4:05PM
Adding the poofs doesn't turn Brit military into puffs

ARTICLE: "Gay Britons Serve in Military With Little Fuss, as Predicted Discord Does Not Occur," by Sarah Lyall, New York Times, 21 May 2007, p. A8.
The Brit Army is determine to keep its successful integration of openly gay soldiers low key, out of a desire not to lord over the Americans, who still see the issue in explosive terms (like our just re-appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Pete Pace).
There are now 24 militaries in the world, many of them traditional military allies, that allow gays to serve openly.
Reader Comments (3)
Gays serve honorably and with distinction--and have done so for as long as there has been a military establishment. They've been in the closet for most of history, but that is changing. Many, if not most, of the current crop of commanders are ignoring this policy MOST of the time. I knowingly ignored it when I was a squadron commander, and I had peers who did the same. We consciously chose NOT to pursue high-performing troops, when we knew that the conclusion of the pursuit would almost certainly be an administrative discharge.
Of course, applying the policy was and is a convenient way to get rid of a low-performing troop who happened to be gay. And there certainly are/were commanders who zealously applied the policy--but I believe they are a fast-shrinking minority.
It's time to admit reality and move on. There are much bigger issues to address--like an Army and USMC that are too small to do both Leviathan and SysAdmin functions, an AF and Navy that are inappropriately resourced, and a State Dept in seemingly perpetual spin cycle.
The maturity of Soldiers (especially the younger ones) on this issue would surprise many older generations. Truly no big deal.
They served just as loyally as I did. Discord didnt come from gay Soldiers in Iraq, it came from CSMs and O6s who were too busy playing politics to understand the reality of situtions we found ourselves in over and over again.