PDA

View Full Version : Study: Military gays don't undermine unit cohesion



LiberalNation
07-08-2008, 12:48 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080708/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_gays


WASHINGTON - Congress should repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law because the presence of gays in the military is unlikely to undermine the ability to fight and win, according to a new study released by a California-based research center.

The study was conducted by four retired military officers, including the three-star Air Force lieutenant general who in early 1993 was tasked with implementing President Clinton's policy that the military stop questioning recruits on their sexual orientation.

"Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion," the officers states.

To support its contention, the panel points to the British and Israeli militaries, where it says gay people serve openly without hurting the effectiveness of combat operations.

Undermining unit cohesion was a determining factor when Congress passed the 1993 law, intended to keep the military from asking recruits their sexual orientation. In turn, service members can't say they are gay or bisexual, engage in homosexual activity or marry a member of the same sex.

Supporters of the ban contend there is still no empirical evidence that allowing gays to serve openly won't hurt combat effectiveness.

"The issue is trust and confidence" among members of a unit, said Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, who retired in 1993 after working on the issue for the Army. When some people with a different sexual orientation are "in a close combat environment, it results in a lack of trust," he said.

The study was sponsored by the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara, which said it picked the panel members to portray a bipartisan representation of the different service branches. According to its Web site, the Palm Center "is committed to keeping researchers, journalists and the general public informed of the latest developments in the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy debate." Palm himself was "a staunch supporter of civil rights in the gay community," the site says.

Psychoblues
07-08-2008, 02:37 AM
Back in the day, the clinic and base headquarters were full of the queers. I don't remember anyone complaining and I don't remember any problems with them. They didn't bother us and we didn't bother them. In fact, we worked very well with them at that time. And that was a long time before the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

AFbombloader
07-08-2008, 03:43 AM
The British military has approx. 212 thousand members. There are approx. 172 thousans in the military of Israel. There are that many people in the Air Force alone, opr very close to that many. I think that is a factor in why they may be able to do this. The sheer size of our military, approx 1.8 million active and guard/reserve, makes this a difficult task.

AF:salute:

Psychoblues
07-08-2008, 03:52 AM
If you have something to say, afbl, say it out loud.



The British military has approx. 212 thousand members. There are approx. 172 thousans in the military of Israel. There are that many people in the Air Force alone, opr very close to that many. I think that is a factor in why they may be able to do this. The sheer size of our military, approx 1.8 million active and guard/reserve, makes this a difficult task.

AF:salute:

Bullshit is for cowards and I know you ain't one of them.

PB: :salute:

AFbombloader
07-08-2008, 04:34 AM
If you have something to say, afbl, say it out loud.




Bullshit is for cowards and I know you ain't one of them.

PB: :salute:

No, I am not a coward. I didn't feel the need to repeat what I have said in many other posts here. I think you all know how I feel on this subject. The link refered to the armed forces in Israel and Britan, I wanted to give a little insight into their size. When you are dealing with a smaller force, it is easier to make changes.

Personally, I don't think the transition would be as easy as this author believes. I don't care that 3 generals were on this panel. They are wrong IMHO.

AF:salute:

Psychoblues
07-08-2008, 04:44 AM
I'll say this as politely as I can, afbl. I was in the force when it was much bigger than the force you are now in. We didn't have a problem with the queers at all then except for a few arbitrary command decisions that have been proven rather shallow and contrary to military objectives since.



No, I am not a coward. I didn't feel the need to repeat what I have said in many other posts here. I think you all know how I feel on this subject. The link refered to the armed forces in Israel and Britan, I wanted to give a little insight into their size. When you are dealing with a smaller force, it is easier to make changes.

Personally, I don't think the transition would be as easy as this author believes. I don't care that 3 generals were on this panel. They are wrong IMHO.

AF:salute:

You are no better than me, afbl. I repeat myself almost daily on this board and I really don't expect anyone to remember what I said even yesterday. I am almost always glad to explain when I realize that the reader I am speaking with is actually not familiar with my postings or my temperment on a particular subject. In this case, you are certainly at least a coward or worse. You can take that as encouragement or as disparagement. I can't think for you at all, afbl.

And, the article is completely concerned for the welfare of American forces, not the foreign ones as you describe.

AFbombloader
07-08-2008, 05:21 AM
I'll say this as politely as I can, afbl. I was in the force when it was much bigger than the force you are now in. We didn't have a problem with the queers at all then except for a few arbitrary command decisions that have been proven rather shallow and contrary to military objectives since.

You are no better than me, afbl. I repeat myself almost daily on this board and I really don't expect anyone to remember what I said even yesterday. I am almost always glad to explain when I realize that the reader I am speaking with is actually not familiar with my postings or my temperment on a particular subject. In this case, you are certainly at least a coward or worse. You can take that as encouragement or as disparagement. I can't think for you at all, afbl.

And, the article is completely concerned for the welfare of American forces, not the foreign ones as you describe.


I never said anything about your service, but I have been in since the late 80's, so I remember when the force was a lot larger too. But that point is moot, it has no bearing on this conversation.

We don't have a problem with homosexuals here either, because they either are not in, or they keep their habits to themself (because they have to). Are there homosexuals in, I'm sure there are, but I don't know of any 100%, because I cannot and will not ask. I think there will be issues if you allow them to openly serve. I disagree with the panel the article mentioned, I am allowed to do so.

As to my being a coward, I don't see it. I have not been swayed in my opinion, I have not backed away from any discussion, I have not shown fear or timidness. If you are saying I lack courage, prove it.

And the article used Israel and Britan as references to the open homosexual policy working.

"To support its contention, the panel points to the British and Israeli militaries, where it says gay people serve openly without hurting the effectiveness of combat operations."

LiberalNation
07-08-2008, 05:56 AM
Remember the gay medic, the one who went to news. He's commanders knew he was gay, he admitted it, but they send him and he does a 12 month tour in Iraq. The policy is bullshit, if it hurts unit cohesion so much they shouldn't be being sent to serve full combat tours before being kicked out. Times are changing and this policy will to. It doesn't make any sense anyway, okay gays can serve but you better lie about, that sounds like a real tried and true american value right there.