Mullen: ‘Don’t ask’ talks to move slowly

[CommunityEditor]

Any discussions on repealing the military’s ban on open service by homosexuals must proceed in a “measured and deliberate way” that does not increase stress on a force stretched by two ongoing wars, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs said Wednesday.

“I think it’s important, as we look to this change, that it be done in a way that doesn’t disrupt the force at a time where it’s under a lot of stress,” Adm. Mike Mullen told Military Times reporters and editors. “And that, to me, means in a measured, deliberate way, over some time — to be determined. And I don’t know what that would be.”

Mullen said he has discussed the contentious issue with President Barack Obama, who wants to change the law as well as the policy known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and with the chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. He also said he has done internal work on the issue with his personal staff, but has not created a dedicated study or work group.

Mullen declined to characterize his talks with the president and the Joint Chiefs, saying they are private discussions. Nor would he reveal whether he has been given a sense of how quickly Obama would like to see a change come about.

Mullen’s comments fall in line with those of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who said of the policy during a March interview on “Fox News Sunday” that “the president and I feel like we’ve got a lot on our plates right now, and let’s push that one down the road a little bit.”

Gates said at the time that he’d discussed the issue with Obama “briefly.”

So while top Pentagon leadership now clearly is in receipt of Obama’s desire for change — until last week, Pentagon spokespersons had said there were no developments along those lines — it seems equally clear that the Defense Department is not going to push hard for a change any time soon.

Under the compromise 1993 policy, commanders cannot ask service members about their sexuality, but those who publicly state that they are homosexual and affirm that they have engaged in homosexual behavior are supposed to be separated. Commanders can ask about possible homosexual activity if given “credible information.”

The issue has strong proponents in favor of repeal and for keeping the status quo. Mullen said that no matter what happens, he doesn’t want troops already under great stress over repeated deployments, lack of time back home and years of unconventional warfare to become a tool of either side.

“I think it’s important that … it not become a polarizing debate that has the force in the middle,” Mullen said. “And that’s going to take responsible leadership on every aspect of this discussion. And I want to emphasize ‘responsible leadership.’ ”

Asked if that included the White House, Congress and the Pentagon, he replied, “Broader,” indicating he would like to see a national consensus on the issue.

“We have a process in this country that … I cherish,” Mullen said. “We have laws. Those laws get passed by Congress. Those individuals are elected by the American people. And if the American people want to change this law, it comes up through [Congress], they change the law, we comply.”

Pressed for his personal view, Mullen declined to provide it. “My view, quite frankly, isn’t important here.”

Mullen did say he owes Obama an assessment of the impact of such a change, as well as an implementation plan should the law be changed. Mullen didn’t provide an estimate for when that plan will be complete.

“The president’s made his intent very clear — that he wants to see this law and policy change,” Mullen said. “It’s important that we all constantly recognize that this is a law. So not even the president himself can change it — he’s got to go to Congress and ask that it be changed. If and when the law changes … we’ll follow the law, as we do now.”

In one attempt at repeal, Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., on March 3 reintroduced legislation, still pending, that would direct the military to drop its ban on open homosexual service.

At least one branch of the service is looking more deeply at the possibility of change. In a mid-March message obtained by Military Times, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway asked his current generals: “How strongly should we, as an institution, challenge the don’t ask, don’t tell policy?”

Service officials confirmed the message but wouldn’t more clearly define precisely what Conway was looking for.


Article: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/0...t_ask_052709w/

[ELINT6]

In 1948 President Harry S. Truman answered the call and integrated the US Armed forces.

Until then African-Americans were fit for the likes of the Red Ball Express and other areas where there their 'physical prowess' was needed. They served in segregated units because their presence in polite socienty was a tad offensive to us white folks. Yes they served, they served vaintly even while scorned and discriminated against.

In the 1970's I watched the integration of the US Army with the passing of the Womens Army Corps (WAC); it didn't result in the downfall of the military. Instead it brought forth an increasing pool of capable soldiers, women soldiers who I can say I am proud to have served with and been led by during my 25-year military career.

The Gays and Lesbians in the US Armed Forces live in the shadow of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and serve their [our] country as you and I do in the light of day. I think it is time that we leave our small minded way behind and measure these men and women by their performance as soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.

I have no more problem serving with these folks than I had serving with women or African-Americans such as General Powell.

[dkalis]

Originally Posted by ELINT6

In 1948 President Harry S. Truman answered the call and integrated the US Armed forces.

Until then African-Americans were fit for the likes of the Red Ball Express and other areas where there their 'physical prowess' was needed. They served in segregated units because their presence in polite socienty was a tad offensive to us white folks. Yes they served, they served vaintly even while scorned and discriminated against.

In the 1970's I watched the integration of the US Army with the passing of the Womens Army Corps (WAC); it didn't result in the downfall of the military. Instead it brought forth an increasing pool of capable soldiers, women soldiers who I can say I am proud to have served with and been led by during my 25-year military career.

The Gays and Lesbians in the US Armed Forces live in the shadow of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and serve their [our] country as you and I do in the light of day. I think it is time that we leave our small minded way behind and measure these men and women by their performance as soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.

I have no more problem serving with these folks than I had serving with women or African-Americans such as General Powell.

Wow you are seriously trying to compare Civil rights to sexual rights..

Go play in traffic

[Seasons]

Originally Posted by dkalis

Wow you are seriously trying to compare Civil rights to sexual rights..

Go play in traffic

Quite the articulated post there. Lets try some roleplay.

If you were a woman and I told you the only way you could serve was to act like a man, and never let anyone know you were a woman...what would you call it?

If you were a man and I told you the opposite...what would you call it?

If you were of darker skin and I told you you had to be "white" to serve, hide your skin color...what would you call it?

Now, tell me how you can then justify telling someone they must hide a part of who they are fundamentally in order to serve. Tell me how sexuality differs from skin color, or gender.

Oh, and don't start with "you can change your sexuality". Cause guess what, you can change the rest too. Just look at Michael Jackson and...well I wanna say Michael Jackson again but that would be rather bad of me, wouldn't it?

[Matai]

Originally Posted by Seasons

Quite the articulated post there. Lets try some roleplay.

If you were a woman and I told you the only way you could serve was to act like a man, and never let anyone know you were a woman...what would you call it?

If you were a man and I told you the opposite...what would you call it?

I'll play. First, I would have to know what your reasons for doing so are. Keep in mind that while you may not agree with the reasons, they are valid (or were at the time they were instituted) when viewed by the leaders of this military, and this country (congress who enacted the law).

Second, this isn't quite the same thing. Being attracted to the same sex IS NOT PRETENDING TO BE SOMETHING YOU ARE NOT. I homosexual can run around naked and not be mistaken for the opposite gender. The same cannot be said of your scenario. Behaviors of men and women are not the same in all things, whereas the only difference between a gay man and a straight man (in this case) is that one likes women and the other likes men. This does no equate in your scenario.

Originally Posted by Seasons

If you were of darker skin and I told you you had to be "white" to serve, hide your skin color...what would you call it?

At the moment there is no "scientific" evidence determining that sexual preference is genetic. While you might claim that there is and it just hasn't been found, it certainly isn't the same as skin color. Race is not the same as sexual preference. Using the same example as above. If a black man was naked he would certainly be seen as black, while nobody would be able to tell his sexual preference. Your examples fail in that "hiding" your sexual preference is easily done in comparison to what you are asking in your examples.

Originally Posted by Seasons

Now, tell me how you can then justify telling someone they must hide a part of who they are fundamentally in order to serve. Tell me how sexuality differs from skin color, or gender.

How do we justify it? By telling them before they sign up that at the moment this is the LAW and that in order for them to serve they must abide by the LAW. How do they justify joining up, knowing the law, and then complaining that it's too hard for them to follow and then demanding that the majority of everyone else conform to their desires? Would it not make more sense to make the fewer amount of people change?

Originally Posted by Seasons

Oh, and don't start with "you can change your sexuality". Cause guess what, you can change the rest too. Just look at Michael Jackson and...well I wanna say Michael Jackson again but that would be rather bad of me, wouldn't it?

Sure you might be able to change much of the other stuff too, but they involve complex surgeries. Sometimes more than one. Whereas "changing your sexual preference" might be as simple as choice for the individual involved. (Like i said, no evidence one way or the other at the moment. Some claim it isn't some claim it is.)

[Seasons]

I love how people say its easy. I have a bisexual friend who hid her sexuality for years, trying to act heterosexual to everyone who met her. It was tearing her to pieces until she finally came out and all of us accepted her. She's since been able to move on with her life and actually be herself, and more productive a person as a result.

Psychological change is as fundamental, if not more difficult, than physical change.

[Measure Man]

Originally Posted by Matai

I'll play. First, I would have to know what your reasons for doing so are. Keep in mind that while you may not agree with the reasons, they are valid (or were at the time they were instituted) when viewed by the leaders of this military, and this country (congress who enacted the law).

Second, this isn't quite the same thing. Being attracted to the same sex IS NOT PRETENDING TO BE SOMETHING YOU ARE NOT. I homosexual can run around naked and not be mistaken for the opposite gender. The same cannot be said of your scenario. Behaviors of men and women are not the same in all things, whereas the only difference between a gay man and a straight man (in this case) is that one likes women and the other likes men. This does no equate in your scenario.

The religion analogy probably works better.

Relgion..is a choice...that can be hidden...but, much like homosexuality has no bearing on your ability to serve honorably.

Worried that some find homosexuality so morally reprehensible that it will destroy unit morale? Why don't they have a bigger problem with atheists? Surely that is a greater sin, isn't it?

At the moment there is no "scientific" evidence determining that sexual preference is genetic. While you might claim that there is and it just hasn't been found, it certainly isn't the same as skin color. Race is not the same as sexual preference. Using the same example as above. If a black man was naked he would certainly be seen as black, while nobody would be able to tell his sexual preference. Your examples fail in that "hiding" your sexual preference is easily done in comparison to what you are asking in your examples.

what difference does it make whether it is genetic or a freely arrived at choice?

If someone chooses to be homosexual...or chooses to be Pentecostal...who cares?

How do we justify it? By telling them before they sign up that at the moment this is the LAW and that in order for them to serve they must abide by the LAW. How do they justify joining up, knowing the law, and then complaining that it's too hard for them to follow and then demanding that the majority of everyone else conform to their desires? Would it not make more sense to make the fewer amount of people change?

How do you justify the law?

Sure you might be able to change much of the other stuff too, but they involve complex surgeries. Sometimes more than one. Whereas "changing your sexual preference" might be as simple as choice for the individual involved. (Like i said, no evidence one way or the other at the moment. Some claim it isn't some claim it is.)

Religion is very easy to change...we could probably make a good argument for a "Don't ask, don't tell policy" with regards to religon... If your religion becomes known, you get discharged in the interest of cohesion. Hell, we've had a lot more scandals involving religion than we've had with homosexuals.

[Seasons]

Now see, I never thought to make the comparison between Religion and Sexuality, but its a very good point. Bravo.

[ringjamesa]

Or, instead of DADT for religion we could make everyone be Jewish. Everyone that isn't Jewish has to pretend to be Jewish or they get kicked out. That would be pretty analogus to the current DADT policy...and funny too.

[Measure Man]

Originally Posted by ringjamesa

Or, instead of DADT for religion we could make everyone be Jewish. Everyone that isn't Jewish has to pretend to be Jewish or they get kicked out. That would be pretty analogus to the current DADT policy...and funny too.

shalom to you