Obama to call for repeal of DADT in State of the Union

[aneeshm]

Mobby: It's only going to be a big battle if Republicans make it into one. 70% of Americans support repealing DADT, so it should be a snap.

I don't care about 70% Americans, or any other number. The relevant opinions are those of the psychologists who have studied the dynamics of army units, and what effect they think this will have, along with the results of studies conducted on similar groups to see what effects it actually did have. What percentage of them think that this is a good idea? What does the evidence suggest is a better policy? And what about the opinions of those within the military, who will be affected by this policy? Aren't their informed opinions worth much more than the politico-religious affirmation of faith in the party line of the uninformed and irrelevant masses?

 

[RedRalph]

I don't care about 70% Americans, or any other number. The relevant opinions are those of the psychologists who have studied the dynamics of army units, and what effect they think this will have, along with the results of studies conducted on similar groups to see what effects it actually did have. What percentage of them think that this is a good idea? What does the evidence suggest is a better policy? And what about the opinions of those within the military, who will be affected by this policy? Aren't their informed opinions worth much more than the politico-religious affirmation of faith in the party line of the uninformed and irrelevant masses?

No, not in a democracy. The people are sovereign.

 

[aneeshm]

No, not in a democracy. The people are sovereign.

For certain decision structures, democracy may work well. For professional decision-making, it's an awful system, specially when those given voting rights are uninformed about that profession. The most egregious example is economics, but you have others, such as mathematics, when some state in the US almost passed a law decreeing that pi was defined to be exactly equal to three. This decision should not be taken on the basis of some ridiculous morality play, but on the basis of what effects this policy will have on the effectiveness of the US army as a military force.

If studies show that it will have no effect, there is no problem with letting the voters decide. If it does have an effect, however, as assessed by those in the know (psychologists who have studied the dynamics of group psychology and behaviour under the given conditions), along with those with experience in military management (the command staff), then it should be left to the professional judgement of those responsible for that military management.

In a nutshell: what is the length of the nose of the emperor of China?

 

[RedRalph]

This is a social issue, and the military in the US is part of society, thus they will defer to civillians on this. Sure, a majority of US public opinion saying that Abrams' tanks should be painted pink should be ignored. But this isn't a technical decision, its a human rights issue, so frankly, it's tough luck if the military doesn't like it.

 

[Camikaze]

For certain decision structures, democracy may work well. For professional decision-making, it's an awful system, specially when those given voting rights are uninformed about that profession. The most egregious example is economics, but you have others, such as mathematics, when some state in the US almost passed a law decreeing that pi was defined to be exactly equal to three. This decision should not be taken on the basis of some ridiculous morality play, but on the basis of what effects this policy will have on the effectiveness of the US army as a military force.

Did you just compare someone attempting to legislate that pi = 3 with someone trying to repeal a highly discriminatory rule? Because this paragraph makes it appear as if you did just that. And quite clearly, the two are in no way comparable. One is idiocy. The other is decency.

 

[aneeshm]

This is a social issue, and the military in the US is part of society, thus they will defer to civillians on this. Sure, a majority of US public opinion saying that Abrams' tanks should be painted pink should be ignored. But this isn't a technical decision, its a human rights issue, so frankly, it's tough luck if the military doesn't like it.

The problem, as I see it, is that it has technical aspects better handled by those qualified. Or it may not have technical aspects. Or it may. The problem is, we don't know. And until we do, the argument isn't based on the merits of anything, it's essentially religious. Only once the technical pros and cons are clear should the decision-making process proceed.

 

[RedRalph]

The problem, as I see it, is that it has technical aspects better handled by those qualified. Or it may not have technical aspects. Or it may. The problem is, we don't know. And until we do, the argument isn't based on the merits of anything, it's essentially religious. Only once the technical pros and cons are clear should the decision-making process proceed.

No, it's a rights issue. Even if the army says it would be bad for morale, tough. They probably said the same things about mixed-race regiments, and the precedent was set.

 

[aneeshm]

Did you just compare someone attempting to legislate that pi = 3 with someone trying to repeal a highly discriminatory rule?

Yes, I did. In both cases, a majority of uninformed, fanatical, and closed-minded people with voting rights rode (or will ride) roughshod over the judgement of those actually qualified to make such a judgement.

Because this paragraph makes it appear as if you did just that.

The appearance is correct; I did that, and that's why it appears that I did that.

And quite clearly, the two are in no way comparable. One is idiocy. The other is decency.

They may well be; I don't like metaphysical arguments. But they're still uninformed, fanatical, religiously-motivated, unqualified, and thoroughly unprofessional types of idiocy or decency. The actual effects of the implementation of the given policy, and the opinions of those qualified to judge whether or not it is good, along with those affected, are not in the picture; instead, we have a bunch of people who want to feel morally good about themselves dictating the structure of military policy without any regard to how it will impact the military itself. This strikes me as the same level of insanity as attempting to dictate mathematical truths (with no input from mathematicians).

 

[aneeshm]

No, it's a rights issue. Even if the army says it would be bad for morale, tough. They probably said the same things about mixed-race regiments, and the precedent was set.

This in no way indicates that what was done was correct. Have there been studies conducted of whether not morale was actually hit after forced integration? Have there been studies of the long-term effects of that change? In general, has there been any independent verification of the soundness of that decision?

If not, and if you still insist that it was correct, then you're effectively saying that:

a) The impact on a decision on an institution and its effectiveness is irrelevant when contrasted against the moral imperative of the voters to "feel good" about having made the "right" choice, this choice being whatever is dictated by their political religion, and
b) That the voters have power, the military does not, and that this power will be exercised over and above the judgement of qualified professionals, and that there need not be any basis whatsoever for the voters' decisions, because power justifies all things.

This is not a criticism, by the way - the above is a perfectly self-consistent stance.

 

[Camikaze]

The difference lies in the fact that human rights trump efficiency and effectiveness of a particular government sector. Dictating mathematical truths without input from mathematicians is clearly, clearly, going to be horrifically bad on a number of levels; pi makes the world go round. But even if you assume that they are going to be problems caused by the repeal of DADT, then they are not nearly going to be as colossal as those that would be caused by assuming that pi = 3. Some administrative work, maybe, some disciplinary work, possibly, but overall it won't be that bad.

Now, perhaps we want to consider it as positive microeconomic reform. There may be a problem with efficiency and effectiveness of the armed forces in the interim period as the rule changes over (and this will hence mean a worse cost-effectiveness of the military), but in the long run, it will allow for an expansion of the labour pool available to the military for its use, thereby increasing quality and decreasing price, and the problems will largely disappear. And that's not even close to the major focus of it.

 

[RedRalph]

You are missing the point.

I'm saying that regardless of the technical effetcs, its a human rights issue. So even if study shows it will have a negative effect, that doesn't matter because it's a human right.

As you are questioning the correctness of racial integration in the army, I suspect that we are not going to see eye-to-eye on this no matter what. How you can even think that is up for debate in this day and age is beyond me.

 

[aneeshm]

The difference lies in the fact that human rights trump efficiency and effectiveness of a particular government sector.

In that case, we simply disagree on fundamentals. At this point, I think it's better we agreed to disagree.

(Though this case is debatable, because I do not think that there exists a right not to be discriminated against; I am in favour of the freedom of association.)

Dictating mathematical truths without input from mathematicians is clearly, clearly, going to be horrifically bad on a number of levels; pi makes the world go round.

Of course.

But even if you assume that they are going to be problems caused by the repeal of DADT, then they are not nearly going to be as colossal as those that would be caused by assuming that pi = 3. Some administrative work, maybe, some disciplinary work, possibly, but overall it won't be that bad.

I am neither for nor against DADT or its repeal, because I do not consider myself qualified to make this judgement. What I was objecting to was the manner in which the decision was being made. For all I know, the policy may be good; conversely, it may be very bad. But these words hold meaning only insofar as they impact the effectiveness of the military, and the only people who can make a call on something like that are the ones responsible, and, to a lesser extent, the ones affected.

Now, perhaps we want to consider it as positive microeconomic reform. There may be a problem with efficiency and effectiveness of the armed forces in the interim period as the rule changes over (and this will hence mean a worse cost-effectiveness of the military), but in the long run, it will allow for an expansion of the labour pool available to the military for its use, thereby increasing quality and decreasing price, and the problems will largely disappear. And that's not even close to the major focus of it.

As I said, I do not consider myself qualified to judge, so I will simply refrain. Maybe you're right, maybe you're not. I don't know. I'm saying that this is not a decision which I can make, and that it should be left to those who can can make it.

 

[aneeshm]

You are missing the point.

I'm saying that regardless of the technical effetcs, its a human rights issue. So even if study shows it will have a negative effect, that doesn't matter because it's a human right.

As I said in the previous post, let's agree to disagree. You've made your stance clear, and so have I. Because we disagree on fundamentals, I think it's better this way. Now, this case is a debatable one (for the reasons I stated above; there can well exist a rights-based defence of DADT), but in general I don't want to go there, because I simply don't think such discussion is productive.

As you are questioning the correctness of racial integration in the army, I suspect that we are not going to see eye-to-eye on this no matter what. How you can even think that is up for debate in this day and age is beyond me.

Again, as I said before, I do not know whether racial integration was the right or wrong decision, simply because I'm not qualified. I would have left the decision to the people actually responsible.

 

[Karalysia]

We have civilian control over the military for the reason. Because we don't want the military making the decisions nor should they be able to. Come on Von Clausewitz could see that.

The government has forced the military to allow blacks, to desegregate units, to allow women, it can force the military to allow homosexuals to serve openly like most other developed countries in the word.

 

[aneeshm]

We have civilian control over the military for the reason. Because we don't want the military making the decisions nor should they be able to. Come on Von Clausewitz could see that.

There is a difference between giving orders to the military and interfering with and attempting to micromanage its internal workings in bizarre ways just to feel good about yourselves.

The government has forced the military to allow blacks, to desegregate units, to allow women, it can force the military to allow homosexuals to serve openly like most other developed countries in the word.

Of course. It could force the military to include figure-skating as part of their training. It would simply be spectacularly ******** to do so. You're effectively saying that those who share your views are the ones, at the moment, with power, and you're going to use it for the enforcement of your views and political-religious code; the language ("forced") leaves no doubt on that front. Again, this is a perfectly consistent view to have, as long as you consider your personal feeling of moral righteousness the supreme virtue which trumps all, so please don't take this as a criticism, just an observation.

(By the way, the "women" part may actually serve to weaken your argument; women, taken as a group, make for notoriously, by any standard almost traitorously, bad soldiers.)

 

[PiMan]

(By the way, the "women" part may actually serve to weaken your argument; women, taken as a group, make for notoriously, by any standard almost traitorously, bad soldiers.)

[citation needed]

 

[Karalysia]

There is a difference between giving orders to the military and interfering with and attempting to micromanage its internal workings in bizarre ways just to feel good about yourselves.

The army and society are not separate. The army is derived from the people and society, and receives its mandate from the government. Homosexuals are people. Hence homosexuaual may join the army openly. We don't ask blacks to paint themselves white, we shouldn't ask homosexuals to hide the fact that they're homosexuals.

The US army has long been more progressive in racial issues then the rest of society when it came to allow blacks in fairly early on, and then de-segregating. However the army is dragging its feet when it comes to women and homosexuals. The purpose of the army is not just to engage in war, its purpose now include police action, relief efforts, and nation building.

Of course. It could force the military to include figure-skating as part of their training. It would simply be spectacularly ******** to do so. You're effectively saying that those who share your views are the ones, at the moment, with power, and you're going to use it for the enforcement of your views and political-religious code; the language ("forced") leaves no doubt on that front. Again, this is a perfectly consistent view to have, as long as you consider your personal feeling of moral righteousness the supreme virtue which trumps all, so please don't take this as a criticism, just an observation.

You continue to fail at understanding the army and society are not seperate.

(By the way, the "women" part may actually serve to weaken your argument; women, taken as a group, make for notoriously, by any standard almost traitorously, bad soldiers.)

Citation required. A misogynist in addition to a bigot apparently.

Moderator Action: Flaming
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[bhsup]

why not focus on stopping those soldiers from punching a guy for making a pass at them? i understand some need to prove their masculinity, but they should just think of it as an ugly girl hitting on them. no way they would act on it, but still a compliment.

If you think sexual assault is a compliment, you need to talk to some ladies and see how they feel about getting their backsides pinched.

Regarding DADT. It's going to get repealed someday. I view it as a historical inevitability. So regardless of my feelings on it, let's...er...GIT 'R DONE now.

 

[RedRalph]

Regarding DADT. It's going to get repealed someday. I view it as a historical inevitability. So regardless of my feelings on it, let's...er...GIT 'R DONE now.

And thus is exposedexemplified the difference between right-wingers who can accept reality and those who can't. Kudos to you.

 

[bhsup]

Oh, believe me, it's taken me awhile to come to this POV. I still don't personally think the military should be the front for social changes. In fact, given the nature of the beast it would normally be best for it the be the last to change. But...it is going to happen, there is no doubt in my mind. Everybody should realise this, so let's just do it and get the adjustment phase out of the way so our army can be standing proud and tall when the ChiComs come gunning for us.