--"Gays in Foreign Militaries," Armed Forces and Society, Palm Center at UCSB, Feb 2010
--"How Troops Really Feel about Gays Openly Serving," Military Times, Feb 2010
--"Attitudes of Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans Toward Gay and Lesbian Service Members," Armed Forces and Society, Palm Center at UCSB, Oct 2009
Key Points from the "Gays in Foreign Militaries" study:
1. Twenty-five nations now allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Uruguay
Put another way, of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 20 permit open lesbians, gays, or bisexuals to serve; of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, three (United Kingdom, France, and Russia) do so.
2. Level of homophobia exaggerated in foreign cases. In many of those countries, debate before the policy changes was highly pitched and many people both inside and outside the military predicted major disruptions. In Britain and Canada, roughly two thirds of military respondents in polls said they would refuse to serve with open gays, but when inclusive policies were implemented, no more than three people in each country actually resigned.
3. No negative long-term impact on readiness. Research has uniformly shown that transitions to policies of equal treatment without regard to sexual orientation have been highly successful. Of the twenty-five nations that dropped their bans none have experienced any negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness. No consulted expert anywhere in the world concluded that lifting the ban on openly gay service caused an overall decline in the military. There was still residual resentment, resistance laudable through grumblings in all-male unites about homosexual threats to unit morale.
4. No country has reversed the law. Early assessments by both military and independent analysts hold across time: none of the successes and gains of transitions to full inclusion were reversed by any of the nations studied, or yielded delayed problems over the years in which these militaries allowed openly gay service.
5. Additional societal benefits. In these other countries, evidence suggests that lifting bans on openly gay service contributed to improving the command climate in foreign militaries, including increased focus on behavior and mission rather than identity and difference, greater respect for rules and policies that reflect the modern military, a decrease in harassment, retention of critical personnel, and enhanced respect for privacy.
6. Swift and decisive implementation most effective. All the countries studied completed their implementations of repeal either immediately or within four months of the government’s decision to end discrimination. These experiences confirm research findings which show that a quick, simple implementation process is instrumental in ensuring success. Swift, decisive implementation signals the support of top leadership and confidence that the process will go smoothly, while a “phased-in” implementation can create anxiety, confusion, and obstructionism.
7. Top-cover is critical in transition/implementation. Two main factors contributed to the success of transitions to openly gay service: clear signals of leadership support and a focus on a uniform code of behavior without regard to sexual orientation. Also key are simple training guidelines that communicate the support of leadership, that explain the uniform standards for conduct, and that avoid “sensitivity” training, which can backfire by causing resentment in the ranks.
8. Not separate, but equal. None of the countries studied installed separate facilities for gay troops, nor did they retain rules treating gays differently from heterosexuals. Each country has taken its own approach to resolving questions of benefits, housing, partner recognition, and re-instatement. Generally, the military honors the status afforded to gay or lesbian couples by that country, and the military rarely gets out in front of the government or other institutions in the benefits offered.
9. No mass exodus or increased harassment at any level. Lifting bans on openly gay service in foreign countries did not result in a mass “coming out” at any level. Gay and lesbian troops serve in all levels of the armed forces of Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and Israel, in both combat and non-combat positions, at both the enlisted level and as high commanders.
10. Current law contradicts military bedrock values. Honesty and integrity are bedrock values of the military. How can we ask capable service members to be deceitful about their orientation and still uphold those values?
Other random factoids from the study:
- An estimated 66,000 lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals account for approximately 2.2% of military personnel.
- Approximately 13,000 LGB people are serving on active duty (comprising 0.9% of all active duty personnel) while nearly 53,000 are serving in the guard and reserve forces (3.4%).
- While women comprise only about 14% of active duty personnel, they comprise more than 43% of LGB men and women serving on active duty.
- Lifting DADT restrictions could attract an estimated 36,700 men and women to active duty service and 12,000 more individuals to the guard and reserve.
- Since its inception in 1994, the “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” policy has cost the military between $290 million and more than a half a billion dollars.
- The military spends an estimated $22,000 to $43,000 per person to replace those discharged under DADT.
This captures some of my thoughts on this subject...
Originally Posted by Boot
"A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, 
Bookmarks