mheslep said:
I strongly disagree that sexual orientation* will become a non-issue in the military because of DADT, though perhaps it will be on paper. The integration of women in the military, for instance, is still very much an issue [snip] from both sides of the gender fence. It seems to me the successful argument to repeal DADT doesn't rest on an assumption that there won't be problems, even long, long term problems, but that on balance it is better to retain the service of gay members of the military, and to continue to have a force that resembles the country it serves.
*I also object to comparisons between discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation, and ethnicity - two very different things.
Precisely. Because of my belief that the function of the military is important (in other words, in other contexts, rights are protected even at the
severe expense of performance, such as with public transportation and education access), I tend to favor effectiveness over the rights of the members (I also get annoyed when members of the military complain about having to shave their heads, wear the same clothes, etc., in violation of their freedom of expression, for example). I view the issue in similar terms as with women in the military and even see direct parallels in some of the implimentation issues. I suspect the intent here will be for full/instant implimentation, despite having the same problems of implimentation that
still keeps women off of submarines, some 15 years after policy changes mandated allowing women into most roles in the military. I suspect that implimentation will proceed under the assumption that no implimentation issues exist/need to be addressed, such as providing separate facilities.
So ultimately the issue for me with the repeal comes down to a question of whether eliminating the political headache is worth creating a headache for the military, which will reduce its effectiveness. And what bothers me about this (and a large fraction of other laws) is that Congress only cares about its own headaches, not the headaches of those who have to impliment/follow its laws (unless those people are paying them, of course).
on a day to day basis, at least from what I'm told by some folks in senior leadership positions -
While you may have to ask people about morale, discipline and individual performance (as opposed to financial performance) issues related to women in the military, the
functional and financail issues are a matter of public record. This years' news included the implimentation of women serving on submarines:
The Department of the Navy has announced a policy change that will allow women to serve on submarines. The change was considered by Congress after Secretary of Defense Robert Gates formally presented a letter to congressional leaders Feb. 19, 2010 notifying them of the Department of Navy's desire to reverse current policy of prohibiting submarine service to women.
"There are extremely capable women in the Navy who have the talent and desire to succeed in the submarine force," said the Honorable Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy. "Enabling them to serve in the submarine community is best for the submarine force and our Navy. We literally could not run the Navy without women today."
On July 28, 1994, Congress was notified of policy changes to expand the number of assignments available to women in the Navy. At that time, opening assignments aboard submarines to women was deemed cost prohibitive and assignments on submarines remained closed. Currently, women make up 15 percent of the active duty Navy � 52,446 of 330,700. Integrating women into the submarine force increases the talent pool for officer accessions and subsequently the force's overall readiness, ensuring that the U.S. Submarine Force will remain the world's most capable for ensuing decades.
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=52954
And:
The Royal Norwegian Navy became the first[citation needed] navy in the world to permit female personnel to serve in submarines, appointing a female submarine captain in 1995,[16] followed by the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) in 1998 and thereafter Canada and Spain,[17] all operators of conventional submarines.
Social reasons include the need to segregate accommodation and facilities, with figures from the US Navy highlighting the increased cost, $300,000 per bunk to permit women to serve on submarines versus $4,000 per bunk to allow women to serve on aircraft carriers.[18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military#Women_on_submarines
Note, this doesn't completely open submarines to women: only female
officers. Reason being, officers have better facilities than enlisted (smaller, more private berthing compartments and bathrooms), so it is easier to provide separate facilities to female officers. Similarly, not even all large surface combatants are integrated. If the smallest enlisted berthing compartment on a ship of 200 enlisted sailors is 40 people (it was roughly that on the frigate I was on), you need 20% of your deployable sailors to be female in order to integrate all of these ships. So instead, some ships have no women (officers or enlisted) and others have a lot. And while it is a somewhat minor of an issue, berthing compartments are separated by department, which can't be done if all women have to be in one. This affects not just comraderie in the department, but also presents functional and safety issues in trying to keep track of your department's sailors.
The Department of the Navy has been woking on this $296,000 headache that for 15 years (and I doubt that's figured into the cost), but Congress never had to think about. Similarly, there is very little public discussion going on about what similar headaches apply with DADT. Certainly, for Congress, their headaches are over. The headaches for the military are just beginning.
