THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Now here’s what drives me nuts about decision-makers in any organization.  This guy is bad at his job, right?  If you put that much effort and emphasis behind your belief that repealing DADT will end up killing/maiming soldiers, and the repeal happens anyways and it turns out you were entirely wrong, why would your opinion still be highly valued by your organization? 

Unless this is one of the few instances in which he’s been shown to be demonstrably wrong, or perhaps we think the long-term projection of repealing DADT during war really does have people getting maimed and killed and we just got lucky, I don’t see why he’s still a General and making major decision with the lives of thousands of soldiers on the line.

I’d be more interested to know his opinion once he was out of the military.

Here is a point that a lot of people miss:

Someone’s bigoted, ignorant attitudes or behaviors should never be used as a reason for propagating those attitudes and behaviors.  Here’s what I mean:

Let’s assume that his opinion was true - that some soldiers would be “distracted” by the notion of fighting next to a gay soldier. Is that a good reason for gays not to be allowed to serve in the military?  No!  If it were then the exact same argument could be used for blacks, Hispanics, Jews, etc. not being allowed to serve since I’m sure there might be soldiers who are equally bigoted toward one or more of those groups and would be “distracted” fighting next to them. You should never let hatred, bigotry or intolerance dictate policy otherwise you implicitly condone those attitudes.

Human rights trump pragmatism!  The proper thing to do if what the general said were true would be to remove those bigoted soldiers, educate them, or let time take its course.

Should we have never had any civil rights advancement because of the “distraction” (and lives) it caused? If we let blacks in the front of the bus it is just going to lead to someone getting hurt or killed.

That is part of the price we pay for our freedoms and our liberties. The concept that we should not do something because there might be a price to pay is simple minded. There is always a price to pay!

The answer to this general should have been, “I think you’re wrong but even if you are right everyone should be willing to pay that price for the advancement of our basic rights and for the expression of basic human dignity.”

There should never have been studies to determine whether DADT should be repealed. The studies should have been about how best to repeal it.

What a lot of people don’t seem to realize is that there’s a long historical tradition of gays in the military. In fact, some cultures, like those of the ancient Spartans, actually encouraged gay relationships between soldiers, and the Spartans were regarded as the best soldiers of their time. Then, of course, there’s Winston Churchill’s statement that the British Navy had run on rum, the lash, and buggery, this at a time when the British Navy was the best in the world.

I was in the service when DTAD was implemented.  Besides a meeting or two on it, nothing changed. I think the reason the brass is so against it isn’t because of the members already in the service. It is the 17 year old recruits and their parents who don’t want their kids around those kinds of people. I really believe it is recruiting issue.

"And this too shall pass”

Admittedly, the then-and-now statements by General Amos to the press suggest a complete about-face on DADT by the USMC. But how do we know the innermost workings of the Corps under General Amos? Think of what the so-called “Code Red” entailed in the 1992 film “A Few Good Men” starring Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson. Perhaps the USMC (and especially an individual unit within it) has novel ways of handling the post-DADT era. Most would never know.

@5: The problem with that is that the military has had awful trouble meeting recruiting targets since the Iraq War started, so much so that the DoD would lower the target numbers. The recruiters are probably behind the change 100%; they were getting antsy.