No pun intended but are you seriously implying that Manning stole docs and gave them to Wikileaks because he was gay?

Get over it. There are gays in the military, there always have been gays in the military, and there always will be gays in the military. Your superious feelings about damage to US operations oversees as a result of the repeal of DADT doesn't hold water, and the analogy to the troubles in the Anglican Communion really doesn't pass muster.

The actual way that other military leaders will view the US military is as a professional, disciplined force capable of knocking the beejeezuses out of any other nation-state. And one that when it receives an order from its civilian leadership that it doesn't like, salutes smartly and executes.

We got it. You don't like it. It's done, so get over it.

Your debaucherous to the Constitution post also conflicts with public opinion in the United States which by one after another of scientific public opinion research surveys show that more than 80% of the US population support gays serving in the military, which is consistent with the societies, cultures and civilizations of Western Europe, the People's Republic of China, Taiwan and other cultures. Get with the contemporary and future world if you in any way possibly can. Do it as soon as you can.

You GLOVALVIC (and your Vic's Diner diner - remember the tv show of a long while ago?) have fallen far behind the present times and the future too. You sound like Osama bin Laden and Sara Palin in the act. The vote to repeal DADT in the Senate of the United States was 65 to 31. So you are among the 31 who, in all due respect, voted their views and convictions. I respect you and the 31 of the United States Senate who are in the fading minority opinion of the United States. However, Republican Sen Burr of North Carolina voted with the 65 to recognize that gay persons in the military are a strength to the defense of the United States, an example to the world. Sen Burr will be on the popular side of this one sided matter when he comes up for re-election in 2016. Sen Burr is thus a barometer of our future as a society, people, civilization and military. You should consider taking his lead.

Otherwise, you and your ilk would forever keep the United States in the 1980s. The post US 1980s accepts human diversity, human differences without war and destruction, accepts human life in its reality, human dignity and human rights. Grow up. Join the rest of we adults who are in charge.

I CHALLENGE YOU as well to present the 1 academic or field study (just 1!) that PROVES that abolishing DADT will actually HELP America's warriors WIN WARS .... or how does abolishing DADT helps CENTCOM's COIN in AFPAK.

I did not ask for stats (!) (provided not by you my friend!) but by PUBLICUS on public acceptance of gays serving in the PLA!

If you fail to provide even a bibliographic citation to such an academic or field study I will assume that you either don' t know about it or that you have not read it or don' t know the gist of it or that it just DOES NOT EXIST and that therefore ..... DADT to YOUR KNOWLEDGE does not pass academic or field muster! That's straight talking AND competency grade logic.

The FACT that there are gays in the military (as if I didn' t know about it!) should not and does not provide THE BASIS for serving in the US military! This is tantamount to affirming that WHAT IS is acceptable or should be acceptable!! How about kleptos or liars? I crypto klepto should own up, stand up and accept UCM. I assume that the ethos of West Point is well known and established.

It's best to avoid ad hominem attacks though I’ m not afraid of them ... e.g. your platitude of "it's done so get over it" et al, so JUST PICK UP THE GAUNTLET IF YOU DARE .... just reply to the RFI ... so that we can all get ... a reality check!!! USMC and OTHER top brass do question Mullin' s judgment. Oh lest I forget ... UCM and previous statements have proven their salt ... and I assume that if and when the reset button is pressed you will salute and execute.

I also trust that you agree that the unauthorized release of MI docs by an analyst to Wikileaks according to UCM and military justice IS AN ACT OF TREASON and espionage perpetrated against the US and its allies as well as a violation of confidences in spite of one’ s written affirmation of loyalty. The penalties of military justice should also be well known and respected. I also trust that the fact that Manning is allegedly gay will not cloud one' s judgment on the alleged acts of treason and espionage. Just watch the damage he's caused.

I am also saying that this GREATEST act of treason and espionage in US history has been perpetrated by someone who is allegedly gay and that this should not be overlooked. There are plenty of urban myths around and one of these myths is that sexual conduct and choices has no physical, emotional, mental or relational health implications. That’ s a lot of chutzpah and there are plenty of studies to prove it! Who needs to get over what?

Don' t forget the gauntlet!

In Roman times cursus publicus was a public road. Publicus you have fulfilled the username you' ve donned by panning out stats about public opinion in the US, W. Europe and China plus street level ad hominem attacks e.g. your superious "grow up", your attempt to demonize "you sound like Osama bin laden" etc. INSTEAD OF citing 1 academic or field study proving that abolishing DADT will actually HELP America' s military win wars.

I am glad you did not mention public opinion in the ME & NA or AFPAK! Societies in these regions are religious not secular and public opinion by coupled with populist propaganda would associate abolishing DADT and the US military with immorality of the worst sort.

Professor Hutchinson' s view of the future world we are heading towards begs to differ with you my friend. It sees a multi-polar world not just in terms of econ & mil power but a world more defined and divided by cultural religious values. You should read a couple of his books before you pontificate on the future. My own take on this is that abolishing DADT will make the differences between the ethos of the US military and Islamic militaries more pronounced. Senator Burr (R-SC) compared to prof. Hutchinson is hardly a beacon!

Your disgust about my "ilk" is evident and that being so I throw the gauntlet to you and I dare you to pick it up: I CHALLENGE YOU to present the 1 academic or field study (just 1!) that PROVES that abolishing DADT will actually HELP America's warriors WIN WARS .... or how does abolishing DADT helps CENTCOM's COIN in AFPAK.

Publicus pick up the gauntlet I' ve thrown to user named "incompetent field grade". I doubt he' ll pick it up!

The question should be will the repeal of DADT damage the ability of US forces to wage war. Since roughly 70 percent of service members who were polled stated that serving with openly gay individuals in intense combat would either have a positive effect, no effect, or a neutral effect, we can see that the service members themselves do not see this as an issue.

Even BETTER question (to borrow your capslock key) would be, 'what were the impacts on other military services that admitted openly gay soldiers?' I refer you to the Summer 2003 issue of Parameters, in an article by Aaron Belki, which analyzed the experiences of a variety of our allies--to cut to the chase, lifting the ban on gays in the Israeli, Australian, Canadian, and British militaries had no impact on military performance, readines, or unit cohesion.

Anecdotially, I can tell you that DADT can hurt units. I've commanded both combat and support units, and had troops that I strongly suspected were gay. My units needed those troops, and for the most part they did a fine job. No different than any other troops that I've commanded. If I had to get rid of soliders who I thought were gay, I'd have damaged the combat effectiveness of my unit by either getting rid of trigger pullers or key enablers.

A final question for you, Vic...are you comfortable with the idea of a military--the military of the greatest democracy in the world--not being truly representative of the country it represents? Not offering opportunities for all of America'se best, whether gay or straight, black or white, male or female? Think about what you're demanding, when you demand that we exclude a class of society from service.

You do not know of a SINGLE academic or field study proving that the repeal of DADT will HELP America' s warriors win wars!!!! QED.

Hey guy have you read the Pentagon report?! Read it for your own sake! Otherwise, you’ ll be TERRIBLY embarrassed old boy.

1. You failed to mention the 30% who were negative about the consequences. To my reckoning that' s a couple of hundred thousand active duty soldiers!!!

2. Q41 Was the effect on the unit’s ability to work together (knowing a fellow troop was gay)…Mostly negative or equally negative/positive 84.1%. Positive 15.9%!!!!

3. Q43. Was the effect on the unit’s morale [having a gay leader]…Mostly neg 46.1% Mostly neg 9.1% Equal neg & pos % 44.8%

4. Q45. If you had a leader whom you believed was gay or lesbian…9% positive, 91% negative or mixed impact on unit's performance!!!!

5. Q68c. 85% of Marine Combat Arms, 75% of Army Combat Arms, 64% overall say Negative, Very Negative, or Mixed impact on unit trust if DADT is repealed.

6. Q90. 29% would take no action if assigned open showers with homosexuals. 71% would shower at other times, complain to leadership or chaplains, don't know or do "something else" [including violence].

7. Q81. 24% will leave the military or think about leaving sooner than planned. (One half million troops will purportedly QUIT the service early, undermining our national security.) NOTE: I don't personally believe that this many troops would leave, but if it were only 10%, the military would lose 200,000 troops. This of course would vary if certain aspects of implementation take and do not take place.

8. Q80. 6% will positively recommend service to others after repeal. 94% feel negative, mixed, no effect, or don't know about recommending military service to others. (Destroying recruiting efforts.)

9. Q66. If open homosexuality impacts combat performance, is the impact…9% positive, 91% negative or mixed impact.

10. Q71. 11% feel positive or very positive about permitting open homosexuality in field environment or out at sea. 60% negative or mixed. 19% no effect.

11. Q73. 5% say repeal would positively boost morale. 41% say negative or mixed impact morale. Rest no effect or don't know.

I will come with ‘guns’ blazing if you BOTHER to respond to the a/m observations and IF YOU DON' T TRY TO CHANGE THE GOAL POST ONCE AGAIN! I hope you realize what' s at stake (US security) before you bring in questions about the military being representative of the country it represents. What’ s selection for?! As you know the US military does not operate as a democracy ... let' s have a vote! But it is accountable to civilian democratically elected leadership.

Belkin' s (not Belki) 2003 study merely proves the point: don' t you get it? repealing DADT will not help America' s military win wars or in your own words: "had no impact". Belkin' s study is rather simplistic and the guy is really out of his depth e.g. Israeli religious soldiers serve in "haredim" units under special terms: in practice gay soldiers are excluded otherwise there will be cognitive dissonance ... the Torah forbids it. In this security conscious country .... (conscription at 18) .... a lot of young Jews do not want to serve in the IDF .... that is about 20-25% of called up young men and women! And just in case you may think that religious convictions don' t matter ... a lot of young haredim refuse to serve in the IDF and do not even recognize the Israeli State. I think that Belkin should revisit the subject. He is really an activist (may I kindly refer you to "How to end DADT ..... by Belkin et al").

General Amos and General Cartwright (vice chair JCS) do not agree with Mullen and as I said I feel sorry for him. Your "evidence" in your own words is really anecdotal.

You are also forgetting the RESILIENCE AND LEADERSHIP qualities of US military units! A lot of units just will not let gays get in the way of doing their job ut repealing DADT by a lame duck Congress will certainly not help them—in general—win wars. There aren' t to many gays anyway in the general populace: according to the most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the US, the National Health and Social Life Survey 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women describe themselves as gay, lez or bisexual.

Hi.
His respect for Desslok seems to be second only to his admiration for himself. ... of command and calls Desslok to inform him of Lysis's misplaced priorities.
........
dating

You are all over the place. If I understand you correctly, your concerns are these:

a) a percentage of current service members who were polled for the DADT survey felt that repealing DADT would hinder unit cohesion, or damage combat effectiveness. A smaller subset of those polled came from combat arms units, and, in general, those more of those members felt that DADT repeal would damage combat effectiveness or unit cohesion. To make your point, you combine the figures for those who don't think that DADT repeal will hinder combat effectiveness and those who feel it will hinder combat effectiveness into a composite number, bolstering point b, below.

b) you are disinterested in whether repealing DADT damages the military--instead you want proof that it will enhance combat effectiveness, particularly in SOCOM units, which you refer to in your first post as SPECOPS units.

c) You think that DADT repeal will change public opinion regarding the United States in areas of strategic interest--namely the AFPAK region, North Africa, and the Middle East. I believe that is what you mean by 'SOCOM main basin.'

d) You believe that if the US military fought under a set of standards, namely the UCMJ, and the previous Articles of War in the past, the military should continue under those same standards.

Is this a fair summation of your argument?