Ok what about Don’t ask, don’t tell?

Posted: February 4, 2010 by datechguy in Afghanistan war, opinion/news, war
Tags: , , , ,

I’ve teased supporters of this president in the past because he has been unwilling to address items such as “don’t ask don’t tell”, but I’ve never devoted a piece to my opinion on the subject so here goes…

My opinion on “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is a variation of Lincoln statement on slavery.

Our goal should be having the strongest most efficient military in the world. We need a military strong enough to reassure our friends and to give our foes pause. I am in favor of anything that supports that goal.

If we can meet this goal by officially allowing homosexuals to serve in the military openly, I would support it.

If we can do it by banning homosexuals from military service openly I would support it.

And if we could do it allowing homosexuals to serve openly in some capacity but not in others I would support that too.

Our enemies are trying to kill us, they are not going to wait to ask who we pick up in bars before they try. The most efficient military possible is in the interest of everyone of any race creed color or sexual orientation. My only interest when it comes to the military is its ability to fight and win.

I’m not a soldier, I will likely never be a soldier the people who can answer this will be our soldiers and those willing to serve. Not me.

I will say this to the two sides of the argument:

You might remember that according to Ken Burns Masterpiece The Civil War 85% of American Blacks in the north of military age served in the Union army. They understood what the war was about. Given the beliefs of Radical Islam, I think that Gay Americans would be highly motivated to serve to fight against a fundamentalist Islamic foe that wants them dead and would not be inclined to oppose it.

on the other hand…

We also have an all volunteer military, if the numbers of homosexual recruits are insufficient to make up for the number of straight recruits who would be unwilling to serve with them to the point where it hurts our ability to fight then the needs of the service have to be the priority.

What do you think and why?

  1. Peg says:

    I personally think that we should be able to find some middle ground. Let me try to explain.

    If someone performs well and is capable of being in the military, then they should be able to serve – irrespective of their sexual orientation. Thus, if someone has a partner of the same sex at home, or a boyfriend/girlfriend, they should be able to refer to them without having to hide. If a heterosexual can say, “I miss my wife, Mary” then a gay person should be able to say, “I miss my husband, John” – even if he is male himself.

    That being said, there should be firm rules about relations between people currently serving – particularly within the same units. (Sorry I am incredibly ignorant about the military, and don’t know the proper terminology.) People serving should not have to worry about whether people alongside them will be “hitting on them” – period.

    So – IMHO, “Don’t ask; don’t tell” should be altered to “Be who you are – but – NO sex on the job!”

  2. bondwooley says:

    For national security’s sake, it’s time the military ended every communication gap:


    (social satire)

  3. Erich says:

    Regarding the argument that Gay Americans should be highly motivated to oppose the forces of Radical Islam, and therefore highly motivated to fight against those forces as soldiers – One would think so, but one might also think that Gay Americans would, for the same reason, overwhelmingly vote for the Conservative/Republican party that most vehemently opposes and fights Radical Islam, rather than for the Liberal/Democrat Agenda which coddles and excuses and condones Radical Islam. And yet that is not the case. For that matter, one might expect Jewish Americans to vote overwhelmingly Republican for the same reason, and yet that is not the case either. While I realize that many liberal Gay and liberal Jewish people have their differences with the Republicans on many issues, I would think that opposition to the Democrats policy of Appeasement when it comes to Radical Islam would outweigh those relatively minor differences. Apparently not. (Yes, I realize maybe I’m a little off topic)

  4. The nephew says:

    I haven’t looked it up, but the question I pose is this which would not have been asked in 1993 since this wasn’t legal in states yet.

    Spousal Military Benefits. Will a homosexual male or female soldier’s spouse (and children/step children/adopted children) be entiltled to all government benefits provided through military service?

  5. Erich says:

    Not to get picky or anything, but unless I’m missing something, you didn’t use the word “should” – you used the word “would” :)