Controversy on the "Dont' ask, don't tell" Policy

URL: http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-10-21-militarygays21_ST_N.htm

(This top news sounds familiar – This policy can affect certain people with regards to the military)

'Don't ask, don't tell' back in effect, again

Updated 1h 31m ago |  Comments 18  |  Recommend  

E-mail | Save | Print | 

By Jim Michaels, USA TODAY

A federal appeals court in California on Wednesday temporarily restored the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gay servicemembers.

Ruling in favor of a request by the Justice Department, a three-judge federal panel suspended a judge's order requiring the military to allow openly gay troops, the Associated Press reported.

The impact on military recruitment was not immediately clear. Cynthia Smith, a Pentagon spokeswoman, called the court's action Wednesday "appropriate."

She declined to tell the Associated Press whether the Defense Department would roll back its guidance to recruiters that they must abide by last week's lower-court ruling.

Earlier Wednesday, military recruiters said they were prepared to begin processing openly gay recruits but many recruiters said none came through the doors.

Staff Sgt. Joshua Roland, an Army recruiter in Staunton, Va., said no openly gay recruits have come in since a court ruling overturned the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy.

"It hasn't affected us as far as anyone coming in with that issue," he said.

At least three servicemembers discharged for being gay began the process to re-enlist after the Pentagon's announcement Tuesday that the policy was suspended until further notice, according to the Associated Press.

Many recruiters say it has been business as usual.

"We haven't changed how we recruit or who we recruit," said Marine Cpl. Ryan Turnage, spokesman for the Marine Corps' recruitment efforts in western Mississippi.

Recruiters had been told they should warn recruits who acknowledge they are gay that the policy could be reversed and result in their discharge.

The Pentagon had wanted to study the consequences of removing the policy before taking action. That study likely will not be completed until December.

Some military commanders, such as Gen. James Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, have said most troops oppose reversing the policy and worry that such action could be disruptive during wartime.

The Pentagon is looking into issues, such as living accommodations, that might have to be changed if the policy is reversed and gays can openly serve. They also are measuring opinion among troops.

Supporters of the policy say troops near the front lines who tend to live in close quarters with one another may be uncomfortable serving with openly gay troops. Non-commissioned officers could be burdened sorting those conflicts during war if changes are made without adequate preparation, they say.

"The last thing in the world Marine squad leaders and fire team leaders need to worry about is some kind of social experimentation," said John Grinalds, a retired Marine major general. "I'm worried about what an abrupt change in policy will do to Marines."

Peter Mansoor, a retired Army colonel who served as a brigade commander in Iraq, said overturning the policy might cause short-term disruptions but would ultimately work.

"In the long run integration will go smoothly," said Mansoor, who teaches at Ohio State University.

Analysis on the Temporary Reinstatement of the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” Military Policy that affects Homosexual people in particular – Affirmation

By Explorer

          This is a big issue regarding the people that ensure the safety of our country.  If inappropriate homosexual activity becomes a problem among soldiers and marines, then their performance can be reduced therefore making our armed forces a little bit more vulnerable.  The “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy basically is the allowance for homosexuals in the armed forces on one condition, that they don’t reveal their gender orientation and refrain from inappropriate conduct with others.  This was originally put in order to give equal rights for homosexuals.  One of these rights was the allowance of homosexuals in the military.  In short, this act symbolized the efforts being put to show America as a place of equality and control, especially in labor, which is beneficial.  There is an interesting side to this policy though.  This policy had a good effect in the 1990’s during Bill Clinton’s campaign.  Times have changed and frankly gay military workers can be out on the loose.  USA Today says that “troops near the front lines who tend to live in close quarters with one another may be uncomfortable serving with openly gay troops.”  If this is the case, then this policy would eventually become practical in the most part.  “Openly gay” troops are at a high risk of discharge under this rule.  Our troops should be able to work in an environment that is efficient and has little or no disruptions.  The news article quotes that, “Some military commanders, such as Ben. James Conway, commandant of the Marine corps, have said most troops oppose reversing the policy and worry that such action could be disruptive during wartime.”

          Permanently, retaining this policy would put homosexuals under control.  Without this, cruel, unusual, and possibly inappropriate action may occur within military encampments and operations.  And we do know that is unacceptable for the public to let these events happen without the knowledge that inappropriate homosexual activity or just the openly homosexual people in the military can affect our safety.  The job of the military is to protect American citizens’ which means that if the servicemen in the military do not cooperate effectively, then the people can be in jeopardy.  All it takes for our military is just a few scattered disruptions to lose control over operations and guards.  Looking back at how many soldiers we lost in our most recent attack on Iraq, we could not afford any interruptions regarding the matter of homosexuals especially when we are currently planning to attack Afghanistan.  It takes a lot of resources for our military to wage a war on another country.  One of our valuable resources which is our soldiers could not afford to be lost to other matters such as this.

          In conclusion, this policy is essential to the retention of U.S. soldier.  Still though, it all depends on the behavior homosexuals show towards this policy. So the question is, will we still be able to sustain a strong reputation for our military if this rule is reversed? 

I encourage you to comment as to your views on this standing.