DADT Creates More Work to Replace Lost Talent
I am not impressed with Secretary Gates' response. It sounds like he wasn't ready for the question, but he did say "we will follow the law - whatever it is."
He then went on to say the military had a lot on it's plate.
Since when did having a lot of work have anything to do with being ready to do the job? Haven't 26 other nations proved what a non-issue this is?
It's the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law that creates more work. If I am senior enlisted in charge of 24-30 personnel, each with highly specialized training, losing just one of those sailors due to DADT puts more work on those who stay. That lost sailor's skills now have to be performed by others who didn't get the same training. That was professional training allotted in a quota to the command, now gone. It takes time to get that specialized quota filled, especially since that quota was planned in advance, and was expected to be filled for 3-5 years. The watches that lost sailor usually stood, have now been put on the backs of those who stay. What can't be counted is any extra work that sailor was handling-anything from working in the "pooled labor division", called Food Service Attendants onboard ship, to collateral duties, such as divisional career counselor, educational services, safety rep, you name it. Those that stay behind literally shoulder that work that HAS to be done, and go on. That also takes away from time those sailors could of have been spending with loved ones at home.
I am tired of hearing from the folks who are clearly out of touch with the deckplate leadership issues going on in the military. I think it is wrong to think that members of the military can't do the job. I happened to serve during the same time when females were first getting put on combatant ships, before and after the implementation of DADT, and the arguments tiredly sound the same.
Pass the new law, and watch it get executed faithfully. Don't make the military keep losing qualified personnel because of the current, intrinsically bad law.
04-01-09 By Lee Quillian, ETC (SW), USN (ret) |
2 Comments
Comments for this entry are closed.Calen Chrzan in Texas on April 03, 2009 at 09.21 am
Lee
Well stated I can also add the case of 8 USAF C17 loadmasters fired under DADT. It takes 1 Loadmaster per aircraft. That’s 8 aircraft without the proper skilled crew complement. That means the unit had to double up flying duities for the others who were left behind and probably had to get others transfered to the unit and the base to make up for the shortage in order to not compromise mission effectiveness which was already strained by the loss.
Michael Bedwell on April 02, 2009 at 05.06 pm
This reiterates why, when the Administration is paying so much attention to the federal budget and to better focusing “national security” through a variety of new approaches to the Mideast, that “there is something wrong with this picture.”
Let them hate us, there remains no “business case” nor “national security excuse” for perpetuating DADT one more minute. Perhaps the examination of the auto and banking industries should be expanded to the Defense Department.