‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Discharges Increase 11%

Even in a time of war, even when military recruiting is hurting, the [tag]Pentagon[/tag] is still discharging patriotic, physically-fit, well-trained volunteers from the armed forces — because they’re [tag]gay[/tag]. What’s worse, the discharge rate is going up, just when we need those soliders most.

The number of military members [tag]discharge[/tag]d under the Pentagon’s “[tag]don’t ask, don’t tell[/tag]” policy on homosexuals rose by 11% last year, the first increase since 2001, officials said Wednesday.

A Pentagon spokeswoman, Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke, said 726 service members were discharged under the policy during the 2005 budget year that ended Sept. 30. That compares with 653 discharges the year before. She released the figures after a gay rights group said it had obtained the statistics on its own.

Have I mentioned lately how “don’t ask, don’t tell” not only undermines [tag]military[/tag] [tag]readiness[/tag], but also costs taxpayers a fortune? And that many of the discharged service members held critical jobs in the military, including troops in fields such as military intelligence, battleground medicine, and linguistics?

It’s worth noting, of course, that there’s still a congressional effort to undo the policy. At this point, the bi-partisan effort to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is up to 115 co-sponsors in the House — including four House Republicans. There’s also a renewed drive to bring the issue up in the Senate.

A WaPo editorial from March still rings true.

The real problem, which [the Solomon Amendment] has tended to obscure, is that the military, even while fighting two wars, continues to root out Americans who wish to help by maintaining a policy that bars anyone who is openly gay. It robs itself of much-needed talent by way of their humiliation and exposure while forcing those in uniform to hide who they are.

This would be distasteful even if their presence in the military posed some real problem. But there’s no evidence of that. A combination of bigotry and inertia keeps the gay ban in place. Now that the military has proved it can constitutionally exempt itself from university nondiscrimination rules, Congress should decide whether it really wants a military that requires such an exemption.

I realize this change won’t happen anytime soon, and Dems certainly would never make this a campaign issue. But it’s only a matter of time before this absurd and indefensible policy is thrown on the trash heap of bad ideas.

Because we need moral, straight Christian men to mow down three-year-old Iraqi girls

It what Jesus would have wanted

  • This would be a non-issue if “Triangulating Bill” Clinton had had the courage to follow through on his oft-repeated campaign promise in 1992, namely, that the first act of the Clinton administration would be to remove, by executive order, the ban on gays serving in the military. I lost respect for him the minute he caved on that, and I haven’t had reason to reverse my judgment ever since. He’s done much good since then (who wouldn’t, compared with Republicans?), but “there’s no there there” so far as I can tell.

  • SWOT: On the news the other day, I saw that crazy religious group protesting again at the funeral of a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq. They blame the deaths of our servicemen in Iraq on America’s tolerance of homosexuals. CB, what’s the name of that group and their leader?

  • Look on the bright side. If you’re trapped in Iraq on stop-loss, offer to perform a sexual act on your CO.

  • I had the same thought as JoeW – perhaps the rise simply represents people taking the easiest route out of service requirements that must seem endless.

  • It’s so hard to believe that commanders are wasting their energies rooting out these dangerous ‘deviants’, but than, not all military units are in Iraq or Afghanistan, and the worst officers are probably not there.

    But it is a sick system and it should be stopped.

  • Isn’t it possible that the low number of discharges in recent years is simply because fewer gays have signed up in the 10 years since “don’t ask” first became policy?

    Don’t get me wrong, I think DADT is completely horrible and ought to be repealed, but perhaps it’s been effective in discouraging gays from enlisting, and thereby driving down the number of discharges.

  • JoeW & N.Wells,

    It’d be a hell of a lot less painful than a self-inflicted wound.

    Seriously, recruitng is so bad, the military is returning to the requirements it had when they implemented the All Volunteer Force back in the early 1970s, when anyone with a heartbeat (as long as it wasn’t a “gay” heartbeat) was allowed in the military. And then they purge themselves of good servicemembers because the ‘necks in the Army “do’hn wanna sirv wit no fags.”
    As a vet, I would much rather prefer fighting alongside a good soldier who just happens to be gay, to being assigned some Gomer who couldn’t answer “what color is an evergreen tree?” and “how many c’s in ‘cat’?” on his ASVAB.

  • While I find the notion of banning gays from the military simply idiotic on a number of levels, my former boss (a retired Lt. Col. who served in Bosnia and the first Gulf War) gave me his take one day:

    His contention was that neither gays nor women should be allowed to serve side by side. Not because they weren’t capable, but because, as a leader, he didn’t want them scurrying off in the night to (in his words) “make out and play hide the sausage. It’s distracting. They need to focus on their jobs, not fucking.”

    Combine that ridiculous reason (which he said a lot of leaders held) with the “be a manly man” philosophy in the military and you get what we’ve got now — an understaffed military that’s losing key personnel.

    And all because of irrational fears.

    As some comedian once said (paraphrasing), “If some guy’s covering my ass, I want that person to think my ass is cute.”

    (Sorry if that’s a bit tasteless … I think it’s kinda funny.)

  • I completely disagree with the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and I find it curious that during this time of war that we can afford to lose qualified and trained military personnel. If I were into reading tea leaves, I might be inclined to believe the recent rumblings that the administration will reduce troop deployments in Iraq before the end of the year. Certainly the fact that this is the first increase in discharges since 2001 is a mere coincidence, right? Regardless, the policy is deplorable.

    more observations here:

    http://www.thoughttheater.com

  • When I was in the Army in the 70’s-at the beginning of the new All-Volunteer Army there were many gay and lesbian soldiers. No one in Command positions seemed to really care. And many of these men left an incredible impression on us that they were gay and proud of it. I firmly believe that the DADT policy should be stopped and only force the sevice members out that are not doing their job.

  • > “…They need to focus on their jobs, not fucking”

    OK, so let’s assume for a moment that that’s the real reason for getting rid of gay troops, or at least gay infantrymen, and that homophobia isn’t the reason.

    Let’s categorize each soldier as gay, bi or straight, and let’s imagine we somehow have accurate sexuality info on each soldier.

    A team of straight men should be safe out in the woods, no fucking. A team of straight women, too. If you introduce the straights of the opposite sex to these groups, we’re back to hide the sausage again. But you could include gay people who were incompatible – gay women or gay men, but no more than one of each.


    But if any team of gay men go out, whoa! Watch that rifle, soldier! Similarly, a team of gay women will obviously have pillow fights and orgies all night in the tents, wearing lipstick and tight lingere. And don’t get me started on the bisexuals.

    So with a team of straight men, you could include one gay man and one gay woman. Or you could include one bi man and a gay woman. Bi women would hook up with the men. Similarly you could have a team of straight women, and add a gay man, and a gay or bi woman. Am I doing this right?


    Or you could just let the gays be truck drivers and logistics officers and stuff. Anything but infantry. It’s the homophobia, isn’t it?

  • Comments are closed.