AMBIGUITY - What happens in Vagueness stays in Vagueness.

Let's start with a clip of a 100m hurdle event in China where one competitor does some creative thinking.
Chinese Hurdle Race

On our evening walk a lady asked me about Jack. "What's her name?"
Only in Sun City could someone miss the sex of a Greyhound. Their ribs aren't the only thing that shows.

Stubborn cold. I spent the night in my chair so I wouldn't keep Pam awake and didn't get a lot of sleep. I worked outside today on some projects I need to get done soon. I had a leaking sprinkler valve and I need to get the raised bed ready for the roses which have to be planted in January here because that's the only "winter" (i.e. dormant) month. We've got rain coming Wednesday so I'd like to have it done tomorrow. Pics if I do.

A couple of nights ago I mentioned a Facebook conversation with the son of a friend who is an NCO in the Army currently serving in So. Korea. Our back-and-forth over the repeal of DADT has continued since then. He thinks the military can absorb those who will leave because of the change; the effect won't be felt in terms of total numbers. He also thinks those who leave because of the new open policy will be primarily officers - those who have made the services their career and fully bought into the ethos. These are the men and women who are a) older, and therefore more traditional in their value system, and b) in positions where they are responsibile for a group of soldiers. This means they think more directly about the implications of the change on unit function and morale. These NCO's and commissioned officers will leave the service when their stints are up when they would otherwise reenlist (he puts himself in that category), creating a sudden shortage of qualified leaders. Those positions will necessarily be filled by men and women without the requisite experience.

Putting numbers to this dynamic: surveys indicate that 80% of the service men and women will accept the change and continue to serve while 20% will leave the military because of it. His point is that the 20% will be disproportionately from officers.

If he's correct in his assessment we'll never know. Congress won't ask and the Joint Chiefs of Staff won't tell.