Home | Virginia
Politics
| National
Politics
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Poll
Should Democrats Move Their Convention Out of North Carolina?
No, I agree with the anti-gay-marriage amendment
No, lots of states have these amendments
No, it's too late to change
No, we want to win North Carolina this November
Yes, we need to take a stand against bigotry
Yes, NC's amendment is particularly heinous
Yes, we're not going to win NC anyway
Yes for many reasons

Results

Weather

Search




Advanced Search


Blog Roll
Virginia Blogs
All Politics is Local
Augusta Free Press
Bacon's Rebellion
Coarse Cracked Corn
Crew of 42
DemRulz
Dixie Pig
Equality Loudoun
The Fix (WaPo)
Greater Greater Washington
The Green Miles
Leaving My Marc
Leesburg Tomorrow
Loudoun Progress
Moonhowlings
New Dominion Project
Not Larry Sabato
Off K Street
Old Dominion Blogs
Ox Road South Blog
Renaissance Ruminations
Richmonder
Richmond Sunlight
RTD VA Politics blog
Roanoke Times blog
Shad Plank
SlantBlog
Too Conservative
True Adventures of the Doorbell Queen
VB Dems
Virginia Education Report
WaPo - Virginia Politics Blog
Waldo Jaquith
Waldo's VA Political Blogroll

Progressive Legal Directory www.criminallawyervirginia.net
www.virginia-duilawyers.com
www.virginia-personalinjurylawyer.com
www.recklessdrivinglawyer.net
www.helpdisabilitylawyer.com
www.criminallawdc.com
www.duilawsdc.com

ADT Home Security in Virginia

WTOP: "Sen. Webb could support overturn of 'Don't Ask'"

by: lowkell

Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 14:03:24 PM EST


Great news!
Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) said Friday that he could support changing the military's ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military.

The senior senator from Virginia, with a background steeped in distinguished military service, said he would support repealing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," policy, provided there is "sensitivity" toward how change would be applied, particularly to combat units.

The announcement marked a shift from earlier in the year when Webb voted against repealing the policy.

In other news, Webb says he'll make a decision on whether or not to run for reelection "in the first quarter of next year." As was the case in December 2005 when I first met Webb, he continues to cite "the 'incredibly difficult process' of fundraising as one of the main issues affecting his decision." And, he adds, "If I'm not going to run we need to make sure we have a strong candidate who can." This should be interesting to watch...

UPDATE: A transcript of Sen. Webb's WTOP comments is on the "flip."

UPDATE #2: In other Webb-related news, check out this article on Webb's criminal justice commission legislation.

lowkell :: WTOP: "Sen. Webb could support overturn of 'Don't Ask'"
Sen. Webb: Let me talk about where we are on this proposed policy change because I've been involved with my position on the Armed Services Committee and I think there are some misperceptions about what this might do as opposed to what it will do if it's implemented effectively.

This question really is not about whether there would be or should be gays and lesbians in the military-they are already there-and it's not a question about whether anyone should be able to engage in inappropriate conduct if this law is adjusted.  It is about the fact that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law has created sort of a "Solomonesque" environment inside the military.

We have had the Secretary of Defense-who served in the Air Force and who also instituted a non-discrimination policy when he was at the CIA-come forward strongly and say that he believes this can work.  We've had the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs-who was a surface warfare officer who has served aboard all different types of ships and commanded fleets-say that he believes this should change.  We've had the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who is a Marine, say that he believes this law should be changed.  Most interestingly, Gen. Ham-who was an Army infantry officer, former enlisted, not an Academy graduate, who was the military person in charge of this extensive study, and who on religious grounds has difficulties with the notion of homosexuality-said that he believes that this change could take place and that it should.

When I first heard the testimony of Sec. Gates and Adm. Mullen last February when they were coming forward with a study, I said to them, "I want to make sure I'm hearing you right: you're saying we need to do this thorough study before you actually recommend that this law be changed?" And they agreed. And I spent a lot of time working with that study. We got 160,000 responses. There have been different readings of it, and clearly, there are different reactions.  We wanted to see that.  I've spent a good bit of time making sure we could hear from the different services, from the different ranks, and from the different occupational specialties.

As you mentioned there were variations in terms of [the Chief's] willingness to go along with this; the Marine Corps being the most hesitant. I asked Gen. Ham, "What is the percentage of the gays and lesbians in the military today?" He said it was about the same as in the general population-a little higher among the females, a little lower among the males-but about the same as the general population.  So I asked the Chiefs, "Are any of you saying that, other than because of conduct, those people who are now in the military who are gay or lesbian should leave?"  And not one of them said they should leave.

So the reality is that we are accepting the notion of gays and lesbians in the military, and the question becomes: what is the best way to protect the small units, which is what the Commandant of the Marine Corps is talking about in terms of cohesion, but also to allow people to live in an honest environment?  And I think we need to make adjustments from the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in order to do that.

Plotkin: Does that mean that you want the policy to change or should be exceptions in combat which are smaller units that have some affect on cohesion?

Sen. Webb: That's exactly the question that I left with the Chiefs, and it goes to what they call the certification process here, where the Secretary of Defense will certify that the policy can be lifted.  I asked the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the hearing, "Does that mean that you can certify with different units and in different time sequences in order to have this occur?" And he--as far as I'm going to interpret what he said--he agreed that you could do that.

There are units that are engaged right now in places in Afghanistan-there's not going to be some magic wand waved over them saying now we're going to take you guys out for sensitivity training.  My understanding is that they're going to do this in a very measured way, and if that is the case, then I will vote to go forward with this.

McConnell:  Senator, are you saying essentially that you're ready to vote for a change in Don't Ask, Don't Tell--

Plotkin:  With the exception of combat units.  It sounds like to me that you're against the change of policy when it comes to combat units.

Sen. Webb:  I believe that the certification process should take place with sensitivity toward the different challenges that they have, and I want to make sure that that is clear, and if it is clear, then I will vote to move forward with changing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Yeah - Like There are No Gays In Combat Now (0.00 / 0)
The stupid.  It is too bad that once it is known among the combat units there is a gay guy around they are all going to panic and pee their pants because by god American troops are too weak to deal with combat vets just like themselves.

I bet Webb spent his time never bending over in the shower because, well you never know when one of teh gay will cast a spell over you and you wake up gay.

U.S. troops are so weak they can't survive the gays who are already their buddies and fighting next to them?

Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke


What a completely silly and ignorant statement (0.00 / 0)
Webb's BEEN a combat officer and he grew up in the military and he still has very strong ties TO the military through both his family and his associations.  Can you say the same?  Have you ever been in combat, or even the military?  He's NOT saying that combat grunts will panic or pee their pants, and frankly it's quite offensive that you're painting his carefully worded statements in such a simple-minded way.  That's not the point at all.  What he's thinking of is the culture within a combat group, and the sense of trust which soldiers and Marines must have toward each other.  He's saying that introducing the notion of the openly gay colleague to combat infantry (an MOS which tends to attract the most testosterone-laden and conservatively minded recruits), will take a little bit of time.  A lot of these young guys come from small towns and grew up attending evangelical churches and learning through social interactions to believe that all gays are hell-bound poofy fairy-boys and cowards.  That perception is not going to change overnight.  He's not saying their perceptions are correct, but he already went through one war where combat infantry had to deal with their own perceptions of racial differences at a time when race riots were occurring quite often in military units.

You need to understand something here.  When soldiers or Marines have people in their units whom they believe may be untrustworthy or unreliable or just too different they can respond in pretty appalling fashion.  It can be downright dangerous if no groundwork is laid which both promotes the sense that command will have zero tolerance of such attitudes and that such attitudes are groundless.  The more gays and lesbians are seen to be serving openly and without any ill effect the more comfortable combat troops will be, but please disabuse yourself of the notion that all we have to do is fiat tolerance and harmony into existence.  Combat troops are special creatures and inhabit a different reality than anyone else.  Have you ever talked to anyone who's seen hard combat about what types of relationships they form with their fellow combat troops?  It's extremely intense.  Pre-existing notions about sexuality can complicate the picture and it's those notions which must be worked on and eventually eradicated through training and experience.  


[ Parent ]
Thank You! (0.00 / 0)
Thanks for your reasoned and accurate comments. My bet is that the silly comments you responded to so well come from someone who has never faced enemy fire or understands the need for absolute trust in a combat unit.

[ Parent ]
I have (0.00 / 0)
and that's bullshit. Nothing, and I mean nothing, takes the place of leadership. Regardless of the introduction of color, sex, and now sexual orientation. That dipstick Amos who is running like a nelly little girl at the sight of a gay man. What, want to take 10 to 15 years along with 20 or so surveys, then ask every soldier their wishes.  MAN UP and stop bull shiting and get the job done, recind DADT and move on.


[ Parent ]
And in your service you NEVER heard (0.00 / 0)
an NCO or officer say anything disparaging about gays?  You never heard comments about "fags" and "homos" and "dykes"?  I'd find that pretty hard to believe.  You are correct that the issue is one of leadership, and there are already many leaders among our military who've stepped up and addressed this issue as best they can without running afoul of this ridiculous policy; however, there are plenty more in this gigantic military of ours who have exactly the same attitudes as Amos or worse.  There are plenty of units which are led by homophobes and people ignorant or dismissive of gay rights or the abilities of gay/lesbian soldiers and Marines.  It doesn't take much for a leader to lead his people down the wrong path, as any brief perusal of some of the prosecutions of squads and troops gone wrong will tell you.  It's THESE people who either have to be brought on board or shown the door.  But first they have to be trained and educated to try to counter their poor attitudes.  

Just because there are gays and lesbians serving in the military right now doesn't mean they're all being welcomed with open arms or treated right.  I've talked to a number of gay/lesbian soldiers and Marines, some of whom were in combat units, and they have told me that there are places where they feel comfortable to let it be known who they are, and other places where they wouldn't dare and went to great pains to hide who they are. There's going to be a learning curve as there always is with some new change in policy.


[ Parent ]
Command Structure (0.00 / 0)
It comes from the top and starts with an order. The order basically reads "You will. . . and you will not. . .
and concludes with "signed General. . ."
The punishment can be a bad mark in your records or it can be a courts martial and discharge with less than honorable.

The military does not debate fine points.  It follows orders.
It does not matter which branch of the service it is, each and every soldier, sailor and Marine follows orders, that includes the generals. If the order is you will not discriminate then you will not discriminate. If you do not follow orders you will be punished.



Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke


[ Parent ]
No kidding (0.00 / 0)
I'm not debating that, but there's a huge gulf between simply delivering an order and giving the support to back up its intended result.  Look at the history of the integration of the armed forces.  It's not like Truman waved a wand and all of a sudden the issue was decided and there were no more problems.  The excellent results we see today actually took decades to effect.  I remember the racial antagonisms and even riots going on in the military during the Vietnam War.  There were problems and they took a while to resolve.  There are other issues to be considered which were not a real issue when racial integration occurred, which relate to the nature of the minority interest being addressed here.  Racial integration had to do with appearance and origin, whereas full integration of gays and lesbians must necessarily address the question of conduct.  BEING homosexual is not a matter of appearance, but of orientation, and the orientation is most clearly expressed by conduct.  This is a far more subtle and less clear cut issue than simply decreeing that from now on we will no longer discriminate against black people.  There are going to have be a lot of rules rewritten to accommodate the change in policy.  Military commanders can order their subordinates not to discriminate, and those subordinates can so order THEIR subordinates, but it's going to take some time to change the culture.

[ Parent ]
Gay Troops Are Already There (0.00 / 0)
Gay and Lesbian troops are already in combat squads. They are already out and fighting with the very soldiers and Marines that are supposed to have sensitivity problems if DADT is repealed.

In the current SW Asia wars I have friends and aquaintences who are gay and lesbian who have been wounded in combat - their units have requested they be returned to them as soon as they are fit.

The young men and women in the military, those doing the combat duty right now all have gay and lesbian friends. They know gays and lesbians who are with them. This is all units in the military.  Gays and lesbians are not strangers to them.

You are right, I was not in combat.  I was frozen for duty in Nam but it ended fast, before I was shipped in.

Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke


[ Parent ]
Good Point and... (0.00 / 0)
I never seem to see it mentioned but am I the only one concerned with how someone does his/her job?  If I were in a war zone, my first concern wouldn't be with whether a person was gay.  My big concern would be with how well he could shoot.  

[ Parent ]
How about this.. (0.00 / 0)
Unlike John McCain, when Webb said he'd be guided by the DOD study, he told the truth.

Exactly. (0.00 / 0)
Well said.

Follow me on Twitter.

[ Parent ]
Advertising

Donate to Blue Virginia

About
The purpose of Blue Virginia is to cover Virginia politics from a progressive and Democratic perspective. This is a group blog and a community blog. We invite everyone to comment here, but please be aware that profanity, personal attacks, bigotry, insults, rudeness, frequent unsupported or off-point statements, and "trolling" (NOTE: that includes outright lies, whether about climate science, or what other people said, or whatever) are not permitted and, if continued, will lead to banning. For more on trolling, see the Daily Kos FAQs. Also note that diaries may be deleted if they do not contain at least 2 solid paragraphs of original text; if not, please use the comments section of a relevant diary. For more on writing diaries, click here. Thanks, and enjoy!

P.S. You can contact us at lowell@raisingkaine.com and you can subscribe to Lowell's Twitter feed here. If you'd like to subscribe to Miles Grant's Twitter feed, click here. For Teacherken, click here. For Kindler, click here.

P.P.S. To see the Blue Virginia archive, please click here. To see the Raising Kaine archive, please click here. To see the Blue Commonwealth archive, please click here.



RSS Feed

Subscribe to Blue Virginia - Front Page


Powered by: SoapBlox