Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Has there been a discussion on this policy on Ricochet? I guess in the wake of the Senate decision, I'll make some points.
First, it should be noted that I served in the U.S. Army, '87-'91. I did OSUT in Fort Knox, KY, and spent the rest of my time in the small German town of Kitzingen, in Bavaria. I was an armor crewman, meaning that I operated a tank.
In those days there weren't any women in a combat MOS, which has some bearing on my view of the reversal of what I see as a sufficient military policy. It's a tough call because I don't really believe that we should prohibit gays from serving in the military, nor do I think they should be segregated. But I would never have wanted to live in the same barracks with a gay man. I wouldn't want to go in the shower with a gay man. I wouldn't want to be out in the field dealing with personal hygiene (to the degree that this actually happens in the field, anyway) with a gay man. I would imagine that this is how a woman would feel is she were in the presence of heterosexual man under the same conditions. So it seems to me that don't ask, don't tell, is a good policy, because it allows gays and lesbians to serve, but deals with the issues that come from gay and heterosexual men living together.
Maybe my view is simplistic, and unenlightened. But having served in the military, I speak from practical experience rather than from a purely ideological view. Maybe things have changed in the military in the last 20 years, and allowing gays to serve openly will work. Any other thoughts?
- Comment (159)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell
There have been a few heated discussions on Ricochet about DADT
May '10
Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Suppose someone in your position 70 years ago argued that they did not want to dwell in close proximity with, say, a black or Hispanic soldier. Such was the case at the time.
Now, the rebuttal may be that the ethnic or racial characteristics of a soldier are different from his sexual preferences. The former are irrelevant but the latter are not. However, I would respond by asking this: What is your concern regarding gays? Sexual harassment or assault? UCMJ is medieval when it comes to those things. Flamboyant behavior? I would not be surprised if such conduct were vulnerable in some way to UCMJ restrictions. But furthermore:
1.) the military tends to discourage the effeminate types by default
2.) basic training will weed out any effeminate types that enlist
3.) NCOs in units will have zero tolerance for flamboyance
May '10
Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell
@Ken --
Do you know that you haven't done any of those things already? Did you change and shower in the locker room in high school? Did you live in a dorm in college? Do you use a gym?
Sexual activity (including solicitation) is prohibited; sexual preference is invisible.
And since when did the personal preferences of soldiers dictate military policy anyway?
I respect your service. I respect your opinion. But I think you're wrong.
Edited on Dec 18, 2010 at 2:56pmNov '10
Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Ken - Canadian troops have been on the ront line in Afghanistan for quite awhile now; we have gay troops, and I have never heard of any problems with them, or between gays and straight troops.
FWIW, Canada also has female combat soldiers on the front lines in Afghanstan, one of whom died in combat, and two others killed by IEDs.
Jun '10
Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell
The only question that needs an answer is how having openly gay military personnel will impact on military discipline and effectiveness. That's a question for our top military brass to answer, not meddling, lefty, social architects who happen to hold a seat in Congress.
Nov '10
Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Michael and Trace: I don't want to be oggled by a gay man, is the bottom line. Does that happen and I don't know about it? I am sure it has. It's happened when I did know about it as well. I don't think the racial distinction is important to the conversation, because I don't think that a mans race is going to cause him to put the moves on me.
I've seen first hand the effect of openly gay men on discipline: it has had a negative effect. Certainly not in every case, but it has happened.
Have any of you with an opinion on the subject served in the military? By asking that I am not saying that you aren't entitled to an opinion if you haven't, I'm just curious if there are those who have served who have a different opinion or experience than my own.
Jul '10
Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell
I'm not so sure we want to point a finger at Congress. Polls were showing seventy percent of the American people supported letting openly-gay people serve in the military. So Congress was, for once, doing the people's bidding.
It was pretty clear the courts were going to overturn DADT, anyway. Better to have it done through the legislative process. That way straight soldiers who might have qualms about serving with gays at least would not feel the choice had been forced upon them by judicial fiat.
May '10
Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell
June will make it 6 years for me in the reserves. We've had lesbians, but I don't think any gay guys.
May '10
Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell
I won't deny the possibility of obnoxious gays entering the military. But keeping DADT will also prevent many quality servicemen and women who happen to be gay from resuming their work as well.
Dec '10
Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Michael Labeit
Suppose someone in your position 70 years ago argued that they did not want to dwell in close proximity with, say, a black or Hispanic soldier. Such was the case at the time...
Now, the rebuttal may be that the ethnic or racial characteristics of a soldier are different from his sexual preferences. The former are irrelevant but the latter are not. However, I would respond by asking this: What is your concern regarding gays?
I reject this equivalence and this line of argument. First, the equivalence is invalid. Second, it implies those who are critical of gays serving in the military are bigoted.
"Black or Hispanic" is clearly and unquestionably genetic and not a volitional behavioral issue. It is still unclear whether or not in all cases sexual preference at any one point in time is unquestionably genetic.The nature or nurture issue is not settled scientifically.
And with all due respect, your question seems to be a non-sequitur unrelated to the genetic issue.
May '10
Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Nickolas,
Ken wrote in his post that, hypothetically speaking, he would not feel comfortable mingling with gays in his unit but he did not specify why. Without a specification, it sounds like "I am uncomfortable with mingling with gays in my unit." Years ago, servicemen argued that "They were not comfortable with mingling with black and Hispanic servicemen in their units." Without a specification, its an expression of mere preference. One must offer a reason for such a preference.
My question is an attempt at determining why Ken's preference is at it is; I'm looking for the reason, for the premises behind his inference. Its not a conclusion, so its not a non-sequitor.
Jul '10
Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Trace Urdan:
And since when did the personal preferences of soldiers dictate military policy anyway?
Interesting question, Trace.
Why should the military change it's policy so that it's 12 gay members can leap out the closet and yell surprise?
The entire dispute is over a matter of soldiers' personal preferences. The question: Whose preferences will be favored?
Certainly one can discuss the relative justice of one policy as opposed to another. Equally, one can appeal to the relative utility of a given policy.
In my view (I've never served, I have no idea how it works, or doesn't, in the field and I couldn't care less about gays' sexual proclivities) both are small beans.
While those who say repeal won't lead to Angels in Mesopotamia are right, is current policy some great instance of oppression? Really?
If so, and being open about one's divergent sexual habits is a matter of basic justice, then I submit that the notion of justice has jumped the shark in contemporary America.
May '10
Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Palaeologus
Trace Urdan:
And since when did the personal preferences of soldiers dictate military policy anyway?
While those who say repeal won't lead to Angels in Mesopotamia are right, is current policy some great instance of oppression? Really?
If so, and being open about one's divergent sexual habits is a matter of basic justice, then I submit that the notion of justice has jumped the shark in contemporary America.
I think it is an injustice. If DADT remained, Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach would lose his pension after having served 18 years and having been in both Iraq and Afghanistan because he was outed.
Edited on Dec 18, 2010 at 4:57pmDec '10
Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Michael Labeit:
My question is an attempt at determining why Ken's preference is at it is; I'm looking for the reason, for the premises behind his inference.
Your premise seems to be that that there is something inherently wrong with Ken's preference and IMO you drew a poor parallel.
So, do you think Ken's preference is genetic or cultural?
For the record, the only problem I see with gays serving in the military is in combat units and close quarters for extended periods, such as in a submarine for several months. From all I've read written by combat veterans psychological unit cohesion and morale are paramount. And I think almost all military historians will tell you it is very often, if not almost always, decisive.
In combat soldiers fight, risk their lives, and die for their buddies and friends. Anything that could throw a wrench into and disrupt this dynamic can reduce the combat effectiveness of the unit.
Jun '10
Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Kenneth
I'm not so sure we want to point a finger at Congress. Polls were showing seventy percent of the American people supported letting openly-gay people serve in the military. So Congress was, for once, doing the people's bidding.
It was pretty clear the courts were going to overturn DADT, anyway. Better to have it done through the legislative process. That way straight soldiers who might have qualms about serving with gays at least would not feel the choice had been forced upon them by judicial fiat. · Dec 18 at 4:16pm
Since when does public sentiment have weight when it comes to deciding military policy? The public has the right to be heard when the question is war or peace. But internal matters should be decided by the brass.
Jul '10
Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Michael Labeit
Palaeologus
Trace Urdan:
And since when did the personal preferences of soldiers dictate military policy anyway?
While those who say repeal won't lead to Angels in Mesopotamia are right, is current policy some great instance of oppression? Really?
If so, and being open about one's divergent sexual habits is a matter of basic justice, then I submit that the notion of justice has jumped the shark in contemporary America.
I think it is an injustice. If DADT remained, Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach would lose his pension after having served 18 years in both Iraq and Afghanistan because he was outed. · Dec 18 at 4:55pm
'Course it would be an injustice against Victor. But, an individual instance? Surely you can do better, Michael.
If in the last 18 years, if there haven't been at least 1,000 injustices over trivial matters in the American military, I'd be shocked. Do they all require new Federal legislative remedies?
Edited on Dec 18, 2010 at 5:20pmMay '10
Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Nickolas
In combat soldiers fight, risk their lives, and die for their buddies and friends. Anything that could throw a wrench into and disrupt this dynamic can reduce the combat effectiveness of the unit.
What about Lieutenant Dan Choi who is willing to risk his life for his buddies and friends? If DADT remained, he would have been unable to re-enlist, despite the overwhelmingly favorable comments and opinions from his original unit. Gays have served in combat units in combat and I have not seen any evidence that their participation has produced negative effects. Quite the contrary in fact. If the claim that "Gays should not be allowed to be members of combat units" was substantiated by empirical evidence documenting the deleterious effects of their presence, then such a claim would be warranted. But I have not witnessed any such empirical evidence. In fact studies that have been conducted suggest otherwise.
Edited on Dec 18, 2010 at 5:28pmMay '10
Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Palaeologus
Michael Labeit
Palaeologus
Trace Urdan:
While those who say repeal won't lead to Angels in Mesopotamia are right, is current policy some great instance of oppression? Really?
If so, and being open about one's divergent sexual habits is a matter of basic justice, then I submit that the notion of justice has jumped the shark in contemporary America.
I think it is an injustice. If DADT remained, Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach would lose his pension after having served 18 years in both Iraq and Afghanistan because he was outed.
'Course it would. But, an individual instance? Surely you can do better, Michael.
If in the last 18 years, there haven't been at least 1,000 injustices, over trivial matters in the American military, I'd be shocked. Do they all require new Federal legislative remedies?
You asked for an injustice. Does this decision from the Air Force make sense? DADT would commit the Air Force to go through with it, even though Fehrenbach too receives nothing but praise from his fellow airmen. That DADT compels irrationality is, I believe, enough grounds for repeal.
Dec '10
Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Michael Labeit
If the claim that "Gays should not be allowed to be members of combat units" was substantiated by empirical evidence documenting the deleterious effects of their presence, then such a claim would be warranted. But I have not witnesses any such empirical evidence. In fact studies that have been conducted suggest otherwise. · Dec 18 at 5:05pm
Relative to many hundreds of years of highly successful Western military history and doctrine and the lessons learned throughout, there is little or no empirical evidence when viewed within that context.
What is being proposed is nothing but a social experiment, conducted in the name of fairness and justice without regard to history and human nature, in the interest of a very, very small minority.
All that being said, if the American people and/or their representatives vote that this experiment should be performed, I yield to democracy. The worst alternative IMHO is for this to be forced on the armed services by judicial fiat.
May '10
Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Palaeologus
Michael Labeit
Palaeologus
'Course it would be an injustice against Victor. But, an individual instance? Surely you can do better, Michael.
If in the last 18 years, there haven't been at least 1,000 injustices over trivial matters in the American military, I'd be shocked. Do they all require new Federal legislative remedies?
Can anyone offer me evidence of the good that DADT has done that would not have been accomplished in its absence? I believe the allegation that the repeal of DADT would produce negative effects is based upon mere speculation. Some 50% of combat soldiers and 60% of combat marines allege that repealing DADT will yield mal-effects. Why? From what evidence? Most people are inclined to give credit to their testimony given their combat status, but nevertheless, these military personnel have never experienced a situation in which DADT did not apply. They can't comment on its absence with certainty. On the flip side, we do know that DADT has lead to some negative effects in the U.S. military and that the abolition of similar exclusionary provisions in other militaries engaged in combat has not produced discernible negative effects.
Edited on Dec 18, 2010 at 5:26pm