Updated on May 22, 2013
More than a million U.S. troops – roughly half the armed forces – have been trained on the new law allowing gays to serve openly in the military, and so far there has been none of the turmoil or dire consequences predicted by opponents of what had been expected to be a wrenching change in military culture.
But then again I guess it depends on what the definition of “training” is. You see the Army hasn’t been asking our opinion. They haven’t gaged our reaction to the repeal of the bill…hell, they haven’t even asked us what we think! In reality, we’re not even allowed to bring it up during the “training” that is forced upon us. Besides the changes haven’t even come yet!
Under the terms of the repeal, the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must certify in writing that they have reviewed the Pentagon’s report on the effects of DADT repeal, that the appropriate regulations have been reviewed and drafted and that implementation of repeal regulations “is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces”. The problem is that unit cohesion and retention aren’t being gaged and I know that for a FACT! No one is asking Soldiers why they aren’t staying in. No is asking them if the repeal has something to do with their decision not to stay in. Just because someone isn’t parading in front of cameras claiming definitively that they got out because they don’t want to be forced to room with gays doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence!
The only thing – and I mean THE ONLY THING – the DADT training has accomplished is telling the Soldiers what the DADT repeal means: gays can serve openly; gays will not have separate barracks rooms or facilities; etc. The training is so bland and scripted I doubt anyone could even tell you what they spent an hour listening to. And yet, the AP definitively declares “There’s been no widespread resistance, no mad rush for the door by enlisted members opposed to the policy and no drop in recruiting.”
I personally know four Soldiers (two of whom are junior NCOs) that don’t want to stay in because of “what’s coming around the corner.” And yet the Army’s version of the story is quite different.
[LTG] Chiarelli said it’s too soon in the training process to downgrade the initial assessment by outgoing Army Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey Jr. that repeal of the law poses moderate risk to readiness, recruiting and retention.
The fact is that this repeal is disastrous. I can’t find any that are supportive of it. While waiting for the theater to open all the Soldiers were cracking jokes about it. You could hear them whisper comments to each other during the training. And after the training, it was obvious that this is being rammed down our throats in a “take it or leave it” manner.
The reason Soldiers may not be leaving in droves (or seemingly at all) is because we are focused right now. We’re more concerned about our next deployment (or coming home from it), leave, getting qualified on our weapons, etc. Right now, we aren’t being forced to share a barracks room with someone that may try to rape me while I sleep – and don’t try to tell me I’m just a when over eight percent (8.2%) of all military sexual assault cases were homosexual in nature and that’s BEFORE repeal! By the way, that’s 134 homosexual rapes in one year!
And don’t give me that “just because someone is a homosexual doesn’t mean they’re a rapist” crap. Their sexual desires are no different than a heterosexual. And if that is the case, we should be just fine with co-ed barracks space! After all, not all heterosexuals are rapists, right?
The AP can quote all the general officers it wants to quote but notice a glaring omission from EVERY single story about the topic: no ground troops are either questioned or quoted in these feel good stories about homosexual acceptance. NONE! And for good reason. I guarantee you if one Sergeant or First Lieutenant spoke their minds about the policy and what they really think about it, there would be hell to pay.