Maggie's Farm

I'm a gay guy, meaning I’m pretty carefree and happy, pretty tolerant, and not a homosexual. At the same time, I’m pretty focused and results-oriented, but not to an excess unfair to others.  So, how do I react to the Pentagon’s study of the effects of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?

I actually just read all of it, all 267 pages.  The top line is that the report says it can be done. The second line is that it will be difficult in many respects, but the report’s authors are confident that training and discipline will overcome. The third line is that opposition and skepticism is highest, a majority, among those in the Marine Corps, Army and combat units.

That third line is where the rubber meets the road.  The purpose of the armed forces is to accomplish combat missions and come back alive, and for that personal and unit bonds and trust are most necessary. Repeatedly, the report asserts that the actual difficulties of repealing DADT will be less than the survey’s responses, based upon prior US armed forces experience with desegregation and integrating women into more roles, upon inexperience with homosexuals, and upon the experience of some other nation’s armed forces.

In my corporate life, I wanted to hire a totally qualified homosexual, of no obvious traits though his orientation was known. My bosses at the giant corporation told me no. That was almost 30-years ago. The corporate culture has changed, and the corporate-like culture of much of the armed forces will adjust constructively as well.  It is also likely that those homosexuals who are not disposed toward or qualified for combat units will not find themselves in combat units, so the negative effects on others or unit effectiveness will be lessened.

That may well be so. But, the report also represents a rather cavalier attitude at the top toward those troops who either have deep religious or moral grounds or effectiveness concerns for unease serving in close quarters and life-or-death situations with homosexuals. It, also, represents acceptance of the price in recruitment, careers and retention. None of those increase my faith in the politicized leadership of the armed forces.

At least, the report calls for gradual implementation. A serious question is whether the rump Democrat Congress in its pell mell rush will even respect even that.

P.S.: Discipline starts here.  I've deleted several comments that are downright filthy or hateful. Comments are for civil discussion of issues, not for exhibiting an utter lack of class, or should I say exhibitionism of one's private darknesses.

P.P.S.: In the report's findings, those in combat units share more time together off-duty. Some of the commenters below are combat veterans. Their views are most important regarding the extraordinary demands that require building and sharing close ties.

One of the points I raise above is about the negative effects on recruitment, careers and retention. As a young man pondering which service to join, the recommendations of neighbors for the Marine Corps -- best trained to do the job and return, and smaller self-disciplined and thus subject to less big-org "chicken-shit"  -- swayed me to enlist in the USMC.

Around the corner from me now is a retired Marine Sergeant-Major. Across the street from him is a young college student who pondered his course. We recommended and he joined the Marine Corps PLC program, where he is thriving.

A long-time friend whom I respect most highly is an Army combat veteran, then a man of the cloth and college professor. He writes me this morning, from the "frontline":

But the problem, for me at least, has become easier. Under the gutless, politicized leadership coming from senior military officers, I've come to the reluctant conclusion that I can no longer in good conscience recommend military service for any of my students.It makes me sad to write that. I'm proud of my own service. But why would you want a dedicated, self-less young man to put himself in the hands of leaders like these? Not only will the risks to his life be greater, but there is a danger of a growing cynicism within him, as he sees political correctness replace what was once a code of honor. That cynicism is something he'll take with him after he's discharged. I don't want to see the military destroy what it was best as encouraging--a sense of honor.
It's not just this latest move. It's merely the latest in a pattern. I've talked to young, disillusioned junior officers and NCOs who are getting out because they have no faith in the leadership from field grade officers.
I've heard horror stories from USMC and Army officers of a lack of leadership that even in the troubled Vietnam days you and I could never have imagined. (I can give you details--it's the broad range of PC-governed idiot policies and cynical practice.)
I never thought the day would come when I could no longer encourage good men to join the military to pursue an honorable calling to service. But it has come. I know these students. I wouldn't want to subject to this kind of "leadership.

In the Marine Corps, all are trained to above all be a refleman, ready for combat regardless of their MOS.  The highest duty of any in command is the support of the effectiveness and safety of the frontline "grunt," and in today's warfare that often means everyone is at the front. My friend adds:

Gates really disappoints me on this one. Because an activist judge is California his exceeding his responsibilities (aided by the DOJ, which refuses to offer any evidence or arguments in favor of the law they're duty-bound to defend) Gates and the Pentagon (and I guess congress) have decided we have no choice in this matter? I'll grant it "can" be done, but no one wants to squarely answer the question of whether it should be done. It can be done, but at what price? We haven't faced a truly formidable ground force since Vietnam. This has given the techno generals (both Air Force and Army) the illusion that their flashy technology has eliminated the need for ground troops. Really? Remember shock and awe? Bosnia and Kosovo before the threat of ground troops?
This will ruin the military in the long-run. We will lose a generation of leaders due to early retirement, and the greasy-pole-climbing political generals will be rewarded, while others like them will see the way to advancement.