The Pentagon's report on the impact of repealing DADT is out

[her209]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/30/AR2010113007009.html

After nine months of study and unprecedented polling of the nation's troops, the Pentagon concluded Tuesday that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly posed a "low risk" of disruption. The report found that a large majority of troops were comfortable with the prospect of overturning long-standing restrictions on gays in uniform and that they expected it would have little or no effect on their units.

"This can be done, and should be done, without posing a serious risk to military readiness," Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said. He urged the Senate to pass legislation before it adjourns this month and a new Congress - in which the GOP will hold much more sway - is seated in January.

The public supports its repeal, the Pentagon said it not going to have much impact. Should be a slam dunk, right?

 

[ElFenix]

even the pentagon has been infected by teh ghey adjenduh!

 

[JS80]

Blacks hate gays
Obama is black
Obama must hate gays

 

[ayabe]

Blacks hate gays
Obama is black
Obama must hate gays

He's urban, very, very urban.

 

[JSt0rm]

Blacks hate gays
Obama is black
Obama must hate gays

necons talk about obama
JS80 is a neocon
JS80 brings up obama in every thread

 

[Throckmorton]

The thing that most concerns me is that we have people in the military who aren't even competent enough to keep their own sex lives a secret.

No wonder they leak thousands of pages of documents to Wikileaks. If you feel such a strong need to blab, maybe you'd be better off working as a hairdresser.

There are probably STILL POWs in Southeast Asia NOT telling

 

[werepossum]

If memory serves, 30% of the military disagreed with allowing gays to openly serve. From my admittedly limited sampling pool of military members, I'm going to guess that this 30% is overwhelmingly concentrated in the combat units. I do not for instance recall a single engineering corps or JAG expressing disdain for "rump rangers" etc. I have however heard that belief expressed quite often from infantry, cavalry scouts, artillerymen, etc. That makes me doubt that allowing gays to openly serve can be done without serious impact on fighting ability.

One thing that could be done without serious impact on fighting ability would be an end to a mandatory discharge for gays outed. If this knowledge is accidentally gained, why should any action be taken? Considering the high cost to train and retain servicemen and women, if there is a complaint it should be worth the money to investigate a gay service member's unit (no pun intended) to see if that unit does have a problem with that person. If it's one or two people complaining, perhaps it makes more sense to transfer them rather than the gay person. It could even be better for unit moral and performance to keep a particular gay person rather than one or two malcontents, assuming gaiety is not a general guide to poor job performance. If several people object, perhaps the gay serviceman or woman could profitably serve elsewhere. There's probably a big difference in opinions between someone expected to share a foxhole with a gay person, and someone merely working beside him or her. And there's certainly a big difference between serving with someone who makes being gay the foremost thing in day to day life, and someone who merely has a same-sex partner at home. One size does not fit all, either for or against.

 

[Throckmorton]

The solution is simple. Make DADT what it's called. Don't ask, and don't tell. Not "don't get outed".

If you feel the need to tell, that's your choice. Like the kid who thought he was violating his Harvard code of conduct by not telling, because he was too stupid to distinguish between lying and keeping a secret... Imagine what would happen if he got captured by the enemy.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

the traditiona­l view in the military has been that gays are a security risk. that is the reason they have always given for banning gays and then later having dadt. now people in the army look at the bradley manning case (the guy who leaked to wikileaks) and they think this is their worst fear realized. but because of the political nature of the issue, they cant say what they feel or express their concerns, so they have to just keep saying things like "we need to study this further...­" they cant have a rational discusion about this issue with the people that oppose dadt

 

[fskimospy]

the traditiona*l view in the military has been that gays are a security risk. that is the reason they have always given for banning gays and then later having dadt. now people in the army look at the bradley manning case (the guy who leaked to wikileaks) and they think this is their worst fear realized. but because of the political nature of the issue, they cant say what they feel or express their concerns, so they have to just keep saying things like "we need to study this further...*" they cant have a rational discusion about this issue with the people that oppose dadt

Completely untrue. The view in the military has been that gays would damage unit cohesion, not that they were security risks. They are both equally stupid views, but different nonetheless.

 

[Brainonska511]

the traditiona*l view in the military has been that gays are a security risk. that is the reason they have always given for banning gays and then later having dadt. now people in the army look at the bradley manning case (the guy who leaked to wikileaks) and they think this is their worst fear realized. but because of the political nature of the issue, they cant say what they feel or express their concerns, so they have to just keep saying things like "we need to study this further...*" they cant have a rational discusion about this issue with the people that oppose dadt

Do tell - how are they a "security risk?"

 

[OBLAMA2009]

Do tell - how are they a "security risk?"

i think the reasoning is more like, if youre already a murderer, youre more likely to also commit a bank robbery...

 

[shira]

The solution is simple. Make DADT what it's called. Don't ask, and don't tell. Not "don't get outed".

If you feel the need to tell, that's your choice. Like the kid who thought he was violating his Harvard code of conduct by not telling, because he was too stupid to distinguish between lying and keeping a secret... Imagine what would happen if he got captured by the enemy.

This goes for straights, too, since we treat everyone equally, right? No openly going on dates with anyone, since that would reveal your sexual preference. No photos of spouses, significant others, or girl-friend/boy-friends - that would reveal your preference, too. No conversations with fellow soldiers about who you're attracted too.

If you believe that keeping your sexual nature a secret is a totally reasonable strategy, then it's reasonable for EVERYONE, right?


Does that about size up your argument?

 

[werepossum]

Do tell - how are they a "security risk?"

Oblama is correct. The view historically was that homosexuals were subject to blackmail because of their homosexuality. Other forms of deviant sex, including affairs, were viewed the same. Basically anything that might make betraying your country and/or unit seem like the better choice is a security risk, so any embarrassing or illegal behavior carries a potential risk of blackmail. That's largely outdated though if gays are allowed to serve openly. You cannot blackmail a gay by threatening to reveal his nasty proclivities if he's openly gay, and it becomes much less threatening even on gays in the closet if being exposed as gay does not mean loss of livelihood and peer group. I'd venture to say though that even under DADT the blackmail threat is not significant today, similarly because being gay is no longer such a social stigma and also because it will not earn you a dishonorable discharge to follow you forever. But either way that's not germane to this discussion; if gays are allowed to serve openly, then their liability to blackmail should be no more than for straights.

That doesn't apply to Manning. Even assuming he actually is gay, he was not being blackmailed over it. There is a security risk in anyone who is different and doesn't fit in, but arguably allowing gays to openly serve would reduce the security risk of malcontents who are gay. If you see other gay servicemen around you, chances are you will feel less persecuted and alienated.

 

[Throckmorton]

This goes for straights, too, since we treat everyone equally, right? No openly going on dates with anyone, since that would reveal your sexual preference. No photos of spouses, significant others, or girl-friend/boy-friends - that would reveal your preference, too. No conversations with fellow soldiers about who you're attracted too.

If you believe that keeping your sexual nature a secret is a totally reasonable strategy, then it's reasonable for EVERYONE, right?


Does that about size up your argument?

Yes, that is my argument. Keep your personal business to yourself, and also don't allow outing by other troops. I don't talk about who I went on a date on with my coworkers.

Like I said, it shouldn't be "Don't Get Outed".

 

[PJABBER]

Oblama is correct. The view historically was that homosexuals were subject to blackmail because of their homosexuality. Other forms of deviant sex, including affairs, were viewed the same. Basically anything that might make betraying your country and/or unit seem like the better choice is a security risk, so any embarrassing or illegal behavior carries a potential risk of blackmail. That's largely outdated though if gays are allowed to serve openly. You cannot blackmail a gay by threatening to reveal his nasty proclivities if he's openly gay, and it becomes much less threatening even on gays in the closet if being exposed as gay does not mean loss of livelihood and peer group. I'd venture to say though that even under DADT the blackmail threat is not significant today, similarly because being gay is no longer such a social stigma and also because it will not earn you a dishonorable discharge to follow you forever. But either way that's not germane to this discussion; if gays are allowed to serve openly, then their liability to blackmail should be no more than for straights.

That doesn't apply to Manning. Even assuming he actually is gay, he was not being blackmailed over it. There is a security risk in anyone who is different and doesn't fit in, but arguably allowing gays to openly serve would reduce the security risk of malcontents who are gay. If you see other gay servicemen around you, chances are you will feel less persecuted and alienated.

Manning has admitted in interviews that he is homosexual and that he had feelings of persecution and harassment since high school for being a nerd as well as homosexual.

He was being transitioned out of his intelligence analyst role into an administrative supply job pending his discharge from the Army for this when he decided to take revenge by copying all the classified data he could.

He seriously contemplated giving this data to a foreign or enemy state or states but ultimately decided against it as he thought he would be further reviled.

He seems to have serious emotional issues, but the reports from his lawyer are that he is doing well in confinement in Quantico pending formal charges and a court martial.

Manning is a classic case of why people with aberrant sexual proclivities and/or serious emotional problems are denied high level security clearances. He was only cleared to Secret level, which basically requires a National Agency records check for criminal activity and credit issues (also an indicator of susceptibility, in that case to bribery,) so his homosexuality would not have been discovered that way.

Eliminating DADT does nothing to resolve the vulnerability of homosexuals and others to espionage recruitment techniques. If someone has a career in the military or in government and wants to be accepted into a peer group (ie combat units) and that peer group is substantially anti-gay and a hostile intelligence case officer finds out there is every inducement to use it as a lever. It is as common a technique as honeypots and bribes.

It is why foreign intel guys can often be found trolling gay bars near military bases. It is not because they are looking to hook up, though they might be if they swing that way themselves, it is because the pickings are so easy.

 

[Munky]

This goes for straights, too, since we treat everyone equally, right? No openly going on dates with anyone, since that would reveal your sexual preference. No photos of spouses, significant others, or girl-friend/boy-friends - that would reveal your preference, too. No conversations with fellow soldiers about who you're attracted too.

If you believe that keeping your sexual nature a secret is a totally reasonable strategy, then it's reasonable for EVERYONE, right?


Does that about size up your argument?

No it doesn't go for straights. And only a troll would suggest that it should.

 

[werepossum]

Manning has admitted in interviews that he is homosexual and that he had feelings of persecution and harassment since high school for being a nerd as well as homosexual.

He was being transitioned out of his intelligence analyst role into an administrative supply job pending his discharge from the Army for this when he decided to take revenge by copying all the classified data he could.

He seriously contemplated giving this data to a foreign or enemy state or states but ultimately decided against it as he thought he would be further reviled.

He seems to have serious emotional issues, but the reports from his lawyer are that he is doing well in confinement in Quantico pending formal charges and a court martial.

Manning is a classic case of why people with aberrant sexual proclivities and/or serious emotional problems are denied high level security clearances. He was only cleared to Secret level, which basically requires a National Agency records check for criminal activity and credit issues (also an indicator of susceptibility, in that case to bribery,) so his homosexuality would not have been discovered that way.

Eliminating DADT does nothing to resolve the vulnerability of homosexuals and others to espionage recruitment techniques. If someone has a career in the military or in government and wants to be accepted into a peer group (ie combat units) and that peer group is substantially anti-gay and a hostile intelligence case officer finds out there is every inducement to use it as a lever. It is as common a technique as honey pots and bribes.

It is why foreign intel guys can often be found trolling gay bars near military bases. It is not because they are looking to hook up, though they might be if they swing that way themselves, it is because the pickings are so easy.

But if gays were allowed to openly serve, Manning might not have felt so alienated. Granted the culture of warriors will take time to change even so, and I don't support this change being driven by politics rather than by the military itself, but I can see how in an environment that does not exclude gays as worthy of serving, homosexuals would be less likely to feel alienated.

Most importantly, this shows what every private corporation knows - you do not gradually transition someone from a position of being privy to embarrassing and/or damaging information. You transition them like a rifle shot. "Private Manning, I'm here to remove your security clearance. Come with me."

 

[werepossum]

Yes, that is my argument. Keep your personal business to yourself, and also don't allow outing by other troops. I don't talk about who I went on a date on with my coworkers.

Like I said, it shouldn't be "Don't Get Outed".

I don't necessarily agree with your position here (although we're probably not that far apart), but kudos for taking a position not in lockstep with the left. It shows you are thinking for yourself, and thus even when I vehemently disagree with your positions I can respect you for holding them.

 

[DangerAardvark]

You know, for a place constantly decried as a haven for liberals, this thread is sure full of gay haters. Face it, if you're still supporting DADT, you're a fucking dickhead.

 

[werepossum]

You know, for a place constantly decried as a haven for liberals, this thread is sure full of gay haters. Face it, if you're still supporting DADT, you're a fucking dickhead.

By your standards, not allowing three hundred pound lardbutts to serve would make us fatty haters. The military is NOT an equal opportunity employer, nor should it be. I can't serve, for instance - I'm too old, even though there are obviously jobs I could perform perfectly well. Women aren't allowed to serve in combat roles, even those who otherwise pass all the requirement. The military is full of discrimination. But the difference between military service and other jobs is that lives are at stake. If cohesion and moral suffer in the military, people will die who would otherwise not die. Thus gays serving openly in the military have a much higher stake than, say, gays serving in the postal service, and those who oppose gays serving openly cannot simply be dismissed as homophobes.

 

[DangerAardvark]

By your standards, not allowing three hundred pound lardbutts to serve would make us fatty haters. The military is NOT an equal opportunity employer, nor should it be. I can't serve, for instance - I'm too old, even though there are obviously jobs I could perform perfectly well. Women aren't allowed to serve in combat roles, even those who otherwise pass all the requirement. The military is full of discrimination. But the difference between military service and other jobs is that lives are at stake. If cohesion and moral suffer in the military, people will die who would otherwise not die. Thus gays serving openly in the military have a much higher stake than, say, gays serving in the postal service, and those who oppose gays serving openly cannot simply be dismissed as homophobes.

Yeah. You are too old. So I'm not even going to argue with you. I'm just going to wait for you to die.

 

[PJABBER]

But if gays were allowed to openly serve, Manning might not have felt so alienated. Granted the culture of warriors will take time to change even so, and I don't support this change being driven by politics rather than by the military itself, but I can see how in an environment that does not exclude gays as worthy of serving, homosexuals would be less likely to feel alienated.

Most importantly, this shows what every private corporation knows - you do not gradually transition someone from a position of being privy to embarrassing and/or damaging information. You transition them like a rifle shot. "Private Manning, I'm here to remove your security clearance. Come with me."

What is legally permissible is not always socially acceptable. Being discovered doing something which will ostracize you or shame you to your peers, your parents or your friends - and most people absolutely cannot handle being socially rejected - leaves open a great door of vulnerability that is exploited by criminals, intelligence services and others who prey on the vulnerable.

If you work in anything related to national security you are a target. Someone like Manning is a perfect target. Young, insecure, vengeful, emotional, pressured by family and peers, gay, nerdy, has access to classified systems - you couldn't write a better target profile.

He was ready to walk up to a hostile power and hand the stuff over on his own - a walk-in is golden.

However, I do think that if he were a walk-in they would not trust his product for a very, very long time as they would suspect that it was a very complicated misdirection. But boy would he be turned! He would have been made immediately aware of his vulnerability to a life or death sentence if his new "friends" reluctantly turned him over to the CID. He would have been browbeaten and ordered to stay in place as long as possible to get more and more. Here he goes immediately to jail and bypasses all of the rough stuff.

Though I am sure there is still a distrust of the provenance of this data, the very fact of it being so voluminous and massive and public a dump has certainly accelerated its acceptance as being the real deal.

Yeah, this traitor should have gotten his walking papers and been escorted immediately to a secure barracks pending out-processing. I might blame politically correct sensitivity to his being gay for the protracted transition and thus opportunity to wreak havoc, but it can just as easily be inefficiency and no special procedure in place for expedited discharge. A very hard lesson being taught there.

 

[Craig234]

The report 'is out'... compliments if intentional.

 

[werepossum]

What is legally permissible is not always socially acceptable. Being discovered doing something which will ostracize you or shame you to your peers, your parents or your friends - and most people absolutely cannot handle being socially rejected - leaves open a great door of vulnerability that is exploited by criminals, intelligence services and others who prey on the vulnerable.

If you work in anything related to national security you are a target. Someone like Manning is a perfect target. Young, insecure, vengeful, emotional, pressured by family and peers, gay, nerdy, has access to classified systems - you couldn't write a better target profile.

He was ready to walk up to a hostile power and hand the stuff over on his own - a walk-in is golden.

However, I do think that if he were a walk-in they would not trust his product for a very, very long time as they would suspect that it was a very complicated misdirection. But boy would he be turned! He would have been made immediately aware of his vulnerability to a life or death sentence if his new "friends" reluctantly turned him over to the CID. He would have been browbeaten and ordered to stay in place as long as possible to get more and more. Here he goes immediately to jail and bypasses all of the rough stuff.

Though I am sure there is still a distrust of the provenance of this data, the very fact of it being so voluminous and massive and public a dump has certainly accelerated its acceptance as being the real deal.

Yeah, this traitor should have gotten his walking papers and been escorted immediately to a secure barracks pending out-processing. I might blame politically correct sensitivity to his being gay for the protracted transition and thus opportunity to wreak havoc, but it can just as easily be inefficiency and no special procedure in place for expedited discharge. A very hard lesson being taught there.

I agree with all that, but I think the military, with its ultra-macho culture of warriors, will always lag behind society's acceptance of gays, so that threat of exposure to the military will be much more important than threat of exposure to society. The threat will always be there as some people just don't have families who could accept a gay child, but gays will be serving anyway, and the number of closeted gays will probably decrease when they are allowed to serve openly. And I have no doubt this will happen. When I was in high school gay was the absolute worst thing a person could be, at least short of a child molester or murderer. When my son was in high school being gay was no big thing, and when my oldest grandson went through high school it was actually trendy (as it had been with lesbians for some time.) Hell, by the time my youngest grandson enters high school it might be mandatory!

Yeah. You are too old. So I'm not even going to argue with you. I'm just going to wait for you to die.

Good luck with that. Might want to bring something to read, just in case. Old birds are tough and smart.