This is one of those studies that causes the rare “dual reaction”. I’m at once happy to read the results of it, but saddened that in 2008 we needed it at all. I’m as glad as anyone else to find out that gays don’t threaten the military, but damn.
The study was conducted by four retired military officers, including the three-star Air Force lieutenant general who in early 1993 was tasked with implementing President Clinton’s policy that the military stop questioning recruits on their sexual orientation.
“Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion,” the officers states.
To support its contention, the panel points to the British and Israeli militaries, where it says gay people serve openly without hurting the effectiveness of combat operations.
It’s the 21st century, people. I honestly want to talk to the people who think gays in the military is such a terrible idea.
Granted, they clearly exist, and this is why I am often depressed that they vote.
Categories: glbt · military
I’ll tell ya, I really like the Maliki guy. At first I thought he was just another administration puppet, but now we’ve got him diplomatically dealing with Iran and now basically telling the United States to GTFO. That’s not entirely accurate, I admit, but it’s pretty damn close.
“The current trend is to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to put a timetable on their withdrawal,” Mr al-Maliki said during a visit to the United Arab Emirates. He rejected efforts by Mr Bush to hurry through an agreement on vital issues such as the immunity of US troops in Iraq and use of the country’s airspace. Mr Bush had hoped to sign a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) by the end of July to establish the basis for a long-term presence of US troops in the country.
So at this point the Iraqis don’t want us there, the American people don’t want our troops there, and we’ve got soldiers injuring themselves to avoid going. When Bush famously said he’ll stay in Iraq even if it’s just him and dog, apparently he meant it literally, even if they are the only two living creatures on the planet that support the enterprise.
But wait, there’s more. The Iraqis are getting even more vocal about their distaste for both Bush and how he’s running things.
“The negotiations are continuing with the American side,” Mr al-Maliki said, reflecting the desire of many MPs to wait until a new administration is in the White House, and Iraq’s provincial elections are over, before making any deal. The agreement would govern such issues as immunity for US troops from prosecution, the use of Iraqi airspace, and which side takes operational control for military missions against insurgents.
Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish MP, said that the issue of immunity for US forces had become a particularly sensitive subject for Iraqis. “We have suffered so much from immunity. Immunity equals committing crimes. In the name of immunity they have killed people, they have their own prisons, they captured Iraqis. We can’t continue like this,” he said.
In response? Well, the Pentagon says it clearly.
[A] Pentagon spokesman said: “With respect to timetables I would say the same thing I would say as respects to the security situation – it is dependent on conditions on the ground.”
He said the US had made clear “that we have no long term desires to have forces permanently stationed in Iraq.” “But timelines tend to be artificial in nature,” he said.
Awesome.
Categories: iraq
