked favorable information about the existing policy.
Those who say he has not followed through on pledges to listen to the input of a wide variety of military officials are "disregarding the record," he said.
9:14: McCain says he "appreciated hearing from" Mullen and Gates yesterday and that their views "deserve serious consideration."
But he adds of the service chiefs, "it's their responsibility to recruit and retain the best personnel possible" for their military branches. They must make sure their units are "ready and able to win the nation's wars," McCain says, so the views of the service chiefs are "especially relevant to the current debate."
9:10: Levin disagrees with McCain that the service chiefs' input should be considered with greater weight than that of Gates and Mullen. Here's what he said earlier this week to NBC:
At the end of the day, the decision, in terms of any military decisions, are usually left to the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs after consultation with the [service] chiefs.
9:07: Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan, the committee chairman, tells the chiefs in his opening statement that the committee "wants to hear from each of you whether you are satisfied by [the assurances] of the Secretary of Defense" that he would not certify a repeal of the ban unless risks are eliminated to every possible extent. "And we want to know whether you were adequately consulted by the working group."
9:05: We're about to get underway. The service chiefs are seated and the photographers are snapping their opening shots.
8:54: Some background for today: Data from the newly-released Pentagon report on the subject found that respondents from the Marine Corps voiced the strongest concerns about gays and lesbians serving openly in the military. Yesterday, Gates and Mullen argued that those concerns, while valid, could be addressed by training and exposure; many combat force troops, they said, have simply never worked with open gays and lesbians before.
Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the panel, has dismissed the study's overall findings, saying that the survey of servicemembers failed to directly ask them 'whether' the policy should be changed, only 'how' it should be implemented. He has also largely dismissed the advice of Gates and Mullen, saying that they are less connected with the daily leadership of troops than the service chiefs who will testify today.
8:51: Here's what Amos, the Marine Corps leader, recently said about a potential repeal:
There's risk involved; I'm trying to determine how to measure that risk," Gen. James Amos said. "This is not a social thing. This is combat effectiveness. That's what the country pays its Marines to do."
"There is nothing more intimate than young men and young women — and when you talk of infantry, we're talking our young men — laying out, sleeping alongside of one another and sharing death, fear and loss of brothers," he said. "I don't know what the effect of that will be on cohesion. I mean, that's what we're looking at. It's unit cohesion, it's combat effectiveness."
8:40 a.m. ET: Good morning from Dirksen Senate Office Builing. First Read is here for the second day of Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy towards gays and lesbians.
Yesterday, senators heard from military officials who are generally supportive of a repeal of the policy -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen -- as well as from the authors of a new report that found little overall risk to the Armed Forces if the ban is repealed.
Today, they will hear from the heads of each service branch. Some, most importantly the Commandant of the Marine Corps, have expressed reservations about the effect that repeal would have on military operations.
The witnesses are: Gen. James E. Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey; Adm. Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations; Gen. James Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps; Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz; and Adm. Robert Papp, Commandant of the Coast Guard.
The hearing will be underway at 9 a.m. ET, so visit this site for frequent updates about the proceedings.


John McCain should go sit down. This subject has been debated and studied ad nauseum for the past 15 years. Is he stupid or what? Now we know why he graduated at the bottom of his class.
The gay servicemen and women are not going to suddenly wake up straight so we either need to repeal DADT or not, and move on!
There are thousands of gays serving today and it has not had an adverse affect on the readiness of our armed forces so can we just need to stop the non-sense.
As Senator Bayh stated yesterday "gay soldiers died at Gettysburg" so why do we continue to act all brand new on this subject???? Gay people did not suddenly appear on the scene in the 20 century. They have been around since the beginning so let's just get over it.
I watched the clips from Rachel's show last night from yesterday's hearing It was compelling listening to the military. They want this repealed. I was proud actually as I listened to them. Even Senator Scott Brown said just the right things. Very moving I thought.
John McCain. What is his problem?
I'm beginning to think John McCain is a closet gay and thinks he might be outed. Something is definitely wrong with John to change his opinion so often. Is he becoming senile with age? The past ten years has not been kind to him.
Obviously, if he picked Sara Palin as his running mate, something has gone SERIOUSLY wrong with his brain. I think he had a secret lobotomy sometime in the 2000's.
acid, affects the brain....
You say this, coming from an apparent O'drama voter.... The only man with a birth certificate from HI that wasn't put on paper to pass physical scrutinity for authenticity.
The man that wanted to have CHANGE you can count on, (but not past 1). The man who wanted BOTH sides to talk on things before they were passed, remember? And then tried to ram policy after policy down america's throats. You believed he could change the ocean one drop at a time, and you voted for him. How friggin naieve and gullible are you guys? Here, mr. Emperor, buy these new clothes, you'll be popular and "in" with them. wink wink, nudge nudge.
I'm not much of a fan of many on the far right, and by definition I'm ultra conservative and fundamentalist. Unfortunately you guys make me look alien. (pokes third eyeball back in it's socket.)
The far left though, the abusers of the language that remade the word progressive to try to relabel themselves like fresh plastic wrap on old beef, are such an abomination. You guys sit there like a purse pooch and yip at anything the other side has to say. You bring no ideas of your own except, vote for us we'll do THIS for you and THIS TOO and THIS AS WELL! LOOK we will do things for YOU. We don't want you to do for yourself we want you to depend on us! RELY ON US, be in debt to us. Train your minds to wait for our generous hand of providence, YOU NEED US to give you things. SCREW BEING INDEPENDENT AND TAKING CARE OF YOURSELF, depend on us. That's the only way we can keep your vote, is get you hooked on our social-crack and depending on us.
If you don't believe me, ask the Party that founded the KKK what they have actually done for the black community who's votes they own each election, what they have actually ACCOMPLISHED for that party. They certainly haven't moven up in one of their terms financially, nor in other terms. Their rises have happened from the other party.
You guys crack me3 up. You are so worried about posturing, you are to friggin blind by your bigotry to see the truth that there is a brick wall in front of you and.... SPLAT>
Obama has tried time and again to include republicans; they added amendments to the healthcare legislation. He has compromised TOO MUCH with the rethuglican Greed Over Patriotism party. If they kept saying "No, and we're not going to discuss it", then GOOD FOR HIM for forcing legislation on a party that was unwilling to do the business of the people. I didn't believe he was going to change much, but that's because I know how USELESS republican politicians are. He was, is, and will always be a better choice than the senile McCain and Caribou Barbie.
You can call me liberal. I'm proud of it.
False. Everything you said there is a dead lie. We had ideas that were ignored. Single payer. Stop shipping jobs overseas. Stop giving tax breaks to the top 2% who are shipping our jobs overseas. Stop with the police state (amazing you can accuse libs of taking over your life after the failure of the GOP during the Bush years).
Dems may have started it, but it's the republicans that still belong to it. Rethuglicans don't do anything for the average american. They have proven with this tax bill who their masters are.
How this issue is important enough to waste tax payers money when the GOP keeps crying to "stop spending" is one of the biggest mysteries to me.
How about putting this energy and effort to the tax cut issue, or START, or unemployment benefits, or healthcare, or the crumbling education system, or the even more crumbling infrastructure, or job creation.....
I see McCain and Palin and it becomes more obvious then during the election how bad they would have been for the country.
Why is it we only hear from conservatives/republicans on the "The Daily Rundown" discussing the issue of DADT?
So Johnny, you want to hear from every individual soldier/sailor? How long to you plan to block this? Til you're dead?
We all know the military moves at a glacial pace when it comes to change. I think the suggestion of repealing by 2012 could be a viable one. Personally I think they should repeal today but this is the type of compromise that could please everyone except for the 10% of the population that still think gays are evil and are out to get you and your children. Keep the policy in place with the more strict discharge guidelines that seem to be in place now (Need approval from a panel there haven't been any discharges for a month-ish.) End all which hunts, searching through soilders' peronal belongings/emails/letters etc. Spend the next year focusing on training, education and recruitment issues. Offically end the policy 1/1/12. This is the type of compromise our leaders should be coming up with instead of screaming at each other like little babies.
McCain only questions the officials who agree with him.
I wish someone whose against repealing don't ask don't tell , would just admit they're not comfortable with it , and theres a word for being uncomfortable with homosexual individuals serving in the military its called being homophobic. Stop with this bull@!$%# line its for their own good , no no it's for everyone whose a homophobe serving in the military and for the homophobic people who put the policy into action in the first place. So newsflash everyone when you have bullets flying at you or bombs dropping down on you , No one is thinking about getting into your pants they're thinking about surviving just like you.
Unemployment is still 9.8% and the Congress is dithering over who can be the most politically correct. Why doesn't someone do something for the taxpayers and the economy and the people still out of jobs, and North Korea and Afghanistan, Iran, Russian Treaty, etc.....This Don't ask, don't tell, is not a critical, must do now, agenda. After all, there are thousands of gay/lesbian people out of work now. The President and the Congress seem to have a problem with deciding what's important and what's important NOW. Don't ask, don't tell, has been around for a while, and can certainly wait a few more months. Focus on the real, monetary/unemployment/deficit problems we have and get those corrected first.
On problems with retention: So where on the face of the earth will these bigots go where they won't be around gay people? It will never happen.
Are Inhofe and McCain siamese twins?
Connected at the brain
The debate on this issue is meaningless and a waste of time. Article 1: Section 8: Clauses 12 and 13 prohibit Congress funding a standing army for more than two years and permit them to raise and maintain a Navy. If Congress would ahere to the Constitution of the United States, the annual federal deficit would drop from between $1.03 - $1.2 trillion down to $178 billion, the combined cost of maintaing the Navy and Marine Corps.
The army that Congress have the power to raise is the militia. Who are the militia? A simple read of the founding fathers intent in the 2nd Amendment will make that very very clear.
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
"Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts (spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.)
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." Richard Henry Lee (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
"I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." George Mason (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)
Next, all federal , state, and local government can do away with police departments. Why, because both federal district and the U.S. Supreme Court have ruled in the following decisions that the public has no constitutional right to police protection. It is time we the people begin accepting the responsibility that our safety is our own responsibility, not the duty of a police department which is sucking hundreds of billions out of our pockets annually. Go onto your local town, city, or county budget and calculate the cost of cops, then compare that figure with the cost of owning your own gun.
Hey Bobbie - What world do you live in? The majority of civilized people live in the real world where we have laws and public officials to enforce the law for the good of ALL citizens. There is a back-woods mountain somewhere in Idaho with your name on it, you should go back there. I have lots of guns and ammo. And the reason I have them is for nut-jobs like you.
Strange hearing.
The policy is Don't Ask, Don't Tell. All of the service chiefs are having a hard time saying that policy doesn't work now. Believing a soldier is gay doesn't make any difference now. Knowing that a soldier is gay (after repeal) will not make a significant difference over the long term.
BUT: when a Marine Corps combat unit where 75% of the troops say they do NOT now serve and fight with a gay soldier learn that they DO, there will be a problem. Leaders will have no problem directing these troops, but the troops will suffer a change in unit cohesion, bonding and effectiveness.
AND the service chiefs say a unified (across all services, at the same time), phased change of the policy is absolutely necessary and would work.
Not IF, or WHEN, but HOW is the only remaining uncertainty.
How is the cycle of new recruit, new policy versus current troop, old policy, rectified?
Why is no one asking what the cost of this policy is?
How many of those Marines and Army Special forces that are scared of serving with opening gay service members have been KILLED because the military was short of Arabic language specialist because they have kicked out over 300 for being gay?
This is just a bit less of a waste of time than the stupid hearings congress had on baseball players using steroids. What a joke we must be to the rest of the world.
Nobody says a homosexual can't serve. Just keep your sexual expression to yourself. Homosexuality is unnatural. And after you are done with your argument, go back to the truth which is, homosexuality is unnatural.
Lonesome Rhoades: Yea so if someone ask what you did on leave just lie and make up a "straight" partner.
Dont bother putting a picture of your loved one in your wallet cause that will be expressing yourself to much for boneheads like you!
Wickers question, Why are we here? (now, with so many other pressing problems) is easily answered.
He and other Republicans have blocked, stalled, put off, and denied this and so many other practical issues. They have failed to act, to do their job, to be effective leaders in doing the nation's business.
If Senator Wickers and General Amos what to tell us when there will be no conflict anywhere in the world, in the future, and they can "revisit" the question, yet again, then they say they can do this. What BS!
Military commanders are asking themselves three questions:
If DADT is repealed, will troops leave the military and how many?
If a gay lifestyle is fully endorsed, how do I handle very open displays--affection, dress?
How do I protect gay troops deployed to a country that doesn't allow displays of affection/dress or even being gay?
The military is not a 9-5 job that you can quit or even prefer to be remain isolated. Rather it is a lifestyle approximating a very large family. The family works, plays, and lives together--almost every hour of every day. As a large family it needs some degree of harmony. How many gay persons have seen their coming out create large riffs in their own families? Can the military withstand such a conflict without impacting their operational effectiveness?
This is already too long, but let me add a couple of extra points. The military has endorsed great change in the past. The military was integrated before most of the rest of the country, but that was done in many steps. It will handle gay servicemen, but not in one huge bite. This is what service leaders are trying to say while the other side says, "get on with it."
Personnaly, I served in the military 30 years--occasionally with gays who served quietly. There IS great concern within the ranks of what this change will mean. Most expect some gay display, possibly outrageous, to make a point of gay openness/presence if DADT is repealed. Most admit this will likely result in violence against military gays and possibly extend to outside the service. Lastly, most in the military have never dealt with very open gay situations/relationships because they are part of this separate military family and thus have not formed strong opinions one way or the other on gay lifestyles. That needs to be considered when asking them their opinion.
Gay Display? like a handshake?
like when I returned from a 6 month deployment and all the other guys on the boat were hugging and kissing their wives and girlfriends, and I gave my boyfriend a handshake? (I'm still not sure how he found out when the boat was returning, since that information could only be give to wives and girlfriends...)
A hug and a kiss the same as the other crew members would hardly be considered outrageous.
When will we start dealing with bigotry in the ranks? There will be no difference in military effectiveness if the bigots control their urges.
Senator Sessions and McCain need to be discharged from the US Senate. Now. Without comment or delay.
There have been more problems with male soldiers attacking female soldiers than any attacks from Gays. Why don't they ask men and women if they are uncomfortable working with each other?
I agree Squid001. Handshakes are acceptable displays. Hugs between same sexes are also acceptable, same with kisses, at least on the cheek. What exactly was your point?
My point is that there is no way to get around it. We are all different and we all need to work together. This seems like a waste of time and money.