LnGrrrR
10-02-2009, 09:55 AM
This article by the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/us/01pentagon.html) has some strong arguments for repealing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. From the article:
The article (http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/editions/i55/14.pdf), which appears in Joint Force Quarterly and was reviewed before publication by the office of Adm. Mike Mullen (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/michael_g_mullen/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/j/joint_chiefs_of_staff/index.html?inline=nyt-org), says that “after a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly.”
Although the article, by an Air Force colonel, Om Prakash, carries no weight as a matter of policy, it may well signal a shift in the official winds. It won the 2009 Secretary of Defense National Security Essay competition.
As it is well-known, I'm for repealing DADT. The military was early to integrate our services along color lines; I'm all for doing it along sexual preference lines as well.
For all those who say, "But the straight military people will be showering with TEH GAYZ!", I have a few strong arguments.
1) They're already showering with teh gayz. So if soldiers are afraid of that, they're pretty stupid.
2) The military doesn't discriminate on basis of race; if soldiers are racists and display that overtly, they are dealt with. The same policy could work here.
3) For all those who think that it would disrupt unit cohesion, I ask that you rethink the professional capacity in which soldiers must serve. I'd like to believe that the great majority of armed forces are professional enough to work alongside people who may have different beliefs/values than them.
4) As the article details, we've gotten rid of large numbers of servicemen for this. By doing so, we throw away the money we've spent to train these people, at a time when we're fighting two wars. Does this make sense?
The article (http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/editions/i55/14.pdf), which appears in Joint Force Quarterly and was reviewed before publication by the office of Adm. Mike Mullen (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/michael_g_mullen/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/j/joint_chiefs_of_staff/index.html?inline=nyt-org), says that “after a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly.”
Although the article, by an Air Force colonel, Om Prakash, carries no weight as a matter of policy, it may well signal a shift in the official winds. It won the 2009 Secretary of Defense National Security Essay competition.
As it is well-known, I'm for repealing DADT. The military was early to integrate our services along color lines; I'm all for doing it along sexual preference lines as well.
For all those who say, "But the straight military people will be showering with TEH GAYZ!", I have a few strong arguments.
1) They're already showering with teh gayz. So if soldiers are afraid of that, they're pretty stupid.
2) The military doesn't discriminate on basis of race; if soldiers are racists and display that overtly, they are dealt with. The same policy could work here.
3) For all those who think that it would disrupt unit cohesion, I ask that you rethink the professional capacity in which soldiers must serve. I'd like to believe that the great majority of armed forces are professional enough to work alongside people who may have different beliefs/values than them.
4) As the article details, we've gotten rid of large numbers of servicemen for this. By doing so, we throw away the money we've spent to train these people, at a time when we're fighting two wars. Does this make sense?