|
Is Repeal Of DADT Risky For Military? |
|
|
Written by Bob Sordahl
|
|
Thursday, 23 December 2010 |
 So Congress has repealed President Clinton's "Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) policy for our military. To me, it is more like DKDC (Don't know, don't care). As a Conservative Libertarian, I really couldn't care less about someone's sexual orientation. Having said that, I still don't want to see a gay couple making kissy face at the local baseball game. For God's sake, get a room!
Likewise, I don't want to see hetero couples sharing saliva in public either. Thankfully that isn't usually much of a problem except for the occasional pubescent kids on a first date. However here in the Pacific Northwest, the blue bastion of Liberal thought, mores and morals, it seems the militant homosexual community delights in public displays of their affection. Again, get a room!
I really don't care what people do in the privacy of their own home, but allowing members of the armed forces to serve openly gay, could have more serious consequences than merely making folks uncomfortable at the ball park.
Ignoring for the moment any religious or moral objection to homosexual relationships, is it possible that such unions might adversely affect job performance, particularly in life and death situations? Professional business managers know that the only way to deal with romantic relationships in the workplace is division and re-assignment. Hetero relationships are rare in combat environments due to lack of females involved in such action. With the repeal of DADT, might we not expect to see an increase of same sex relationships in combat or other similarly dangerous military activities?
We know that sometimes judgment becomes clouded in the haze of romance. Men in particular seem to fall victim to poor decision making while intoxicated by the liquor of love. It is not hard to imagine faulty decisions jeopardizing the safety of others in a combat team. Could the defense or protection of a loved one, put other members in a unit at risk?
I don't have the answers, but I think the questions are worth asking. Is there more behind DADT than simple discrimination or bigotry? Most importantly, will its repeal result in decreased effectiveness or increased danger to our armed forces? One could legitimately ask if those possibilities are worth a policy decision that defers to political correctness.
|
