BRIAN ROSS REPORTS
- Like Jay-Z + the Beatles, But Worse
- Update: Help for Homeless Children
- Bush Era, Revised -- and with More Barbeque
- The Tax Woman Cometh
- Paging Mr. Stanford: Antigua Called
- Who Are You Calling Partisan?
- Update: IRS Won't Use Private Debt Collectors
- But Is It Art?
- PMA Scandal a Sore Point for Dems in 2010?
- Down in Flames
- A New Mystery for RNC Chief
- PMA Clients Were Big Givers
- Raided Lobby Firm Still a Force on Capitol Hill
- Stanford Update: Another $143 Mil Found
- Cheney, Hooked on Controversy
TOP BLOTTER CATEGORIES
- Abramoff Lobbying Scandal
- American Al Qaeda
- Avian Flu
- Beirut Hospital Out of Gas
- Cheney
- CIA
- CIA Secret Prisons
- D.C. Madam Affair
- FBI
- Federal Air Marshal Service
- Homeland Security
- Hurricane Katrina
- IRS
- Mark Foley Internet Scandal
- Millionaire Sex Scandal
- Nigerian E-mail Scams
- Norman Hsu, Clinton Fundraiser
- NSA: Wiretapping
- Osama bin Laden
- Payola
- Pharmacy Investigation
- PMA
- Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
- Stanford
- Steele
- Terror
- Troopergate
- U.K. Airline Terror Plot
- U.K. Bombing Attempts
- Wen Ho Lee
- William Jefferson
- Zarqawi
« Previous | Main | Next »
Don't Ask, Don't Debate: Pentagon Calls for Silence on Gays
March 02, 2007 1:27 PM
A public debate over allowing gays to serve in the military hurts the U.S. War on Terror, a top Pentagon official has asserted.
"The Global War on Terrorism is far-reaching and unrelenting," wrote David S. C. Chu, Defense Undersecretary for Personnel and Readiness, in a recent letter. "A national debate on changing" the Pentagon's ban on openly gay service members would bring "divisiveness and turbulence across our country," which "will compound the burden of the war."
Chu was responding to Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who had written Defense Secretary Robert Gates inviting him to reconsider the military's current policy, known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Not everyone with a military background agrees that silence is best for the country. Retired Army Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Clinton, used a January op-ed in The New York Times to announce he had reconsidered his position on the issue and believed that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly.
Key to his thinking, he explained, was that the U.S. military had been "stretched thin" by deployments throughout the Middle East, as part of the so-called "Global War on Terror." He also noted public sentiment had shifted in recent years to be more supportive of an openness policy.
Citing Shalikashvili's article, Sen. Wyden wrote to Defense Secretary Gates in January, asking him to "revisit" the policy, known in legal parlance as "10 USC 654."
The policy "makes absolutely no sense and undermines the fight against terrorism," Wyden said in a statement. His office noted that dozens of service members with critically needed skills like Arabic proficiency have been discharged for being gay and that enforcing the policy costs hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.
March 2, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (24)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Did I hear someone say world war 3. Gay people have just as big of a stake in what happens in the world as anyone else. Are we in the dark ages or what. It seems to me that public dissension starts on capital hill. Any thing to keep the public from focusing on what really matters.
Posted by: Brenda K Jones | Mar 2, 2007 3:22:43 PM
The key to having a strong military is uniform. What next, military members can wave their own flags, create their own fatigues, express themselves in other ways unbefitting of the infantry? Keep your specific way of life outside of the service and duty.
Posted by: Aaron C | Mar 2, 2007 4:24:35 PM
It wasn't too long ago, I read an article about the military considering relaxing standards to allows ex-cons, even with felony records serve. I just don't understand this at all. They'll consider arming a known felon with deadly weapons and trusting him with the lives of his fellow service men and countrymen, but being gay is an instant discharge?
Posted by: Amy | Mar 2, 2007 4:29:25 PM
Hey, Aaron C - They actually do get their own flags and their own fatigues. Depending on which division of the military they are in. They also get their own religious identifications on their dogtags - I guess though to ignorant people like you, religious preferences have nothing to do with sexual preferences.
Posted by: Nina | Mar 2, 2007 8:03:42 PM
Get a load of the circular arguments as well. While we're fighting the "war on terror" is the wrong time for a debate on don't ask don't tell. Then says the war on terror is "unrelenting" doesn't that mean forever? So this is the wrong time, but so is forever.
Posted by: John Paul McCarty | Mar 2, 2007 11:42:01 PM
In making his comment, Mr. Chu apparently is not aware that the GAO has noted "that nearly 800 dismissed gay or lesbian service members had critical abilities, including 300 with important language skills and fifty-five were proficient in Arabic"...Now that's the U.S. shooting itself in the foot.
Posted by: Gabe | Mar 2, 2007 11:44:02 PM
I served in the military and there were lots of openly gay men and women serving. The Don't ask Don't tell policy helps those that have never put on the uniform feel good about themselves, it doesn't help the military at all.
Posted by: Nicky | Mar 3, 2007 2:34:09 AM
Nina,
Aaron C was simply making a point, and a good one at that: it's about the uniform, bottom line. We're all the same when we're serving.
I'm a gay soldier approaching the end of my service obligation. In every station I've served, nearly everyone I worked with knew I was gay. Not one soldier ever give a damn or treated me badly as a result. I've also been to Iraq, and trust me, when it hits the fan, sex is the very last thing on your mind.
Undersecretary Chu is a pathetic human being.
Cheers,
Jim
U.S. Army
Posted by: Jim | Mar 3, 2007 6:43:47 AM
The Pentagon is full of it. Debate is always healthy, unless Americans have forgotten what it means to be an American. It certainly doesn't mean supporting a war based on lies and waged for the benifit of the rich. This corrupt government will site the "war on terror" everytime it wan't to screw the American public. Period. Speak out and often. That is the only way to get our country back.
Posted by: s | Mar 3, 2007 8:29:23 AM
Military men and women should be allowed to serve in the military if they are gay, however, this should be disclosed.
Posted by: Theodora Gialamas-Weaver | Mar 3, 2007 10:12:54 AM
Do people in this administration ever think before they open their mouths? This is the most pathetic attempt to defend institutionalized homophobia I have ever heard. Let's just put democracy on hold so we won't "compound the burden" of Bush's war for oil.
Imagine telling Union soldiers that they couldn't discuss abolition during the Civil War.
Chu needs to be fired, but not before he has a full psych evaluation. I bet he sees terrorists behind every gay bar.
Posted by: unpoetaloco | Mar 3, 2007 10:28:35 AM
Remember when President Ronald Reagan wouldn't even acknowledge AIDs or fund the CDC because AIDS was a "gay man's" disease? They wanted us to die off. Now they want to reverse a strongly held tenet of the past so we can die off in a different way. Talking about having your cake and eating it too. I'm beginning to think that the specialty of the Republican party is creating damage for themselves.
Posted by: s. martin | Mar 3, 2007 11:46:12 AM
Considering how much the GOP hates gays, you would think they would relish the thought that a few of them might get killed if allowed to serve in Iraq. I also think that should there ever be a draft, many of these hard core Conservatives will suddenly be the very proud parents of a gay son or daughter!
Posted by: wheezie | Mar 3, 2007 12:10:58 PM
I will never forget what Barry Goldwater said, it almost lost him his hall of fame in the Arizona State capitol. " It doesnt matter who sits next to you in the cockpit of a plane as long as they do ther job" oh by the way I am a Barry Goldwater Republican.
Posted by: Andy H | Mar 3, 2007 3:50:34 PM
For starters Chu should be sent to fight or get fired. I thought our country was run by the rights of the Constitution. I would like to see any of our goverment officials faces when they discover that not only peoples sex preference has nothing to do with the honor and right to defend our country as we all have with many gay servants in our military and civil forces in our nation serving while protecting our freeway of live. Thxs to all gay & staright that have made me feel save in the USA and World. Screw evry ignorant, closed minded idiot we should be above this at this age and times, for goodness sake is 2007 a new millenium. God bless every servant regardless of their sexual preference.
Posted by: CJ | Mar 3, 2007 5:19:45 PM
Britian, Australia, and other "civilized" nations allow homosexuals to service without any problems of unit cohesiveness and moral issues. What is the problem with our US soldiers? Are they that much more homophobic or bigotted than our "partners in the war on terror"?
Posted by: Paul | Mar 4, 2007 9:12:54 AM
If anyone thinks there are no gay men or gay women in the the US armed forces, they are simply delusional. The fact that the Pentagon insists these brave men and women stay in the closet just to ease their own homophobic attitudes is simply wrong.
Posted by: Jeff C | Mar 4, 2007 5:47:28 PM
Is anyone else terrified that the Pentagon is using the "U.S. War on Terror" to stiffle debate? Who cares what the debate is about...the topic unimportant I believe. The minute a war is used to silence discussion of anything, we should all be very afraid...
Posted by: Jen | Mar 5, 2007 2:06:12 AM
Paul,
You wrote:
"What is the problem with our US soldiers? Are they that much more homophobic or bigotted than our "partners in the war on terror"?"
Unfortunately, the answer to your question is yes. I'm an officer in the US Air Force, and from what I've seen there is plenty of homophobia in the military. I'm serving in Europe with NATO right now, and it's amazing how much less homophobic the other NATO countries are.
In my opinion, homophobia is truly the only reason why we don't currently allow gay men and women to serve. I have worked with numerous gay military members whose sexuality was an open secret of sorts. All of them served with honor, did their jobs well, and could be counted on when it mattered. They were not slaves to their sexuality who went around flirting innappropriately, being promiscuous, catching diseases, and making everyone uncomfortable. In fact, the people in the military that I've seen committing those offenses have always been the young heterosexual guys.
Posted by: Jeff | Mar 5, 2007 3:54:23 AM
Continue “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
The needs of the team out weigh those of the individual. The military team continues to reflect and mirror society’s acceptable behavior. The military team environment is equivalent to that of a sport team. Athletes and soldiers are part of a team and rely on one another for success. Athletes aren’t asked and don’t tell. The fact an individual is gay should be irrelevant, but if the individual makes it relevant, the team can chose to accept it or not. As it stands now the military team as well as any athletic team does not accept this behavior.
Posted by: o7mustang | Mar 5, 2007 10:25:02 AM
Post a comment
