On Admiral Mike Mullen

by Pejman Yousefzadeh on February 3, 2010

[tweetmeme]

Good for him. Hopefully, the Chairman can bring the other Joint Chiefs around, and let people serve their country. We know that there are gays, lesbians and bisexuals serving in the military now. There is no reason whatsoever why that service shouldn’t be open, and the argument that things would go to Hell in a handbasket if gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are allowed to serve openly really cannot be made with a straight face.

I wrote about this issue back in 2005. Like Admiral Mullen, I stand by every one of my words on the matter as well.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/4SZNTV3MEY2RHUML7TOB7J52SQ John

    Are there any good arguments against allowing homosexuals/bisexuals to serve openly?

  • Pejman_Yousefzadeh

    Not from my standpoint, there aren't.

  • http://newledger.com Ben Domenech

    DADT has always been an inherently silly and hypocritical policy. I think the question, though, is one of timing: do we want to muck about with this by forcing all branches (which have very different attitudes on this — Mullen just being the latest example, and he's far more aggressive on it than Gates) to accept something forced through via the civilian side, in the midst of two wars? I think that's the primary reason McCain still opposes it, and it is clearly the reason the White House has requested Levin to hold off on hearings. This has less to do with ideological opinions, and more to do with the reaction of the Marines; Gen. Conway in particular is representative of this view.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/4SZNTV3MEY2RHUML7TOB7J52SQ John

    All due respect, but that seems intellectually dishonest. I think you very well know that there are, even if you don't agree with them.

  • Pejman_Yousefzadeh

    The question was whether there were good arguments. My answer–and this is an honest one–was that from my standpoint, there weren't. To his credit, my colleague, Ben Domenech, brings up very good questions about how best to implement a change, but there is no doubt in my mind that a change is needed, and that gays, lesbians, and bisexuals should be allowed to serve. If that seems “intellectually dishonest” to you, then I am afraid I cannot help you.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/4SZNTV3MEY2RHUML7TOB7J52SQ John

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the abolition of DADT and the allowance of bi- and homosexuals to serve openly in the military. However, I also am willing to admit that good arguments exist for maintaining the status quo and not allowing bi- and homosexuals to serve openly in the military. Not admitting of the existence of said arguments doesn't seem like intellectual dishonesty, it simply is intellectual dishonesty. Given that I've been reading and generally agreeing with you for a long time (when you still had a site on Blogger or whichever service it was), I don't think you're an intellectually dishonest person, so I can only chalk this up to your being a passionate advocate for your position. Which, you know, is fine.

  • Pejman_Yousefzadeh

    The question was whether there were good arguments. My answer–and this is an honest one–was that from my standpoint, there weren't. To his credit, my colleague, Ben Domenech, brings up very good questions about how best to implement a change, but there is no doubt in my mind that a change is needed, and that gays, lesbians, and bisexuals should be allowed to serve. If that seems “intellectually dishonest” to you, then I am afraid I cannot help you.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/4SZNTV3MEY2RHUML7TOB7J52SQ John

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the abolition of DADT and the allowance of bi- and homosexuals to serve openly in the military. However, I also am willing to admit that good arguments exist for maintaining the status quo and not allowing bi- and homosexuals to serve openly in the military. Not admitting of the existence of said arguments doesn't seem like intellectual dishonesty, it simply is intellectual dishonesty. Given that I've been reading and generally agreeing with you for a long time (when you still had a site on Blogger or whichever service it was), I don't think you're an intellectually dishonest person, so I can only chalk this up to your being a passionate advocate for your position. Which, you know, is fine.

Previous post:

Next post: