On gays in the military, I'm amused by your caveat on not worring about opinions for those that left the military before 1990! Since I was called back to active duty during the First Gulf War, I'll comment. : )

I think change is due. However, I would further say in allowing anyone that is qualified, regardless of sexual orientation to serve openly, let's do it because it is the right thing to do, and because we know it will serve to increase military readiness, not because a certain sector on the outside, wants to use it as a social experiment for American society at large.

Touring the battlefield of Chaeronea in 338 BC and being told who the dead in front of him were, Plutarch records the words of Philip II of Macedon, "lying all where they had faced the long spears of his phalanx, with their armor, and mingled one with another, he was amazed, and on learning that this was the band of lovers and beloved, he shed tears and said, 'Perish any man who suspects that these men either did or suffered anything unseemly.'" - the Sacred Band

I think I'll go away for awhile; keep your blog going - it's great!

If I had to choose between having two dudes in my company hooking up or a guy and a chick in my company hooking up, I'd choose the former. At least gay people don't get pregnant.

First, I agree, the QDR is worthless. It is used to justify current plans. Only if the SecDef gets behind a change can it work. Gates is known for keeping the status quo and demanding more money, so he is popular and respected in the Pentagon.

And this from G2mil last year.

"President Obama's desire to allow homosexuals to serve "openly" is far more complex than most realize. Will lovers be allowed to kiss and hold hands while in uniform? Will state approved same-sex marriages be recognized for housing and benefits? Will cross-dressers be allowed to choose their uniforms? Will transsexuals be allowed to dress as they want and use women's restrooms? Since women are allowed to wear make-up, earrings, and long hair, will feminine men be allowed that "right"?"

Perhaps we could describe the QDR as the military's jargon laden equivalent of the Chewbacca Defense from South Park. "Look at the monkey! Look at the crazy monkey!"

Many who do oppose lifting the ban on homosexual service do so on moral grounds. That is their personal choice and it happens to be one that I agree with.

The current ban was historically based on this moral argument and its detrimental effect on good order and discipline if not adhered to.

So my point is, once we move down this path of "accepting" conduct previously deemed immoral, aren't we impelled to consider lifting the article regarding another morally based restriction which is the one on adultery??? What effect will that have on good order and discipline?

For those that may argue that society's views on moral matters are changing, I'd certainly agree that there may be changes (which I believe are overstated) but I'd respond by looking at TYRTAIOS's comment that we do it because we know it will "increase military readiness...not because a certain sector on the outside, wants to use it as a social experiment for American society at large."

I do not believe lifting he ban will have readiness benefits.

The test for the QDR is the budget that accompanies it and the POM that flows out the next year. If there's a match (hell, a rough correspondence) and if these three documents show an inflection from previous years, the QDR has done something. If (as with the last couple), the QDR says one thing but the defense budget and following POMs ignore, then yes, your cynicism is warranted. So, on this QDR: TBD.

Note the role of the POM: year in, year out, it is the most strategic document the military produces. All else is moonshine.

On gays, I think beat poet Allen Ginsberg showed the right spirit in his poem "America." His last line: "America I'm putting my queer shoulder to the wheel."
We should let anyone who wants to do so .... do so.

So why no outrage that defense spending is not cut, much less frozen. Obama makes a big deal that freezing non-defense discretionary wills save $250 billion over ten years, but the planned increases in military spending will cost $500 billion over ten years. Do we really need more funds each year to fight a few hundred terrorists than we spent to counter the Soviet Union?

What about this year's 3.2% pay raise while civilian wages have fallen and inflation is flat. New recruits earn over $38,000 a year, almost twice a much as comparable civilians.

Let me see Gates cut the military budget, then I'll be impressed. Right now he "bravely" manages who gets the increases.

Like most commentators you miss the point about gays in the military - the potential problem is not about gays in the military per se but rather about political activism in the gay rights movement that may be motivated to force an agenda on the military that doesn't belong or is out of sync with needs - the military is about winning wars not promoting marginal political causes. Think of it in terms of feminism - if feminism was still a potent political force zealous feminists could stir up trouble over certain aspects regarding the role women are allowed to play in the military today - well, gay rights is a potent political force and if problems arise that's where the trouble will come from. For example, male bonding among soldiers adheres to a ritualized form that the average citizen would probably find distasteful and inappropriate - what happens when the politically correct decide they have to meddle in this very important bonding ritual? Anyone who's served knows exactly what I'm talking about.

As for the QDR - it can be something of a Kabuki dance but Gates is attempting a transformation that could be viewed as radical and some in the service definitely see as misplaced - even though the QDR doesn't do a particularly coherent job of addressing the world according to Gates, that in itself is a reason for comment. and so I don't buy your excuse.

I personally think that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the U.S. Navy and Air Force! They'll fit right in with and have a "gay" old time! Call me old school, but what's "gay" about one man shoving his penis up another man's anus?