Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS.
I'm listening to Sec. Gates and Adm. Mullen talk about repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell on C-SPAN, and they're a breath of fresh air given the commentary that has recently surrounded the decision to repeal DADT. So far, I've been reading a lot of assumptions and assertions amidst a conspicuous absence of hard data and research. On the one hand, Bill Kristol is saying the repeal of DADT will lead to military ineffectiveness. Now, the assumption that a repeal of DADT will lead to at least a short-term drop in unit cohesiveness or effectiveness sounds like a pretty reasonable assumption, but that assumption needs to be tested. On the other hand, Sen. Levin (who, as chairman of the SASC, knows a lot more about the U.S. military than Bill Kristol) is claiming a repeal of DADT will lead to greater unit effectiveness. That actually strikes me as being a bit of a stretch, but if by that he means more Arabic/Dari/Pashto linguists, yeah, okay, that makes sense. In the same way, supporters of the repeal claim that the younger generation of military servicemen could in general care less about serving with homosexuals. And that seems like a reasonable assumption as well given the fact that all American focus groups -- Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, church-goers, atheists -- are in favor of gays being allowed to openly serve in uniform, and the younger generation of Americans is generally more comfortable with the societal normalization of homosexuality than older generations.
Gates and Mullen, though, are calling for RAND to update their 1993 study on gays in the military (.pdf), and this is the right idea. (Mullen's remarks, in particular, have been laced with much-needed humility.) We need some hard research to support or challenge everyone's assumptions. Sen. McCain -- a man I greatly admire -- is sounding a more like a senator in a tough Republican primary race here than a guy listening to the policy preference of the American people. But he is fundamentally correct when he says that a review of DADT and gays in the military should have preceded any announced shift in the policy. He is also correct when he points out that -- unlike in the 1990s -- a repeal of the ban on homosexuals in the military would now demand a change in the law by Congress. (This I learned by reading this excellent article in Joint Forces Quarterly (.pdf) that you'll be hearing senators on both sides of this debate reference.)
But this leads me to my biggest gripe about this policy shift. I don't blame the Obama Administration nearly as much as I blame foot-dragging flag officers. Last year, I sat in on an on-the-record lunchtime talk with Gen. Casey, and the chief of staff of the U.S. Army was asked a point-blank question about the repeal of DADT. Gen. Casey kinda shrugged and said the U.S. Army would study the issue if and when the administration notified it of a change in policy.
No.
I cannot describe how upset I was by this incident -- not because I particularly care about DADT as an issue but because this kind of uniformed foot-dragging makes me angry. Anyone in defense policy circles -- and most especially the chief of staff of the Army -- could and should have anticipated a proposed change in DADT. The time, then, to have tasked RAND or IDA or CNA or whoever to analyze the policy and the greater issue of homosexuals in uniform should have been when Pres. Obama took office. I remember sitting at the table thinking, "Oh, give me a break, sir -- take some freaking initiative!"
Anyway, I do not intend to wade into the full morass that is DADT and homosexuals in the military. But I will say this: Congressmen and members of the public should pay less attention to the many retired flag officers (average date of commission: 1835) who oppose homosexuals openly serving in the U.S. military and should instead poll serving U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. That's who Laura Miller and RAND will be polling. Their opinions, when combined with the desired policy preferences of the greater U.S. public, should be what matters. I could care less what some dude who garrisoned Shanghai in 1932 thinks.
More reading:
Anticipating requirements is an important skill, and one would hope that a general officer had it.
Andrew - Appreciate the post, but can I offer a semantic suggestion for future discussions? Generally speaking, and certainly among gays, using the term "homosexuals" as a noun to refer to gay men and women comes across as pejorative and outdated - echoes of Anita Bryant here. Think of it as referring to "men" as "males" - it's got a disassociating character to it, basically referring to people as functions of some medical condition. My suggestion would be simply to say "gays and lesbians," or, in adjectivial form, "gay and lesbian" or "LGBT." Small point, but to me as a gay person reading this, the tone of the post, while generally sympathetic, came across as more grating than you probably intended.
Gates and Mullen, though, are calling for RAND to update their 1993 study on gays in the military (.pdf), and this is the right idea.
FWIW, Sen. Levin said in his opening statement that he and McCain have asked the DoD to update that study.
"On the one hand, Bill Kristol is saying the repeal of DADT will lead to military ineffectiveness."
Our military is not very effective anyway, as it has not won a real war since 1945 (Grenada don't count).
Peter, good job on advising everyone of the appropriate nomenclature. Homosexual is bad, gay is good. Make sure to repeat over and over.
Very Orwellian.
Did you see the Iraq Inquiry testimony yesterday given by the Rt Hon General the Lord Walker of Aldringham (Chief of the (British) General Staff (2001-Feb. 2003), Chief of the Defence Staff (May 2003-April 2006)), in which he described meeting Gen. Casey? And I quote:
Having said that, I saw George Casey as he reached his third year in Iraq. He was a broken man really.
Listening to the military personnel giving their testimony before the Inquiry is very interesting, both as such and to the extent that they discuss the American military, their relationships with the American military, etc. Good stuff. (Of course, the entire Iraq Inquiry is interesting to listen to, not just the military testimony.)
Can't wait for all the re-vamped Army mandatory EEO/Sexual Harassment classes..."If a gay male Soldier is staring at a straight male Soldier who is naked in the shower, it is not considered sexual harassment unless he stares for more than 5 seconds at a time"
previous statements from almost everybody indicated a consensus that nobody in power wanted to deal with DADT while there was a war on. apparently whatever concerns people had about distraction and disruption are now secondary to scoring political points on the left. not that i oppose ending DADT myself but the nature of the recent shifts seems kind of lame and explains the wrong-footing here, i think.
saying we need to poll anybody - the US general population, the US military, whatever - is not really getting the point. the point is not the mean or median level of acceptability, it's folks out there in the lowest percentiles, folks who probably aren't in the kind of units you CNAS guys used to hang out in. there are folks out there who will cause violent problems in the ranks if you don't manage this right, and the question is when the leadership at all levels will be ready to head it off and handle it. this may take some time, which doesn't mean it shouldn't start right now (or years in the past for that matter), but it does mean that it's a lot more than just changing a law.
and speaking of the leadership, you DO have to care what dinosaurs think, because if the CSM or CMDCM is a guy who thinks it's just fine to beat the crap out of gay people, you've got a big problem, right? a whole lot of evangelicals when you get up into the higher ranks and rates, E and O alike.
Nemesis writes:
"Can't wait for all the re-vamped Army mandatory EEO/Sexual Harassment classes..."If a gay male Soldier is staring at a straight male Soldier who is naked in the shower, it is not considered sexual harassment unless he stares for more than 5 seconds at a time"
I think any gay male who looks more than 500 milliseconds is being a little rude. More than 5 seconds might start a fight. At ten seconds, they'd be dating.
Although I believe DADT is stupid, this had me scratching my head...
Congressmen and members of the public should pay less attention to the many retired flag officers (average date of commission: 1835) who oppose homosexuals openly serving in the U.S. military and should instead poll serving U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. That's who Laura Miller and RAND will be polling. Their opinions, when combined with the desired policy preferences of the greater U.S. public, should be what matters. I could care less what some dude who garrisoned Shanghai in 1932 thinks.
Really? Poll Joe and see what he thinks about the policy? Then base your conclusions off of that?
Wonderful idea. Really. I can't imagine what the next policy initiative suggested by Joe will be. Any ideas?
"We need some hard research."
I'm sorry to say this, but LOL!
Can't wait for all the re-vamped Army mandatory EEO/Sexual Harassment classes..."If a gay male Soldier is staring at a straight male Soldier who is naked in the shower, it is not considered sexual harassment unless he stares for more than 5 seconds at a time"
Can we PLEASE get past the "I-don't-want-to-shower-with-someone-who-might-be-gay" argument? It's so adolescent. Grow up, please.
"I could care less what some dude who garrisoned Shanghai in 1932 thinks." Careful Abu M...80 years from now people might say they could care less what a former Army officer with a blog thinks about the U.S. military/COIN/etc. Don't be so dismissive of people just because they are older than you.
RWL: I think the reason they're polling "Joe" is because one of the primary concerns of those who are for DADT is that admitting gays would disrupt "unit cohesiveness." If it turns out that Joe doesn't care about serving next to a gay man or lesbian then that's useful information. If they start polling Joe on long-term strategy issues though I can agree we have a problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTwq1_9VH68&feature=player_embedded#
What about women in direct combat at the same time? If I've read my law right, there's no actual legislation banning women from direct combat. Thorny issue, I know, but it's been segueing that way for a while now. Might as well make it official if there's open discussion about repealing DADT.
Radical suggestion. How about studying how the British, Israeli, German, Australian, etc militaries managed this transition.
HRH,
I see the reasoning, just not the logic. Either repealing DADT is the right thing to do or it isn't. Once the decision is made, the professionals will fall in line. For those that don't appreciate it? Thanks for serving. Here's a nice parting gift. It's interesting to see the parallels drawn to President Truman desegregating the military. Did we poll the Joes back then? I doubt it. If we did, I'd guess the majority at the time didn't fall on the right side of the debate. Maybe I'm wrong.
Mr. Exum encourages GEN Casey to lead but then punts on supporting leadership itself. Who the hell cares what Joe thinks-- repealing DADT is the right thing to do. And I say this as a former Joe who could complain with the loudest of them.
The US military has won plenty of wars in the post-World War 2 era. It's *occupations* that have been less than successful to the say the least.
Mr. Exum--bingo. Nailed it. Speaking of nailing, I'm looking forward to the next update of 7-8/21.8... "NO BUGGERY AT THE LP/OP"
Visitor@3:41pm....It's just a little bit of sarcasm, get over yourself and relax...anyone whose spent some REAL time in the Military, especially in a leadership position, can appreciate the fun that mandatory briefings bring to a training week.
As for my personal opinion, I think polling Joe would be a waste of time, as many have noted, the whims of Joe change from unit to unit and MOS to MOS. The Combat Arms Soldiers will be heavily against it. The support Joes won't care as long as it doesn't interfere with their smoke/coffee breaks...The Navy is already full of queers...The zoomies don't care about this, as long as the A/C is running and they still get 3 hot meals a day....The Marines will definately throw a fit...God Bless em.
You can repeal DADT, but you're going to have to implement DOD policies that still prevent homosexuals from serving in certain types of units for the forseeable future. Also, what works in the Israeli/European militaries, etc is not necessarily what is best for the US...every situation is different and dynamic, COIN fanatics should be able to appreciate that.
Gay and lesbians are already serving and have done so for centuries frankly. The question is whether they'd be an unwelcome disruption to a military at war already. Lets face it, many of the people who serve are of a certain Republican persuasion of rural and southern areas that haven't had much interaction with openly gay people, you know, the Sarah Palin loving types. Are they ignorant, yes, but they are willing to fight. If enough gay people are willing to step up and fill in when an exodus happens, then I'm all for it.
As far as a correlation with women serving in combat alongside men, ah NO. As a military spouse, I'm leery of women being around my husband even in a "support" role. And yes, they are a distraction. If we make an Amazon brigade, all for it, but women and men serving together really hasn't worked and no one has really acknowledged that fact openly. Just ask all the ex-spouses of 7th SFG or 1st SFG guys who always find "new" wife while down range, locals usually, but some ignorant PFC "support" females are in there too. And no, they never prosecute the bastards even though it is against the UCMJ.
Can someone please explain to me why it would be OK for "gays" and "straights" to sleep and shower together in the armed forces -- but it is not OK for men and women, generally, to sleep and shower together in the military?
If one does not have to worry about "gays" doing something "wrong" or causing some kind of problem in these circumstances of significant sexual provocation (sleeping and showering with those one might be sexually attracted to), then why would one need to worry about males and females, generally, sleeping and showering together in similar circumstances?
Are "gays" much better able to control themselves in these instances of exceptional sexual provocation? If so, why and can someone point to the appropriate definitive and comparative studies.
If we do not permit males and females, generally, to sleep and shower together, then there are reasons for this (basic considerations of privacy and the belief that these exceptional sexual provocations will likely lead to problems re: morale, order, discipline, combat readiness and mission accomplishment).
Why are we prepared to "waive" this logic and these considerations re: "gays" in the military -- but are not prepared forego these issues and this rational re: men and women, generally, who serve in the United States Armed Forces?
Stated another way:
a. If it is now going to be "a condition of military service" that one must sleep and shower together -- with members of the same sex -- who may be very sexually attracted to you,
b. Then why is is not "a condition of military service" that one must sleep and shower together -- with members of the opposite sex -- who may be very sexually attracted to you?
Why is it believed that Situation "a" above WILL NOT hurt morale, discipline, order, combat readiness and mission accomplishment,
But believed that Situation "b" WILL hinder military operations and compromise national security?
Visitor@6:28pm....Man, you gotta be careful making so many logical points and following a commen sense train of thought on this topic or people that are otherwise logical/full of common sense, except when the situation goes against their liberal tendencies, will crush you with insults and other denigrating remarks that allude to you being ignorant and not "open" enough...perhaps even compare you to some kind of "redneck southern inbred" that is so "stupid" he'll willingly die for his country.
Given changing attitudes toward gays in American society, isn't this change coming regardless? Isn't the argument AM making, partially, that you might as well have the data collected and studied - and be fully prepared for a, likely, demographic inevitability? That is how I read this post, but maybe I got it wrong.
Nemesis: I don't like that "ignorent red neck" stuff either. Weird to call someone out for bigotry, and then engage in a different sort of stereotyping.
Sorry...but many people who serve in the military are from rural and southern areas and they have not had much interaction with openly gay people and therefore are very uncomfortable serving around them and many of them are frankly ignorant and very bigoted. But, unlike most of the liberals who are pushing for the repeal of DADT, they are willing to serve. So, until more "liberally" minded people are willing to step up and join the military and change the mindset from within... I say don't rock the apple cart in the middle of a war.
Well, I guess I deserved that for trying to be fair and defending my more rural and southern friends, even as I understand what DADT means for my gay friends.
Thanks "madhu." I'm outta here again....
On this issue I turn to West wing and the sage words of teh character Admiral Fitzwallace [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff].
MAJOR TATE - Sir, we're not prejudiced toward homosexuals.
FITZWALLACE - You just don't want to see them serving in the Armed Forces?
MAJOR TATE - No sir, I don't.
FITZWALLACE - 'Cause they oppose a threat to unit discipline and cohesion.
MAJOR TATE - Yes sir.
FITZWALLACE - That's what I think too. I also think the military wasn't designed to be an instrument of social change.
MAJOR TATE - Yes sir.
FITZWALLACE - The problem with that is that what they were saying to me 50 years ago. Blacks shouldn't serve with Whites. It would disrupt the unit. You know what? It did disrupt the unit. The unit got over it. The unit changed. I'm an admiral in the U.S. Navy and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff...Beat that with a stick. [to Ken] We'll see you, Ken. [leaves]
The US Military must be adaptive. The new generation of serving enlisted men and women certainly are.
'As a military spouse, I'm leery of women being around my husband even in a "support" role.'
If you're concerned that your husband will cheat on you with female soldiers, the problem is your husband, not the female soldiers. What would you do, eliminate 20% of the armed forces? Never deploy them? Their jobs are more important than your concerns about affairs.
'If it is now going to be "a condition of military service" that one must sleep and shower together -- with members of the same sex -- who may be very sexually attracted to you'
It has already been a condition. Homosexuals have been serving in the military all along. Are there many problems with straight soldiers showering and sleeping with gay soldiers presently? Why would that change once DADT is eliminated? Those serving in the British and Israeli militaries have managed to overcome this issue -- I'm certain the US is capable of the same.
Visitor-9:36
I'm leery for a variety of reasons, but not because of my husband cheating on me. Why don't you ask the men who were with Shoshana Johnson and Jessica Lynch on that ill-fated convoy on what they thought about them being there? They were "support" right? Johnson didn't even know how to use a weapon and ended up shooting herself in the foot and Jessica Lynch was basically frozen. It was the men in that unit that did the fighting, although they were "support" soldiers. Sorry, I don't need a weak female near my husband when they are in the middle of a firefight. Like I stated before, if we were serious about having women in a combat role, we need an Amazon brigade filled with "support" females. AND, the women have to meet the SAME standards as the men to be in those roles.
Visitor @9:36pm, et. al.
Very simple questions:
If gays in the military can sleep and shower together -- with same-sex individuals they are likely to be very sexually attracted to -- with no significant problems for the US military,
Then why can't straights in the military sleep and shower together -- with members of the opposite sex who they are likely to be very sexually attracted to -- with no signficant problems for the US military?
And why, accordingly, can't the military -- as with blacks in the earlier era -- simply adapt to both of these new scenerios?
What's with all of these comparisons with the Brits and Israelis? Have their pro-homosexual policies helped them?
The Brits were overmatched in Basra and the Israelis got pushed out of South Lebanon (for the 2nd time). Hardly worth emulating.
Will there be a White Paper coming out answering the most basic of questions--
KY
Jelly
His & Hers
Whether KY His & Hers will be as pleasurable for our Gay soldiers, Marines, sailors, airpersons and reservists?
"Why don't you ask the men who were with Shoshana Johnson and Jessica Lynch on that ill-fated convoy on what they thought about them being there?"
Why don't you ask the men who served with SGT Leigh Ann Hester? Or PFC Monica Brown?
I'm curious to know if these items could have saved those individuals who died at FOB Chapman?
http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4208
Argon ST, Inc., Fairfax, Va., is being awarded a $23,838,548 firm-fixed-price contract for 28 Cerberus units and associated spares for deployment in support of operational forces abroad. Cerberus is a portable, self sustaining, integrated tower developed to provide persistent ground surveillance system for perimeter defense for the Forward Operating Bases. Work will be performed in Newington, Va., (90 percent) and Orlando, Fla., (10 percent) and is expected to be completed in December 2011. Contract funds in the amount of $20,371,498 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.3. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, N.J., is the contracting activity (N68335-10-C-0110).
I'm glad someone pointed out that the people calling for tolerance are flaming bigots themselves.
For those people who have very short and selective historical memories, the inbred rural rednecks you are referring to invariably as Republican were Democrats from the party's inception in the 1830's until quite recently.
Yes you arrogant thieving urban yuppie swine who want to f*ck everything that moves, that being the one Liberty your interested in keeping (like that bigoted swipe?) they have been voting Republican lately. Of course. When the other party openly triumphs bigotry against your group and accuses you of incest as a matter of course, oh and shits all over your God, yeah you're most likely to vote for the other guy. Please oh Liberal ones stop bitching about hate crimes and stereotyping, that being your methods of gaining office, governing, and getting promotions or out of trouble. You will find that gaining by identity group politics ends being governing by stereotype. Witness Reid, Byrd or Clinton on race.
Please refer to them as "LGBT". Otherwise you might come off as grating.
Thanks Peter for confirming worst case scenario right out the gate. "T" of course = Trans-gender. BTW Peter we routinely refer to men in the military as males, and women as females. For PC reasons as well. *
[*if you're not a troll, you should be]
Can't wait for the much maligned here "Joe's" to figure out the way outta UCMJ, being flagged or other troubles is to accuse their superior's of sexual harassment - in this case they can claim victimization from a couple of different angles.
This is a tried and true tactic that the Military's "females" have down to a science. If I can call them females. People who have only served in superjock unit's probably aren't familiar with this tactic, but it's old news in the intergrated units.
People shouldn't care what someone who garrisoned Shanghai in 1932 thinks: but we should care about your service?
The people who garrisoned Shanghai in 1932: introduced us to Mao and his teachings on warfare, won WW2, and went on to fight very tough enemies to a draw in Korea. Enemies much tougher than the ones we face. It would be more honest to say you could care less about the opinions of anyone who disagrees with Liberal Dogma. Fine, it's your blog.
If the gay community in the military thinks they won today, they're wrong. If you get want you think you want, ya know what? Everything you now achieve you only got because you played the card to get ahead. Now that's in the unlikely case you don't get left standing humiliated at the altar again - which is quite likely. Oh and if we lose - I mean the war, it's easy to forget? Your fault. You are being quite as used and discarded as a matter of Dem policy. It quite reminds me of the situation the Right to Life movement faces with the Repubs. If you don't mind the comparison to those racist, inbred, Christian rednecks.
Here's to tolerance. F*ck it!!
Milk Hatred,
I really don't give a shit if you're in the military. If you are, I don't respect your service. If you don't respect the principles of the Constitution you're sworn to uphold, you're just a fucking serial killer playing dress up in a uniform.
It was shit like you that murdered Allen Schindler, and shit like you belongs in prison.
Wow, I thought nothing could exceed Israel-Palestine in terms of vitriol. But as is so often (always?) the case, I was wrong.
ADTS
It would be nice to see Mr Exum respond to Visitor 6:28's point. Then again that would probably be too much to ask for our favorite Celebrity Pundit.
Yawn. Bored with this laughable comments section.
Andrew is too beltway saavy to get down in the weeds and actually give an honest opinion on this along with his views on Visitor628's point.
This thread is representative of the type of arguments and insult hurling we are going to see over the next few years. One counter argument that holds no water is the comparison between this and allowing people of color into white units. That is a really bad comparison, this isn't' about integration.
The affect on good order/discipline argument that we should be looking at is more closer to the same debate over women serving in certain fields and the affect sexual tension/intrigue brings to a unit that should be focused on the mission and killing the enemy(COIN is just a tactic my friends, full spectrum operations and actually killing the enemy instead of just PopCOIN protecting the population is still going to be a way of warfare until man somehow has a wholesale DNA change). The woman factor still hasn't been solved 60 years later but at least its been isolated from combat units and now we want to bring open homosexuality into the mix?
Also, why are we comparing ourselves to the Israeli and British militaries? Certainly there are things I admire about those organizations, but there are also several problems with them too. Looking to them as some kind of role model is laughable. While we study what Joe thinks here in the US, let's also do some studies on the combat effectiveness of the Brits these days.
Re: Comment by ADTS on February 3, 2010 - 4:00am
Just imagine what a thread about gay Palestinians and Israelis would look like.
"No.
I cannot describe how upset I was by this incident -- not because I particularly care about DADT as an issue but because this kind of uniformed foot-dragging makes me angry. Anyone in defense policy circles -- and most especially the chief of staff of the Army -- could and should have anticipated a proposed change in DADT. "
Celebrity Pundit Exum certainly excells at making ranting judgements on his blog but this post in particulur comes across as quite arrogant considering his extensive four years of service, none of which featured any serious management experience that would qualify him to make judgements about he effect of such large decisions on the health/effeciency of huge organizations like US Army.
Would it be incorrect (factually and/or politically) to suggest that allowing gays to serve openly in the US military might subject the personnel in the US military to greater exposure to AIDS?
"Andrew is too beltway saavy to get down in the weeds and actually give an honest opinion on this along with his views on Visitor628's point.
This thread is representative of the type of arguments and insult hurling we are going to see over the next few years."
It's too Andrew is too beltway savy/careerist and I don't expect him to respond. But let's not pretend that his post was anything but "insult hurling" towards those who don't agree with him. If the comments section is full of invective, it's only a reflection of the post.
Wow? I murdered Allan Schindler? That must have been some shore leave.
I thought he was murdered by a drunken sailor.
If you review the comments, you'll notice that I was raving against the opposition to any Liberal policy being labeled as inbred, racist, rural and Republican. I guess we can add murderer's to the mix, and that we should be put in prison for disagreement to your policies? Can't imagine why so many American's think the Left has gone fascist. Thanks for proving my point.
The other point was the gay community will be left standing at the altar by the Dems, again. They will.
As far as whether someone who wants to put those who disagree with their politics in prison invoking the Constitution.....
Abu M,
But you *should* care especially about DADT.
We need everyone in a fight. You never know which group of a society might play a pivotal role. The Navajo? Who would have thought, right?
Alan Turing ... would we have broken the code without him?
We should care deeply about exclusion.
How about robots? We already have robots serving, and serving proudly. Can we bring sex robots?
LoveBots
http://www.truecompanion.com/
And yes, they are coming out (ooops) with a male model.
For only 7K, we can eliminate all these problems and debates.
Then there's the ol Army@Love concept
http://www.dccomics.com/sites/army_at_love/
We need to immediately demand LBGT rights be expanded under the Interstate Commerce Clause to mean LGBT-R. Discrimination against silicon base life forms is against the Constitution. Explicitly. And of course the LoveBots should get our full benefits if we're croaked.
You wanted more research, here it is.
Too Precious to risk
Add your comment