- The United States Army & Marines oppose repealing the law.
- Repealing the law would effect troop morale and unit cohesion.
- 70% of combat Marines: Repeal would have a negative impact.
- The United States Military is not the place for social engineering.
- Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been a resounding success since 1993.
I would rather stand with the United States Marines against homosexuals openly serving in the United States Military* (a policy first implemented by George Washington), along with the Army and Air Force, than with social liberals who believe everyone has a right to serve in the Military, despite an amazing lack of such a right in the Constitution, every day of the week.
One liberal writer with the Washington Post obviously disagrees with me, and his reasoning isn't based on one piece of evidence anchored to reality, or even honesty. Here's what Jonathan Capehart wrote this morning on the subject: "In short, gay men and lesbians serving in silence in the military may have to wait for the courts to liberate them".
You have got to be kidding me. I wonder if Capehart cared about the Iraqi people who needed to be "liberated" from Saddam, or was that just another example of American Imperialism? This is another one of these liberal ploys: If you can't beat them on the facts; beat them on emotions. I don't think Military policy should be based on emotional hogwash, but rather on cold hard facts, and those hard facts oppose repealing the Military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on the basis of unit cohesiveness, effectiveness, and morale.
What say you?
* Check out this amazing article by Mackubin Thomas Owens on DADT.
I think you're approaching this from the wrong angle. I oppose repealing DADT because the law protects homosexuals. If you remove it, then gays who are in dangerous situations within their unit have to classify themselves under mental disorders in order to get discharged, in which case they will have unflattering records of their time in service. Under DADT you get honorable discharge and people do not discount your service; it is just that you knew your sexual orientation made the job difficult or dangerous.
ReplyDeleteYour approach ignores the protection it has given to gays in the military and fails to mention that 85% of them, in the most recent Pentagon survey, want to remain silent about their sexuality. You're focusing too much on the military as an institution that would be "harmed" by homosexuals, which is not a strong argument since almost everyone in the military knows a gay man or lesbian in uniform and it doesn't harm the institution. The reason DADT is useful is that it allows for the roughly 600 instances per year where a gay servicemember cannot maintain his sexual identity and operate safely within his unit; it's a safe and humane way to get him out of danger. Factually you will never be able to make the case that the military as a whole will suffer with the addition of 800-1000 new homosexuals. You will be able to make the case that those 650 people who left under DADT each year were, in 98% of cases, voluntary and reflected a sense by the gay servicemember that his national service is best directed somewhere that his orientation wouldn't be such a problem.
You need to understand that currently the law is not functioning as a ban or a way to get people fired against their will. Mostly nowadays it is a way for people to request discharge and be removed from danger.