Thank you for acknowledging my concerns. Actually, I’m not arguing for OR against the DADT policy. I’m arguing for the vital importance that the decision be made by the military chain of command — not be imposed to the end of perfecting the society by people not trained in the requirements of protecting the society.

Dick Polman, who strongly advocates that Obama follow Truman and allow gays to serve openly, posted yesterday in the Philadelphia paper about a Zogby poll that reported that three-quarters of the Iraq and Afghanistan vets felt comfortable serving with gays. Meanwhile, Polman says, this past April, a Quinnipiac poll found that, by a margin of 56 to 39 percent, people in military households reject the argument that openly serving gays would be divisive.

OK. So how do I evaluate this poll results? Doesn’t the Zogby poll also imply that one-fourth of Afghan and Iraq vets felt UNcomfortable serving with gays. Does the Quinn poll really mean that 39% of military households think openly serving gays would be devisive. And how many of the people who do not believe openly serving gays would be a problem, believe allowing gays to serve openly is an important priority for the military.

Only the military chain of command is in position to evaluate those factors, and we have to rely on their judgement and honor.

We do every day anyway, and most of the time we don’t even notice — which shows a lot about how honorable most of them are.

Phil, I gathered that was jon’s intention in posting the video, but frankly, it really did fall into the category of snuff pornography. Besides that, the producer’s apparent notion of Hell was certainly nothing remotely similar to an LDS perspective on the fate of telestial beings. There was simply nothing remotely redeeming in the video. I get that jon, despite supposedly being LDS, believes I’m going to Protestant Hell. I also get that jon thinks that members of the Community of Christ are going to Hell (see another discussion at MM). We can all get that point without the video.

In keeping with this post, I would say that the military has good reason to try to discourage promiscuous behavior amoung its gay troops.

I would say that the military has good reason to try to discourage promiscuous behavior among ALL troops, Phil. Are you really trying to say that this need only applies to gay troops? How does DADT accomplish your goal of discouraging “promiscuous behavior among gay troops?” How would the removal of DADT result in greater promiscuity among gay soldiers?

You are the one who has to make the case that Truman had the political resources to do both, in the face of the unrefutable historical fact that he failed in regard to protecting Korea.

FireTag, I apologize for my tone. You’re obviously a thoughtful person, and it really wasn’t my intention to antagonize you. At the same time, it appears to me that you are arguing that DADT should remain in place, because Truman’s desegregation of the military prevented him from solving a whole list of military and social ills. I don’t question that Truman failed to achieve the things you listed. What I do question, on the other hand, is your apparent assertion that he was unable to do so because he expended his political capital in desegregating the military. I’m sorry, but I just don’t see the evidence of such a connection.

Once again, I apologize for sending things down an unpleasant road.

If you regard me as unconvincible, then stop insulting my belief that the military is immensely more about societal protection than about societal perfection. Agree to disagree.

I’ll repeat my basic point: DADT still stands; I’m not the one with the burden of proof in convincing others, you are.

You are the one who has to make the case that Truman had the political resources to do both, in the face of the unrefutable historical fact that he failed in regard to protecting Korea. You ignore the fact that CORRELATIONS do occur several times this centruy between attempts to shift the focus from military as social protector to military as social perfector and subsequent military disaster. I think the CAUSE in each case is a disconnection from the threats of hostile attack that results in disrespect for and weakening of the military’s primary capabilities.

Suggest a credible alternative cause. Instead, you continue to ignore even trying to make a case that might convince me.

But cheer up. You might only have to convince President Obama, although so far he’s listening to the Pentagon’s arguments about putting military readiness first. I understand he’s not a big Rush Limbaugh fan either, so you may have better luck.

In fact, you might even be surprised about places where I’m on your side on issues related to gay and lesbian rights. See the ongoing discussion on human sexuality issues at the Saints Herald blog. There are actually injustices in the Restoration movement and in Restoration families toward gays and lesbians that the church doesn’t need either a US Supreme Court decision or Presidential order to do something about.

Can we agree to work toward eliminating those injustices together, Nick?

Not at all, FireTag. The problem is you’re not even supporting an argument on the basis of opportunity costs. You’re merely making an assertion, and expecting it to be accepted at face value. You need to demonstrate that Truman’s integration of the military actually expended his political capital in such a way that he was unable to accomplish the other objectives you list. Instead, you’ve mistaken correlation for causation. Further, you’ve failed to give any indication that the objectives you listed actually could have been accomplished by Truman, had he followed your preferred choice by continuing racial discrimination in the military. Frankly, I see no reason to believe that the conditions you listed would be much different, whether Truman integrated the military or not.

Convince me you can actually discuss the above issues with some background and knowledge.

As the guy who referenced FOX News out of the blue, you’ve already demonstrated that “convincing you” is not possible. For that matter, you’ve already stated as much.

Or you can waste your time trying to mock me. Your choice.

My intent was never to mock you, FireTag, though I’ll admit I mocked an argument that was incredulous, unsupported, and desperate-sounding.

I’m sorry, but you seem to be confusing the concepts of direct impacts and opportunity costs. Being completely overwhelmed in item (1) at the beginning of the Korean War was the direct cause of items (2) thru (5). Can you please name authors who argue that the US was NOT surprised and unprepared for the Korean invasion? Or that being unprepared affected millions of lives during that war and in the succeeding decades? You won’t even have to watch FOX. I promise. You can read about the ongoing nuclear proliferation threats in the New York Times or watch them on the BBC.

I have stated that it would have been a better use of Truman’s resources to focus on (1) than on desegregating the military. There are opportunity costs involved in the expenditure of political capital in EVERY administration. If you do not understand that concept, learning it will make you a much more effective political activist. Because every mayor in the country understands the concept, let alone every presidential advisor.

At least make a case as to how Truman had the political resources to do both.

You have not even presented a case as to how significantly that desegregation of the military hastened the integration of African Americans into US society. Where would you rank military desegregation in importance in the civil rights movement compared to, say, Selma, George Wallace, Dr. King, or the March on Washington? Why?

Please go read some history of the years leading up to the Korean War, the state of the US military in those years on issues OTHER than desegregation, the development of the Cold War in Asia after World War II, and domestic politics during war demobilization.

Convince me you can actually discuss the above issues with some background and knowledge. Then I’ll be ready to rehear your other arguments about desegregation’s relevance to DADT. You are the one with the burden of proof to convince the system of the rightness of your position. DADT is still standing.

Or you can waste your time trying to mock me. Your choice.

Homophobia is a fear, and whether the object of the fear is clearly obvious is a big part of how a fear plays out. Racism, as I said before, is a different dynamic. Fear of “something different”, but through a different mechanism.

on what basis do you conclude that it’s “less likely” for a “random” African American soldier to make a sexual advance toward another soldier, than it would be for a gay soldier to do so? The only thing I could possibly see motivating such a claim is an actual prejudice, wherein you think that all gay men are predators, bent on seducing straight men.

The basis on which I conclude that has nothing to do with a specific prejudice as much as the definition of the term “homosexual”: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward individuals of one’s own sex (Merriam-Webster). I see it as reality that gay men are interested in other men, though not ALL other men, and not exclusively straight men (similarly for lesbian women). Correct me if I’m missing something.

Most gay men are NOT interested in doing anything sexual with a heterosexual male, because frankly, the latter rarely know what they’re doing!

If everybody had this same perception that “most” gay men want to keep to themselves in this way, I have a feeling the law would be different and would be having a very different discussion.

I believe I made a concession about the arbitrariness of DADT enforcement quite a way back. It should be enforced consistently.

Honestly, FireTag, how can you even read the above without laughing at yourself? Those claims almost make Rush Limbaugh sound like a reasonable man!

#77:
So are you saying, Nick, that you would feel completely comfortable being openly gay in the military right now? No reservations? Would you be willing (other considerations aside, like family, physical condition, career, etc.) to be the first? Or is there something in the back of your mind that might still make you a bit apprehensive?

Assuming I was willing to once again serve in the military, I would be very comfortable doing so as an openly gay man in the absence of DADT. I would not, however, be the “first” to do so. The truth of the matter is that a number of gay soldiers are serving with the full knowledge of their fellow soldiers. Enforcement of DADT is frankly quite arbitrary. In a few cases, soldiers have actually approached their commanding officers, made a direct statement of their sexual orientation, and faced no action. Why? Because they happen to have commanding officers who value their contributions more than they value DADT enforcement. On the other hand, of course, we currently have numerous Arab linguists, and many highly-decorated, long-serving soldiers, being discharged purely because they are gay. That’s a direct HARM to our military readiness.

Frankly, it’s less likely that any random black soldier would make some sort of advances on someone else.

J.Ro, on what basis do you conclude that it’s “less likely” for a “random” African American soldier to make a sexual advance toward another soldier, than it would be for a gay soldier to do so? The only thing I could possibly see motivating such a claim is an actual prejudice, wherein you think that all gay men are predators, bent on seducing straight men. I’ve got news for you, J.Ro. Most gay men are NOT interested in doing anything sexual with a heterosexual male, because frankly, the latter rarely know what they’re doing!

I know there are allowances for hetero relationships, within strict regulations, so that would be allowed for homosexual relationships with the changes you propose, right? That’s where anyone afraid would likely be worried, as it’s not exactly always a comfortable position to be in.

In the vast majority of cases, if a gay man mistakenly makes an advance on a heterosexual man, a simple “no thank you” (or even “no thank you, I’m straight”) is sufficient—just as it is if a heterosexual man makes an unwanted sexual advance toward a woman. The military is actually quite serious about penalizing sexual harassment, and I’ve NO doubt that any gay soldiers who couldn’t exercise self-control and propriety would be quickly dealt with.

I do understand from long years of working within the Federal system that an Administration only has so much capital, so much time, and that it has to be further subdivided within several areas of government (because Congressional agencies, Federal departments, and interest groups divide that way as well.) Why do you think Obama is going at his highest priorities at such a frenetic pace?

Specifically, Truman had small resources of political capital to devote to defense issues in 1948, and did not use them as wisely in foresight as he should have in hindsight. He ended up firing MacArthur for insubordination after the latter had become a national hero in WW2 and then had rescued the Korean War from a military disaster with the Inchon landings and turn it into a stalemate.

And then the nation ended up electing another war hero, Eisenhower, instead of the democrat as Truman’s successor. And it STILL took the assassination of John Kennedy to give Johnson the leverage to pass the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

So please do not dismiss my arguments out of hand from such a narrow perspective. It is quite possible that Truman might even agree with me if we ever get to ask him.

You’re right—Since you can’t always spot a gay man, your worries about rampant gay-bashing between soldiers in the event DADT is repealed are likely overwrought.

#72:
You’re suggesting that had Truman not racially integrated the military, the U.S. would have had better weapons and supplies, an undivided Korean penninsula, nobody living in abject poverty, everyone having electricity, and no nuclear weapons? I really don’t wish to be insulting to you personally, but that’s just over the top crazy-talk.

#73:
I do, however, think that it is legitimate for the government to consider all the relevant factors, practical as well as principles, in determining what is the best time and environment to do away with DADT.

I can guarantee you, brjones, that there will always be excuses for those who wish to say “the time just isn’t right” to end discrimination. Sad.

Truman’s strategy may have worked well if seen from the narrow goal of integrating the military, but I still wish he’d spent more of his political capital instead on getting the military better weapons and supplies before the Korean War erupted.

We’d not have a divided Korean penninsula today, with millions living in abject poverty, without even electricity, and every major power on the planet scrambling to keep an unstable situation from spiraling into catastrophes involving mushroom clouds over the next several years.

Harry Truman apparently didn’t agree with your view that the military shouldn’t be “the place to enforce tolerance and acceptance.” He moved on the issue long before many in the military were “ready” for it. I’m sure there were some ugly incidents, etc., but overall, I’d say his strategy worked incredibly well.

I’ve never said that I agree with any of these soldiers’ opinions about women or gays/lesbians. If they can do the job well, it doesn’t much matter to me who’s doing it. It’s not a representative sample, and I’ve never claimed it to be, but the problem with soldiers serving openly gay has been highlighted by some of the super-conservative soldiers I’ve known. I know for a fact that it’s a distraction for some soldiers, and I’m not comfortable with the military being the place to enforce tolerance and acceptance. As it stands, I think there’s progress yet to be made before it will work out (most likely it will be found in the changing attitudes of the incoming recruits and future officers).