Sdi 2010 Midterms Impacts Updates
DADT BAD- No Effect on Readiness
Download 0.56 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- DADT BAD- Flawed
DADT BAD- No Effect on ReadinessRepealing DADT Wont Hurt Readiness-Tradition Causes Oppostion The Washington Post 9, John, M. Shalikashvili, Pg. A25, June 19, 2009, accessed 7/20 The Supreme Court announced last week that it would not review a lawsuit challenging themilitary's "don't ask, don't tell" policy forbidding homosexuals from serving openly. The Obama administration had asked the court not to take the case as the president considers ending the ban. News that the president would change the policy had inspired a group of retired flag officers to argue on this page this spring that service by openly gay individuals would harm morale, discipline, cohesion, recruitment and retention in the U.S. military ["Gays and the Military: A Bad Fit," op-ed, April 15]. They wrote as part of a larger effort by more than 1,000 retired officers to keep the ban in place. According to the generals and admirals, allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly would make parents less willing to allow their sons and daughters to enlist. The argument assumes that anti-gay sentiment is so fierce and widespread that moving to a policy of equal treatment would drive away thousands and could ultimately "break the All-Volunteer Force." Not only is there no evidence to support these conclusions, but research shows conclusively that openly gay service members would not undermine military readiness. Tradition is a critical military value, and the armed forces have a long-standing tradition of banning gay men and lesbians. Equally important military traditions, however, are learning and adapting -- and my colleagues made claims as if no new knowledge has been acquired over past decades, during which time Israel and Britain joined more than 20 other nations to allow openlygay individuals to serve without overall problems. In Britain and Canada, polls had indicated that thousands would resign if gays were allowed to serve, but when the bans were lifted, almost no one left. The British Defense Ministry conducted several assessments of the policy change and called it a "solid achievement." The flag officers neglected to acknowledge Britain's experience, instead dismissing the relevance of nations such as "Denmark, the Netherlands and Canada." While it is true that the U.S. armed forces are unique, it is important that we not marginalize the lessons learned in other countries -- particularly those that often conduct joint operations with us. But it is not just foreign militaries that show service by openly gay individuals works. The U.S.military itself has had successful experiences. Enforcement of the ban was suspended without problems during the Persian Gulf War, and there were no reports of angry departures. A majority of U.S. service members say they know or believe that someone in their unit is gay, according to a 2006 Zogby International poll, and most of those who know of openly gay peers report no detriment to morale or cohesion. A recent study co-authored by Laura Miller of Rand Corp. found no correlation between a unit's readiness and whether known gays serve in it. And last year, four retired flag and general officers studied all available evidence and found that allowing gaysto serve posed no risk to force readiness. While the proper timing of repealing "don't ask, don't tell" remains uncertain, it is evident to me that a policy change is inevitable. More than three-quarters of the public favors the change. Polls show that even a majority of Republicans support allowing openly gay people to serve. Within the military, the climate has changed dramatically since 1993. Conversations I've held with service members make clear that, while the military remains a traditional culture, that tradition no longer requires banning open service by gays. There will undoubtedly be some teething pains, but I have no doubt our leadership can handle it. DADT BAD- FlawedDADT Flawed- No Impact On Military Readiness or Preparedness St Petersburg Times 9( Must end dont ask, dont tell, Pg. 10A, October 14, 2009, accessed 7/20) Since passage of the 1993 law establishing "don't ask, don't tell," about 12,500 gay men and lesbians have seen their military careers destroyed. Thankfully, there is growing recognition, even within military ranks, that the policy has handicapped the country's military readiness. Joining the call to repeal the outdated policy on Saturday was President Barack Obama, who told an audience at a large gay rights gala: "We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve this country." He's right. Americans have come a long way in their thinking about gay men and women in the military. According to national polls, support for getting rid of "don't ask, don't tell" now commands large majorities, including 60 percent of weekly churchgoers and 58 percent of Republicans. Military leaders who fought so hard to keep openly gay service members from their ranks during the Clinton administration are changing too. In the latest issue of Joint Force Quarterly, a military periodical, Air Force Col. Om Prakash writes that "don't ask, don't tell" has been "costly both in personnel and treasure." Prakash's well-researched essay says countries with militaries where gays serve openly - such as Britain, Australia, Canada and Israel - found that their decision to lift the ban on gays had "no impact on military performance, readiness, cohesion, or ability to recruit or retain." Alternatively, the ban has led the U.S. military to discharge soldiers with highly sought skills, such as foreign language speakers. And who knows how many gay American men and women have chosen to forgo military service because they would have to hide who they are. failed on Saturday to offer a time line for abolishing the policy, probably mindful of his already full plate. But pushing for the law's repeal is not politically treacherous anymore, and the longer Obama and Congress wait, the more gay armed service members are put at risk of discovery and ouster. This continued discrimination does a dishonor to our nation. Obama should demand that Congress end it now. Other Countries Prove DADT Has No Impact On Military The Guardian 10(Daniel Nasaw, staff writer, Us army chief to consult on ending anti-gay rules, pg. 20, February 24, 2010, accessed 7/20) The US army chief of staff yesterday said he would consult generals from Britain and Canada about gay men and lesbians serving in the military, adding that armies ending discrimination had experienced no detriment to their battle readiness. But General George Casey and army secretary John McHugh said they opposed an effort to stop openly gay soldiers being discharged while the Pentagon takes a year to study the repeal of a policy barring them from serving. Their testimony in the Senate yesterday dashed the hopes of gay soldiers and others that Congress will pass a moratorium on discharges while military brass review personnel policies over the next year.Barack Obama and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, oppose the Clinton-era policy that allows gay people to serve in the military so long as they keep their sexuality hidden. Since 1994 more than 13,500 gay people have been discharged under the policy, one of the last instances of official discrimination in the US. Opponents of the policy say it keeps patriotic men and women out of the military while the US is fighting two wars. In Afghanistan, Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.56 Mb. Share with your friends:
|