RSS
Home
Obama needs to dump 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' now
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Getty
"I'm working with the Pentagon, its leadership and the members of the House and Senate on ending this policy," Obama said. "I will end 'don't ask, don't tell.' That's my commitment to you."
The speech was met with lavish praise from the HRC but considerably more, um, skepticism, from other corners. The HRC released a statement saying the speech made for "a historic night when we felt the full embrace and commitment of the president."
Andrew Sullivan said it was "highfalutin b-s." He blasted the president for not attaching any deadlines or even timelines to his promises, which he has been making since the campaign. Sullivan writes:"Once the dust settles, ask yourself. What did he promise to achieve in the next year? Or two years? Or four years? The answer is: nothing."
Meanwhile, a Washington Post piece by a gay ex-sailor who says he was abused and humiliated in the Navy even though he didn't reveal his sexual orientation lends some urgency to the president's boldest claim of the night, that he will end the military's rules on homosexuality.
For once, it would be nice for a group of politicians --Republicans, in this case-- to stop pandering to some perceived "value voters" base and embrace the true conservative political philosophy they claim to champion.
The true conservative respects the principles of liberty and privacy, the principles of meritocracy, and the armed forces our nation has charged to defend it. But "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" undermines all three. True conservatives respect individual freedom and personal privacy, particularly when it comes to what people do in privacy of the bedroom. It's the last place a government should be poking its nose. Anything else is nothing but an unconscionable intrusion into the private lives of American citizens. But if you support a ban on gays in the military, then you must be a supporter of big government telling people how to live their lives.
Conservatives claim to support meritocracy --rewarding ability. If there's an institution in this country that rewards your ability it's the military, and they have the ranking system to prove it. Instead, the military is discharging soldiers who not only have ability, but soldiers with mission-critical skills. Over 13,000 soldiers have been fired under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," including almost 800 "mission critical" troops and over 60 linguists skilled in the native tongues spoken from the Middle East to Pakistan. Whether serving as mediators with fellow soldiers in the field or enabling our intelligence apparatus to monitor daily chatter, we'd rather dispense with such critical needs because of someone's sexual preference?
How does "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" strengthen the military's ability to defend our nation?
Our military is already stretched thin, unable to fill its slots, force to lower its standards, extend tours of duty and increase rotations, further hurting morale and readiness. Should we support a policy that allows the military to fire badly needed, capable troops simply because they're gay, and replace them with sub-standard recruits that include ex-cons, drug abusers and high-school dropouts?
Recruiting goals are being met now but not for the right reasons: It's the recent recession that's bolstering recruitment as the unemployed who can't find work join the military. That's fine and dandy but should we dispatch soldiers who joined the armed forces when the economy was good and replace them with those who joined because they had no other choice? Who would you want in the foxhole next to you?
Researchers at the UCLA School of Law have found that the ban has discouraged nearly 45,000 Americans from joining and remaining in the armed forces. That's an increase in active-duty personnel by more than the number of troops General Stanley McChrystal says we need in Afghanistan. Where are those supporters of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" who want the president to follow General McChrystal's advice?
The ban on gays openly serving in our armed forces is hurting the military's ability to do its job, and continued conservative support of this policy is hurting the very institution conservatives claim to love and respect.
If you're a true conservative, you don't like to waste money. Here's a news flash: The gay ban wastes money. A Blue Ribbon Commission made up of academics and prominent defense leaders found that the gay ban cost taxpayers over $363 million, and that was just during the first 10 years of the ban, from 1994 to 2003. It is now 2009. It's not just the cost of rounding up gays and lesbians, firing them and training their replacements. The training of an Arabic linguist alone costs some $120,000; that of medical or aviation specialists can cost up to a quarter million dollars. The ban is wasting our money.
For all these conservative reasons, the ban needs to go. Only an act of Congress can make that happen. Contact your congressional representative, particularly if he or she is a true Republican and a true conservative. The "values voters" are driven largely by their religious principals. They carry a lot of clout in the Republican Party, but those elected officials need to tell those value voters that if they want a ban on gays, then let the ban be in their churches, but not in the armed forces. Such voters should be reminded that it is their very values our military is assigned in part to defend, and we should use every willing resource to do defend it, regardless of their sexuality.
Don't you agree?
It would be nice for a change to see Republicans who so claim to treasure conservative principles finally "man up" to the task. No pun intended.
Bill Maher on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
More About:
Military Matters
Related Articles:
Comments
Pakistan is lovely this time of year! (AFP/Getty) Tora Bora was "one of the greatest military blunders in recent U-S history." That …
An Anglican priest named Tim Jones, 42, delivered a controversial sermon this past Sunday to his parish at St. Lawrence Church in York, England: My …
