The Economist is among the most respected publications in the world, so it's pretty bad news when that publication mocks you and basically says you are behaving in an ass backwards manner. But that's The Economist assessment of members of Congress who are not supporting the repeal of DADT. It's interesting that foreign publication often have a better perspective on what's happening in the USA than American news outlets are willing to report. DADT is all about religious based discrimination and pandering to Christianists who have an agenda of keeping LGBT Americans inferior under the laws so that they can then cite such legal inferiority as proof that their prejudice is justified. Let's call a spade a spade. And that's what The Economist is correctly doing. Here are highlights:*
[T]he onus should be on Mr Brown [Sen. Brown of Massachusetts] and others like him to explain how DADT's repeal might "jeopardise the mission of the military" (an all too common excuse for not taking up repeal). Many gay men and women are currently serving at home and abroad, and their presence has yet to degrade the capabilities of America's armed forces. (Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for DADT.) When these soldiers are allowed to serve openly, should we expect a breakdown in unit cohesion? If so, why?
*
Opponents of DADT's repeal will often claim that the military is a unique institution not suited for this kind of mixing. But many of the attributes that make the military unique—its professionalism, group dynamics, and chain of command . . . would make the transition away from DADT that much smoother. Unfortunately, proponents of the status quo assume the military is unique in less admirable ways. They believe bigotry is so enmeshed in the bureaucracy as to make DADT's repeal impractical. Few congressmen or pundits put it so bluntly, but their projected homophobia is obvious in their vague warnings about the detrimental effects of repeal. There is no evidence to support casting such broad aspersions on America's soldiers. In fact, it seems likely that many soldiers are already aware of their gay colleagues—they must know they exist—and still manage to carry on with their tasks.
[T]he onus should be on Mr Brown [Sen. Brown of Massachusetts] and others like him to explain how DADT's repeal might "jeopardise the mission of the military" (an all too common excuse for not taking up repeal). Many gay men and women are currently serving at home and abroad, and their presence has yet to degrade the capabilities of America's armed forces. (Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for DADT.) When these soldiers are allowed to serve openly, should we expect a breakdown in unit cohesion? If so, why?
*
Opponents of DADT's repeal will often claim that the military is a unique institution not suited for this kind of mixing. But many of the attributes that make the military unique—its professionalism, group dynamics, and chain of command . . . would make the transition away from DADT that much smoother. Unfortunately, proponents of the status quo assume the military is unique in less admirable ways. They believe bigotry is so enmeshed in the bureaucracy as to make DADT's repeal impractical. Few congressmen or pundits put it so bluntly, but their projected homophobia is obvious in their vague warnings about the detrimental effects of repeal. There is no evidence to support casting such broad aspersions on America's soldiers. In fact, it seems likely that many soldiers are already aware of their gay colleagues—they must know they exist—and still manage to carry on with their tasks.
No comments:
Post a Comment