Gays and The Military: A Good Fit
We learned a lot from Wednesday's Washington Post op-ed, "Gays and The Military: A Bad Fit," penned by four retired flag officers.
First, we learned the four writers think openly gays and lesbians will destroy the military, somehow. That straight folks would leave in droves - or so says a Military Times poll - is certainly just fearful speculation; no scientific data support this claim. (More on this quirky poll here by ABC News pollster Gary Langer.) A few members of the older military generation might very well leave, or they may just be threatening to do so now, like they did in the 1940s in advance of President Truman ending segregation in the ranks. The talk now might end up being just that-talk.
Second, as for the writers' claim on unit cohesion, there's no evidence, data, or research supporting the claim that gays and lesbians serving openly disrupts unit cohesion. How can 26 other countries, including Great Britain and Israel, successfully implement openly gay men and women in their own ranks, without incident, but the United States can't do so? Of course we can (and will eventually). (Actually, many are already serving openly in the U.S. military, without incident, a fact Elaine Donnelly and others just can't, for the life of them, acknowledge. Plus, serious studies on the subject show unit cohesion actually improves.)
Third, we wonder if these retired admirals and generals have forgotten about the uniform code of military justice (UCMJ). The UCMJ is a set of rules and regulations that dictate conduct and apply to everyone, gay or straight. Misconduct is misconduct and should be dealt with swiftly. This is how it is today and how it will be when the ban is lifted.
Finally, these writers--and the 1,000+ generals--represent the 20th century. They're of a different era. We all know attitudes toward LGBT people are more favorable among younger cohorts. Gays in the military is no different. Younger generations-those in the 20s and 30s who make up the majority of active-duty forces of 21st century wars - largely just don't care. Service members in Iraq and Afghanistan know sexual orientation is irrelevant when it comes to the mission, trust, unit cohesion and morale. (More on this from VoteVets.org).
We deeply appreciate the service of these retired officers, but what they are expressing here is irrational fear. Unfortunately, some invariably have a hard time understanding that times have changed - and so have people.
The political question this article triggers is: Does President Obama stand with these folks, and the ideas they so awkwardly espouse?
By remaining silent on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" since he became president, Obama is making us wonder how serious he is about fulfilling his campaign promise of repeal. In fact, if he doesn't take his first big opportunity to get rid of the law in May (when his administration presents his 2010 defense budget to Congress), then the president is effectively green lighting the continuation of the law on his watch. Mr. Obama will own this issue; he will be sanctioning the firing of service members because of their sexual orientation.
Does he want this? We don't think so.
04-15-09 By Kevin Nix, SLDN Communications Director |
4 Comments
Comments for this entry are closed.Dino in Washington, D.C. on April 20, 2009 at 12.07 pm
Another big chink in the DADT’s armor is the endorsement from Dr. Lawrence Korb, who was Under Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Logistics under the Reagan Administration. Dr. Korb wrote Department of Defense Directive 1332.14, the pre-Clinton ban on gays and the military, and in 1993 he urged the ban to be lifted all together, as he learned that the policy played into the hands of those who instigated overzealous witch-hunts.
Jeremy Rice in Nappanee, IN on April 18, 2009 at 11.50 pm
One thing is right, the mindset of the people changed. The many in the older generation still hold to some of the values they were raised believing, so changing their outlook on those values is not a simple task. I think they are focusing too much on their fear, and not enough on the soldiers serving our country now. I don’t see every homosexual or bisexual member in the military coming out of the closet when this is repealed, they are comfortable where they are, they just will not have to live a lie. The main reason I think DADT should be repealed is so that the homosexual and bisexual members currently serving don’t have to live in the fear of loosing the ability to serve their country.
I lived in that fear for three years, and it was extremely stressful. I felt withdrawn from my brothers and sisters in the Corps, and I think that repealing this absurd policy would allow for more trust and cohesion between soldiers. After I came out to most of the people I knew while I was in, most of them weren’t surprised because they had already guessed it and were still comfortable around me because they knew that I was there to do my job and serve my country.
There are some of my friends still in that would like to see me when I get back to California in ten days. They consider me a friend, and don’t look at me differently because of my choices.
One of the biggest things that I think is hard for many homosexual or bisexual couples when one is in the military is not being able to see that loved one off when they are being deployed because of the fear that he or she might loose their ability to fight just because someone doesn’t like who their partner is. I think this policy is a childish policy that keeps the uncomfortable ones safely away while those that fall under this policy suffer every day.
Michael@leonardmatlovich.com on April 15, 2009 at 11.12 pm
With respect, suggesting, however unintentionally, that Sam Nunn’s 1993 opposition to overturning the 40-yr. old ban to out gays serving was remotely the result of genuine examination of objective facts does not serve our progress.
Others had documented the opposite since then, but none have detailed it as thoroughly as Nathaniel Frank in the recently published “Unfriendly Fire.”
1. Nunn had a history of homophobic attitudes and actions:
a. he supported John Glenn’s earlier run for the presidency in large part because of Glenn’s publicly pronounced homophobia;
b. he had fired two gay attorneys working for a Senate national security committee on the pretense that they were subject to blackmail even though they were out.
2. He was clearly itching for some type of vengeance upon Bill Clinton who
a. had succeeded in getting the party’s nomination for president that he’d hoped would be his own;
b. had passed over him for Secretary of Defense.
3. He publicly opposed integration even before Clinton was sworn it, and conspired with the chief architect of DADT’s rationale and language, his longtime friend, the sexually puerile and ignominious Charles Moskos.
4. He ignored [and still does to this day] the history of gay service-positive research the Pentagon had already done, and the even more positive results of a study the Rand Corp. [hired by Les Aspin who’d gotten the Secty spot he craved] released that April. His recent calls for “further study” insult not just us but himself.
5. He rigged the game not just by leading live TV camera crews through close below-submarine deck quarters but by approving a much larger proportion of antigay than gay or pro gay service “witnesses” before his televised Senate committee hearings, vetoing those he feared might be most persuasive against him.
“When Nunn realized that the father of modern conservatism, Barry Goldwater, was also planning to testify that gays ought to be allowed to serve openly in the military, he replaced him, too.” - Frank
Navy Top Gun Tracy Thorne was one of the few gays allowed to testify, after which he rightly called it Nunn’s “dog and pony show.” A few of those shameful moments can be seen at:
http://leonardmatlovich.com/lgbtveteransgallery.html
Kai Hung on April 15, 2009 at 07.21 pm
I’m in agreement with the sentiment that the WaPo Op-Ed piece is nothing more than recycled arguments that most people who’ve been paying attention to the issue have long since moved past. It is, after all, the corner stone of the then Senator Nunn (D-Ga)‘s argument, born from his visit to the submarine to hear first-hand the terrible emotional stress on the service people and the dire effect on unit cohesion, that allegedly swayed his opinion when Clinton’s team was brokering the DADTDP policy.
But, I will say that if you want to claim that “Plus, serious studies on the subject show unit cohesion actually improves,” then let’s see some citations. Otherwise, it’s no better a piece of evidence than “some people say,”