Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy: Unfair to Some But Is it Bad?
The issue of gays in the military has reared its head once again as the new Obama administration takes power. Reports are that President-elect Obama will end the Clinton-era DADT policy that requires gays to remain closeted.
Obama Pushing for Gays in the Military
Pundits will remember the debacle that ensued in the opening days of the Clinton administration in 1992 when Bill Clinton suddenly declared an end to the long-standing policy that abolished gays in the military. The political firestorm that ensued caused the new president to quickly retract into the famous don’t ask, don’t tell approach.
According to Obama’s transition team:
Barack Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
With the country in economic crisis and fighting two wars, it is curious that Obama would tackle this radioactive issue. With managerial bandwidth at a premium in the White House, each issue championed diminishes the ability to tackle other more pressing concerns.
One suspects (and hopes) that Obama is merely throwing vapid whispers into the arena to pacify the left. There is growing concern among the left flank that Obama is not delivering on his message of change. Throwing political capital at an issue that has remained quiet is a poor choice for the incoming president.
On the merits of the issue, the same arguments apply now as they did in 1992. The US military exists to kill people and deter others from killing us, and to that end effectiveness trumps all other considerations. There is no room for manipulation by the social engineers in the elitist class.
That is not to say that openly gay personnel in the military is necessarily a bad thing. I don’t know. The way to find out is poll the troops and solicit opinions from the generals, rather than entering office with an uninformed policy position. If it would be bad for troop morale, it would be a bad policy. That is really all that matters, since the US military can afford to do without the valuable services of the few gay men and women who wish to serve.
And on the other side of the argument, critics of the current policy will continue to compare gays in the military with the racial integration that occurred after World War II. Similarly, social engineers in Washington were chiefly responsible for the change but there is potentially one key difference. The troops largely thought it was a good idea, while it was the old generals who largely resisted.
There are logistical issues as well without easy answers. Do openly gay men shower with their brethren manly men? The idea reminds us of the jokes about soap bars in prison. If gawkers are allowed, do we throw the women in there for more equal fun?
Effectiveness is all that matters when applying standards to the military. Whether openly gay soldiers should serve is a decision best informed by the troops themselves and the military experts who lead them. Regardless, we can all agree there are more pressing issues for the new president to expend precious political capital.
Video below.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Oooooh, this is simply faaaabulous!!! “In the navy……”
January 7th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
I’m a U.S. Army veteran. Polling the troops isn’t the way to find out as you propose.
A better approach would be to study the impact of troops after gays were allowed into military units in the dozens of countries who allow gays to serve, i.e., Israel, Canada, Great Britain, etc.
January 7th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
fuzzy, your idea is superficially interesting but ignores the cultural differences between nations. Best to consider our own unique factors than study gays in Israel or Iran for that matter.
January 7th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
“A better approach would be to study the impact of troops after gays were allowed into military”
Soooo fuzzygruf,
Someone has to get their brains blown out to find out if a gay soldier is good enough ?
January 7th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
I am by no means against gay’s, but we cant risk the problems that would cause. I mean I don’t want our soldiers in these situations. And obama isn’t even for gay marriage he’s for gay rights. So what does that say I don’t like you, but I want your votes.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:42 am
Frankly, its about time that America got into the 21st century over openly gay men and women being able to serve their country in the military. Virtually ALL of America’s closest allies welcome gays to enlist – and the usual excuses as to why gays should be excluded have, in fact, not come true in those countries. We are now in the ridiculous situation where a gay service man/woman in say the British or Dutch military can serve within an American unit, effectively having to go back in the closet. There was even a case of a gay British service member who was legally “married” (civil partnership) and was assigned a NATO liasion duty to a USAF base in America and would not have been able to have openly taken the partner for the 2 year tour of duty. Those gay service members serving in the military have more than enough to thing about these days then looking over their shoulder all the time to make sure that no one found out about their sexuality.
January 8th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Mark, good points. But do they shower with the ladies?
January 8th, 2009 at 10:13 am
I am in the Army and an ILE student (future leadership for the Army). This in no way reflects the stance of the Army. I did an informal questionaire to the other students about this very topic. Most students here do not think allowing gays in the military is a good idea. Most believe morale would suffer. More importantly, how would we house them, seperate restrooms???
January 8th, 2009 at 11:10 am
If Obama addresses this issue at this time, it is because he is inept. With the economy in the shape it’s in and the war, Obama needs to stop campaigning and start providing some real answers. To bad no one told him that if he got elected, he would have to led.
There have always been gays in the military. It is bad for morale. It’s not that gays can’t serve, it that the heterosexuals don’t want to serve with gays. There is enough to deal with in times of war without worrying about the guy next to you in the shower or a foxhole. I you are gay and in the military, you best keep it to yourself or face being put out. Simple as that.
If we allow gays to serve openly, the next step will be for them to come out at your child’s school. It is an afford to make a generation think that it is okay to be gay. That is is normal. My 9 year grand-daughter is be taught that the plastic that holes soda bottle together in a 6-pack must be cut into a million pieces so that a innocent duck doesn’t choke. And also they are taught that Democrats are the party that helps these causes and is working for them. She was told that is was a stupid vote for McCain. Republicans are only interested in the rich companies and are not for saving ducks.
This is why we need to take our country back from these people. They are putting poison in my kids brains. Just teach them the 3 r’s and let us take care of the rest. Don’t get me started.
Obama is as I said, inept. He has no idea what to do. That is why this is the third terms of Carter and Clinton. Carter in that he is inept and Clinton because he has placed their people around him. And I bet Bill and Hill will be coaching Barry.
I may lose my job and the next President is worried about the gay vote. Who in the h*ll does he think they will vote for? INEPT really does not fit. I need a better word.
January 9th, 2009 at 6:47 am
STUPID
January 9th, 2009 at 7:31 am
Inept and Stupid. That is a start.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:45 am
What about soldiers with a criminal record? Can’t trust those either. They might steal, they might use violence or worse.
Soldiers with muslim belief….don’t even go there.
The list goes on, people are different. What’s important is how they conduct themselves in the group. Sexual harassment is a no no, regardless of whether it’s involving a man and a woman or two men. With a proper code of conduct there should be no problems with gays in the military. Works just fine in nearly every civilized country in the world.
January 10th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Of the 26 NATO countries, only the United States, Portugal, and Turkey do not allow gays to serve openly in the military. Foreign countries that allow gays to serve have not had problems with unit cohesion. If you say that things would go differently in the United States because of “cultural differences,” you are saying that America’s soldiers, compared with foreign soldiers, are a bunch of neurotic bigots. I refuse to believe that about our men and women and uniform, and I do not see how any patriotic American can believe that.
January 12th, 2009 at 6:57 am
Well, you can honestly say that there is little doubt that the United States has the most powerful most disciplined armed forces in the world. DISCIPLINE
January 12th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Jay, whens the last time you showered with a gay man on front of a bunch of straights ?
Jay, criminals pay for their crimes and are able to rehabilitate/change for the better.
I think it all boils down to the individual. If I were in the service I wouldnt really want to know one way or the other what the hell you are. A guy who likes skinney Asian chicks with huge boobs can have those on his mind just as much as a gay man can have anothher man on his mind and be just as big a threat to the other troops.
There are gays that are just as macho as any well seasoned grunt but I know I wouldnt want some feminine weasel scared of little bigs in a foxhole with me.
Another argument might be that having a gay in any platoon would be just as infair as having a woman in that platoon ?
Or it might come in handy ?
I dont know, I’ll probably get slammed for that last comment.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
According to the most recent poll 82% of Americans believe DADT should be repealed. Times have changed since DADT was enacted. Obama undestands this and is ready to take action to let gays and lesbians servce openly in our armed forces.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
That’s just great…now not only will our young servicemen have to worry about the enemy in front of them, they will have to also keep a close eye on what’s happening BEHIND them as well.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Let me start off by everyone is entitled to their own opinion. i’m 17 and bi.
Ok, I’m not here to bash anyone its pointless, i’m here to understand. people on here said that gays and lesbians shouldn’t be able to be opened about their sexuality in the military for various reasons. i understand the part where they shouldn’t be able to be open, but the part i really can’t comprehend is the reasons why. just to make it clear for those who think they are going to get hit on and things of that nature, many gay and/or lesbian people don’t give you(straight individuals) the time of day; they don’t even see you. so, when people say “not only will our young servicemen have to worry about the enemy in front of them, they will have to also keep a close eye on what’s happening BEHIND them as well” or things similar it bothers me. or when people say “i wouldn’t want ‘feminine weasel’scared of little bigs in a foxhole with me”. the people who say things like that should take a step back and look at your flaws. then doing that coming to the realization that you are “HUMAN”. if a gay person signed up for the military it wouldn’t be a fashion fad for them. they are getting a chance to serve their country like everyone else who joins/joined the military. they think they have something to offer the military, so let them prove themselve.
(if you felt like you were bashed then i apologize)
January 20th, 2009 at 7:03 am
A.J. – your comment doesn’t come across as bashing at all, imo. I have some appreciation for the reasons this is an issue in the military and its not about the reasons that you describe. I know there are ppl that say those types of things, but those arguments don’t really have anything to do with the real reasons for this discussion.
We all know there have always been gays in the military. Many have served honorably. Its highly unlikely a ‘feminine weasel’ of any sexual orientation would be attracted to the military. And most men in the military are perfectly capable of defending themselves from in front and behind whether they are straight or gay. I just don’t see those as being an issue.
The military has always been one of the few places that is genuinely an equalizer. However someone defines themselves, they are expected to perform. They are judged on their performance regardless of race, color, sex or sexual orientation.
Military men and women need to all function as equals and as a unit. Therefore, for the well being of the group, sexual orientation doesn’t need to be an issue – pro or con. It isn’t an issue as far as someone’s ability to be a Soldier – so it shouldn’t be an issue at all. The military isn’t a place to try make political statements or stage political protests.
We really don’t need to force more political correctness on our military. They are already hamstrung more than they should be. If you are a good warrior, you need to be judged on that alone. Making sexual orientation an issue in the military is unnecessary and a distraction that our Soldiers don’t need.
January 20th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Beth Shaw- thank you. i think thats was the point i was trying to make lol. about being judged on a good warrior then a sexual orientation
January 20th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
than*
February 5th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
I absolutely agree with Beth Shaw on her comment about Soldiers being judged on their ability to do their job, and nothing else. I would like to address some of the “need to worry about what’s behind them” and all the other comments about potential sexual assaults that could occur if homosexuals are allowed to join the military.
First, a few facts about sexual assault in the military. It was recently reported that one in three women will be sexually assaulted while on active duty. This means a female soldier currently has a 33% chance of getting sexually assaulted while serving her country, and I have a feeling most assailants are heterosexual males, not a homosexual females. When I was in Iraq, my biggest fear wasn’t the mortars that hit our area daily, or the threat of attack, or the occasional stray bullet, it was walking to the port-a-potty at night. I had two options, the port-a-potty by the loud diesel generator or the one next to the bunker, both places left me vulnerable for assault. The Army’s attempt to help with this issue was to issue every female in the unit a rape whistle (because that was more effective than a 9mm pistol).
So why do I bring up these issues when discussing gays in the military? Personally, I think it would be win for the women serving their country. Maybe the fear of increased assaults against men will change the way the military deals with the issue. Maybe the way we report will change, maybe punishment of the assailant will be more severe. The current reporting process is confusing and it has been shown that most reports get little action. In fact, only 8% of assailants are punished in the military compared to 40% on the civilian side. Maybe, we will even create a DNA database that can easily make matches. Considering the military has all of our DNA on file, it seems it would be easy enough to find an assailant, if we just looked
Do I think sexual assaults will increase when gays are allowed in the military? Absolutely not, but I think the homophobic fear that is alive and well will improve the way assaults are reported and more importantly, prosecuted.
Amy Hadsall, MAJ, Army Nurse Corps. The previous comments are purely my own and in no way represent the opinion of the military or the US Army. I am a student at Fort Gordon’s Command General Staff College.