The milblog community doesn't speak with one voice on the topic.. Over at A Soldier's Perspective, CJ offers up *his* statement, co-signed by some other members of the milblog community (including Uncle Jimbo, who put together the *other* statement that went out yesterday - oddly enough, if you know Jimbo, this is a rational act in his world). CJ doesn't have as many names signed up on his - but some of that is due to he's responding to the other statement, and didn't have the two weeks to put it together and polish it and staff it around that Jimbo had.
I guess that means CJs MDMP* process is more efficient and less bloated... Consider this effectively a guest-post from CJ.
Yesterday, milbloggers released a joint statement on the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. The administration and senior members of the military are investigating the possibility of overturning the DADT policy on banning homosexuals from openly serving in the military. You will notice that our signatures are nowhere to be found on the document. You can read the original statement by clicking on any of these links: Matt Burden- Warrior Legacy Foundation & BLACKFIVE, Jim Hanson- Warrior Legacy Foundation & BLACKFIVE, Blake Powers- BLACKFIVE, Fred Schoenman- BLACKFIVE, David Bellavia- House to House, Bruce McQuain- Q&O, JD Johannes- Outside the Wire, Diane Frances McInnis Miller- Boston Maggie, Mark Seavey- This Ain't Hell, Michael St. Jacques- The Sniper (strangely forbidden on my military computer), Mary Ripley- US Naval Institute Blog, John Donovan- Castle Argghhh!, Andrew J. Lubin- The Military Observer, Marc Danziger- Winds of Change, Greta Perry- Hooah Wife.
I love my fellow milblog brethren and sistren (made that up, I think), but I can't sign on to this under any circumstances. Because articles are coming out (pun intended) publicizing this statement by some prominent bloggers, I thought it appropriate to throw around my "4th Annual Milbloggie Army Blog of the Year" weight in opposition. The leftie blogs are throbbing with excitement (more punnery) over the news. As a way to provide some balance and levity to the argument and show that the milblog community isn't a talking point community, I respectfully submit the following alternative statement on the policy:
JOINT STATEMENT FROM OTHER MILITARY BLOGGERS
12 MAY 2010
Like all Military Bloggers, we consider the US military the greatest institution for good that has ever existed. No other organization has freed more people from oppression, done more humanitarian work or rescued more from natural disasters. We also want that to continue.
Today, it appears inevitable to us that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and law restricting open homosexual behavior from serving will be changed. We believe that the changes resulting from the repeal or amending of this policy will cause unnecessary burdens upon the current force and readiness.
Homosexuals have always served in the US Military and in many instances were severely ostracized or worse when found out. The current policy of preventing disclosure of sexual orientation is in keeping with good order and discipline.
The service chiefs are currently studying the impact and consequences of changing the DADT policy, and how to implement it without compromising the morale, order and discipline necessary for the military to function. The study is due to be completed on Dec. 1st. We also ask Congress to withhold action until this is finished, but no longer.
We urge Congress to oppose any efforts to repeal the law and lift the policy of openly homosexual service in the military. A large number of associated concerns and costs are associated with the repeal, among them housing, legal status in various states, and moral objections from the majority of the force. The policy would also open doors to legitimate objections from polygamists and other groups who would feel discriminated against. The time is not now to consider such actions while our military is at war on more than two fronts.
We don’t believe the US Military is ready to adapt to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell without compromising its mission. We disagree with Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen about lifting the ban but will welcome any and all lawful orders that may be given as a result of any repeal. The US Military is a professional force, but would take years to adjust to these extreme changes.
C.J. Grisham – A Soldier's Perspective and You Served
Troy Steward – Bouhammer
Uncle J – Blackfive (yeah, awkward, huh?)
Bob Miller – Eagles Up: Talon
LL -Chromed Curses
If you are a milblogger and would like to add your name to this list, let CJ know (link provided below). Due to the last minute nature of the rebuttal, he could only muster a few preliminary signatures.
CJ's post is here
Susan Katz Keating decided to strike out on her own,
with her "Stand Alone" statement. Heh. Anarchist. CDR Salamander, an early adopter of the "Repeal DADT" position,
can be read here.
CJ is right - the leftish side of teh 'sphere took one look at Ben Smith's headline, then proceeded to just copy his work without really bothering to really *read* what was said and pretty much bloviated from the headline. That is in itself an instructive event in how news and views work in the blogosphere. Uncle Jimbo and Bruce McQuain do in fact (and have for years) called for repeal. The rest of us, figuring that it's inevitable, want it implemented in a rational, and just, fashion. Which pretty much means ignoring the loud advocacy groups on both ends of the spectrum.
We've done it before, with blacks and women, we'll handle this, too. And society in general, especially the younger set, are far more prepped (ergo, care a lot less as gay issues have been streamed before them all their lives - many of them just don't get the kerfuffle) for this than they were for Truman's integration order. And yes, I know the argument about pigment and gender aren't choices, vice what many believe about homosexuality. Leaving that argument aside as unsettled, the reality is that a lot of the arguments offered regarding letting the gay warrior serve openly are recycled arguments about blacks and women.
We survived that, and the US Armed Forces still kick butt. As ever, when and if things fail - it fails at the senior and upper leadership level. The same will be true here. And I think it's the older members of the force who, in general (always exceptions, and a large number of them) who will have more angst about this than the troops.
I lived with the Army as they grappled with race in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. I was in the Army for the integration of women through the 70's, 80's, and 90's. And many of the things that CJ's group are concerned about:
A large number of associated concerns and costs are associated with the repeal, among them housing, legal status in various states, and moral objections from the majority of the force. The policy would also open doors to legitimate objections from polygamists and other groups who would feel discriminated against. The time is not now to consider such actions while our military is at war on more than two fronts.
Were or have been true during the previous two integration events, as society at large grappled with the larger issues, the services did so too - and while fighting wars. There is one hugely significant difference, which I think is a strength, but some are concerned might be a weakness - this time we do it with a volunteer, professional force.
And we have two iterations of experience, good and bad, to draw from. I think that makes a huge difference.
*MDMP: Military Decision Making Process
Read the complete post at http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2010/05/another_joint_s.html
Posted
May 13 2010, 05:35 AM
by
Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys..