Fondly Remembering Obama – 4/3/2017

With Joint Chiefs about repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Wondering why a few conservative friends are less than impressed.

6 thoughts on “Fondly Remembering Obama – 4/3/2017”

  1. Ironically, this edition of your series perfectly illustrates my point.

    “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was an imperfect policy with which to deal with the gay military issue however, it worked fairly well overall.

    Social engineering of the military with PC clap-trap has only served to degrade unit cohesion, troop morale, and military effectiveness for far too many of the units of the military.

    The fact that President Obama “knew better” and found flag officers that would kowtow to this nonsense only served to weaken many aspects of the military accordingly.

    Yes, this absolutely causes me to once again be less than impressed by President Obama.

  2. YouTube notes Obama has been arrested in Japan dealing with a drug shipment is this true, can someone enlighten me…..please!

  3. Poor Marie seems to be a confused Trump voter. My advice is to avoid the fake news from youtube, FOX and Breitbart.

    “DADT” was the stupid, mission-defeating reason valuable Arab-speaking translators were discharged from service in Iraq.

    Mr. Paine again offers no evidence to support his claims. But we do know this:

    “Social engineering of the military with PC clap-trap has only served to degrade unit cohesion, troop morale, and military effectiveness for far too many of the units of the military.”

    That is what cons said about Blacks and women in the military.

    While Mr. Paine would have us believe President Obama single-handedly decided he wanted to screw our military by putting gays in service, the facts say otherwise.

    The Effects of Repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell were studied in THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY

    http://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/law-journals/gjlpp/upload/zs800112000015.pdf

    Rejection of the Underlying Justifications </b.

    As outlined in the previous Part, in recent years the underlying justifications for DADT have been subjected to increasing suspicion and outright rejection. Mounting evidence obtained from the integration efforts of foreign militaries,182 surveys of U.S. military personnel,183 and studies conducted by the DoD184 gave credence to the view that the presence of open homosexuals would not actually be detrimental to the armed forces. Perhaps the most significant support for this position came in the form of a DoD study conducted in 2010 at the behest of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.185 As part of its assessment, the DoD working group conducting the study considered the impact that lifting the ban would have on unit cohesion and effectiveness, good order and discipline, and morale.186 Importantly, the study included a survey that revealed significant differences between respondents who believed they had served with homosexual troops and those who believed they had not.187 In analyzing such data, the DoD working group concluded that it was often “generalized perceptions of gay Service members [that] led to a fear that unit cohesion, morale, and good order and discipline will erode” in the face of open service by homosexuals.188 Ultimately, the study deemed the overall risk to military effectiveness of lifting the ban to be low.189 Citing the ability of the armed forces to adjust to the previous integration of African-Americans and women, the DoD study asserted confidence “that the U.S. military can adjust and accommodate” to the entry of homosexuals “just as it has others in history.”

    I would agree though, that gays and other minorities annoy our ill-informed bigots uniform. But we don’t serve them; THEY serve us. A lesson never learned by Trumpists and other authoritarians.

  4. I do not recall if Mr. Dubya ever served in the military or not, but as someone that has, I can tell you that it is fairly common sense to see the negative impacts of having openly gay folks serving in the military in some of the units. This is especially true in the very tight living quarters among naval vessels.

    I think most people would agree that having young men and women sleeping and showering together in close living conditions simply creates additional problems and potential relationships that can be detrimental to good unit cohesion and morale, even though most would and do act in a professional manner. That is why there is already regulations regarding sexual conduct and fraternization in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    Common sense would further suggest that the same holds true for those of the same sex that have homosexual attractions. If one were to simply consider the situation, one could see how this would produce an uncomfortable environment at best and far worse conditions in the worst of cases.

    This is not to say that there are not gay servicemembers that cannot and have not served with honor and distinction. There are many. It is simply to say that a person’s sexuality should not become the defining aspect of the person to the extent that others are required to take affirmative notice.

    I think most people would agree that it would be rather uncomfortable for women aboard ship to be required to sleep and shower in the same facilities with a man. Their lack of privacy would feel to be violated. Is it any different for men to be expected to do the same in the company of a gay man that by definition is attracted to other men?

    The purpose of the military is to defend our nation and its vital interests. It does so often times by the destruction of an enemy’s infrastructure and the killing of its troops. It is my contention that anything that distracts from that mission, via social engineering by politicians that are beholden to politically correct agendas or otherwise, becomes an inherent danger to that mission and the military personnel tasked with carrying out that mission. (often with risk to their own well-being or lives.)

    I understand that my views may seem anachronistic, bigoted, and unenlightened to many PC folks today, but from a pragmatic standpoint and real world military experience, I can tell you that my opinion amongst those that have served and those whom are still serving in the military is not a minority one.

  5. Mr. Paine argues both for and against gays in the military. Perhaps he went to high school gym classes and naval units where gay and straight men’s showers were segregated?

    Yes, “a person’s sexuality should not become the defining aspect of the person to the extent that others are required to take affirmative notice.” However the reverse seems out of the question for many. A person’s sexuality should not become the defining aspect of the person to the extent that others are required to take negative notice. THAT is the essence of DADT.

    DADT was used to discriminate against them. Repealing it did not encourage pink camo, shower sex, or other fantasies of discomfort for straight men.

Comments are closed.