Study: Military Gays Don't Undermine Unit Cohesion

[RA]

I never said it would or that there should be a problem. I am making assumptions and havent yet seen a study that would help me make up my mind. Ive heard hearsay on both sides.

JHC . . . why is this so difficult for some people to understand . . .

Fighting a war alongside someone who's gay isn't going to rot your liver or make your hair fall out.

[Tock]

I never said it would or that there should be a problem. I am making assumptions and havent yet seen a study that would help me make up my mind. Ive heard hearsay on both sides.

Well, what the US military has been doing for the past umpteen years is Social Engineering. They have been trying to create a military society in the way that they would like civilian society to be.

Of course, once they stop this nonsense, then the conservatives will claim that liberals are doing the social engineering.

Either way you go, somebody is trying to make the military over in its own image. Good thing you have me to help you figure all this mess out, eh?


The US military should anyone who meets their employment qualifications. Perverts, rapists, molesters, etc, need not apply. Since homosexuality is abundant in nature, it is not un-natural, and therefore not a perversion.
In time of war when the military needs more soldiers, there is no legitimate reason for exempting gays strictly on the basis of their sexual orientation.
We all know that lots of heterosexual perverts exist. But not all of them are perverts. Common sense prevents the military from banning all heterosexuals, and common sense ought to prevent them from banning all gays. But, we all know that "Military Intelligence" is an oxymoron.





You want a study? Here's some studies. From the GAO, Government Accounting Office:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05299.pdf

(an excerpt)

Financial Costs and Loss of Critical Skills
Due to DOD’s Homosexual Conduct
Policy Cannot Be Completely Estimated

The total costs of DOD’s homosexual conduct policy cannot be estimated
because DOD does not collect relevant cost data on inquiries and
investigations, counseling and pastoral care, separation functions, and
discharge reviews. However, DOD does collect data on recruitment and
training costs for the force overall. Using these data, GAO estimated that,
over the 10-year period, it could have cost DOD about $95 million in constant
fiscal year 2004 dollars to recruit replacements for servicemembers
separated under the policy. Also, the Navy, Air Force, and Army estimated
that the cost to train replacements for separated servicemembers by
occupation was approximately $48.8 million, $16.6 million, and $29.7 million,
respectively.
Approximately 757 (8 percent) of the 9,488 servicemembers separated for
homosexual conduct held critical occupations, identified by DOD as those
occupations worthy of selective reenlistment bonuses. GAO analyzed and
selected the top 10 most critical occupations for each year from fiscal year
1994 through fiscal year 2003. About 59 percent of the servicemembers with
critical occupations who were separated for homosexual conduct were
separated within 2.5 years of service. The typical military service contract is
for 4 years of service. Also, 322 (3 percent) of separated servicemembers had
some skills in an important foreign language such as Arabic, Farsi, or
Korean. A total of 98 servicemembers had completed training in an
important language at DOD’s Defense Language Institute and received a
proficiency score; 63 percent of such servicemembers had proficiency
scores that were at or below the midpoint on DOD’s language proficiency
scales for listening, reading, or speaking. Students can graduate from the

basic program with proficiencies somewhat below the midpoint of this scale.

--------------


http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/gao_report.html

(another excerpt)

GAO Analysis

Number of Discharges


During fiscal years 1980 through 1990, approximately 17,000 servicemen and women (an average of about 1,500 per year) were separated from the services under the category of "homosexuality." Approximately 1,000 military personnel were discharged in 1990. No determination that their behavior had adversely affected the ability of the military services to perform their missions was required. In terms of rank, gender, and race/ethnicity, the majority were enlisted personnel; most were men; and most were white. However, some groups were consistently discharged at a rate higher than their representation in the total active force or individual service. For example, between 1980 and 1990, the navy representing 27 percent of the active force, accounted for about 51 percent of the discharges; and women, representing 11 percent of the total active navy force, accounted for 22 percent for those discharged. Cost of Policy

Limited cost information associated with he administration of DOD's policy was available. Basically, only the costs of recruiting and training the personnel need to replace those discharged for homosexuality could be readily estimated. In fiscal year 1990, recruiting and initial training costs associated with the replacement of personnel discharged for homosexuality were estimated to be $28,226 for each enlisted troop and $120,772 for each officer. The total cost of replacing personnel discharged for homosexuality, however, would need to include other factors such as out-processing and court costs.



--------------------

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt...smms_integrity

(another excerpt)

Date: May 27, 2004

SANTA BARBARA, CA, May 27, 2004 - Parameters, the official journal of the U.S. Army War College, published a lengthy exchange between a critic, who labeled CSSMM's research as "gay propaganda," and the Center's director. According to the critique, which was written by Major Joseph A. Craft of the U.S. Marines, the CSSMM is "a homosexual activist group spreading pure propaganda poorly disguised as legitimate research." Craft adds that the Center is "engaged in an intense information campaign to market, normalize, and legitimize the homosexual political agenda." In response, CSSMM director Aaron Belkin questions Craft's use of logic and evidence. For Craft's essay click here. Belkin's response is below:


To the Editor:
Major Craft frames my research as propaganda and implies that anyone who agrees with me is being manipulated by the gay lobby. Even if this were true, Craft does not show that lifting the gay ban would undermine readiness. And, when one realizes that Craft's accusations about my scholarship are, at best, without merit, his failure to engage in honest debate becomes even more apparent. To save space, the editors asked me not to use footnotes, but I have posted documentation for this reply at www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu. [Web editor's note: you are reading the fully footnoted version now.]
Craft asserts that "lifting the ban on homosexuality would significantly detract from combat readiness." But why, if allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly undermines readiness, hasn't anyone been able to identify a single military whose effectiveness deteriorated after the elimination of a ban? [1] To the contrary, U.S. officials praise the performance of Britain and other coalition partners. Scholars at RAND and PERSEREC have concluded that eliminating the ban would not undermine readiness. [2] Admiral John Hutson, former Navy JAG, says that the ban is a failed policy that undermines the military, and General Wesley Clark says the ban does not work. [3] During the first Gulf War, the ban was suspended via stop-loss order without any apparent impact on readiness. [4] Military leaders know that gays don't undermine readiness, or they would never suspend the ban during war.
Craft claims that because gay service members are likely to contract HIV and other STDs, lifting the ban would "overwhelm the military's limited health care system." But many thousands of gays already serve without overwhelming the system, and lifting the ban will not increase their numbers significantly. [5] Currently, approximately 1,000 service members are HIV-positive (.07% of the force) and all personnel are screened for HIV prior to accession and frequently thereafter. [6] There is no evidence that the health care systems of any of the 24 foreign militaries that lifted their bans have been overwhelmed or that rates of HIV or other STDs increased as a result of integration. [7]
According to Craft, gays live "unhealthy, high-risk" lifestyles. But DoD reports that 41.8% of service members engage in binge drinking, 17.9% do not wear motorcycle helmets, and 57.9% of those who are unmarried and sexually active did not use condoms during their last sexual encounter, a troubling finding given our history in places like Olongapo. [8] Sound public policy would address risky behavior as a service-wide problem rather than singling out gays.