Washington (CNN) -- Letting openly gay or lesbian troops serve in the military would have little lasting impact on the U.S. armed forces, a major Pentagon review has found, several sources familiar with the results told CNN Tuesday.
Putting an end to "don't ask, don't tell" would have "some limited and isolated disruption to unit cohesion and retention," the year-long study found, but the effects would not be long-lasting or widespread.
There will be some strong minority opposition, particularly in the Marines and some combat arms specialist units, said the chairs of the study, Defense Department General Counsel Jeh C. Johnson and Army Gen. Carter F. Ham.
As many as 40 to 60 percent of troops in those units were against changing the 17-year-old policy that lets gay and lesbian troops serve as long as their sexual orientation is secret.
Overall opposition throughout the military was about 30 percent -- roughly the same as it is in America as a whole, according to recent findings from CNN/Opinion Research Corp. and the Pew Forum.
I really don't know what the President can do aside from trying to get them to vote on it now. Which of course they won't do. It looks like if the President wants something done he will need to sign an executive order.
more like units expecting to see combat don't want to deal with the added trouble; which is why they poll so differently.
Not really familiar with the reach of such an order... could it actually get rid of DADT, or would it simply be a catalyst?
Not really familiar with the reach of such an order... could it actually get rid of DADT, or would it simply be a catalyst?
I believe Obama can instruct them to not enforce it, but that could be reversed by a later president who might feel differently about the situation.
WASHINGTON — Washington's presidential ping-pong game plays out every four or eight years as incoming presidents reverse the policies of their predecessors.
The new president can undo some of what his predecessor did, either through memoranda or executive orders, which are rules that a president can sign without waiting for Congress to legislate.
Another round of the game will soon begin, as Democratic-allied interest groups urge President-elect Barack Obama to reverse some of the things President George W. Bush has done.
Environmental advocacy groups like the Audubon Society want Obama to ban offshore oil or gas drilling off the Pacific or Atlantic coasts.
Bush lifted an executive ban on such drilling last July, and Congress later let a legislatively-imposed ban lapse.
“President Obama will have an opportunity to protect our beaches and coastal economies,” said Mike Daulton, legislative director at the Audubon Society.
more like units expecting to see combat don't want to deal with the added trouble; which is why they poll so differently.
Its time to stop the right-wing from using our military as their last bastion of their anti-gay agenda. They know that gay marriage is forthcoming and are trying desperately to hold onto the military as their last hope.
more like units expecting to see combat don't want to deal with the added trouble; which is why they poll so differently.
Among Marines and other specialty combat troops, resistance to openly gay service is higher than the overall average of 30 percent. Between 40 and 60 percent of combat troops say they think repealing the policy will be bad for troop morale. (Opposition is lower among troops who say they have served with a gay comrade before.) Military chaplains are also very strongly opposed.
To be fair dude, it was Bill Clintons baby
We have heard many people (both on this board and in Congress) urging that we don't repeal DADT until the results of this study were in, and not unless it showed that the military approved. Now the results ARE in. Will they finally change their minds? Maybe a few of them...but let's not kid ourselves here. Most of the people who support DADT never gave a damn about how it would affect the military; they just personally thought boys kissing was icky. What's the next roadblock the homophobes want to impose? What's the next excuse why we need another year of studying the issue before the discriminatory law can be overturned?
Like straight soldiers not wanting to shower with gay soldiers. There are few shower stalls in the barracks. Usually one big open room with shower ports. In the field, you drop your draws and wash in the open. Line units carrying live ammo are the last people you want to get into it over a straight soldier thinking or actually happening, that a gay soldier was looking at them in a sexual manner. Next thing you know you have a murder in a unit. That does no one any good straight or gay.Added troubgle? Like what?
Like straight soldiers not wanting to shower with gay soldiers. There are few shower stalls in the barracks. Usually one big open room with shower ports. In the field, you drop your draws and wash in the open. Line units carrying live ammo are the last people you want to get into it over a straight soldier thinking or actually happening, that a gay soldier was looking at them in a sexual manner. Next thing you know you have a murder in a unit. That does no one any good straight or gay.
Like straight soldiers not wanting to shower with gay soldiers. There are few shower stalls in the barracks. Usually one big open room with shower ports. In the field, you drop your draws and wash in the open. Line units carrying live ammo are the last people you want to get into it over a straight soldier thinking or actually happening, that a gay soldier was looking at them in a sexual manner. Next thing you know you have a murder in a unit. That does no one any good straight or gay.
The same shame the left showed when they used the political statement " I support the troops but not their mission" BS?No study was necessary in the first place. I think it is kind of sick that people would support bigotry in the name of "military effectiveness." The same sort of argument was used when the military was segregated by Jim Crow laws, and it is just as morally invalid then as it is now.
I agree with some of the above posts that it is shameful that the military is being used as a political football. Shame on the Republicans for playing politics with our troops.
I see you have never served in a line unit because of your ignorance of the truth of the matter of what I speak.I thought Liberals were the kings of the "What If's".
What if Godzilla attacked?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?