Troops' Approval of Gays in Military Bucks Historical Trend (from Fox News and AP)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2010 3:58 PM GMT
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/27/troops-approval-gays-military-buck-historial-trend/

    When a majority of troops told Pentagon interviewers this summer they didn't care if gays were allowed to serve openly in the military, it represented a sharp break from the past when America's fighting forces voiced bitter opposition to accepting racial minorities and women in the services.

    The survey, due out Tuesday, is expected to find pockets of resistance among combat troops to ending the ban on gays. But some 70 percent of respondents were expected to say that lifting the ban would have a positive or mixed effect, or none at all, according to officials familiar with the findings.

    The study is expected to set the stage for a showdown in the Senate between advocates of repealing the 17-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" law and a small but powerful group of foes in the final days of the lame-duck Congress.

    Repeal would mean that, for the first time in U.S. history, gays would be openly accepted by the military and could acknowledge their sexual orientation without fear of being kicked out.

    U.S. troops haven't always been so accepting. Troop surveys conducted throughout the 1940s on blacks and Jews, and in the 1970s and 1980s on women, exposed deep rifts within a military that was dominated by white males but becoming increasingly reliant on minorities to help do its job.

    In a study from July 1947, four of five enlisted men told the Army that they would oppose blacks serving in their units even if whites and blacks didn't share housing or food facilities.

    The same study also revealed a deep resentment toward Jews. Most enlisted men said Jews had profited greatly from the war and many doubted that Jews had suffered under Adolf Hitler.

    "Negro outfits should be maintained separately," an Army master sergeant from North Carolina told Pentagon interviewers in 1947. "To do otherwise is to invite trouble and many complications. The equal rights plan should not be forced on the Army as an example to civilians."

    Troops also offered dire predictions for what would happen if whites and black units were forced to serve together.

    "For sure, all the GIs will quit the Army or buck like hell to get out," a 20-year-old Army private first class told the surveyors. The service members were quoted anonymously in the 1947 study.

    Added another 19-year-old soldier: "If the Negro and the whites were mixed, there would be a civil war among the troops. There would be a lot of useless bloodshed if this happens."

    But President Harry S. Truman issued a 1948 order on equal treatment of blacks in the services anyway -- paving the way for integration during the Korean War. None of these doomsday scenarios came true.

    It wasn't until Vietnam, when racial tensions in the civilian world bubbled over into the military, did race riots erupt in all four military branches.

    By the 1980s, the military faced the issue of whether to allow women to serve on Navy ships and elsewhere on the battlefield. Troops were generally much more open to serving with women than they had been to serving with African-Americans 40 years prior. Still, many expressed serious concerns that allowing females as crew members would cause problems.

    In one 1981 study, lower-ranking enlisted sailors blamed female crew members for a decline in "discipline, leadership and supervision."

    As was the case in racial integration, letting women serve aboard ships and, eventually, on combat aircraft, didn't always go smoothly.

    In 1990s, the Navy became embroiled in the "Tailhook" scandal in which naval pilots were accused of sexually abusing female officers at a Las Vegas convention. Also, about two dozen female service members were reportedly sexually assaulted during Desert Storm, when U.S. troops help drive Iraq's Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991.

    Women are still barred from many combat roles, including the infantry. But allowing women to join most military units never produced the kind of backlash or decline in military effectiveness that opponents predicted.

    By the time President Bill Clinton proposed allowing gays to serve in the military in 1993, gays had been explicitly barred from military service since World War I.

    Foes of lifting the ban argued that the military shouldn't be used to expand the rights of gays and that allowing them to serve openly would hurt troop morale and a unit's ability to fight -- the same arguments used against women and blacks.

    In the end, Congress agreed to let gays serve only if their sexual orientation remained secret.

    Today, advocates say they believe history has shown that U.S. troops could handle any disruptions caused by lifting the ban. Opponents of repealing "don't ask, don't tell" say letting gays serve openly in the military is different from earlier struggles over the equality of race and gender. Open gay service, they say, raises unique moral questions, such as whether gay and straight troops should be forced to share living quarters.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was expected to try to force a vote in early December, following testimony by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and service leaders before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday and Friday. The House has passed the legislation.

    Much of the debate is likely to hinge on the results of the Pentagon study, with many senators saying they wanted to see whether troops would support such a change before voting for repeal. Still, it's far from clear whether the bill would even advance to a floor debate with Democrats and Republicans disagreeing on procedural grounds.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2010 4:52 PM GMT
    I think DADT will be done away with this time around. From what I understand the Dems have the votes they need with a few repubs added in, that's according to Leiberman last week anyway. As this article shows, it was the conservatives who fought all the progressive changes in the military and none of their dire predictions came about, when those changes were inacted, I'm sure that as before, neither will allowing gays to serve openly cause any major problems. Socalfitness, you should join us progressives and advocate for this change, step out from under that self defeating republican hat your wearing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2010 4:58 PM GMT
    realifedad saidSocalfitness, you should join us progressives and advocate for this change, step out from under that self defeating republican hat your wearing.
    Many fiscally conservatives, including myself, do advocate this. I was willing to support some of the Republicans who wanted to await the results of the Pentagon study. Supporting gay rights does not mean having to join the Democrats and support their overall agenda, which I and many others find repulsive.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2010 5:06 PM GMT
    The Republican opponents said the troops should be polled first, and the leaders heard. Now we're hearing that a majority in uniform supports gays serving openly.

    The Republican guessed wrongly that there would be strong opposition within the ranks, on which they could base a No vote in Congress. (Or perhaps to delay any action until they controlled Congress again, which they were confident they could achieve, and have) So now they're reneging on their promise that they'd let the studies decide, and they continue to remain opposed, no matter what the military itself says.

    This is what happens when a party is all about ideology first, and facts second. Reminds me of the proclamation in "Alice in Wonderland" -- "Verdict first, trial second!"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2010 6:22 PM GMT
    Tell that to Lindsey Graham who said today on Fox News: DADT is not going anywhere in the lame-duck session.

    And talk about moving goalposts:

    http://news.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20101128sen_lindsey_graham_no_quick_end_to_dont_ask_dont_tell/srvc=home&position=recent"The military is at its highest point in recruitment and retention and professionalism and capability, so to somehow allege that this policy has been damaging the military is simply false," McCain said. "So the fact is that this system is working."

    McCain called for assessing the impact on morale and battlefield effectiveness of lifting the ban, "not on how best to implement a change in policy."


    Yup, now we need specially programmed games to appeal to the teenage would-be recruit, instead of appealing to patriotism or financial incentives like college. Talk about money well spent.

    Instead of saying that approval of DADT repeal in the military "bucks" the historical trend, in retrospect it will be perceived as the main trend that will persist until the inequalities are erased. Rosa Parks "bucked" the historical trend too.

    Then it'll be a nonissue, as it should be.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2010 6:56 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    realifedad saidSocalfitness, you should join us progressives and advocate for this change, step out from under that self defeating republican hat your wearing.
    Many fiscally conservatives, including myself, do advocate this. I was willing to support some of the Republicans who wanted to await the results of the Pentagon study. Supporting gay rights does not mean having to join the Democrats and support their overall agenda, which I and many others find repulsive.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you know that the military is basicly a socialistic program, within it we want to serve openly for the social good of all in our country. I'm glad you support at least this socialistic program. What is so repulsive about other similar Dem sponsored programs for the social good of the USA ? Why is this one (the military) not repulsive to you/conserviatives and other matters like health care so repulsive.? After all the military sucks the most out of our economy, are you for some necessary cuts from this biggest of all socialistic programs ??