Report: 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Cost $363M

[deadparrot]

WASHINGTON - Discharging troops under the Pentagon's policy on gays cost $363.8 million over 10 years, almost double what the government concluded a year ago, a private report says.

The report, to be released Tuesday by a University of California Blue Ribbon Commission, questioned the methodology the Government Accountability Office used when it estimated that the financial impact of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was at least $190.5 million.

"It builds on the previous findings and paints a more complete picture of the costs," said Rep. Marty Meehan (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., who has proposed legislation that would repeal the policy.

Congress approved the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in 1993 during the Clinton administration. It allows gays and lesbians to serve in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps as long as they abstain from homosexual activity and do not disclose their sexual orientation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060213/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_gays

[MadMaddie]

1. Isn't it sad....

This is one of the few things that Clinton did that I didn't agree with.

$363.8 million and these boys and girls were smart and intellegent soldiars. And now they are desperate to recruit so they are lowering their standards and letting sub par individuals in.

Instead of having the best military we are facing a less than mediocre military. They are paying once again for stupid decision.

:wtf:

[Ken M]

17. It's probably the best alternative, actually

At least if we don't want a draft. Let's be honest, not to many open gays are inclined to serve in the military. Meanwhile, urban blacks and rural whites do serve, and they tend to be anti-gay.

A few years ago I was talking to a TV guy who did an assignment on a carrier. He was skeptical of DADT before he went out there, he was convinced it was neccesary when he got back.

[Up2Late]

2. 'Don't Ask' Costs More Than Expected (W. Post)

'Don't Ask' Costs More Than Expected

Military's Gay Ban Seen in Budget Terms

By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 14, 2006; Page A04

The financial costs to the U.S. military for discharging and replacing gay service members under the nation's "don't ask, don't tell" policy are nearly twice what the government estimated last year, with taxpayers covering at least $364 million in associated funds over the policy's first decade, according to a University of California report scheduled for release today.

Members of a UC-Santa Barbara group examining the cost of the policy found that a Government Accountability Office study last year underestimated the costs of firing approximately 9,500 service members between 1994 and 2003 for homosexuality. The GAO, which acknowledged difficulties in coming up with its number, estimated a cost of at least $190.5 million for the same time period. The new estimate is 91 percent higher.

Although it did not take a stance on the effectiveness of the policy, the California "blue ribbon commission" -- which included former defense secretary William J. Perry and 11 professors and defense experts -- found that the military has put millions of dollars into recruiting and training new soldiers and officers to replace those who were removed from their jobs in the services because they were openly gay. The report also cites the costs of losing service members to premature discharge, because of the loss of training "investment."

"The real issue here is that you have a policy that is costing us money, hurting readiness and is really not fulfilling any national security objective," said Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, and a member of the commission. "It just doesn't make sense now, particularly when you're having such a hard time getting people to join the military and retaining them in the right skills."

(more at link below)

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/13/AR2006021302373.html?nav=rss_nation>

[InsultComicDog]

3. Is it possible that some of them are really straight

...and just want to avoid another trip to Iraq?

(I must have watched too many M*A*S*H episodes with Klinger)

[TrogL]

12. Klinger wasn't playing "gay"

He was doing "transvestite".

[InsultComicDog]

18. Yes I know

...but it isn't that much of a stretch to imagine someone playing "gay"

[rodeodance]

4. think of how we could use the money to care for people rather than demean

them. It is a national shame.

[hopeisaplace]

5. If there's ever a Draft, all of a sudden, everyone could be Gay..

[Hekate]

6. Security types used to fear that gays could be blackmailed...

...at least that was the reason given a generation ago when being closeted was the norm (if you can call something so detrimental to the individual a "norm").

With so many gays out of the closet, fear of someone being blackmailed into giving up state secrets can no longer be used as an excuse. So they had to come up with something else, and as far as I know that something else boils down to "it makes everyone else feel uncomfortable."

Tough. Racial integration in the military used to make bigots uncomfortable too, but it is a top-down organization and when the time came the President (FDR, I believe) gave the order. And the generals gave the order to those down the line, and so it became regulation, and now if anyone gets the vapors serving with those of other races they just have to learn to deal with it.

I'm sorry Bill Clinton ducked his FDR moment on this issue, because half measures do not work on issues of bigotry.

Hekate

[sandnsea]

7. Truman integrated the military

In 1948. Yeah, Clinton missed his moment for sure.

[Hekate]

8. Thanks. I couldn't make up my mind if it was Truman or FDR. nt

[sandnsea]

9. I checked Google to be double-sure

Seems like FDR did some integration somewhere, I don't remember exactly what. But I thought Truman fully integrated the military, still googled it to make sure though.

[Hekate]

10. I think it was defense industries, as every worker was needed

...for the war effort. Too tired to look further tonight.

But the example of the integration of the military and the defense industries has stuck with me, even though I mixed up FDR's and Truman's individual roles. In highly stratified and disciplined work situations, such as the military, leaders can enforce top-down change; by the same token, expecting change to occur organically from the bottom up is probably a mistake.

On the whole I tend to be leery of the military as an institution; that is, I believe we need adequate and well-equipped defense forces, but also that they need to be in a sense subordinate to and separate from civilian law. (I'm fading; I know that's not clear.) Generalissimo Presidente's are for banana republics, not democracies.

On the other hand -- in the right hands -- the military can actually facilitate certain social changes that may not otherwise come about. Presidential edicts regarding integration in the 1940's set the stage for later... Footbinding was losing favor among the few Western-educated Chinese almost a hundred years ago, but was only able to be eradicated in that vast land when troops were ordered to villages to inspect the feet of little girls. I think Africa is only going to be able to rid itself of female genital mutilation when the presidents and legislatures of the various countries become willing to send troops to villages, bringing with them female doctors to ascertain that little girls are not being carved up.

Good night. Nice talking with you.

Hekate

[Punkingal]

11. I remember seeing a gay naval officer on Larry King....

Back when this policy started, and he was the most upstanding, honorable person. He loved the Navy, but he said when asked on some paperwork, he couldn't lie about being gay, so he would have to leave the Navy. It was so clear how stupid it is to drum people out of the military because they are gay. This guy was such a wonderful person. He wouldn't tell a lie for any reason. Seems to me that is the type of person we need as a military officer.

[Up2Late]

13. Again, Why was my thread combined with this one? I posted...

...mine at about 3:00am ET, though you can't tell anymore.

It's the number of Hearts isn't it?

:mad:

[jobycom]

14. I hate when that happens!

Gotta be the hearts. You aren't loved as well. :(

[jobycom]

15. War costs too much. Let's just stop it. nt.

[stevekatz]

16. actually...

Being gay per say isn't and hasn't been illegal in the military. You can like men, you just can't actually have sex with them.

Article 125 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) states in part...

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient
to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

----

The president doesn't have the authority to change the UCMJ, so Clinton didn't miss his mark.. he just didn't have the ability.
Only congress can authorize changes in the UCMJ

What he did was make a directive that has become known as "Don't ask, Don't tell, Don't pursue". He basically made it illegal to try and learn if a military member was gay. In theory, the member has to confess to being gay on his own in order for anything to happen. Though the whole "confess" thing has been interupted in different ways over the years.

--Steve