Don't Ask, Don't Tell | Military | News

Full 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Repeal 'Probably Years Away'

Don't expect full repeal anytime soon, Pentagon sources tell the AP:

Dadt  The two officials appointed to lead a yearlong internal assessment — Gen. Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Army forces in Europe, and Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson — met for the first time on Feb. 9.

As that study gets under way, officials were expected by mid-March to suggest ways to relax enforcement of the law. Of particular interest is minimizing cases of "third party outings," where a service member is kicked out after being reported by others to be gay.

The protracted time line is about more than giving military leaders time to assess the impact on troops and put new rules in place. The multiyear process also is a strategic way of getting troops used to the idea before they have to accept change.

.....

The goal, according to senior defense and military officials, is to avoid the backlash that could result from imposing change too fast. While officials expect resistance from only a minority of service members and believe that it could be contained with discipline, officials fear isolated incidents of violence could erupt as a means of protest.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. So chaney now says it's a military question ! Does that mean that the US military are way behind the emotional security and maturity of the German, French, Brisist, Dutch etc military ?

    It's all so sadly predictable.....and boils down to the dead hand of religious evangelicals, the Family, who seem to have the power in the USA.
    Isn't it time to revisit the French Revolution, my people ?
    Oh, Mr. Obaha, we had such hope.

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Feb 14, 2010 11:53:52 AM


  2. PS........have the Generals considered the welfare and sexual well being of those Americans serving beside the other sodomites in the British German Canadian armies in Afganistan ?
    How can they be protected from their allies ?

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Feb 14, 2010 11:56:40 AM


  3. The military is slow-rolling this, hoping that they'll outlast Obama's first term. Pretty good chance of that, too. Obama is a weakling who isn't going to last. DADT will still be in place for the Romney administration to reverse any attempts to repeal it.

    Posted by: Citizen | Feb 14, 2010 12:18:26 PM


  4. I laugh whenever anyone says the Republicans will win the next presidential election. It's just NOT happening.

    As for DADT, the CIC ultimately decides when to redact the policy of excluding gays & lesbians. As he promised it would be done before the year is out, it is HE who I choose to believe.

    Posted by: Rodney | Feb 14, 2010 12:35:22 PM


  5. They're soldiers. They're trained from day one to do exactly as they're told. If there's violence, it will be dealt with swiftly and harshly. We don't need years and years of "getting used to it". We've had that ever since DADT was enacted. What we need is discipline in the ranks, and strong leadership. Now's the time to take the last step towards fairness.

    Posted by: The Milkman | Feb 14, 2010 12:57:25 PM


  6. What everybody has said. "Years and years" is ridiculous. This year. Now.

    Posted by: Joseph | Feb 14, 2010 1:29:01 PM


  7. Yeah, this is a surprise...

    Toldja so.

    Posted by: TANK | Feb 14, 2010 2:01:02 PM


  8. ROARING HOGSHIT that must be SHOT DOWN by the Commander-in-Chief IMMEDIATELY!

    Even if the LUDICROUS "fear" of "isolated incidents of violence" came true AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO, REPEAT NO RATIONAL REASON TO BELIEVE IT WOULD, there are some 1.5 MILLION active duty servicemembers and another 850,000 in the reserves. How many do they "fear"? 10? 50? 100?

    Exactly what do they fear? Rioting? Fire bombing? Fragging fags?

    This doesn't just recycle the worst nonsense of the 1993 debate, this goes all the way back to 1948 when every phony, HATE-BASED excuse imaginable was thrown at Harry Truman to try to prevent him from racially integrating the military. They even said incidents of syphilis would skyrocket which, of course, suggests either that all black troops were gay and would turn/rape straight white soldiers....or white troops would "catch it" from sitting on the same toilet seats as the "syphilis-ridden" "coloreds.

    This is EXACTLY the kind of escalation of "sky will fall" scenarios that those who said leaving a vacuum of a YEAR for opponents of repeal to gather would nourish. Even the Obambots' favorite AntiChrist Bill Clinton only gave them six months!

    REPEAL NOW, Goddamn it! And THEN sort it out. If we can continue to put people in space we can surely put out gays in the military.

    Paging Messrs. Obama, Gates, and Mullen. White Sanity phone, please.

    Posted by: Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | Feb 14, 2010 2:41:06 PM


  9. BULLSHIT.

    Waiting years is not acceptable.

    Posted by: DEREK WASHINGTON | Feb 14, 2010 4:24:52 PM


  10. And, are these are the same Pentagon sources that had no clue that Admiral Mullen would come out so forcefully in support of repealing DADT. And, are these the same sources that had no idea that Lt Choi would be called back to duty? The one thing that's for sure is that the Pentagon is not sharing it's strategy with AP.

    T

    Posted by: Observer1000 | Feb 14, 2010 4:47:46 PM


  11. You can pretty much guess where these "anonymous" senior defense officials came from. The offices of General Conway and General Casey. They are trying to stall in the hopes that the Republicans will retake the White House and give Admiral Mullen the boot. Not only would that preserve DADT, those two generals would be in line for the position of Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman themselves.

    It is all internal politics at the Pentagon.

    That's the sad reality of it.

    Posted by: John | Feb 14, 2010 4:58:36 PM


  12. Hey Rodney, is this the same CiC you believed when he said he'd get health care reform, and promised to close Gitmo within a year?

    Hey, I didn't just vote for Jimmy Carter ... er, Barack Obama ... I donated $2,300. But let's face it, the guy is a weakling. DADT is going to stay in force throughout Jimmy's .. oops, Barack's ... first term. Just wait.

    BTW, I'd love to be wrong about that, but I'm not going to be. You'll see.

    p.s.: "Meet the new boss/Same as the old boss." - The Who

    Posted by: Citizen | Feb 14, 2010 5:13:38 PM


  13. There is nothing going to be voted on until Nov 5th. Do you think the cowards in the Legislative Branch are going to do anything until then? They are more concern about their job than what the people are saying.

    Posted by: Dairyqueen | Feb 14, 2010 6:28:33 PM


  14. Sorry, Observer1000, even if you had not failed to observe the corrections to the initial nonsense reports that Dan had been "called back to duty" when he'd never LEFT it in the first place [such as "it" was: periodic, part time responsibilities with the National Guard], John is far more correct in his guessing about the background of this than you.

    Of course, persons at the Pentagon are feeding crap they want to make into reality to the media. It could, in fact, not just be Conway or his agents but agents of Gates or Mullen.

    Because, please note, now that the premature balloons and confetti have settled, everyone should be able to see that "years," two minimum, were in their formulas, too. A definite year "to study" and an indefinite period of time to POSSIBLY implement.

    Clinton's 6-month "Military Working Group" was supposed to come up with a plan to lift the ban, too. Note, legally things only got worse. Gates's year-long study will only THEORETICALLY result in repeal implementation being started. It could be "phased in;" it could involve something like segregated units; it could mean NO CHANGE if the study codirectors come back a year from now and say, "Well, you told us to poll the troops. We did and they don't want repeal, so don't." What then?

    REGARDLESS of the source, in or outside the Pentagon: this article MUST be repudiated by Obama and/or Gates!

    Posted by: Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | Feb 14, 2010 6:50:21 PM


  15. Weird how Johnson was able to desegregate the military essentially overnight with no major ill effects.

    It's almost as if the Democrats and the Pentagon are making excuses for inaction! Don't worry, Democrats, I'll still support you -- although, unfortunately, turning my theoretical support into actual votes or donations is "probably years away."

    Posted by: Pender | Feb 14, 2010 6:52:58 PM


  16. Sorry, Pender, wish I could agree with you but TRUMAN was not "able to desegregate the military overnight with no major ill effects." It COULD have been more or less that way, but wasn't.

    In fact, segregation continued to various degrees until the early 60s, and their were "race riots" and other violent confrontations as late as 1971.

    BUT, contrary to those who use this history as a excuse/prediction that gay integration would take as long, it only took that long re race because racists in the Pentagon and civilian government ALLOWED it to take that long. And they only were forced to change by the violence that developed when blacks demanded full integration and equal opportunity and white racists resisted it.

    The problem was a lack of leadership then and leadership will be the solution for gay integration. [At the same time, one must remember that the percentage of homophobes in the military today, as in society at large, is MICROSCOPIC contrasted with the racism of those earlier times.]

    Posted by: Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | Feb 14, 2010 7:21:12 PM


  17. Exactly how ignorant do you have to be to think that "Johnson [sic] was able to desegregate the military essentially overnight with no major ill effects"?

    Pender, for starters you should look up how many years it was after Truman's order of 1948 before all military units were integrated—let alone the rampant racism that Michael describes that went on for decades more.

    Posted by: 24play | Feb 14, 2010 7:37:56 PM


  18. @Citizen
    I don't know what the deal is with Gitmo and health care reform isn't dead yet (though it's on life support).
    As for DADT, he said by the end of the year, and I CHOOSE to believe him. I just don't feel the need to be outraged that DADT hasn't been repealed just three weeks after the SOTU.

    Posted by: Rodney | Feb 15, 2010 12:25:37 AM


  19. This is yet another instance of the tail wagging the dog. No doubt Faux News is waiting in the wings to show any bit of protest 7x24 on their network.

    Posted by: Mike | Feb 15, 2010 1:53:21 AM


  20. The way for the policy to end is a campaign to get 50000 gay service members to all come out, and demand discharge under DADT.

    This country doesnt deserve their service fighting wars against terrorism halfway around the world.

    While ignoring religious terrorism here at home.

    Posted by: Katie Murphy | Feb 15, 2010 5:29:45 AM


  21. Here's a link to an open forum in which serving US military personnel can debate this issue and basically get used to the idea. Note the relative absence of hysterics on either side of the question, something from which the talking heads could take a lesson.

    http://www.taskforcemountain.com/mountain-sound-off/19/4047-qdont-ask-dont-tellq

    The tide has turned on this issue. This is going to happen.

    Posted by: Clay | Feb 15, 2010 9:18:00 AM


  22. This is almost a justification for a return to conscription. The Forces are self-selecting for some of the most conservative and ill-educated parts of the population, many trying to get an edge in a deplorable economic situation where there are fewer jobs all the time and little improvement in sight. Once enrolled, these recruits are poached by funnymentalist religious groups with the approval of their officers, many of whom were recruited to odd religious cults in their respective Academies. Universal Service would ensure that a greater variety of men and women would be in uniform, diluting the influence of the Right. Since most citizens seem to be unwilling to subject themselves voluntarily to military life, the threat of a return to some equalization of risk across the racial, social and economic spectrum might stir greater support for getting rid of DADT among the straight population. Alternatively, armed services with more non-het members might be attractive to those who prefer to see us put at risk of being killed more efficiently than can be done piecemeal by the thugs and bigots who are saddled with the onerous task of queer killing on the streets.

    Posted by: gregorybrown | Feb 15, 2010 2:02:07 PM


  23. Let me get this straight, Our tax revenue goes to fund discrimination against us? Why are we paying for this bullshit treatment??!!

    Posted by: ty | Feb 15, 2010 10:01:27 PM


  24. So military officials are allowing the possibility of isolated threats of violence to rule them? When did commanders become so weak? That's not the military I experienced when I was in the Army. All troops should be warned that any incidents of violence will be aggressively dealt with and punishments will be severe. Lead, dammit.

    Posted by: Jeff | Feb 16, 2010 1:32:11 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Gays Kiss Amid Threats of Violence at Valentine's Action in Paris« «