While I appreciate the New York Times op-ed that former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili wrote, suggesting that preventing openly gay people from serving in the military is no longer needed, I am not impressed by his reservations:
But if America is ready for a military policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation, the timing of the change should be carefully considered. As the 110th Congress opens for business, some of its most urgent priorities, like developing a more effective strategy in Iraq, share widespread support that spans political affiliations. Addressing such issues could help heal the divisions that cleave our country. Fighting early in this Congress to lift the ban on openly gay service members is not likely to add to that healing, and it risks alienating people whose support is needed to get this country on the right track.
I am not sure that the social agenda of certain people in the government is entirely relevant in this situation. As Shalikashvili admits in a previous paragraph, the sole reason that openly gay people are not currently allowed to serve are because of fears of affecting unit cohesion. If those fears are unfounded, the moral obligation of the government to change the policy trumps issues of political expediency.
At 1:56 on January 6, 2007, Joe Mama wrote:
Bullshit, Tey. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs says that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is bologna. It will be history very soon. This is not 1960s Civil Rights; Shalikashvili is not saying "Go slow because people will struggle with this." What he is saying is that as a matter of legislative action, it is unwise (and, as long as you're throwing the word around, immoral) to push for something immediately when it could harm chances to correctly fix something vastly more important. There is a difference between reality and your visions in the sky.
Where you been lately, mayng?
At 2:31 on January 6, 2007, Martey wrote:
No, this is not the 1960s, because the military was racially integrated in the 1950s as a result of President Truman's Executive Order 9981. While I would be willing to listen to the argument that it would be politically simpler if "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" disappeared due to a similar executive order, the idea that bad social policies will go away without anyone doing anything about them is silly. But why would ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" hurt chances to fix the situation in Iraq? Because social conservatives, unhappy about losing yet another battle in the culture war, would betray our soldiers and our country by not working with their political opponents? If you think that ending discrimination in the military and finding a way to solve the Iraq problem are both important problems where politicians from both sides of the aisle should be able to reach a solution, I do not see why you would think it is necessary to try and solve the harder (even potentially impossible) problem before the simpler one.