Who’s Fit for Duty Now?
A story in Wednesday’s Army Times reports that 75 percent of 17-24 year olds are ineligible to serve because they can’t meet basic standards. Most are overweight, don’t meet educational requirements, or have had run-ins with the law.
Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Shalikashvili said the problem is an unprecedented one that has serious implications for national security:
“‘We’ve never had this problem of young people being obese like we have today. We should be concerned about how this will impact this overstretched Army and its ability to recruit.'”
The military is so concerned that dozens of retired top brass and civilian Pentagon officials have formed a group (Mission Readiness: Military Leaders for Kids) to call for immediate action to improve the quality of the recruitment pool.
Yet under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” thousands of patriots – not only willing but qualified to serve – have been fired because they are gay or lesbian. It makes no sense. The young people who meet the very standards the military needs are being kicked out every day, even though sexual orientation has nothing to do with getting the job done. Up to two service members are discharged every day under DADT. Another 4,000 refuse to join or re-enlist each year because of this bad law.
Shalikashvili, who once defended DADT, now supports open service agrees that DADT is a further drain on an applicant pool in desperate need of young people who are fit for duty.
11-05-09 By Paul DeMiglio, Senior Communications Manager |
9 Comments
Comments for this entry are closed.martin in DC on November 15, 2009 at 01.18 pm
We are still seeing discharges, because OBAMA can’t come in and disregard the checks and balances. Again this has to be handled and repaired by the congress. They are the ones who developed DADT.
Also, though Obama is against DADT we have to be sure the majority is still behind the repeal and we trust that to our members of congress. A congressional representative is not tasked with representing his views but those of the majority of the persons he represents.
Though a representative might agree with the repeal, his state or district might have a strong resistance to homosexuals serving.
It is important that we as a community represent ourselfs in both a respectfull manner and a rational manner so as to educate the voting population.
Though it is a frustrating situation for our great country we must remain calm. No one wants to side with a radical
Brian Curran in Damariscotta, Maine on November 13, 2009 at 09.00 am
What is the most shocking to me is that discharges under DADT continue under the Obama administration despite his campaign pledge and the Democratic Party Platform plank to end DADT.
Does anyone know how many discharges under DADT have taken place since Obama assumed office?
Calen C Chrzan in Fort Worth, TX on November 10, 2009 at 06.50 am
Media Campaigns cost a lot of money to produce. You mentioned Steven Green funny I think that he was stationed at Ft. Bliss, TX the base that also had Pvt. Apodaca, the drug cartel hitman. Also the Army took back a soldier who spent a year in a Florida prison for statutory rape. Ironically he’s stationed at Ft. Hood, TX His case was a little more complex though as the girl’s father had him prosecuted for something he and the daughter said was consential.
I also read in the Chicago Tribune how police departments have complained how gangbangers in the military have supplied heavy weapons back to their fellow gang members. One gang member and murderer from Millwaukee, WI almost enlisted in the Marine Corps but fortunately someone caught that.
Mike Gorman in Stockton, Ca on November 09, 2009 at 07.33 pm
Has anyone considered a media campaign? I don’t see any commercials telling how bad this policy is. A nice 30 sec. spot on how gang members, addicts, and felons are allowed in on “moral waivers”. I don’t think Americans know how Steven Green raped and killed that Iraqi girl and her family while two of his buddies kept watch. That guy seriously got out of jail (underage alcohol possession in TX.) and enlisted in the Army practically the same day. I think “Unfriendly Fire” mentioned that 2% of enlisted personnel have gang affiliation.
SSgt_For_Equal_Rights on November 06, 2009 at 01.30 pm
Sharon, you are so right about the irony that the military lets those serve who have a questionable mental status (or drug problem), yet they will fire those with impecable records just because they are LGB. Tell your daughter to hold on another year, the ban will be lifted. Her patriotism at such a young age is so honorable, and the USMC would be lucky to have her. At least when she joins after the ban’s lifted, she will not have to serve as a “second-class citizen”.
Sharon Flanigan in Pennsylvania on November 06, 2009 at 12.09 pm
I have an 18 year old daughter that has dreamed of being a marine since she was 12 years old. She has gone through all the testing and enlisting and was at the final signing when she was asked to do a psych eval, and weeks later was told she was disqualified due to her sexual orientation. Her hopes and dreams are destroyed, and now the only hope she has is for our president to obolish the DADT. Meanwhile, we have to listen to the news of our milatary personell killing other personel, and other service men and women that are corrupt. Then we have perfectly qualified men and women who have high scores on their testing, as well as a dream to only serve our county and be proud soliders, and they cannot due to their sexual orientation. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY???
Calen C. Chrzan in Fort Worth, TX on November 05, 2009 at 11.49 pm
SSGT and Mike , the Army fired a person working on a drug interdiction unit who was gay while keeping a hit man for a drug cartel working in a patriot missle unit at Ft. Bliss, Tx. Like Duh.
Mike Gorman in Stockton, Ca on November 05, 2009 at 04.46 pm
I would be really surprised if that happened. Considering Armed Forces zero tolerance policy, a dishonorable discharge would bar him from re enlisting. And I say if that guy gets in the Army, go to the press. I would think millions of Americans would curious to know why the Army is welcoming an addict into their ranks.
SSgt_For_Equal_Rights on November 05, 2009 at 04.28 pm
I know a Marine who is getting discharged because he’s used meth and marijuana and popped positive for both. He lost custody of his children as result also, and was diagnosed with Alcohol Abuse to top it off. He is not too worried because he already has a slot lined up with the Army to enlist the day after he’s discharged from the Marine Corps. Now, what is so offensive to me is that the U.S. Army will take someone with documented drug and alcohol abuse into their ranks with open arms, and will refuse someone simply based on their sexual orientation. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE? They would rather have a drug addict than a gay, lesbian, or bisexual. How sad is this concept?