Official Site of the U.S. Air Force   Right Corner Banner
Join the Air Force

News > Gates, Mullen endorse working group's report
Gates, Mullen endorse working group's report

Posted 11/30/2010 Email story   Print story

    


by Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service


11/30/2010 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates Nov. 30 urged the Senate to repeal the so-called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law this year.

Secretary Gates and Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke at a Pentagon news conference unveiling the recommendations of the working group tasked with looking at the issues associated with implementing a repeal of the law that bans gays from serving openly in the military.

Secretary Gates said any change causes short-term disruptions, but that the military can handle longer-term impacts.

He added that he's recommending repeal of the law after fully studying the potential impact on military readiness, including the impact on unit cohesion, recruiting and retention, and other issues critical to the performance of the force.

"In my view, getting this category right is the most important thing we must do," the secretary said. "The U.S. armed forces are in the middle of two major military overseas campaigns - a complex and difficult drawdown in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan - both of which are putting extraordinary stress on those serving on the ground and their families. It is the well-being of these brave young Americans, those doing the fighting and the dying since 9/11, that has guided every decision I have made in the Pentagon since taking this post nearly four years ago. It will be no different on this issue.

"I am determined to see that if the law is repealed," he continued, "the changes are implemented in such a way as to minimize any negative impact on the morale, cohesion and effectiveness of combat units that are deployed, or about to deploy to the front lines."

Secretary Gates acknowledged concerns from troops in combat units raised in a survey on the potential impact changing the law, but added that he believes they can be overcome if a repeal is handled properly.

"In my view, the concerns of combat troops as expressed in the survey do not present an insurmountable barrier to successful repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'" the secretary said. "This can be done and should be done without posing a serious risk to military readiness. However, these findings do lead me to conclude that an abundance of care and preparation is required if we are to avoid a disruptive and potentially dangerous impact on the performance of those serving at the tip of the spear in America's wars."

The working group, co-chaired by Army Gen. Carter F. Ham, the commander of U.S. Army Europe, and Defense Department General Counsel Jeh C. Johnson, took nearly 10 months to research and analyze data in drawing its conclusions. The mission was to determine how best to prepare for such a change should the Congress change the law.

Secretary Gates said he wanted the group to engage servicemembers and their families on the issue -- not to give servicemembers a vote, but to get an idea how best to implement the changes.

"I believe that we had to learn the attitudes, obstacles and concerns that would need to be addressed should the law be changed," he said. "We could do this only by reaching out and listening to our men and women in uniform and their families.

The survey results found more than two-thirds of the force do not object to gays and lesbians serving openly in uniform, Secretary Gates said. "The findings suggest that for large segments of the military, repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' though potentially disruptive in the short term, would not be the wrenching, traumatic change that many have feared and predicted," the secretary said.

But the data also show that servicemembers in combat arms specialties - mostly in the Army and Marine Corps, but also in the special operations from the Navy and Air Force - have a higher level of discomfort and resistance to changing the current policy, Secretary Gates said.

"Those findings and the potential implications for America's fighting forces remain a source of concern to the service chiefs and to me," he said.

The working group also thoroughly examined the potential changes to the department's regulations and policies dealing with matters such as benefits, housing, relationships within the ranks, separations and discharges. The report says that the majority of concerns often raised in association with the repeal - dealing with sexual conduct, fraternization, billeting arrangements, marital or survivor benefits - could be governed by existing laws and regulations.

"Existing policies can and should be applied equally to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals," Secretary Gates said. "While a repeal would require some changes to regulations, the key to success, as with most things military, is training, education, and, above all, strong and principled leadership up and down the chain of command."

The secretary called on the Senate to pass legislation the House of Representatives passed earlier this year, which calls for the president, defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to certify that the military can handle repeal without a lessening of combat effectiveness before a repeal takes effect.

"What is needed is a process that allows for a well-prepared and well-considered implementation -- above all, a process that carries the imprimatur of the elected representatives of the people of the United States," he said. "Given the present circumstances, those (who) choose not to act legislatively are rolling the dice that this policy will not be abruptly overturned by the courts."

The working group's plan, with a strong emphasis on education, training and leader development, provides a solid road map for a successful full implementation of repeal, assuming that the military is given sufficient time and preparation to get the job done right, the secretary said.



tabComments
12/10/2010 2:31:14 PM ET
What stands out to me is that 'the data also show that servicemembers in combat arms specialties - mostly in the Army and Marine Corps but also in the special operations from the Navy and Air Force - have a higher level of discomfort and resistance to changing the current policy.' This tells me that those in the direct business of war think it is a bad move while those of us in our comfortable support positions think it is neutral or good. I guess we need to ask ourselves who know the most about war warfighters or support personnel.
MSgt Jack Padilla, Lackland AFB TX
 
12/2/2010 4:04:47 PM ET
@sullivan I am currently active duty and while I do see problems with allowing homosexuals in the military I will never allow it to interfere with my duties of integrity first service before self and excellence in all I do. Quite frankly if homosexuals are allowed to join and be open about their sexual orientation, I say let them. They have a right to defend this country just as much as I do and anyone else who serves or has served in the past.
A1C, Eglin AFB
 
12/2/2010 3:11:56 PM ET
Hmmm. Sounds eerily like debates of yesteryear in which blacks and women weren't allowed to serve. The nerve of those rabble-rousing Tuskegee Airmen and WASPs.
AFL, DC
 
12/2/2010 2:37:31 PM ET
Wow. Being active duty for me allowed me to broaden my horizons learn about people from across our great nation and around the world experience different customs and cultures and really just soak in all the world has to offer. My question to the retired gentlemen is this, How did you make it through 20 or more years in the military with your eyes and minds so firmly closed?
KR, Sheppard
 
12/2/2010 11:45:55 AM ET
The repeal seems more about securing marriage for homosexuals at the cost of using current service persons who quietly live an alternative lifestyle. The private sector has been quietly walking back benefits for homosexual couples, but not all states recognize homosexual partnerships or common law marriage. How many law suits will there be concerning transsexuals and bi-sexual who will have multiple partners during their potential careers? How many lawsuits and how much money will this cost the military to conform with GLAD demands that even the private sector is not subject to?
TJN, retired
 
12/2/2010 11:03:28 AM ET
Glad you guys are retired. I'd rather serve alongside a gay Airman who will follow our core values then any of the three retired people who commented here. Anyway Adm Mullen pretty much said that if Congress repeals the policy the military will comply and if there are people in the military who refuse to comply they will be out of a job and I say good riddance.
MM, FL
 
12/1/2010 4:19:57 PM ET
sad that these two sell out the military. The military is not about society as the rules are far different. They blew off the combat troops in favor of the non-combatants. Wonder if the personnel and cooks will fight the wars Glad I'm retired. As a B-52 combat crewmember we lived in close proximity and I would have gotten out if these non-military people chose such an abhorrent means to have openly homosexuals in the military.
Dave, CA
 
12/1/2010 2:25:24 PM ET
Seriously Mr. Sullivan You'd let someone die because of your short-sightedness You'd let someone die because your beliefs aren't the same as someone else's You'd let someone die right before your eyes because you don't like what they do in their personal lives You'd let someone die. Really
LT, Dover
 
12/1/2010 2:05:05 PM ET
@MSgt Sullivan Ret. I'm sad to hear that you'd let your phobia dictate and overide your duty to provide for a fellow airman. That's like sayin I wouldn't provide respiration for a female or child because it would be percieved as infidelity or pedohila. Giving mouth to mouth is not any different be it a straight or homosexual male. No one perceives it as being romantic.Now if that's some innapropriate connotation. It's a person's life at stake and saving a person's life should override silly stigmas of catching cooties or the gay.
SSgt Driskell, Lackland AFB
 
12/1/2010 2:04:31 PM ET
So would it be safe to say that some would also refused to be saved by a homosexual troop? Let's hope the paramedics saving those 'moral' individuals knows their position on the matter maybe that way the gov't can save money from the 911 call AND future retirement payments. And we make fun of third world nations...
NewGen, 21st Century
 
11/30/2010 9:52:31 PM ET
Thank God I'm retired and best of luck to anyone that has to be openly subjected to such immorality.
Smidjet, Midwest
 
11/30/2010 8:30:31 PM ET
With all due respect to our national leaders, if I were still in service and had a wounded gay comrade that needed artificial respiration I would hesitate and probably refuse the honor of placing my mouth on him. I am afraid that others on active duty are leery of telling their true feelings which could result in a dead gay service man.
Boyd P. Sullivan Msgt USAF Retired, Ethelssville AL
 
Add a comment

 Inside AF.mil

ima cornerSearch

tabSubscribe AF.MIL
tabMore HeadlinesRSS feed 
KC-46 enters critical design review phase

Slideshow: Fifth-generation formation  1

Air Force Week in Photos

Chaplains provide support and comfort for families

IDS agencies team up to teach life skills to new Airmen

ANG director discusses way forward

Carter: Sequestration would have effect of 'hidden tax'

CMSAF: 'Be the best, know your Airmen, tell your story'  1

Carter urges stepped up progress on cyber defense

Partnerships develop Air Force youth  1

Air Force leaders offer perspectives at four-star forum

Dempsey: Insider attacks won't affect NATO's Afghan strategy  1

'Teammates wanted' to deliver future

Personnel chief: Road ahead for Airmen tough, but bright  3

tabCommentaryRSS feed 
Sept. 17: A day for Constitutional conversation  2

Losing Your Future to Sexual Assault   24


Site Map      Contact Us     Questions     Security and Privacy notice     E-publishing