A view on this "Don't ask, don't tell" nonsense.

.
I agree with the idea that the time has come to do away with “Don't ask, don't tell.”

It was a moronic policy from the get go, and only a Clintonista could have come up with such idiocy.

Yes, it's long past time for this policy to go... and for the old policy of not allowing homosexuals to serve in any capacity to re-assume it's place.

This wouldn't even be an issue if those running the military hadn't been required to sell their souls to get their jobs.

Much has been made today of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen's testimony: “'allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do"

I take a somewhat different perspective because, yes, I will openly call the Admiral's motives into question for such a pronouncement and ask the question that I have yet to see anyone else ask: How many minutes would it have taken for Obama to fire Mullen if he had presented any other position? And what is the likelihood that passing that particular litmus test item was a requirement for Mullen to get the job in the first place?

That is part of why I believe we're long past time to quit screwing around with this nonsense and go back to the past policy.

There is absolutely nothing compatible with the military service and the homosexual life style. Nothing.

There is no requirement in this day and age to close our eyes to an abhorrent conduct, particularly when the basis for such a decision is nothing more than political pandering.

Never forget that the military discriminates against people every day.

Half inch too tall or too short? Weigh too much or too little? Commit a crime? Sustain an injury or wound? Fail to get promoted fast enough? Have severe acne?

Any one or all of these will find you out, no matter how long you've been in; or in the alternative, keep you from enlisting in the first place. Yet, no one seems concerned about these institutionalized forms of discrimination... because THAT kind of discrimination is OK... while putting up with conduct that can shatter a combat force is just something that the military is going to have to live with.

Had this decision been based on anything BUT political pandering, it could possibly be worth consideration. But any study that takes place now will serve ONLY to justify an already-made decision... much like, here locally, that massive, $100,000,000 waste of money known as the Columbia River Crossing, was a time and asset-consuming study with a pre-ordained outcome.

The Armed Forces of the United States should not ever be used as a political football. Further mainstreaming of homosexuality may satisfy a small segment of the ACORN-in-Chief's political supporters, but it will do nothing to increase our combat capability and that is the ONLY issue that should be under consideration.
.

Political correctness run amok: Female Medical Corps Colonel with zero experience in Afghanistan or Iraq to command combat troops. Why? Don't ask.

.
... Don't tell.

Mr Wolf of the legendary BLACKFIVE with the down low.

Get Ready to Remove The BAN

Posted By Mr Wolf

The Colorado National Guard this past weekend held a Change of Command ceremony with a historic twist- it appointed COL Dana Capozella as its first female commander of Army troops; she will soon be promoted to Brigadier General. What is far more interesting is possibly WHY the Guard appointed her as the commander of its troops.

First off, I must say that I have no problem whatsoever with the appointment of a female in this position. There have been, and are, many excellent female leaders in the Army. The problems I see with this particular appointment are twofold:

One- she has ZERO experience in either Afghanistan or Iraq, or any other combat deployment, despite being a medical officer where there is a known shortage of help in either theater. She has had deployments to Panama, Honduras and Nicaragua, but most people of a particular slant don't have problems going there helping on these MedReps. Appointing someone who will oversee deployments of combat troops and combat support troops without any experience leaves that leader devoid of a huge amount of knowledge. Going on 10 years of activity, NOT having a deployment tells me that this person likely worked harder at AVOIDING it than in joining it.

Second- she wrote this paper as part of her War College education- ''The Time Is Now To Remove The Ban'' In this paper, she advocates the complete removal of DADT and a swift and direct command repercussion to those who violate any changes in DADT by employing top-down disciplinary action ''swiftly and directly''. She does not advocate 'acceptance' but education and tolerance. She does mention that most Judeo-Christian teachings put that acceptance in conflict with their core beliefs. She does not address just how the Chaplains, who have enough to do with helping morale, will adjust core doctrine within their faiths.

The Colonel writes-

''The Long War is costly in terms of both the need for retaining qualified service members and the overall cost of sustaining this mission"

yet does not mention that she herself has not joined in helping reduce these costs by going. Why not? Does she not believe this is a 'just war'??

It appears, from the outside, that the Colonel was appointed because of her stance on DADT, and the upcoming removal of this policy by DoD on direction of the President.

Much, much more, if you can stomach it.

#########################################

Back in the day, folks used to be able to buy their commands... and their titles. Some times that worked out. Others? Well... not so much.

My fear is that if we begin to promote combat commanders based on ideological purity, as it appears to be the case here, then the empty suit will spill lakes of American blood in pursuit of his socialist utopia.