Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (It’s A Readiness Issue)
When it comes to the deployment of soldiers in the US Army, both active and reserve, I am not motivated by politics. My sole motivation is the readiness of the troops that I am responsible for and the moral obligation and responsibility that I have to the families of those soldiers.
I earned hard stripes as an E-5 Sergeant before I traded them in for “butter bars.” I have been decorated many times but I am probably most proud of a relatively minor ribbon, the NCO Professional Development Ribbon.That single ribbon is the proverbial concrete that binds the highest and lowest awards together.
There are many on the right whose underlying motivation in the debate over don’t ask, don’t tell is to achieve some form of at large “social policy.”
There are many on the left whose underlying motivation in the debate over don’t ask, don’t tell is to achieve some form of at large “social policy.”
I am not motivated in the debate over don’t ask, don’t tell to achieve any form of at large “social policy” because in over two decades of military service I have learned that the military is no place for social experimentation.
In military affairs, I am not a Republican.
In military affairs, I am not a Democrat.
In military affairs, I am not an Independent.
In military affairs, I am a man focused solely on readiness. I have written on this topic many times because I saw first hand readiness dismissed for the sake of political expediency first on the watch of President Clinton and second on the watch of President Bush.
I condemned the Bush Administration for its failure in heeding the recommendations of the Surgeon General;
What was a key Combat Readiness recommendation of the report?
Extend the interval between deployments to 18-36 months or decrease deployment length to allow additional time for Soldiers to re-set following a one year combat tour.
and
If you have any compassion left in your heart, you can support the troops by sending a copy of the report to every Member of Congress and ask them if they listen to the Office of the Surgeon General.
Having 12 months between deployments, ensuring that soldiers are trained to military (not Democrat/Republican) standards and returning stop loss to an emergency measure not a routine personal policy is good for readiness, good for the troops and good for the Nation.
If you believe in the Global War on Terror, you will support these reasonable common sense measures and let the military (not politicians) set readiness and training standards.
Eight years ago, two percent of America went to War while the rest of America “went shopping.”
Today, that same two percent of America is at War while the rest of America is still shopping.
In the first year of the current “War,” I believed that “help was on the way.”
In the third year of the current “War,” I believed that “help was on the way.”
Around the fifth year of the current “War,” I like many others realized that help was not on the way. Political expediency meant that a reserve component would be transformed from a strategic reserve into an operational reserve solely because Leadership would not make the tough decisions. Political expediency meant that active component soldiers would see moral obligations shredded with the long term use of Stop Loss and Individual Ready Reserve mobilization on essentially a permanent instead of a well thought out temporary basis.
In the early 1990′s it was the young Company Grade Commissioned Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers that helped create the policy of DADT. I was part of the process then and as a young Infantry Officer, my sole concern was with the readiness of an Infantry Platoon. At the time, it was deemed that the integration of openly gay soldiers into the military could be damaging to unit effectiveness. Open integration was considered to be social experimentation, the cost of failure being too high.
Just as the decision in the early 1990′s reflected the views of young Commissioned and Non-Commissioned Officers, so too should current policy reflect the opinions of those younger soldiers today and readiness must always be the paramount factor. Having long traded away my “bars,” this time that decision will be made by another year group and they will be the ones that answer that question.
In the early 1990′s, DADT was looked at through the “readiness lense” of a robust fighting force, well rested, trained and equipped.
In 2009, DADT will be looked at through the “readiness lense” of a strained and tired fighting force.
Readiness is the sole factor that should drive the decision on DADT. Social policy and experimentation on the part of the right and left, be damned.
If eliminating DADT will enhance readiness based on its current degraded position, then it should be eliminated.
If eliminating DADT will further degrade readiness then it should not be eliminated.
DADT will stand or fall based on the readiness of the Army that President Obama inherited.
I will support the consensus viewpoint of today’s young Commissioned and Non-Commissioned Officers who are best equipped to assess the readiness impact of including or excluding gays from serving in the military.
Subscribe to blog feed.
May 9th, 2009 at 8:22 am
so where is your bloody plan to force America to either “go to war” or pull all tropps back to safe areas?
no president, white or black, gop or dem, should be allowed to do what we have done since the end of WW2.
If and when America goes to war, we should be “all in” or not at all. One drop of American blood is more precious to me than all of the unwashed deadbeats around the world who call themselves our allies. I’d rather nuke the entire Northwest Frontier, Iraq, Iran, and so forth–with the hundred million or so deaths that would result–than pussy-footing around with rules of engagement that make us the bad guys when al Qaida or some other group of back-stabbing, child-molesting, caravan-raiding thugs and their civilian facilitators are killed in the line of duty.
Give ‘em a 24-hour warning to surrender, then hit them. Then on to the next site.
May 9th, 2009 at 8:24 am
BTW, we give the
Soviets and MaoistRussian and Chines governments a courtesy call and a wartning to stay the hell out of Dodge.May 9th, 2009 at 8:25 am
I’d bet it only takes a week to get the locals turning in dead al Qaida and Taliban folks in order to avoid glowing in the dark…
May 9th, 2009 at 8:28 am
And yes, I’m typing faster than my spellchecker, sorry ’bout the typos… “troops”, “Chinese”, “warning”…
May 9th, 2009 at 8:46 am
OL,
What is your opinion of don’t ask don’t tell? Why are you less capable than the Commissioned and Non-Commissioned Officers to assess the readiness impact of including or excluding gays from serving in the military? You have been in the military for over 20 years and you should be able to make your own assessment. Also, those Commissioned and Non-Commissioned Officers may be motivated to stay in this administration’ s good graces and may try to come up with the obvious politially correct answer to your question. Methinks that you are trying to avoid criticizing of Obama.
May 9th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Eight years ago, two percent of America went to War while the rest of America “went shopping.”
Today, that same two percent of America is at War while the rest of America is still shopping.
I’m not surprised to see you express such disdain for 98% of Americans.
May 9th, 2009 at 11:20 am
OL, you did dance around the answer. Your post sounded just like the congressmen who go on Fox News Sunday and are asked a simple yes/no question, but answer it by saying “I support what someone else says”.
I’m nearly as old as you, and was an E-5 with 9 years in the Marines. My answer and opinion is the same as it was then. Gays, while there is nothing wrong with their lifestyle, do not have a place in the military. Unit cohesiveness is key, and nothing should detract from this.
[Because of my age, I can not say for certain what are the opinions of men who are young enough to be my own children. My generation no longer fills the ranks, it is filled by a generation that has differing values. So the question to that generation, not mine is if gays will be detrimental to readiness. Based on observation, I tend to think that this current generation is open to ending DADT. If yes, then because of degraded readiness (NOT because of so called social "justice" issues), the only choice is to end DADT. My personal opinion of the gay lifestyle (on the extreme right of the spectrum) is totally irrelevant to this debate and does not cloud it. OL]
May 9th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
You don’t have to be straight to be in the military, you just have to be able to shoot straight.
May 9th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
I imagine that if more states legalize gay marriage, then eventually the DADT will follow suit then.
May 9th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Rand Paul says he may announce next week Thursday or Friday
Part 1
and
Part 2
and
Part 3
and
Part 4
and
Part 5
May 9th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
censorship sucks
May 9th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Acroso will love it. he may even join up to be with his butt buddies.
May 9th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Republican Secretary of State for Kentucky Trey Grayson was a Democrat and a former Clinton DNC delegate in the 1990’s so it’s possible that the GOP will want to support him as a moderate against Rand Paul. Trey Grayson has an exploratory committee to run for Jim Bunning’s U.S. Senate seat. He seems like a professional politician.
May 9th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
MoveOn attacks Specter.
Hmmm maybe Tray Grayson is a Specter Republican.
May 9th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Rand to launch senate campaign next week. Hear the audio clip.
May 9th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Military integrating into U.S. law enforcement under the guise of the war on terror?
Military Police Document Reveals Integration with Local Law Enforcement
May 10th, 2009 at 6:15 am
“So the question to that generation, not mine is if gays will be detrimental to readiness. Based on observation, I tend to think that this current generation is open to ending DADT. ”
Oak, I don’t this is a good standard to base your premise on. I can think of alot of things the current generation is and is not open to. That does or doesn’t make it effective for readiness.
Case in point: I think the current generation is more open to women in combat roles. I think Abu Ghraib was a clear example of why alot of people who objected to it were correct on a number of levels. You had a pregnant girl at the center of the controversy and a EEO promoted commander.
I wouldn’t mind these social experiments as long as an unbiased examination of their affects was conducted, but as you see with Abu Ghraib, the question of placing women in forward units is not even raised. The dogma of the left is never questioned.
May 10th, 2009 at 6:41 am
How strange that my post was deleted. Perhaps the truth hurts? Oak Leaf’s slavish obsession with Obama remains a mystery. The bigger mystery, however, is why Poli insists on subjecting his readers to the Left Wing rantings of Oak Leaf on a daily basis.
May 10th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
OL, I understand your point. It is the younger generation who will decide their own fate, and not much your/my choice anymore.
But, I still think the current generation would end DADT. But, in the favor of not having gays in the military. You can say the younger generation is open minded more than we old fogeys are. But, I don’t think the mind of the military men is that open to change.
May 10th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Did the young Commissioned and Non-Commissioned Officers support allowing woman into the military or were they even around.
Did they support Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in the first place or were they against that too?
May 10th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Also, don’t the young Commissioned and Non-Commissioned Officers feel pressure to conform to a certain set of views so as not to “stand out” since their careers depend on conformity?
May 19th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
DADT is plain discrimination. I realize those who serve have priority on making their own situation as safe as possible, however, this statement that gays will lower unit readiness is unwarranted and based on bias. There aren’t any statistics to back it up. Just because it’s been said 5 million times doesn’t make it true. Plus, the same argument could be said for women, that they lower unit cohesion. Annoying people too. You’re picking at straws here.
November 26th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Хороший блог
Люблю почитывать каждое утро (ну и в другое время тоже 
).