For Hill staffers and DADT Policy stakeholders: I wanted to pass on my 5 top talking points for the upcoming 2010 DADT debate on repeal. If you would like additional resources just let me know. Included are the main message points, sub-points and justifications for being ranked at the top. The details are below -  here’s the list:

1.) Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is a failure
2.) We can stop losing good troops today
3.) Kick out bad troops for poor conduct
4.) Nat. Security is hurt by keeping DADT
5.) Most troops don’t care

5 Closing Arguments for DADT Repeal in 2010:

I. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is a failure

- DADT doesn’t make our military any better
- DADT doesn’t make our nation any safer
- DADT mandates lying as a condition of service

Reasoning:
- If DADT is a failure, then it implies inevitability of change, since maintaining failure is unacceptable.
- If DADT is a failure, then it allows for action this year, since we can’t continue a failed policy

II. We can stop losing good troops today

-  Keeping good troops is good policy
-  90% of DADT discharged troops receive honorable discharges
-  Open service will make the best military in the world better
-  Measures include DADT repeal and a moratorium on discharges

Reasoning:
- The “gay” argument is coming: that gays in the military will cause disruptions, force others to leave or not enlist and are such a small number that it isn’t worth the change.

- This position reinforces our stance that maintaining a policy which fires good, capable able-bodied troops is not acceptable.

III. Kick out bad troops for poor conduct

- Conduct is conduct whether service members are gay or straight, existing regulations apply
- Military standards should be the highest in the world and gay troops are among the very best

Reasoning:
- Gay service members have nothing to hide. Their service is good and honorable and all they are asking for is to do their job without needing to lie on the job or in their personal lives.
- This point addresses the Pentagon’s main opposition and proponents should reinforce that only proper conduct is tolerated by any service members.

IV. National Security is hurt by keeping DADT

- Human Intelligence personnel are key to American national security
- More than 800 “mission-critical” service members have already been discharged under DADT

Reasoning:
- This point goes on the offense and notes the real life implications of a ban based on discrimination.
- Yes, some will say gay service could be restricted by MOS, but that is an issue of conduct rules, not open service.

V. Most Troops Don’t Care

- 72% are personally comfortable with the presence of gays or lesbians in the military
- 69% know or suspect that someone is gay in their unit
- There has never been any evidence that says gays in the military harms unit cohesion or readiness
- Not in 1957 (Crittenden report)
- Not in 1988 (PERSEREC report)
- Not in 1993 (RAND report)
- Not in 2009 (RAND and Univ. Florida Report)
- Not from current Army Sec. McHugh
- Not in the Joint Force Quarterly

Reasoning:
- Most of what we hear about gays in the military negatively impacting unit cohesion is exaggerated, untrue or fantasy.
- This point addresses a fundamental fact, which is that gay troops are already there and straight troops know it – and don’t care.
- There has never been any independent evidence that openly gay troops in the military hurts the military or causes problems in unit cohesion. If there were concerns, then there should have been calls to ban joint operations with nations (like Britain, Israel, or Australia) that allow openly gay troops.