What Would the Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Mean for Our Troops?
There are a number of issues at play concerning the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell':
- The liberal community pushing for the changes is often the most critical of the military, especially its ROTC programs and its past deployment from Vietnam to Iraq; in contrast, those most supportive of the existing military protocols are the most critical of the proposed changes. How does all that political calculus work out? Do liberals suddenly embrace ROTC programs and become more pro-military; or do conservatives get less engaged with the military? Does the new policy have no effect on either? We do not know, but we can only note the irony that the liberal community usually associated with the most hostility to the military since the Vietnam era is now suddenly the most interested in changing how the military operates daily. Does a U.S. military with openly gay enlisted personnel and officers suddenly become beloved by the left as emblematic of a new enlightened America?
- The policy seems to affect combat troops differently than it might non-combat personnel, in the sense that how the policy is seen by Marines in a forward base near the Hindu Kush might matter in the short term more than among Air Force personnel at a supply depot in Nevada.
- We do not the know the full effects of a policy in wartime that does not distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual behavior. Will more gays gravitate to the military in the new enlightened climate and will that in turn discourage recruitment of others, especially those from the more conservative south and midwest to join?
One could argue that much of the success of the US military, especially its officer corps, derives from its profile—more southern, more Christian, more traditional and nationalistic—being somewhat different from that of the upscale coastal suburbs. Will that change or not—and what would be the effect on combat operations if it should?
Clearly, the record in Afghanistan is that the US military remains exceptional in comparison with its European counterparts, especially in its eagerness to accept hazardous combat assignments. If the stereotypical Gung-ho types shy away from the military, will that matter; or will we learn that homosexuality makes no difference to them? The data is ambiguous and may suggest that while troops in general may be indifferent to gays, those troops most likely to fight in ground combat operations may well care.
Does the policy refer to admissions of being homosexual or to homosexual acts per se? That is, knowing that fellow soldiers are gay in their private lives may not be as startling to comrades under arms as displaying homosexual affection in off-combat hours. Gays will argue that we have analogous situations already with women and men serving side by side who obviously are attracted to one another, sometimes date in private life, and on occasion engage in inappropriate conduct while on duty. But does homosexuality add a new dimension to those affinities in military units that function differently from those in the civilian world? More importantly, currently men and women are not serving long periods intimately together on the ground in combat. Would fighting side by side those whom one has a natural physical attraction toward change, improve, or imperil combat morale? History is ambiguous I think on that count.
Bottom line? I don't think anyone has any idea how overt homosexuality will affect combat operations, and even less idea whether they should worry about that uncertainty during ongoing fighting in Afghanistan.
- Comment (39)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: What Would the Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Mean for Our Troops?
Dr. Hanson,
What is the choke setting on the Prop 8 artillery that wouldn't do collateral damage and turn the heat up on the DADT ? Looks like the big issues are being shot down right now, so they're trying to win somewhere else. Lot of momentum in your home state on all this Prop 8 stuff ? Don't they act in unison after awhile ?
Which probably just means we should be watching Glee to see when Mullen and Gates get their cameos ?
Looks like a campaign to me.
With so much of the population never having seen service, there exists a large uneducated group of guys who don't know the answer, which they are being doused with across the board culturally ( zeitgeist imbued ).
And alot of them trying to create a metric to accept something they've hated so long. re: your #1
Edited on December 4, 2010 at 8:21pmMay '10
Re: What Would the Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Mean for Our Troops?
DADT is idiocy of the highest order. It is disingenuous. The military requires candor and directness from all, from the recruit to the joint chiefs. Superiors need to ask the questions they need to ask, and they need to get direct answers. The military isn't just another big corporation. Soldiers give up the right to have private personal lives when they join.
I don't think banning gays is particularly bright, but if it is the policy it should be dealt with honestly. Ask recruits if they are gay, and politely sent them packing if they answer affirmatively. Soldiers that "discover" during service that they are gay should disclose it immediately and discharged as soon as operationally feasible.
But "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is just political correctness gone amok.
May '10
Re: What Would the Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Mean for Our Troops?
The question isn't whether gays can be good soldiers. That was settled by the Spartans.
What I am concerned about is disruption to operations making the transition, adding a new grievance class, and the effect on the chaplaincy corps.
Why is it so important to make this change right now?
May '10
Re: What Would the Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Mean for Our Troops?
I stated in another post that I don't think banning gays is particularly bright.
As anyone smart enough to follow discussions here knows that discrimination without basis is stupid. And there is no evidence that "orientation" has anything to do with performance as a soldier. The effectiveness arguments are circular .. having gays will reduce effectiveness because the ordinary GIs don't like gays. They didn't like Negros in 1948 either, but that seems to have turned out OK. Should the fact that the guys most willing to enlist in the infantry in 1948 would be the least welcoming to Negros have been a factor in Truman's decision?
As VDH notes, we can't predict the impact of allowing gays to serve. I don't know how the military can unwind the policy, but it should be unwound. I don't buy the "we are at war" argument. This war is never going to end, at least not until we decide to get serious against the radical elements and the governments that support them. If the change needs to be made, make it. Otherwise, don't.
Nov '10
Re: What Would the Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Mean for Our Troops?
Canada - which has allowed openly gay troops to serve since 1992 - has been in the front lines in Kandahar for quite awhile now, and as far as I know there have been no problems with the soldiers (gay or straight), their competence, or their commitment to their service. Problems certainly with the pols and top brass, but there's nothing new in that. And Canada is not all that different culturally from the US.
Prior to the integration of the Canadian Armed Forces, there was plenty of resistance, and polls, IIRC, ran about as strongly against it as they currently are in the US forces. The integration happened; the soldiers adapted. They tend to be rather good at that, after all.
Jun '10
Re: What Would the Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Mean for Our Troops?
I have zero military experience. From my hallowed perch far away from any practical experience (kind of like the politicians who are deciding these things), it seems that DADT was working just fine. It should be applied to all sexual proclivities equally. The military is not a whore house, bath house, or dating game. Keep your sexual relations private. It is not the military's business, nor is it another soldier's business. If you are gay, straight, or lefty/righty do not bring it to your job, if you wish to continue in the armed forces. Is that just impracticle? What's the problem?
But if this law is overturned and gays start walking around in the barracks overtly swinging their rear ends or other things, the morale of our great military will be destroyed. The comraderie of soldiers fighting for each other will end. And I believe the leftists know this and wish for the downfall of the world's greatest fighting force. God for McCain. He needs to be supported in his efforts to stop this insidious endeavor of our treacherous enemies from within.
Dec '10
Re: What Would the Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Mean for Our Troops?
The issue in my mind has little to do with soldiers liking or disliking gays. I thoroughly dislike White Sox fans, but I go to graduate school with many and am still able to perform at my highest level (most of the time). I thoroughly like fellow Cubs fans and during the baseball season I am unable to get much work done at the library at school because the lot of us are talking about how abysmal our wretched team already is by Memorial Day.
Underlying the argument for opponents of DADT is that there is no difference whatsoever between being gay and straight...and behind that belief is the assumption that there is no real difference between the genders. I disagree.
The problem with allowing gay men in the military is the same problem with allowing straight men in the military to live in the same barracks with women. It is a logistical nightmare that would require segregation of soldiers based on sexual preference. I am not attracted to all women, but they don't let me use womens' bathrooms all the same.
Why? Because its common sense - that's why.
Jun '10
Re: What Would the Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Mean for Our Troops?
Then here comes Tom and Halifax proving my second sentance correct.
May '10
Re: What Would the Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Mean for Our Troops?
I certainly don't think the military, particularly the officer corps, derives its effectiveness from the fact that much of it is southern or Christian. These I believe are incidental characteristics when it comes to the cause of is efficacy.
May '10
Re: What Would the Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Mean for Our Troops?
@cdor .. You have things confused. DADT exists as a way to allow gays to serve, as long as they remain in the closet. It says (essentially) that the command is not allowed to ask, and the soldiers are not required to disclose.
IMHO they are separate items. The prohibition against gays is not good policy. But DADT is horrible policy, because it directly contravenes the trust and candor required for an effective military. It is not working. It should be eliminated whether gays are allowed to serve or not.
Oct '10
Re: What Would the Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Mean for Our Troops?
I think the analogy to racial integration is somewhat shaky. There is certainly no way the color of someone's skin can interfere with combat effectiveness. There is the possibility that if someone in your squad has a crush on (or a romantic relationship with) someone else in your squad that that could lower combat effectiveness.
There is also the issue that there is little to no room for privacy in a combat environment - there is no doubt that many straight men would feel uncomfortable being seen naked, share sleeping quarters, etc. with someone who is gay. For all the same reasons men and women bath seperately, go to the bathroom seperately, and sleep seperately. Even if there are absolutely no intentions or feelings it is considered inappropriate and makes some uncomfortable.
That is why I think homosexuals in the military should have the same regulations that women have - they ought to be able to serve honorably and openly, but not in a combat branch. The reasons women are barred from combat are not because of any size or strength (there are certainly women who can meet all the physical requirements) but because it creates situations that can hurt effectiveness.
Edited on December 4, 2010 at 10:47pmMay '10
Re: What Would the Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Mean for Our Troops?
cdor, if the government repeals DADT, I can assure you there will be no homoerotic, liberationist celebratory gatherings or events. Repealing DADT won't abolish opposition to displays of overt homosexuality in the military, I promise you.
Edited on December 4, 2010 at 10:49pmAug '10
Re: What Would the Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Mean for Our Troops?
tomjedrz: DADT is idiocy of the highest order. It is disingenuous. The military requires candor and directness from all, from the recruit to the joint chiefs. Superiors need to ask the questions they need to ask, and they need to get direct answers. The military isn't just another big corporation. Soldiers give up the right to have private personal lives when they join.
I don't think banning gays is particularly bright, but if it is the policy it should be dealt with honestly. Ask recruits if they are gay, and politely sent them packing if they answer affirmatively. Soldiers that "discover" during service that they are gay should disclose it immediately and discharged as soon as operationally feasible.
But "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is just political correctness gone amok.
I guess the old policy would be called A.T., or "Ask, Tell". Regardless of one's feeling about it, it had the great virtue of internal moral consistency.
Aug '10
Re: What Would the Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Mean for Our Troops?
Issues like this are never really about homosexuality; they are about gender. Regarding homosexuality as different in some meaningful way from heterosexuality is a prima facie sin if you begin with the feminist premiss that men and women must be treated identically.
Trying to keep gays out of combat after women have been allowed in (only the Marines keep them out) is rather like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted, just to keep the chicken in. The solution is to make a formal distinction between combat and non-combat roles, and allow women and gay men into the latter while reserving the former for heterosexual men. But you can't justify even that unless you're willing to fundamentally deny the feminist view of gender.
Oct '10
Re: What Would the Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Mean for Our Troops?
Paul DeRocco
Trying to keep gays out of combat after women have been allowed in (only the Marines keep them out) is rather like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted, just to keep the chicken in. The solution is to make a formal distinction between combat and non-combat roles,
Such distinctions already exist in all the services: women are barred from the "combat branches" but allowed in support roles. The navy bars women from becoming SEALS and Special Boat Operators. The Army bars women from Infantry, Armor, Artillery, Special Forces, and Combat Engineers. The Air Force bars women from being Combat Controllers, Tactical Air Controllers, Pararescuers, and special operations weather apprentices. The Marines bars women from Infantry, Field Artiller, Armor, and some intelligence jobs.
Women who have been in combat in the US military (God bless them) are all in the "support" jobs which can and do see combat from time to time. Pvt. Jessica Lynch was a truck driver whose convoy was ambushed. Not a combat job, but in combat nonetheless.
Edited on December 4, 2010 at 11:16pmJul '10
Re: What Would the Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Mean for Our Troops?
Gays in the military?
Well it has worked for the Catholic priesthood.
May '10
Re: What Would the Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Mean for Our Troops?
Robert McKay: ....
That is why I think homosexuals in the military should have the same regulations that women have - they ought to be able to serve honorably and openly, but not in a combat branch. The reasons women are barred from combat are not because of any size or strength (there are certainly women who can meet all the physical requirements) but because it creates situations that can hurt effectiveness. · Dec 4 at 1:43pm
Edited on Dec 04 at 01:47 pm
In any unit, there are possibilities for situations that make others uncomfortable and could reduce effectiveness. John and Jim don't like each other. Steve is banging Dave's girlfriend. Duane plays music too load. Everyone things Al is an idiot. Lou snores. Chuck belches.
Interpersonal issues are dealt with in the unit, and soldiers are trained to put aside irrelevant concerns when there is a job to be done. Gender and "orientation" issues are not any different, and should be treated the same way. The soldiers will adapt, and the service will end up better because merit will win the day.
Jun '10
Re: What Would the Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Mean for Our Troops?
What about women? The conversation always centers on gay men. Would there not be issues with gay women? Should gay men and gay women share barracks while straight men and women each barrack separately? My head is beginning to swim. The military is starting to sound like one big orgy machine. Too much emphasis on sexuality, let's focus on fighting. I prefer letting the military work this out. Keep the politicians out of it.
May '10
Re: What Would the Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Mean for Our Troops?
I don't expect much trouble from the change among combat soldiers. Southerners are most likely to join the military because traditional notions of authority and duty are strong elements of our culture. We're a more militant culture than that of New York or California, you might say. Our soldiers will do their duty, regardless of their beliefs on homosexuality.
One thing's for sure: at least half the war movies Hollywood makes from now on will include a gay soldier.
Like others, I don't think it's a big deal, provided gay soldiers don't request any special treatment.
Nov '10
Re: What Would the Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Mean for Our Troops?
Even appreciating the objections vis. homosexuals impeding the ability of combat troops to do their jobs, I can't see how, in actual combat, warriors could possibly think about sex. Under fire, America's fighting men and women have demonstrated a remarkable comradely and culture of inter-reliance; they can depend on each other to do what needs to be done. As long as homosexual recruits fall in with this way of operating (and I truly can't see any reason why not), it's impossible to find any valid reason to not allow more willing Americans to serve their country.
Even behind the lines, our military men and women certainly appreciate that everything they do affects the lives of the soldiers at the front; certainly our recruiters place significant value on the capacity of a recruit to understand the gravity of his or her duty. I'm confident that recruitment personnel are more than capable of sniffing out this quality, regardless of gender or sexual preference.