-
John Kerry, Secretary of Gaffes
April 25, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Rand Paul and Marco Rubio at CPAC
March 14, 2013 | 0 comments
-
SEQUESTER: The Dumbest Weight-Loss Plan Ever
March 1, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Israel’s Hard-Right Turn That Wasn’t
January 22, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Deep Space Nine, Twenty Years Later
January 3, 2013 | 23 comments
The Spectacle Blog
John Guardiano writes regarding “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”:
No one is compelled to “lie” about anything. What gay and lesbian servicemen are forced to do is to keep their sexuality to themselves. Big deal.
If you don’t think it’s a big deal to hide your sexuality, give it a try for a day or two. Don’t mention your significant other, or any of your past relationships, to anyone. If you’re single, see how long it is before someone asks you if you’re seeing anyone or have any prospects, and try to answer the question without lying or giving away whether you’re gay or straight. Then explain why it’s reasonable to expect gay people to either do this or lose their jobs.
It isn’t, of course, and that’s why the days when it was acceptable in America to fire someone because you learned he was gay are thankfully in the past. There are areas where a military can function with a different set of values than the the society it protects, but we’re past the point where this is one of them. DADT was always an unstable compromise between the ban on gays in the military and the acceptance of gays in civilian life, and it’s time has passed, as most servicemen understand.
One way or another, DADT is gone, whether by act of Congress, presidential stop-loss order, or judicial fiat. The third scenario would be, as Admiral Mullen has said, “hazardous to military morale, readiness and battlefield performance.” That’s why the Senate must — and, I predict, will — vote for repeal.
View all comments (30) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John Tabin
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/12/17/why-dadt-has-to-go
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Soren| 12.17.10 @ 8:29PM
The ban on women in combat has to go.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/.....t-120710w/
Eric Cartman| 12.18.10 @ 2:57AM
THE BAN ON BESTIALITY HAS GOT TO GO!
If you don't think hiding your sexuality concerning gerbils is a big deal! Look at this! (BTW I know they are hamsters - but look how CUTE!)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfJnqbudMzs)
Give it a try for a couple of days! Go ahead! Let's see if you can resist those furry butts!
Oh wait. I'm talking about my sex life. Not a concerted effort of intense training in combat, escape and evasion, hand-to-hand combat, enemy tactics, war fighting, etc. I thought I was talking about forcing people to love - not accept, but love - my sexual proclivities. And if you can't love my gerbil-love, then you are just a gerbilphobe right winger! Fox News Lover!
Eric Cartman| 12.18.10 @ 3:57AM
Oh, I forgot to add: Zoop, zop, zippity!
Soren| 12.17.10 @ 8:42PM
"If you don't think it's a big deal to hide you sexuality, give it a try for a day or two. Don't mention your significant other, or any of your past relationships, to anyone. If you're single, see how long it is before someone asks you if you're seeing anyone or have any prospects, and try to answer the question without lying or giving away whether you're gay or straight. Then explain why it's reasonable to expect gay people to either do this or lose their jobs."
Oh please, this paragraph is beyond terrible... I can't think of any situation where it would bet better for them to tell the truth. Especially the "I'm gay and available" situation.
Admiral Mullen is beyond personally invested in this fight. I quite honestly do not believe that the courts would automatically strike it down. Nor do I believe that it would be a worse outcome than congress repealing it.
BTW, Admiral Mullen spoke at the commission pushing women into greater combat roles, he should answer for it.
Eric Cartman| 12.18.10 @ 4:10AM
Yes, it is BEYOND horrible. Okay, so let's find an institution that understands war. The Marines. Hmmm. Seems they say NO. Okay! I agree. Now, lets here for San Fransisco Gays. Yes! Hmmmm - which organization understands war? Hmmm.
Pelligrino| 12.18.10 @ 11:17PM
Admiral Mullen has advocated for and now achieved women on US Navy submarines.
I am not absolutely current with this, but mid-summer the first 8 or 9 newly commisioned female ensigns from Annapolis are undergoing the extensive training they will need as new officers aboard, I believe, attack submarines.
They will join these submarine crews sometime in 2011.
This is any sub commander's worst nightmare.
Uh, scratch that. His worst nightmare just got passed in the US Senate. Yes, there will now be consentual male sex on board our navy subs. (even if officially they say only on liberty once ashore, that won't last long)
These will now be undersea "love boats."
Good riddance to the commited submariners; I don't see a real chief petty officer standing for this.
I would much prefer to say good riddance to Admiral Idiot Mullen and all the Joint Chiefs with the possible exception of the Marine Corps Commandant.
The nation has been betrayed by our military leaders (and Secretary Gates).
(All enemies foreign ...and domestic?)
I guess that this was the deal with President Obama. Obama told Gates he could stay on in his administration but that he had to get DADT repealed.
Or is this not so?
Old Bull| 12.17.10 @ 8:51PM
I can't help noticing that almost all of those who advocate these social projects have never, themselves, gone in harm's way in the uniform of their country. Anyone who things you can suppress sexuality and/or sexual behavior simply by executive fiat has no practical knowledge of human nature. I commanded troops in an infantry company in a war zone. The last thing I would want to have to deal with is sexual tensions between soldiers in the same unit, regardless of the sexes involved. Gays can serve in the military all they want now. What they can't do is flaunt their sexuality. So? Get over it! The quest for "perfect justice" inevitably ends in the destruction of the society that is seeking it, because there is no objective standard for what is "just."
mac| 12.17.10 @ 8:52PM
I agree with Soren. I don't think I have ever asked a question like that. I have I guess been asked if I was married, a question that has two answers, yes or no.
Lesser Weevil| 12.17.10 @ 8:56PM
Any bets on how long it will take a lavender mafia to establish itself once "open" homosexuality is sacrosanct?
CalMark| 12.17.10 @ 9:00PM
This post is typical of the snarky, condescending, self-righteous drivel pro-repeal forces are slathering onto every available surface. Similar stuff appears at National Review, and reads virtually the same. Got your talking points fax on content and style this morning, did you?
I don't know whether Mr. Tabin has ever served in a front-line unit. The kind of preachy, hoity-toity tone would only be remotely tolerable from someone who has.
If not, the self-righteous smugness of this post is what is unforgivable. In short, you know not of what you speak, and your presumption is as apalling as it is inexcusable.
Military units exist for the harshest of purposes: to close with, engage, and destroy the enemy, as the Marines like to say. It's not an incubator for social fads, and anything that's a distraction--and worrying (one way or another) whether the guy next to me in the shower might be fancying me is just that--is bad.
Sorry, and all that; I know reality is unpopular with gay rights reformers, but that's the truth. So smear those of us who disagree with you all you like, but it won't change anything.
If Mr. Tabin has served in a frontline unit, he is entitled to his opinion but blind to reality. Having served as an officer on a frequently-deployed warship with a mixed crew, I can testify that this kind of "sexual issues can be contained with good leadership" is umitigated balderdash, as the policies are an unmitigated disaster.
Romances, intrigues, peculiar tensions and sexual politics spilled over into serious operational matters. A jilted lover, feeling churlish that his co-worker/girlfriend had dumped him, once egregiously disobeyed legitimate orders, potentially endangering the ship.
Imagine the tensions and conflicts when normal, healthy heterosexual men are told that THEY are perverts if they don't abandon their moral, ethical, and religious principles that homosexuality is wrong, and they must embrace it--or else. The harshest penalties were reserved not for the aforementioned kid who disobeyed orders, but for peopel who violated left wing political correctness shibboleths.
So, Mr. Tabin and your ilk: we can debate all you like. I still say you're wrong. But you have no right to wag your finger at me, and people like me, who have been there and know what's what. And if you're one of those people, you're entitled to your opinion, but not your nastily patronizing tone.
Nick| 12.18.10 @ 12:48AM
CalMark,
Excellent post, sir!
And, thank you for your service.
LindaK| 12.17.10 @ 9:47PM
The 30th Commandant of the Marines, Gen. Carl Mundy,now retired, wrote a great letter to Congressmen explaining why the law preventing homosexuals from serving openly in the military should not be repealed. He also explains the fine distinction between the law, and the policy termed "DADT". The law does not require anyone to lie. http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18602.xml
Anthony| 12.17.10 @ 9:53PM
Once homosexuality is legalized in the military, young, Christian men will no longer volunteer. It's that simple. The type of people who enjoy the company of homosexuals are not the type of people who join the military. Will we reinstate the draft? Will the American people support a new draft? I don't think so. All I can say is a week after my 18th birthday I enlisted in the US Army, if homosexuality were legal, I would not have, and I think the overwhelming majority of my fellow soldiers would not have either. You might get what you want, but you might not like what you get.
Serge from San Fran| 12.17.10 @ 10:05PM
I can't wait to join the Marines and be bitch slapped by some Gunney Sgt! Just think all of those young hulking males in the showers with me! Cant' wait...
9th ID| 12.17.10 @ 10:08PM
As a combat arms vet and a Christian I have come to realize the only moral and practical long-term solution to the impeached Slick Willie Clinton's DADT is to reinstate the original TOTAL ban on gays. It worked great for 200 years until Slick Willie came along and decided to pander to the radical gay lobby. If our Congressmen won't listen to our combat troops, commanders, and vets during a time of war then let's go back to what worked, and that is what we will push for in the new congress and 2012...
Nick| 12.18.10 @ 12:49AM
Ditto!
Pelligrino| 12.18.10 @ 11:36PM
9th ID is correct. And for all those who do not know "ID" stands for Infantry Division.
This is where fighting occurs. This is where readiness, go-to-war skills, marksmanship, physical fitness, mission-focus must be paramount.
It is how we have avoided any attack by a foreign nation on US soil since the War of 1812.
You go with the things that stand the test of time.
And, Old Bull, there are indeed moral absolutes. One of them is clearly spelled out in the Bible: Homosexuality is an abomination in God's sight.
Read the written words of Moses in the Old Testament book of Genesis chapter 19 to see how God views homosexuality. You'll learn a part of the story of Lot's life. And note what happens to Lot's wife in verse 25.
mobile1| 12.20.10 @ 12:46AM
"Homosexuality is an abomination in God's sight."
So is eating shrimp. So what? http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/
Bruce Berger| 12.17.10 @ 10:11PM
Tabin's argument in favor of the repeal of DADT is probably the laziest I have seen yet. I have posted a number of times on AS about the manpower issues related to repeal and how they have not been addressed by the survey that Tabin cites. I won't go into it again because his lazy posting is not deserving of a considered rebuttal.
Steve Scott| 12.17.10 @ 10:13PM
Old Bull writes:
"I can't help noticing that almost all of those who advocate these social projects have never, themselves, gone in harm's way in the uniform of their country."
Admiral Mullen, who favors repeal, is a Vietnam vet and former commander of a guided missile destroyer, a guided missile cruiser, a battle group, and the 2nd Fleet.
Former head of the Joint Chief's of Staff General John Shalikashvili favors repeal. He was a company commander in Vietnam.
Four star Admiral Charles Larson, former commander of the nuclear attack submarine USS Halibut, favors repeal. He was also superintendent of the Naval Academy. Twice.
Larson and over a hundred other retired generals and admirals signed a statement favoring repeal, citing that there are an estimated 65,000 Gays in the military and a million Gay veterans.
There have been well over twelve thousand gays discharged under the policy since its inception in 1994. You don't think any of them served in combat? They and all those that haven't been outed were all in the rear with the gear, being queer? Is that how it worked?
The first serious Marine casualty of the Iraq occupation, Staff Sergeant Eric Alva, favors repeal. He had his leg blown off by a mine in March of 2003. He's a third generation serviceman whose middle name is "Fidelis." It was his father's and his grandfather's first name. Sort of fits a Marine, don't you think?
Alva is Gay.
The issue of how to deal with fraternization between gays is simple. You have orders against it, just as you do for the straight troops. I don't doubt a brief re-write of the existing orders would fix it. If someone doesn't follow the rules, they get hammered with the UCMJ. Just like the straight servicemen and women.
(For the non-veterans, that's the Uniform Code of Military Justice.)
What will it take for people to accept that these people can serve with honor? Do they have to jump on a grenade or brave enemy fire and win the Medal of Honor? Some probably have and we never knew it.
If it happens to an openly Gay person, that may be a day "Old Bull" and others here dread. Valor and patriotism and commitment to service...from a fairy.
Imagine.
CalMark| 12.17.10 @ 10:24PM
Your argument is simplistic, emotional, and dishonest.
The question is not whether homosexuals can serve bravely. The question is "should they?" And the answer is NO.
A military unit, particularly a combat unit, requires cohesion and esprit de corps. When there is sexual attraction between members, especially if allowed to be openly expressed, it destroys the "band of brothers" atmosphere.
It's about effective warfighting. It's NOT about special interest segments of the population getting feel-good treatment.
Pelligrino| 12.18.10 @ 11:48PM
I had personal interaction with the US Army's General John Shalikashvili and 1) he's been out of the Army for a long time. I'd have to see when, but a) generals are typically very unaware of what occurs at the real troop levels, b) I don't think he would have seen 2 or 3 years of service during the DADT started with Bill Clinton in 1994.
2) More importantly, the average soldier & officer in the Army thought Shalli a really bad joke. The man WAS NOT conversant in the US/English language. Not at all. You could not understand what he was saying. Period. With him it was like having some old, dusty academic Eastern European with a suit and stars on it.
Newsflash: All these flag officers get there usually because they are the best PC Champions known to have ever walked planet earth. Any 12-14 year serviceperson who reads their missives know this. They are typically the best brown nosing, ass-kissing schmucks. They have PhDs in how to perform this.
These guys are so far removed from real military operations.
Current US Army example: General George W. Casey.
No real soldier would ever want to serve with him or have him anywhere nearby during a firefight.
(The problem: Those in the ranks can't ever speak this truth, and don't because of his position.)
Bruce Berger| 12.17.10 @ 10:32PM
Steve Scott,
I truly believe that gays/lesbians can serve with honor that is the equal of heterosexual soldiers/marines. That is the not the issue for me.
The study that Tabin cites says that 70% of the military personnel surveyed think that the repeal of DADT would be neutral to positive. Fair enough, let's take that as a given.
Now what about the other 30%? What if they feel so strongly about the repeal of DADT that they don't re-up, or they would have never enlisted in the first place in the absence of a DADT-type policy? Can you guarantee the American people that there will be enough new recruits to replace their ranks? It may happen, but I doubt you would issue a guarantee, because, frankly you don't have a clue about the real-world impact of a repeal. We don't have the luxury of risking a manpower shortage resulting from a change in policy. I would hope you agree that a military manpower shortage would be an extremely serious problem we would like to avoid.
I'm sorry, but when it comes to military matters the burden of proof is with those who want change.
This leads me to a suggestion that I cannot claim original credit for, as I have read it elsewhere. Perhaps we should repeal DADT in one or more branches of service, while maintaining it in at least one. That way we will have a real-world experiment in the difference between the two approaches, and the resulting impact on recruiting, retention, etc. It would probably provide a great deal of useful information.
JCfromDC| 12.17.10 @ 10:48PM
Scientific enough in it's approach, a constant and a variable, like most scientific experiments SHOULD have present.
But, I have to plead ignorance on this as I have never worn the uniform. I was rejected for my feet! Something about "targets" and "cannon fodder"
Pelligrino| 12.19.10 @ 12:00AM
The problem: Even if 30% (I'd say more like 70%) are truly mightily peived at the December 18 US Senate vote to repeal DADT, MOST will come under
1) pressure to see out their 3,4,and 5 year hitches as per their existing contracts.
2) some officer are on open-ended service contracts (those beyond the initial 4 or 5 year service period)
3) The kicker: The economy. With our national unemployment at a record high and 36+ sustained months of recession with NO END in sight, even a really demoralized guy is going to suck it up before making the leap to a civilan life that offers no jobs.
So the DADT repeal proponents are going to say 24-30 months from now, "See! We told you so! It wasn't going to make a difference; there weren't massive early terminations or massive terminations at re-up time."
Last, military guys are really told a lot of the time to just shut up with their inner thoughts and convictions. Yes, they can share them with a very small circle of buddies, but open discussion is rare to find.
DADT repeal was a mistake. A MASSIVE one. A morally repugnant decision. But: Don't necessarily look for the manifestation of anger in the ranks through departures. So much of the military ethic is "Soldier on, no matter what the odds." It really is.
Army guys say "Charlie Mike!" meaning "Continue the Mission." And they truly believe that America has to defend freedom not just for the 50 states and our territories but also for people around the world who otherwise would be facing tyranny within the next 10-15 years.
These guys are patriots. They ask, "If I'm not here doing the dirty work to help defend the nation, what this new batch of sissy, pampered gays is going to defend the land of my forefathers?"
Red Phillips | 12.17.10 @ 10:56PM
"that's why the days when it was acceptable in America to fire someone because you learned he was gay are thankfully in the past."
So let me get this straight. A "conservative" writer on a conservative website thinks it is OK to outlaw employers from making employment decisions based on something God in His Holy Word calls an abomination? What's the matter Mr. Tabin, HuffPo didn't have any openings?
Good grief!
Roger Fortier | 12.17.10 @ 11:34PM
I'm usually a fan of Mr Tabin, but must respectfully disagree this time. I won't repeat my recent posts on DADT, but soon, unless we draw a line to the left's unceasing efforts at moral and cultural nihilism, our military is going to look like the co-ed shower scene in "Starship Troopers."
Pelligrino| 12.19.10 @ 12:11AM
This is how today's military pretty much does look right now, Mr. Roger Fortier.
Proof: Just go to the strip of cheap economy hotels/motels outside any major US military post within the US on one of the long 4-day weekends the military get. Particularly a holiday like Memorial Day, 4th of July, or Labor Day -- when the weather is good.
Particularly the ones with pools.
Just watch as the young troopers -- males and females -- arrive starting about 4-5 p.m. on the first day of that long weekend. Stay til dark and, better, til about 2-3 a.m. if you can stomach it.
Many readers here would not be able to 'stomach it.'
You'll see that scene you mention and worse.
You'll lose a lot of respect for today's young military. (But do rememember, there are still some good kids; the good ones do use these weekends for good purposes, many do try to get home to see family.)
I have no idea how the standards for drug testing/urine testing have so slipped within the military.
There ought to be mandatory drug testing at 4 a.m. on the next duty day for ALL.
This would help to eliminate the many debauched deviants we do not need.
You'll see them again out there this Memorial Day weekend, May 2011.
Tish | 12.18.10 @ 8:39AM
I must disagree. A combat unit isn't like a motor pool. Supporters don't ask what should be the central question: what benefit would repeal of DADT confer upon the military? Few service members have a problem with gays until their sexual preferences become more important than their service. Progressives have spent decades doing social engineering on the military so they could then turn around and say "The military does it" and force it on the rest of society without a vote anywhere.
Oldefarte| 12.18.10 @ 1:52PM
Homosexuals in the military should simply GO BACK INTO THE CLOSET. Sexuality, whether homosexuality or heterosexuality, is not [should not] be a open matter for exhibition or discussion for military members in their official capacities. If DADT is repealed, it will DESTROY OUR VOLUNTARY MILITARY [since the openness of homosexuality involved with become so repugnant to normal/hetersexuals that the latter will choose to exit their military service careers rather that be subjected to this blantant immorality. Just as homosexuals have destroyed the Catholic Church and other Christian churches, so to will they now be able to destroy our military!!!!!!!!