RD is exactly right which means that Obama should put his CIC hat on bring the JCS to the position of attention and order them to cut the crap and ‘integrate’ the armed forces with openly gay people today! Today’s homophobia and pre-Truman racism are essentially one in the same in that it denies capable and qualified people an opportunity to serve the nation.

Yes, the President should order it but he cannot due to it being a Congressional Law, he has to get Congress to buy off on it and hence the survey, so at least it looks like he did not just attempt to plow it through, it is all about appearances and DADT will be lifted eventually. As long as they enforce, harshly, frat policy and adultery policy then it should not cause to much of a problem, if they do not then you will see double standards the likes you still see with concerns to females in the military and resentment will grow, hurt unit integrity and performance.

ERIC, thanks for the correction. I was under the wrong impression that the President could issue an executive order. Obama has a majority in the House and Senate, if he cannot pass an authorization to end DADT then he is a pretty weak and ineffectual President. If he is going to do it then he should do it now since come November it is likely that he may get a bloody nose and lose at least one if not both Houses of Congress. I have no brief for homosexuality; I just don't think it should be a factor in recruiting EM's and officers. If DADT ends and gays become disciplinary problems then haul them before the mast and throw the book at them just like should be done with heterosexuals who bust the rules. If the armed forces want to discriminate they would be better off demanding better academic achievement from potential recruits. My wife and I have made friends recently with a newly retired Air Force officer whose last billet was at the Pentagon and involved with recruiting. He says that while the services are generally meeting recruitment goals the forces and the Army in particular are bringing onboard young people who are functionally almost illiterate and even though in their late teens and early twenties physical disaster areas and behaviorally dysfunctional. That would be a good and constructive place to be discriminatory. We are better off with gays who are performers than straights who are a mess.

I read an interesting article posted a while back that up to 70% or more of recruits in the general populace cannot qualify due to being poor physically or unable to meet ASVAB or HS Minimums, not sure to the validity of it. As for the recruits I have seen, it depends on what they are doing, not sure I buy the illiterate part but there is a big generational gap as far as culture, work ethic and common knowledge of how the Gov't works.

I will try to look up that article again and send it to you via email about the poor shape of ALL recruits in the US right now due to our education system, family and lack of good Physical Education Programs as well.

PS, thanks for the articles via email, enjoy them, but have been on the road a lot lately and not had time to reply, thanks again.

Be sure your sins will find you out. Women rulers,women judges,abortion rights. gay rights to be a pervert whenever,however,whatever you want a flaunt it in my face. Remove prayer out of school, ten commandments out of the courthouse,elect effeminent men to the highest office in the land. Arrest the preachers for preaching the truth of the Word of God. Mix all the races so everyone is one mongrel race and there is no right or wrong absolute, in fact up is really down, in the background, black is white, men are women,and we all came from monkeys anyway. This is all confusion and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction. God has sent America a strong delusion and it is upon us today. Welcome to the last days.

It's two different issues and they are not similar and no comparison. You don't choose to be Black. Gay is an option. I'm not against gays but when you join a group volunteriarly then ask for special treatment, then I have a problem with that. You made your bed, sleep in it.

Point 2. Non-military have no say in what the military does. You aren't in it and should not have any voice, it does not concern you! Stay out of grown folks business. That's the problem with (white) America, over stepping thier bounds. Soldiers need to have the only say in who they want to be soldiers with them. It's about who you can trust when your life is at stake not who you sleep with. Some years ago they (non-Military) wanted to remove porn mags from the military canteens in the war zones. You got nothiing to say about it as tyoua re not in the trenches. If soldiers want to get these magazines for thier entertainment that's thier business. I don't by tractor magazines becasue I don't have any interest in them. I look at fishing mags in the store but will never by one. If it takes their mind off the stress on their free time, then they need it. If you don't like it then don't do it. You are unique and special and that's what makes you different. Everyone does not need to be like you otherwise you will be like Liberache and his bot toy who had plastic surgery to look like Liberache. He could get screwed by his self and you would be doing the same if everyone was like you. I respect diversity but all of it does not deserve the same respect.

I'm a Gulf War Army veteran. I don't care if you are gay or straight, but I'm straight. The problem is some gays and straight are so concerned about getting attention that it distracts from the mission. ALl gays are not created equal and among gays they will even tell you that. You have "regular" gay people and flaming gay people. The flamers are the flamboyant ones who seek attention and those are the ones who are going to be trouble as they are drama seekers. Those are the ones I find it hard to deal with not the others who are basically normal but have a sexual attration to the same gender.

fool - being gay is not an 'option'. Is it an option for you? didn't think so. Learn some science before you mouth off.

you fool - there is no-one so blind as those who will not see. What makes you think there's even god? What makes you think christianity is even the 'right' religion? America's military isn't fighting for you to be christian, it's fighting for everyone's right to be free. Including gays and lesbians and atheists and Hindus.... go and investigate the world with an open mind, free of the bias inserted into your brain by your upbringing. The world is nothing like the way you see it

there is no god you idiot

"It's two different issues and they are not similar and no comparison. You don't choose to be Black. Gay is an option."

If you believe that, perhaps you are bisexual. For most people, neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality is "an option".

"I'm not against gays but when you join a group volunteriarly then ask for special treatment, then I have a problem with that. You made your bed, sleep in it."

Gays are not asking for any special treatment, they are asking for an end to discrimination and unjustified intrusions into their personal lives. There is no objective reason to consider someone's sexual orientation in their fitness for military service.

"Point 2. Non-military have no say in what the military does. You aren't in it and should not have any voice, it does not concern you!"

The US military serves the US public, in the way the US public sees fit; that's why it is called military service instead of military rule.

If you can't serve the US and submit to the democratic rule and will of the people, you have no place in the US military.

First, homosexuality is a choice? So then those of us who are hetero are simply choosing to be that way? Why? Because it's convenient? So if you were stuck on a deserted island with only other men, maybe you would just choose to be gay? Or maybe if I paid you a million dollars you would be gay? It's just a choice, right?

Homosexuality is not a choice, any more than heterosexuality is. If you have an issue with what you perceive to be the conduct of some homosexuals, fine, the military can regulate conduct. But there's a world of difference between regulating how people behave, and requiring that people be dishonest about their sexual orientation to pursue a particular career.

Second, civilians should have no say in how the military is run? Are you kidding? The military is an organization that provides a service to a civil society. It doesn't run that society.

To say the public has no say in how the military is run would be like saying the public should have no say in accounting standards or what constitutes medical malpractice. Sure, you need subject-matter experts to make highly-technical decisions, but at the end of the day, the military (just like FASB and the AMA) serves at the will of the public.

I don't get the idea of polling anyway. I was in the military myself and was never polled. I was ordered. That's the way it works. As Oliver North said: a soldiers duty is not to question orders but to "salute smartly and charge up the hill."

Best in the world? Unable to exit the longest war in US history. Getting its ass kicked by small bands of irregulars in Afghanistan. Unable to stabilize Iraq. Unready for anything else elsewhere. Suicides way up. PTSD at record heights. Guard and Reserve a shadow of intended capability in the homeland. Strapped flat for recapitalization and modernization. Costs out of control. Isolated from the society it serves. Centered in a two-phased mercenary force, the AVF itself and the hoards of contractors the AVF seems to require.

Wars fought this century: two. War goals achieved: zero. Go win something, then brag.

And in ending DATD, the nation's goal is not to 'improve the military.' It's to end bullshit discrimination and treat all citizens alike. That it will also retain vital skills now lost through witchhunts is, however, an advantage that will 'improve the military.'

You can hardly place all of the blame at the feet of the military. The military is civilian controlled, so isn't it possible that there are some politicians both in the White House and on Capitol Hill that are holding them back?

Is it hard to understand that suicide and PTSD might be increased for people that kill for a living? Just one errant round can cause a soldier serious mental and emotional trouble. This is something that civilians don't have to deal with on a daily basis.

I believe that the military is a subset of our society that has for a long time played by a separate set of rules. I'm glad that the DoD is going to have a say vis a vis the DADT ruling.

And, if you seriously think that NONE of our goals have been accomplished, you are either nuts or delusional. I'm sure Mr. Ricks has mentioned a few of them on his page.

One: did not 'blame' the military for falling short on 'best in the world.' Just challenged that hype. lots of reasons, primary being the failure of the AVF and the failure of the Previous Putz In The White House to make either war important enough to win.

Two: regarding goals, the fucking goalposts get moved every few weeks. But if you go back to the original statements of the original goals for Iraq and Afghanistan, it's pretty tough to say Mission Accomplished.

Please point out at the tactical level where we are getting our asses handed to us? Please point out these so called "Record" levels of PTSD? The suicide rate is up, but not all the guys have even been to combat or deployed for that matter and if you did the comparison between this and past wars I am betting you would not see much of a difference. Stop with the blatant ignorance please, at least do some fact checks or know the difference between Strategic (big picture guys) and Tactical (guys on the ground). I know this will not stop you from posting inaccurate statements but I hope in the future you would at least try not be so hyperbolic with some of them.

If the tactics and the operational art don't yield strategic victory, it's failure all the way up and down the line.

PTSD has never had a fair accounting in times past. Ditto suicide rates. But current press does indicate neither has been higher in previous conflicts.

As to the rest: piss off.

Who's f*%@# Koolaide have you been drinking....5th SFG ousted Taliban in what a month? Bagdahd fell in how many weeks? So give me a f*&# break about zero wins. Go cry your stupid ass shit to the politicians that can't pull their collective heads out! How about reading something other than your self fulfilling, think alike military bashers or getting over there and find out what does happen and could happen if the narcassists in Washington had a strategy and didn't run a war based on CNN, Al Jazzera or BBC. Best in the World hands down. What do you think has acted as a deterrent and kept you safe from our enemies? You speak of separation from the society they serve...only because those too weak hearted to serve have asked others to do it for them...over and over again. And when did sexual orientation determine your citizenship? Why are you only concerned about same sex attraction orientated folks serving in the military? Why be so predjudiced? If the argument is that being gay is the same as being Hispanic, Asian, or African American then we should open it up to all sexual orientations. You can't say we only want Peruvians, other Hispanics need not apply. Using the logic presented how can you say only openly heterosexuals and homosexuals need apply the rest...well, Don't Ask Don't Tell is still in force. Skin color and sexual orientation are exclusive of one another....

Not quite Ducky, you said we were getting our asses kicked by irregulars, the obvious implication is that our troops are getting the floors mopped with their own bottoms, just not true. You then change the debate to say that Strategic and Tactical are the same since if one does not work then they both fail, again, not correct. You talk of the Conscript Military often, that same military won at the tactical level in Vietnam, even Giap admitted as much but said it did not matter since they won at the strategic level. While the Strategic level is lacking, the tactical level has been doing just fine. Also, since Vietnam had Advisors killed as early as 1959, I am not sure Afghanistan is really our longest conflict, but with the Strategic Planning I am sure it will be eventually. As for PTSD, 20% is a pretty good number for men affected by it, down through the ages, it was called other names-shell shock, the shakes, battle fatigue, etc...but the numbers affected are pretty constant I am betting, with a percentage on the other end who never get affected by it no matter how many deployments and how much combat they see. Females may change the curve however since they are being found to be about twice as vulnerable to PTSD, one study thinks it may be due to the stress hormones and estrogen levels, still only one study though, so not conclusive at to why they are about double the amount for PTSD. As to your piss off comment, no worries, we both tend to go off now and then ;)

You seem to be obsessed with the idea that the Military is vastly different from the populace it serves, that somehow a Conscript Military will save the day and we have had that argument a million times it seems, you choose to ignore that the Military Areas are no longer the "Company Towns" that 'may' have existed in your days on a D-Boat, simply not the case anymore. You continue to imply that a military made up of conscripts would somehow perform better, yet Conscripts pursued much of our past adventures in Vietnam, Korea and the other "Interventions" we had in Formosa, Domincan, etc...You then ignore the Korea and Vietnam results as tell the AVF that we have no wins and that when we do we can brag? You also, as usual, throw out the "merc" title, please, feel free to grab a Websters and then compare that against our AVF, not sure that works unless you are just doing the usual hyperbole.
Hmmmmm........again, not sure where all the brimstone comes from or why you continue to push falsehoods, outdated concepts and ideas on these posts, it is a poor example to set to be that dishonest from someone who prides themselves on the leadership they had as a former D-Boat Skipper. Really Ducky, get informed, I mean really informed and then think about the posts you put up, it does a great disservice to people who are putting their bottoms on the line and by saying that someone is a merc if they volunteer for the military is like calling anyone whoever volunteered that same thing.

Sure glad everything's just peachy in Iraq and Afghanistan ... both places where two words have dropped from the US vocabulary: 'victory' ... and 'win.'

Wunnerful wunnerful. Wonder what losing looks like.

Before this devolves into a Coscript vs AVF and I wind up pointing out the holes in most of your arguments about the current military, lets get back on topic-The comparison of Homosexuals to race or gender is a weak one, I do not agree with DADT and think it should be lifted but I fear that if Frat and Adultery Rules are not strictly enforced there will be a large amount of problems for discipline in the military. Right now, the rules are not well enforced for females or males, depending on branch, I think if they are not hammered down and treated TOTALLY equal then it will cause resentment and frustration that will prove a disaster for unit cohesion.

And a really good try on capturing OBL. Screwing that up - coulda happened to anybody...

Look, I know you are not up on what is going on in the service today or overseas for that matter, but the OBL is a common mistake that reporters make, it is UBL for us and I would look to your vaunted Officer Corps for that one ;)

"5th SFG ousted Taliban in what a month? Baghdad fell in how many weeks? So give me a f*&# break about zero wins."

A. Maybe you haven't noticed, but the Taliban didn't stay 'ousted.' We snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

B. And the fall of Baghdad was followed by chaos and insurrection that continue in evolved form to this day. We won a battle but continue to lose against our original war aims. Best guess: raging civil war as soon as we are no longer an effective presence in Iraq. Second best guess: a dictatorship forms along the lines of the last one.

B. On letting OLB slip away, that was the AVF at its finest: bad leadership, bad planning, bad logistics and equipping, and a seabag full of excuses.

As to tactics, success in that realm has taken the form of going out into the town and countryside and not getting blown up. Interesting tactics.

And your continuous stream of ad hominem drivel: why not give it a rest lest someone suspect a certain insecure smallness on your part.

...c'mon Ducky, you're just as quick with the ad hominem as any on this board. Don't like the taste of your own medicine?

...only the best. And Eric, on one of his good days, the meds kicked in etc., he's OK too. Truce all around.

Fair enough. Have a nice day.

Patrolling to contact with command mines would seem to be worth looking at in that regard. How many of those engagements resulted in multiple casualties, no enemies seen, and a neighborhood tossed in the aftermath, MAM arrests aiding enemy recruitment?

I understand that 'route clearance' comes with the mission. But 'attack into the threat', when the threat is a road bomb detonated at a time and place of the enemy's choice, strikes me about as tactically brilliant as the slow walk.

Sorry for following ES3 off topic, but the 'won every engagement' meme is a half truth that becomes all disinfo if it isn't slapped down now and then.

"How will making it OK for gays to serve openly improve the military?"

The US military needs to reflect US values and principles, and that includes non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

"They can serve to their hearts content as it is, and as long as they follow the rules, no one is the wiser."

That is what abolition of DADT is about: so that homosexuals can serve under the same conditions as homosexuals.

"Also, maybe we could try this experiment during peacetime?"

When would that be? The US hasn't had "peacetime" in decades.

Why are you people so scared of a few homosexuals?

DADT forces those follow the rules to engage in deception and half-truths to conceal a fundamental part of their biological drives. How can a culture (military) that is one of the few institutions that supposedly places a value on honesty, honor and integrity force people to lead lives that are less than honest? Wouldn't this make someone a security risk?

Also, a large number of those discharged because of DADT during the Iraqi Freedom era were arabic language translators. Allowing people to contribute their talents makes for a stronger nation and military.

I don't like that inherent implication that if you are openly gay, you are a second class citizen that deserves to be officially excluded from contributing to national defense.

Oh, if they would quit fighting endless wars maybe we could have some peacetime!

If you are in the service, you go when, where, and how they tell you to go. If personal choice and the need to segregate yourself from those that lead different lives than yourself (which is everyone on the planet), the military is a poor career choice.

Also, If you are basing your level of privacy based on a person's demographics, this is a double standard. Again, what you do in your private life is your business. But, a country built on principles of equality of opportunity cannot tolerate discrimination as a policy in public institutions.

So having a different privacy standards for women and men is wrong? You need to think a little harder. I shower with my wife but not anyone elses or any single ladies. Why should that be different for gay men? You need to come into the real world with your one standard fits all mentality. It doesn't work.

I'm betting that the survey will be the subject of PhD theses galore.

A good survey instrument will come at the same issue any number of ways, looking to quantify strength of conviction, consistency, trying to correlate to behavior, instead of PC adherence. Those can be 'whuh?' frustrating to fill out, if they shave the edges of an opinion so closely that I feel like answering on one side in one question, and take the opposite tack in the next.

DADT is unbalanced-interesting. There is no real penalty for asking. 'Telling' risks pay, position/rank, benefits, pension, honorable discharge status. That kind of penalty in the current policy inherently sets a bias against expressing an opinion in favor of open acceptance.

All surveys are inherently flawed at some level or another. One of my favorite quotes is "All models are wrong – Box"...its a favorite because of course Box was the creator of the Box method of statistical analysis. Irony or Paradox?

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

"87% of all people make up their own statistics."

I think the point is- when it comes to protecting a minority- its not really logical to ask the majority, especially if there is evidence that the majority is persecuting the minority.

Sometimes the right thing isn't popular- if we relied solely on majority vote, only property holding white males would have the vote and slavery would still be present.

Also, its important we do it now, and not wait to "experiment" during peace because we are in two wars right now and we have a volunteer only military. Why are we excluding willing able-bodied individuals who want to serve from serving because of sexual preference?? Would you rather have the best and the brightest fighting who's personal life conflicts with your own views or someone who barely meets the qualifications to make a competent soldier?

The idea that homosexuals can not be trusted to keep their physical desires off the battlefield is as misguided as saying black men cannot control their sexual urges and are a danger to our white women. It's a belief that biological make-up alone controls our judgement and actions.

Finally, the idea that the civilian population controls the army is a central tenet of the US Constitution. That is why the President, a civilian, is the commander in chief. Our Founding Father's wanted to ensure that the military remained under the control of the government and not the other way around. Look at any modern military dictatorship (Egypt is the first to come to mind right now)- that is what we shouldn't become. So to the men and women of the armed services, we appreciate your sacrifice and your service, but according to our Constitution- you don't get a say in the matter.

SS makes an important point that blacks and hispanics (the urban counter-weight to Army recruiting of southerners and rural-ish whites) are both populations that poll strongly on the anti-LGBT index. At risk of generalizing on a complicated aspect of the culture wars, black protestants, charismatics of both ethnicities, and catholic dogma all weigh in agin any kind sexual 'diversity'. That all morphs a huge bit thru the military, education and age-demographic lenses.

Hispanics are probably the largest component of non-citizen military recruiting. Immigrants in general tend to be conservative (self-made), although degreed writers, actors and other academics might give a different impression sometimes.

Professional gays and lesbians tend to do well financially, and gay men are a DADT segment of the conservative polity, especially among Republican lobbyists and congressional staffs. Just saying...

In a way it's like college craziness. Most of the confused kids do a hitch and move on, while some 10% stay on to join the lifers. The lifers try to keep the kids coming and the money flowing, but think that the 'student vote' should be limited to joining and leaving, not how the institution is steered and staffed.