Latest News

Virginian-Pilot Editorial: “Don�t Ask, Don�t Tell” Needs Re-Evaluation

The Virginian-Pilot
© October 4, 2009

To put America's "don't ask, don't tell" law into perspective, consider this: Among the almost 13,000 people driven from the military since 1993 because they are gay, lesbian or bisexual, there were dozens - perhaps hundreds - who possess language skills desperately needed in our nation's fight against terrorism at home and abroad.

In 2005, the Government Accountability Office released a report showing that the men and women discharged in the first 10 years of "don't ask, don't tell" included 757 in occupations defined as critical, such as voice interceptor and translator. Of those, 322 were trained in what the military categorized "an important foreign language." Fifty-four of them were skilled in Arabic.

The percentage may seem small - until you ponder what the absence of just one skilled translator at a critical moment can mean to the safety of our troops or to the safety of Americans here at home.

As Marine Cpl. William Woodall, who works with translators in Afghanistan, told The Associated Press this summer, "Intelligence can save ... lives and give us the advantage in the battlefield."

The number of linguists discharged because of their sexual orientation has grown since the GAO's 2005 report. Among the latest dismissals was Lt. Daniel Choi, a West Point graduate and Iraq veteran who was forced out of the Army National Guard this spring after he publicly acknowledged he is gay.

Choi is fluent in Arabic, one of many languages the military needs in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. To overcome a shortage of linguists, the armed forces have turned to private contractors to recruit civilian translators, often with disastrous results. "Some translators are in their 60s and 70s and in poor physical condition - and some don't even speak the right language," the AP reported. Yet Choi was deemed unfit for service.

At a time when America cannot afford to squander expertise or valor, it does both daily - booting sailors, soldiers, Marines and airmen solely because of sexual orientation.

It appears that the majority of dismissals involved enlisted personnel. In the first 10 years, the GAO found that roughly half of the individuals separated from the military under "don't ask, don't tell" were discharged within the first 2½ years of service. The losses since 1993 also have included officers like Choi, including some whose discharge was triggered when they spoke out against the law.

In addition to the drain of talent, the dismissals cost taxpayers. The GAO report estimated the military spends more than $30 million a year training replacements for individuals discharged under "don't ask, don't tell."

A later study, by a commission that included former Defense Secretary William J. Perry, said the cost of implementing and enforcing the policy was at least $368 million over its first 10 years.

An estimated 65,000 gay, lesbian or bisexuals remain in the military, ever mindful of their fate if they acknowledge their sexual orientation. And an incalculable number of young men and women has voluntarily left or avoided service because of the policy.

Last week, Joint Forces Quarterly - a journal for the Joint Chiefs of Staff - published an attention-getting piece by Air Force Col. Om Prakash, who works in the office of the Defense secretary.

Col. Prakash calls for an end to the ban on homosexuals in the military.

Among the reasons he cites is that "don't ask, don't tell" undermines a core military value - integrity.

The colonel quotes Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan: "Everyone was living a big lie - the homosexuals were trying to hide their sexual orientation, and the commanders were looking the other way because they didn't want to disrupt operations by trying to enforce the law."

Last Sunday, The Pilot's Kate Wiltrout profiled three gay members of the military about the lengths to which they must go to serve America and preserve their careers. One young woman, who works on a Norfolk-based ship, asked a question that cuts to the heart of the policy's flaw: "What's worse? Having a terrorist attack? Or having a homo stop it?"

Many Americans - and many veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars - already have answered that question.

Sixteen years ago, President Clinton's initial proposal to allow gays, lesbians and bisexuals to serve openly in the military generated a vitriolic debate, one that resulted in the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" compromise.

Under the compromise, the military is forbidden to inquire about a person's sexual orientation, and service members face discharge if they disclose they are gay. Much has changed since then - notably public attitudes.

A Gallup Poll this summer indicated that 69 percent of Americans now favor allowing openly homosexual individuals to serve in the armed forces. Strikingly, substantial support was found among conservatives (58 percent), weekly churchgoers (60 percent) and Republicans (58 percent) - three groups that strongly opposed the idea in 1993.

In addition, almost three-quarters of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan said they're comfortable serving with gay and lesbian colleagues, according to a 2006 Zogby poll. Paul Rieckhoff, a former Army platoon leader who is head of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, says there's been a generational shift in attitudes. "The average 18-year-old has been around gay people, has seen gay people in popular culture, and they're not this bogeyman in the same way they were" in the past, he said.

A matter of this significance can't be settled by opinion polls, of course. The fate of the ban should be based on the informed opinions of commanders and members of the armed forces, and on the basis of what is right.

Numerous leaders - including Gen. John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former Defense Secretary William Cohen - have called for repealing "don't ask, don't tell" and a related statute that forbids homosexuals from serving.

More than 1,000 retired flag and general officers, meanwhile, argue that lifting the ban would disrupt unit cohesion. Their concerns warrant a full airing, and they should explain further why they feel the military's existing rules against fraternization would not be sufficient to maintain discipline and unit cohesion.

President Obama has said he would sign a bill lifting the restrictions. But, so far, he and Congress have been reluctant to address the subject. A bill is pending in the House, but no counterpart has been introduced in the Senate.

Certainly, the nation faces many challenges at the moment. But a thorough review of "don't ask, don't tell" - and a fresh accounting of the real and perceived effects on our armed forces - is unavoidable. In its silence, America has too much to lose.

Click here to read the original article.