Spokane7
65°
November 30, 2010 in Nation/World
Pentagon study: No major risks with openly gay troops
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon’s study on gays in the military has determined that overturning the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on serving openly might cause some disruption at first but would not create widespread or long-lasting problems.
The study provides ammunition to congressional Democrats struggling to overturn the law. But even with the release of today’s report, there is no indication they can overcome fierce Republican objections with just a few weeks left in this year’s postelection congressional session.
Still, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, said Congress should act quickly because of a recent effort by a federal judge to overturn the law.
Gates said the military needs time to prepare for such an adjustment, even though he said he didn’t envision any changes to housing or other personnel policies. He said a sudden, court-issued mandate would significantly increase the risk of disruption.
“Given the present circumstances, those that choose not to act legislatively are rolling the dice that this policy will not be abruptly overturned by the courts,” Gates told reporters.
The co-chairs of the study, Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson and Army Gen. Carter Ham, wrote, “We are both convinced that our military can do this, even during this time of war.”
Overall, the survey found that some two-thirds of troops don’t care if the ban is lifted. Of the 30 percent who objected, most were members of combat units.
In fact, at least 40 percent of combat troops said the acceptance of gays serving openly would be a bad idea. That number climbs to 58 percent among Marines serving in combat roles.
A summary of the report says 69 percent of respondents believe they have already served alongside a gay person. Of those who believed that, 92 percent said their units were able to work together and 8 percent said the units functioned poorly as a result.
“We have a gay guy. He’s big, he’s mean and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay,” the report quotes a member of the special operations force as saying.
The report predicts that many gay troops would still keep their sexual orientation quiet even after the ban was lifted. That discretion would probably be more common in the military than in the civilian world, the reports authors said.
Of the survey respondents who said they were gay, only 15 percent said they would want that known to everyone in their unit.
The summary included anonymous quotes from gay troops currently serving.
“I will just be me,” one person said. “I will bring my family to family events. I will put family pictures on my desk. I am not going to go up to people and say, ’Hi there. I’m gay.”’
Gates said he didn’t think the Pentagon would have to rewrite its regulations on housing, benefits or fraternization.
“Existing policies can and should be applied equally to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals,” he said, adding that the change could be addressed through increased training and education.
Though some troops suggested during the study that there should be separate bath and living facilities for gays, the report recommended against it because it would be a “logistical nightmare, expensive and impossible to administer.”
Further, separate facilities would stigmatize gays and lesbians in the way that “separate but equal” facilities did to blacks before the 1960s, it said.
The report said commanders could address individual concerns on a case-by-case basis.
The survey is based on responses by some 115,000 troops and 44,200 military spouses to more than a half million questionnaires distributed last summer by an independent polling firm.
The House has already voted to overturn the law as part of a broader defense policy bill. But Senate Republicans have blocked the measure because they say not enough time has been allowed for debate on unrelated provisions in the bill.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has promised a vote on the matter by the end of the year, after hearings can be held this week on the Pentagon study. Still, some gay rights groups contend that Democratic leaders have done little to push for repeal before the new Congress takes over in January.
Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the majority leader is “very much committed to doing away with the ban this year” and that it was the GOP’s fault for blocking the bill.
© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Stocks plummet as outlook in Europe dims 
liberal_in_right_wing_land on November 30 at 10:22 a.m.
Duh.
Idiot conservatives are clearly only against repealing DADT because they hate gay people and they hate Obama and his administration.
andjusticeforall on November 30 at 11:01 a.m.
I cant believe they wasted time & money on such a ridiculous “study” … are they that stupid to think “oh well that guy/gal is gay he must want every man/woman in here”…um…NO. Liberal is right…what a bunch of idiots…perfect example of tax dollars going to waste once again…
oneanddone on November 30 at 11:38 a.m.
I’m really against this primarily because of the logistics. Will there be men, women, and ‘other’ berthing arrangements? Seems like it will be unnecessarily confusing. But then I’m sure there was a lot of resistance when blacks were first allowed into the military during the civil war and there was never a serious issue with that. Same with women on submarines. I do draw the line however at allowing gays adopting children. That defies logic and common sense.
SpokaneLiberal on November 30 at 11:41 a.m.
I bite, why does adoption defy logic?
greenlibertarian on November 30 at 11:47 a.m.
In 5 years this will be a complete non-issue we’ll look back and say what the hell was all that controversy about?
It’s not conservatives, per se, who are against repealing DADT. It’s a few conservatives pandering to fundamentalist sentiments.
It’s beyond time to keep hampering our military readiness by kicking out openly gay folks.
Itsgodswill on November 30 at 11:54 a.m.
oneanddone: I guess it’s a good thing that you drawing your imaginary line does nothing in a literal sense.
Gay men and lesbian women have the ability to do ANYTHING that a straight man or woman can do, including raising a child. You’re saying that if a homosexual couple were able to provide a safe and stable home/life for a child, you would be against it just because of their sexual preference? That makes no sense, just like it makes no sense to not allow homosexual men and women in the military.
fishinjay on November 30 at 11:59 a.m.
In the 6 years I was in the Marines I knew two guys that were gay, and at least one other that might have been. I couldn’t have cared less, and neither could nearly everybody else who knew or suspected. We lived on board ship in the same berthing areas, used the same showers, and used the same bathrooms. The only problems I ever saw came from the homophobes who somehow felt it was within their right to ridicule or abuse the guys they suspected of being gay. Based on that experience I say make DADT apply to homophobia. It’s ok to dislike gay people, just keep your mouth shut about it.
MrNatural on November 30 at 12:05 p.m.
Well said fishinjay…
horse_feathers on November 30 at 12:26 p.m.
Lowering the bar has never improved the military. Never.
force_vector on November 30 at 12:30 p.m.
What this article does not disclose is that the internet survey was sent out to 400,000 troops, only being responded to by 115,000. What that should tell you is that a majority of those who are passionate about allowing openly gay people serve replied. The article also fails to point out that combat troops are by and large opposed. Perhaps the desk jockeys and pencil pushers who actually had time to respond, or ready access to a computer, skewed the reality of the situation?
As stated previously, the logistics of implementing a repeal of DADT would be a nightmare, and not worth the hassle. If some think it’s unfair that gays can’t openly serve, too bad. After 8 years of service, I experienced plenty of unfairness. It’s just the way it goes. Anyone who has enlisted has heard “needs of the service” as a reason for a denied request. All you can do is get over it and move on. Being openly gay does not enhance ones ability to fight, and is therefore not a need of the service. If a few are booted for breaking the rules, so what? Get in line. There are a lot of people who are kicked out of the service for a lot of reasons. Failure to adapt comes to mind in this case.
That this is a priority is complete nonsense.
misjustice on November 30 at 12:40 p.m.
Defense Secretary Gates has urged Congress to address the reversal of DADT before the end of this year.
I find it amusing that some are decrying the “study” as a waste of tax payers’ money. Are these the same people which, at every attempt to end DADT, screamed that the military members should decide whether or not gays should be allowed to serve openly. Well, in order to know what members think, you have to conduct a survey/study, right? Doh!
Congress, get this resolved; once and for all. And let’s move forward.
MrNatural on November 30 at 12:44 p.m.
I’ve served in the service with people who were gay, I work with people who are gay, I have friends who are gay, and I’m quite sure there are people that are gay who are policemen, firefighters, pilots, surgeons, teachers etc…You get the point. This is just pure fundamentalist prejudice that has neither bearing nor merit except to foster hate, intimidation, and discrimination.
What I find so distressing is that the fear generated from homophobia is purely delusional
force_vector on November 30 at 12:45 p.m.
Misjustice-
We have an unfortunate recent history of poorly chosen Defense Secretaries. I would not use his title as proof of being correct. After all, I recall Rumsfeld being a complete bafoon, much like Gates is, only in different ways.
SpokaneLiberal on November 30 at 12:53 p.m.
force vector
Do you have any link that combat troops are opposed?
Any skew from those that are very enthusiastic and thus responded should be offset by those that are very unenthusiastic and thus responded.
greenlibertarian on November 30 at 1:11 p.m.
When you poll COMBAT VETERANS who know that a gay person/persons served in their unit, very few have a problem with that.
“Of those (COMBAT VETERANS) who were certain that a member of their unit was gay or lesbian, two-thirds did not believe that their presence created an impact on either their personal morale
(66%) or the morale of their unit (64%). Approximately one-quarter of that group believed there to be a negative impact to both.”
http://www.zogby.com/CSSMM_Report-Final.pdf
Also noted is that of the COMBAT VETERANS who believe they never served with any gay folks in their unit, illogically, a 59% majority thinks having openly gay folks would harm unit morale.
I think I’d go with the opinions of COMBAT VETERANS who acknowledge serving with gays, over those who say they have not.
force_vector on November 30 at 1:18 p.m.
http://www.stripes.com/news/pentagon-study-anticipates-smooth-integration-of-openly-gay-troops-1.127034
“However, 30 percent of those surveyed said they expect a negative effect if the law is repealed. That number rose to 43 percent among Marines, and 58 percent of Marines in combat specialties. Among soldiers in combat specialties, 48 percent expected a negative effect.”
“But hours before the Pentagon report went public, the conservative Family Research Council released its own poll of 10,000 active-duty and retired troops, noting that about 63 percent of individuals they surveyed opposed changing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law.
Officials from the Center for Security Policy, which jointly commissioned the survey, called it further evidence the military is not ready for a radical policy change.”
“The Senate Armed Services Committee will host a pair of hearings on the report Thursday and Friday. The hearings will include testimony from the four service chiefs, who have expressed concerns in the last year over repealing the law.”
There is enough evidence to suggest extreme caution in moving forward with repealing DADT, in my opinion. As I said before, I don’t see how this is a priority. The priority of the military should be winning our current wars and bringing combat troops home. Perhaps when that is done, we can have hypothetical military culture discussions during peace-time.
eagleproducer on November 30 at 1:29 p.m.
forcedinvective: Get over it. This is a done deal.
As for the claim this will be a “logistical” nightmare, I can’t think of something more nonsensical. Nothing would change as for berthing, etc. You act like gay people haven’t ever served and made adjustments in order to fit in. Please.
Where is the troll, I had a link especially for him. It’s a good read for everyone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/opinion/30zhuo.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
eagleproducer on November 30 at 1:34 p.m.
force: If we wait for “peacetime” that means waiting longer than I’ve been alive. We are a nation of perpetual warfare.
A quote from Orwell: “The primary objective of modern warfare is to use up the products of the machine without improving the general standard of living.
SpokaneLiberal on November 30 at 1:39 p.m.
“70 percent of troops surveyed believe a repeal will have either a positive effect or no effect on their ability to complete missions.”
That is the major line. Even if 48% of combat specialties number is right that means 52% is fine with it.
Also important 92% says serving with a gay service member has no impact OR A POSITIVE IMPACT on the perception of that person.
The family research council is biased at best, but importantly included former service members that are frankly irrelevant.
Also as was pointed out, this isn’t up to the service members. If it was units would still be sex and race segregated.
force_vector on November 30 at 1:47 p.m.
“I can’t think of something more nonsensical.”
Really? What about peanut butter and pickle sandwiches? What about driving a kia 75 mph down I-90 on black ice? What about sticking your tongue in an electrical outlet? Or perhaps you were just being nonsensicle when you said that.
You’re just kind of a pissed off person Spokef*c%ey, and that’s cool. You’re a former Navy guy that doesn’t like Marines, and hey, I get that. Marines don’t typically think much of Navy guys either. You think Ameica is the great evil empire, yet seem to have no problem with utilizing the benefits of the society you frequenty rail against. Nonsensicle indeed.
I propose you drive the above reference car in a similar manner as a way to improve the quality of your demeaner and disposition.
><(((*> on November 30 at 1:58 p.m.
“I can’t think of something more nonsensical.”
a short list comes to mind.
force_vector.
horse feathers.
oneanddone.
and anyone else that blathers on without any kind of data, but a lame little feeling of righteous garbage.
force_vector on November 30 at 2:07 p.m.
Seems phantomsilence isn’t living up to his name. That’s unfortunate.
greenlibertarian on November 30 at 2:14 p.m.
“http://www.zogby.com/CSSMM_Report-Fin…
Also noted is that of the COMBAT VETERANS who believe they never served with any gay folks in their unit, illogically, a 59% majority thinks having openly gay folks would harm unit morale.
I think I’d go with the opinions of COMBAT VETERANS who acknowledge serving with gays, over those who say they have not.”
BTW, those surveyed in that poll were RECENT (Iraq and Afghanistan) COMBAT VETERANS, many still on active duty.
I’ll grant you a survey of combat veterans going back further in time would have different opinions. But today’s Armed Forces, in general, have little to no problems with gays serving openly. And that’s especially true of the younger Armed Services members, who are usually the ones on the front lines.
><(((*> on November 30 at 2:15 p.m.
you would miss me too much. :o)
johnclarke on November 30 at 2:25 p.m.
Ok, so this is settled. Let’s move on to something else.
force_vector on November 30 at 2:57 p.m.
greenlibertarian- you make good points. I’m still not convinced now is the time to try and make these changes though.
On that note, I agree with johnclarke.
greenlibertarian on November 30 at 8:24 p.m.
Am glad to see some are finally seeing the light. then there’s this:
“The appeals court sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton in Tacoma. Following a six-day trial at which several of Witt’s former colleagues testified, Leighton held that her firing actually hurt morale in her unit.”
Major Witt’s the lesbian kicked out of the AF Reserve under the DADT policy. Her job was to SAVE the lives of our wounded in combat soldier bretheren and sisters.
“Witt served in the Air Force and Air Force Reserve for 18 years and was discharged shortly before she would have been eligible for retirement benefits.
*** She earned a medal from President George W. Bush for delivering “outstanding medical care” to injured service members while deployed to Oman in support of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. Witt received another medal in 2003 for saving a Defense Department employee who collapsed aboard a flight from Bahrain. ****”
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/nov/30/witt-expects-air-force-reinstatement/
Yeah, let’s drive these folks out of the military. The ones that GOT MEDALS for saving the lives of our soldiers.
I said it before, I’ll say it again. DADT policy HARMS our military. If you support DADT, you are a traitor to my country. Get the hell out.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on December 01 at 11:08 a.m.
As one of the co-chairs of the study said on the news last night: “we don’t do referendums or polls in the military on policy matters. We don’t ask them if it’s a good idea to go into Iraq or to send more troops to Afghanistan.” I forget his exact words, so I’m paraphrasing, but his point was: the politicians decide “should.” The military decides “how.”