DADT: Eventful Training, Service Impact, and Obstacles to Repeal
Below:
- Training going “exceptionally well.” Sort of.
- Army website says DADT is still law
- Media expresses surprise at smooth training
- SecDef sees no obstacles to repeal
- AP notes perception of “bullying” — with a role reversal
The Pentagon has reportedly been publicizing the fact that “training” for repeal of the policy most often known as “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” has been “going exceptionally well.”
In an interesting contrast, a milblogger at A Soldier’s Perspective notes the careful semantics being used to put a positive spin on what is essentially a non-existent event:
I guess it depends on what the definition of “training” is. You see the Army hasn’t been asking our opinion. They haven’t gaged our reaction to the repeal of the bill…hell, they haven’t even asked us what we think! In reality, we’re not even allowed to bring it up during the “training” that is forced upon us. Besides the changes haven’t even come yet!…
The only thing – and I mean THE ONLY THING – the DADT training has accomplished is telling the Soldiers what the DADT repeal means: gays can serve openly; gays will not have separate barracks rooms or facilities; etc. The training is so bland and scripted I doubt anyone could even tell you what they spent an hour listening to…
It’s certainly an interesting perspective and contrast to the celebratory media reporting. Does the media really expect “turmoil or dire consequences” because someone stands in front of a room and says “DADT is being repealed?”
For its part, the US Army has a website up on DADT that makes a point of reminding people DADT is, in fact, still the law. (In an odd situation, those who speak in support of the law have often been vilified, while those who oppose obeying the law as it stands are not…)
The reminders may be important for another reason: repeal is not a foregone conclusion. In fact, few seem to realize the law signed in December specifically says that the current law may stand if the appropriate certification does not take place. Most have simply assumed the certification was a mere formality, which, of course, makes the training and certification process little more than an academic exercise.
The media continues to express surprise that training hasn’t had significant (or adverse) impacts to current operations.
Perhaps the most surprising thing about these training sessions, now taking place for 2 million American service members stationed all over the world, is how mundane they seem, now that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is all but dead, said military leaders as well as activists who pushed for repeal.
Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the Army’s vice chief of staff, has said the training “seems to be a nonevent.”
And at Offutt, no airmen thus far have requested to be discharged because they disagree with the military’s new policy on allowing openly gay troops, Ramage-White said.
The article fails to note the “training” involves little more than stating what has already been described in the press. Nothing actually changes just because “training” takes place. The article also fails to note the DADT implementation plan stated any such discharge request would be denied, making requests like that futile.
In addition, no one said the training would result in discharge requests or have any other impact on the service.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has said he sees “no obstacles” to lifting the ban on homosexual service in the military. Gates is one of the leaders who will ultimately certify the Department of Defense ready for repeal.
The Associated Press noted the perception that opponents to “gay-rights” are now claiming to be “bullied,” in a reversal of the trend in which acceptance and “tolerance” have been demanded from those now being accused of the opposite.
Aww, diddums, the poor little bigots are upset that people are calling them bigots. My heart bleeds.
Aww, diddums, the Perpetualy Agravated/Recruiting/Conquering Class is upset because there is no drama going on. My heart bleeds.
I ran the word “bigot” through a “Homosexual Agenda English-to-Plain English” translator and the result is: “Someone who knows that “equality” actually means “Lets crush the rest of them with our collective boot”
When their “equality” finally becomes downright unconstitutional bullying (as it always does) i wonder what will be the excuse? “Buahhh its bullying!! We need more special laws and rules”?? Apparently the newest semantic weapon in their arsenal is the word “bullying”.
BTW…get ready because the militant-atheists and the militant-homosexuals will join hands, in fact there is often a huge overlap between those 2 groups. The next few years will be tough, George Orwell´s “1984” is working at full speed.
Ahhh yes.. because the gay people want to crush the homosexuals. That explains why homosexuals want to prevent heterosexual people from marrying. That explains why homosexuals want to prevent heterosexual from serving in the military. That explains why homosexuals are advocating that heterosexual activity should be a crime. What? You say that is not the case? That in fact it is nonsense? Goodness!
Don,
Can you name one kind of person, any category what-so-ever, that you feel should not be treated exactly the same as any other?
If you harm another, you should be punished, beyond that, all people should be treated equally. However, due to issues around informed consent, society should protect children, even though this can sometimes lead to a curtailment if their rights.
Don,
Thanks for answering-I got the impression that you advocated tolerance above all else, and I wanted to know how far your tolerance went.
What is the proper punishment for a father that abandons his wife and children?
There is not even nearly enough information to answer that question. And it is not even close to being relevant to this topic.
Don,
I’m trying to figure out what you think should be criminally legal, civilly legal, and morally acceptable. You advocate complete tolerance of homosexuals because they are consentual relationships; yet you reject other consentual relationships (polygamy and adult incest).
In the same thread you say that harming another should be punished, yet when confronted with an example you fold-saying it’s situationally dependent.
You are not consistent in your statements; which is relevant to the topic.
You judge actions; why can’t I?
Could you please not put words into my mouth. I am not opposed to either incest or polygamy. As for your example, it is too broad address, you have not established that anyone is harmed or how badly they are harmed so it is not possible to say if any or how much punishment is appropriate.
The point is you are judging what someone is doing, yet you berate others who are also judging people based on actions. Where’s the consistency?
At no point have I berated anyone for judging. However, I do criticise people who want to deny equal rights to people who are not harming others. Judge all you want, I don’t care if you think homosexual sex, tattoos, eating shrimp or worshipping Satan are immoral or sinful. What I care about is when homosexuals, tattooed people or Satan worshippers are treated as second class citizens.
Don,
We’re going to agree to disagree on the acceptability of incest, polygamy and homosexual marriage.
Yes, I know we disagree about honouring the idea of equality when it comes to gays. I think you are despicable for wanting a group of your fellow citizens to be treated as second class persons. My. main consolation is that demographics are on OUR side not yours. In years to come, my grandchildren will read history books and will be as surprised and disgusted with the treatment of gays and their right to marry as I was when I first read of laws against miscengation. If you ever have a gay grandchild who marries, I hope for your sake she never finds out how you feel.
I think the adjective “second class” is too strong for this argument. It is fitting for how the Jim Crow laws set Americans of African decent to be second class persons. But are the tattooed, the homosexuals, or Satan worshipers required to use a different public drinking fountain than non-tattooed, heterosexual, non-Satan worshipers? Are they forced into a separate waiting area when waiting for a bus or train? Is their blood labeled so that the non-‘second class’ persons won’t receive it? Is it harder to vote? Are they kept to only low paying jobs with no hope to ever get a promotion? Are they excluded from State or Ivy League Universities? No.
This argument is about whether homosexuals should be able to serve openly in the military. And the military is one of the most discriminatory employers in the US. The military does not accept fat people, people with strong food allergies, asthmatics, alcoholics, people with a very low IQ, people with credit problems, potheads, diabetics who inject insulin, conscientious objectors, deaf people, blind people, etc. In fact the internet likes to bat around the statistic that only 3 out of 10 people of the target age range are eligible to serve in the military. That makes nearly 70% of us being supposed ‘second class’ citizens. I don’t buy it.
Gay people ARE second class citizens in the USA, they are denied some very basic rights that others take for granted. And still you have not given any reason why a gay person would not be an effective soldier.
Don,
What basic rights are you referring to? The most basic are “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.”
Homosexuals may be discriminated against, but as ‘end’ states clearly-not to anything close to the same extent as those of other races (who remembers the ‘Anti-Chinese leagues’?)
I was not arguing whether a homosexual should or should not be allowed in the military. I was merely stating that not being hired by a large organization that massively discriminates in its hiring practices does not make a person a “second class” citizen. Since my goal was not to further the debate, merely amend an adjective being used, you are right, I did not add to the debate itself.