How Will Allowing Gays to Openly Serve Effect Combat Readiness?

**PanzerJaeger** · 06-02-2010, 17:18

As many of you may know, President Obama wants to end "Don't ask, don't tell". There is currently some drama in Washington over whether it should be done before or after a military review of the possible effects of the repeal of the policy.

The main line of opposition to the change seems to be centered on a fear that it will affect readiness.

The chiefs said they wanted to await the Dec. 1 study ordered by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. said he had "serious concerns" about what a policy of open homosexuality would do to military readiness. Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine Corps commandant, said he was flatly opposed to lifting the ban.

I'm having a hard time coming up with any specific scenarios in which such a negative impact would occur. The closest thing to a specific example I have yet seen comes from Retired Air Force Gen. Charles Horner.

Gen. Horner, a former fighter pilot, said he supports the ban because he fears military readiness will suffer if open homosexuals are allowed to serve, "particularly given the land forces, the way they have to live and operate."

Asked how an Air Force fighter wing will accept openly gay personnel, he said: "There's a lot less prejudice nowadays against people who are gay, but that does not necessarily mean that people want to live side by side with them."

Is this it? I'm sure many in the military don't want to live in hot, nasty, backwater nations full of people that are less than hygienic by Western standards. They do it anyway.

It seems strange to me that we have a policy in place that essentially acknowledges that there are gays serving, but saying as much openly will apparently deeply effect our military's ability in the field.

Can anybody, specifically our military affiliated members, shed some light on this? Would openly gay comrades destroy morale? Would you be less willing to fight? Would you not be able to shower in peace?

**Beskar** · 06-02-2010, 17:28

I think it was Sigurd, or a different European ex-army forum member who served with openly homosexual males. They commented that they didn't have any issues at all.

There is nothing wrong with openly homosexual men in the army, it won't affect any morale, except of that of homophobes or the homosexuals who may become victims of bullying by the said homophobes. In otherwords, the issue is with the homophobes, not the homosexuals.

**HoreTore** · 06-02-2010, 17:36

Gay men and women already serve. If there was an issue with that, we would've seen a bunch of scandals. We have not. And the military showers I've been in have all been extremely gay anyway...

Heck, a lot of people also believe that women aren't fit to be soldiers, completely ignorant of the many female heroes of the Red Army. Female soldiers have proven their worth. It's ridiculous to believe that gay soldiers will be worse.

**spmetla** · 06-02-2010, 19:08

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Gay men and women already serve. If there was an issue with that, we would've seen a bunch of scandals. We have not. And the military showers I've been in have all been extremely gay anyway...

Heck, a lot of people also believe that women aren't fit to be soldiers, completely ignorant of the many female heroes of the Red Army. Female soldiers have proven their worth. It's ridiculous to believe that gay soldiers will be worse.

x2 Though they'll be a few homophobes having a hissy fit it won't affect anything else negatively. It's not like it'll turn the whole military into a big gay lovefest as some might think.

As for people in host countries having problems with it, well they can also file it under us having females not covered up, driving trucks, flying jets and so on.

**HoreTore** · 06-02-2010, 19:57

Originally Posted by spmetla

It's not like it'll turn the whole military into a big gay lovefest as some might think.

No, it won't turn the military into a big gay lovefest.... The military IS a big gay lovefest....

I believe homophobes have a much harder time in the army now than any gay ever will. Once you let people know that you don't enjoy having other males touch your fanny in a loving way, you can bet your ass that every time a platoon member walks by you in the future, your ass will be lovingly caressed...

**spmetla** · 06-02-2010, 22:41

Originally Posted by HoreTore

No, it won't turn the military into a big gay lovefest.... The military IS a big gay lovefest....

I believe homophobes have a much harder time in the army now than any gay ever will. Once you let people know that you don't enjoy having other males touch your fanny in a loving way, you can bet your ass that every time a platoon member walks by you in the future, your ass will be lovingly caressed...

Ain't that the truth sweet-cheeks! Pseudo-gay imitations are apparently an international standard for passing time in the military.

**al Roumi** · 06-02-2010, 17:38

If this is anything like the mud being slung in DC now, I'm sure its doing everyone a power of good.

**KukriKhan** · 06-02-2010, 18:20

Don't care. Served with them for 16 years - no problems. In the 70's the primary official objection was that being homosexual made one a target for blackmail, and therefore a security concern. That's no longer operable as a threat, I think.

Here's my concern: some cultures we operate in still have strict sanctions against homosexuality. Might that affect the operational missions there, if the host country/ally refuses to interact with our gay soldiers? And if so, will our military think it therefore necessary to identify gays officially and manage their assignments? I would not like that. "Joe, John & Larry: you're off to Saudi Arabia. Stuart, you're gay so can't go there, it's off to Greenland for you."

**Vladimir** · 06-02-2010, 18:39

The net loss is bigger than the net gain.

I believe that's the core of the ban.

**HoreTore** · 06-02-2010, 18:57

Originally Posted by Vladimir

The net loss is bigger than the net gain.

I believe that's the core of the ban.

Those who support the ban also believe that gay people caused Screbrenica.

Why on earth should we listen to people like that, let alone have them decide our future?

**al Roumi** · 06-02-2010, 19:10

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Don't care. Served with them for 16 years - no problems. In the 70's the primary official objection was that being homosexual made one a target for blackmail, and therefore a security concern. That's no longer operable as a threat, I think.

Here's my concern: some cultures we operate in still have strict sanctions against homosexuality. Might that affect the operational missions there, if the host country/ally refuses to interact with our gay soldiers? And if so, will our military think it therefore necessary to identify gays officially and manage their assignments? I would not like that. "Joe, John & Larry: you're off to Saudi Arabia. Stuart, you're gay so can't go there, it's off to Greenland for you."

Would that last not also apply to women in the Armed Forces too?

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 06-02-2010, 19:30

More or less an inevitable change, really.

Any reasonable student of history can point out that homosexuality has never been a quality that decreased one's ability to wage war. If anything, history might suggest that it was a "plus" for soldiering.

During the transition, unit cohesion will, initially, suffer and openly gay serving will bear the brunt of ostracism and some abuse. Neither the loss of unit cohesion nor the ostracism will be as crippling as their respective proponents are asserting at the present time. As higher-ups police this up a bit, the culture will begin to change. We did this in the 1950s with race -- took a while, but everyone learned the lesson and we were better for it in the long run. While sexuality and race aren't directly parallel, I think you can make a good parallel of how things will change.

Women serving in combat should work the same way. Some roles/specialties will be largely unavailable to women based on purely physical requirements -- but those same requirements should be screening out a lot of the swinging richards as well. Set the appropriate standards and whoever meets those standards can get the billet. However, Israel supposedly had some evidence that women casualties were disproportionately distracting to male soldiers -- might be something that has to be looked into.

**KukriKhan** · 06-04-2010, 14:19

Originally Posted by alh_p

Would that last not also apply to women in the Armed Forces too?

Sure. Let all those who CAN shoot the big guns do it too. No need to keep 1 part of the military in purely defensive mode due merely to the number of x-chromosomes they carry. In my opinion.

Not many female finance clerks can carry a 70-pound rucksack and assault a bunker successfully, any more than the average male supply clerk. But some can. Let 'em, sez I.