Shalikashvili: “Climate Has Changed Dramatically Since 1993”
Too often political debates, especially on cable TV and in some corners of the blogosphere, are fact free, driven almost exclusively by emotion and bias. This is no way to have an informed, serious discussion about the issues - and certainly is no way for our leaders in Washington, Democrat or Republican, to make policy. Especially on visceral, highly charged issues that impact the lives of LGBT Americans.
This is effectively the argument former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs under President Clinton, General John Shalikashvili, makes in today's Washington Post. The good General so rightly notes, "In the same way that military leaders take into account research about what works and what doesn't when contemplating a new strategy or doctrine, it will be important for the conversation about gays and lesbians in the military to be informed by data, not speculation or emotion. That people on all sides of the issue feel strongly about it is more reason, not less, to let the evidence do the talking." All the evidence shows openly gay people serving in the U.S. armed forces has no impact on unit cohesion, morale, and good order.
And while we're talking about evidence-based arguments, reams of polling data - both of younger military personnel, military families, and the American public - conclusively show DADT is not a divisive or controversial issue. The hot potato that DADT once was in the early 1990s has been soaking in cold water for more than a decade. Policymakers in Washington should recall what President Truman once said, "We must have strong minds, ready to accept facts as they are."
06-19-09 By Kevin Nix, SLDN Communications Director |
4 Comments
Comments for this entry are closed.A in San Francisco on June 25, 2009 at 03.22 pm
Sexual harassment and the attendant maladies of allowing the co-habitation of men and women as in the Navy is a problem for sure. I think however, if you create separate barracks based on sexual orientation you will have greater instances of sexual misconduct than if you had barracks with mixed hetero/homosexual servicemembers. Most LGB people I know aren’t interested in straight people. Why? Because it’s a waste of time, and in the military can lead to a whole mess of problems.
And an all-female infantry unit would be bad-ass. I’d like to see that.
David S. McQueen in Katy, TX on June 25, 2009 at 06.45 am
R/A:
I, too, speak from personal combat experience (Vietnam). While I agree with your evaluation of service members who serve in combat situations, I see more problems within the garrison situations than you do.
While the UCMJ has been amended to include sexual harassment, I also have heard the problems the US Navy experienced (and still does, apparently) with male/female naval personnel serving on sea duty.
While the male-on-male/female-on-female problems wouldn’t be as severe (I presume), the fact that, generally speaking, allowing both/all sexes to co-habit will manifest in additional personnel problems. Will the C-in-C amend the UCMJ to include prohibition of bias/prejudice/harassment based on sexual orientation? Will co-ed barracks increase the incidents of sexual misconduct and pregnancy as has occurred in the Navy?
Or will the military create separate barracks based on sexual orientation?
When (in the early 1970’s) feminist organizations were advocating “women in combat”, I felt that the only way to prove the efficacy of that idea was to create all-female infantry units and Special Ops detachments. Allow them to go into hostile fire situations and, as with all military units, monitor their effectiveness.
A in San Francisco on June 24, 2009 at 07.23 pm
You bring up a good point David. I do believe that the answer to that question lies in one’s own sense of professionalism.
Generally speaking, I would estimate that a majority of LGB servicemembers would respond that their sexual orientation does not affect their capacity to perform their duties in any way, including the co-habitation of hetero/homosexuals.
From my own personal experience, the kind of bonding and camaraderie that exists in a combat unit is in every way transcendent of the desire to have sex with someone in your unit. The desire just isn’t there; the love you have for your brothers is one based in the pride and care you have for your unit and your buddies. That is more important than sex, and I believe most servicemembers would agree. The foundation of the military unit is one of mutual dependency. Anyone who believes in their friends and their unit will tell you that they would never do anything to endanger the well-being or cohesion of the team. This is why professionalism is so important. The UCMJ exists to deal with incidences of harassment and is being applied to other cases of improper sexual behavior (usually of a heterosexual nature) right now.
As to forced co-habitation of men and women, I GUARANTEE you will have a multitude of problems that far outpaces anything that arises from forced co-habitation of hetero/homosexuals. I hope this helps.
R/A
David S. McQueen in Katy, TX on June 24, 2009 at 09.23 am
One question: Should service members be required to co-habit (i.e., live in barracks) with other service members who find them sexually attractive?
If the answer is “yes”, then co-ed barracks must be the rule. No more WAC-only barracks; we would have to allow both (all?) sexes to co-habit in the same living area.