My friend Bridget Altenburg is livid.
Why?
The Army recently dismissed another Arab linguist because he was gay.
I know, I know: a lot of us were angry about that. But Bridget served in the Army for five years after attending West Point. She was a captain and an engineer. She led a unit of 35 soldiers in Bosnia who rebuilt bridges so that Bosnians could vote for their new government; she served as an aide to a three-star general in Kosovo and was perhaps the only woman at the time who was serving as an aide in a hazardous fire zone.
Bridget loved the Army and she did good work there and she would have kept serving. But like the linguist, Bridget is gay. So like the linguist, she had to go.
Bridget wasn't kicked out. She never told-she was never asked.
The general she was an aide to likely knew she was gay and didn't care. Her unit didn't care. But Bridget cared. She had come out to herself while serving and she just couldn't lie any more.
So when her five-year commitment was up, she left. The Army lost another good soldier.
Men and women like Bridget are the secret losses of the Armed Services. We hear about the egregious losses-the newest Arab linguist to be dismissed didn't tell anyone he was gay, he was likely outed by a jealous lover.
But we don't hear much about people like Bridget, whose good character makes them want to serve their country but also makes it impossible for them to do so.
The obvious "don't ask, don't tell" losses, of course, are bad enough. Not just bad-ridiculous. Silly.
Bridget points out that the U.S. soldier currently being held in Iraq for rape and murder was given a waiver for his past criminal history.
"So, you can join the military if you're a criminal, but not if you're gay? It doesn't make sense," Bridget says.
And she's right.
She's also right about the very real worry of military readiness. The armed forces have dismissed 11,000 soldiers through "don't ask," about 800 of them with critical skills-and 300 with crucial language skills. The military needs Arab linguists, of course, so it replaces the gay ones with civilians who don't have as thorough a background check or any type of military commitment, yet have access to critical military information.
Makes you feel safer, doesn't it?
Over 700 soldiers were dismissed for being gay last year alone-in the middle of a war in which the armed forces are not making their recruitment goals.
But those 11,000 discharged gay soldiers don't include people like Bridget, who couldn't bear lying any longer.
"It makes no sense," she says. "'Don't ask, don't tell' doesn't make sense from a military readiness standpoint. It doesn't make sense from a unit cohesion standpoint-nothing disrupts unit cohesion like lying. Being in the Army isn't like some nine-to-five job at Wal-Mart. You bunk with these people. They know you. If you're lying, they know."
And the myth that gay men and lesbians would start hitting on people in their units?
"That hasn't happened with any of our allies who let openly gay soldiers serve-England, Israel," Bridget says. "What do legislators think, that Americans are hornier than people in other countries?"
Besides, she points out, the military has rules about conduct, which should apply equally to gay and straight people. There is no sex in the barracks. Superiors can't date those under them. "If the head of a unit hit on a soldier, he or she could be brought up on charges-not because he or she is gay, but because it's against military law," Bridget says.
There are plenty of ways, she says, to make sure this gay-sex-everywhere nightmare doesn't happen.
But that's not what the law is about, of course.
The law isn't about sense. It's not about unit cohesion. It's not about military readiness. It's about discrimination.
And while the military is discriminating, it's losing people we need to fight for us, like that Arab linguist. And it's losing people like Bridget, who leave exemplary military careers because they are exactly the sorts of people the military wants-men and women who aren't comfortable lying.
"I don't know why I was livid when I heard about that linguist," Bridget says. "It's the same stuff that keeps happening over and over. It's a farce."
8 Comments for “Another Casualty of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’”
posted by kittynboi on
It’s so absurd. I understand that the military is currently allowing people with criminal histories and mental problems in the army, people who would never have been able to get in before, because supposedly they’re direly needed.
But gays are STILL too bad?
posted by Bobby on
The military is a funny place, you have to wake up real early, do painful exercizes, expose life and limb, share barracks with people you might dislike (if you got biases based on race, religion, etc), use a bathroom without a stall, shower without privacy, but the Center for Military Readiness thinks asking soldiers to live with a gay roommate is asking too much.
The tide will turn eventually, patience is a virtue.
When both military and civilian polls are 70% or more against the ban, things will change.
And it would be nice if this could be a majority decision, instead of another court imposed decision. The reason many Americans are angry is because their feelings are rarely taken into account.
Even in a “representative democracy,” it’s the government that’s supposed to work for the people and not the people for the government.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””The reason many Americans are angry is because their feelings are rarely taken into account.””””
Their feelings don’t always matter. I don’t need the permission of total strangers to do every last thing I might want to do, no matter how much they think they’re entitled to such influence over others’ lives.
posted by Bobby on
Their feelings don’t always matter? That’s a very elitist attitude, an attitude of “we know what’s best for you so you’re gonna shut up and let us do what we want.”
In a democracy, it doesn’t work that way. And while you don’t need permission to do your thing, the military doesn’t only belong to you.
posted by kittynboi on
The miltiary doesn’t “belong” to anyone per se, but I was speaking in general, not just in regards to this one issue.
Regardless of whether it’s elitist, it’s true. There’s a difference between democracy and collectivism.
posted by Drew on
Two points:
One, how can the Democrats and the gay left address this issue with any credibility when they are so anti-Iraq war?
Two, why hasn’t the military modified it policy and lift part of the ban? Most people can not figure out why a gay must be kicked out of the military when all he does is translate text.
posted by kittynboi on
Why does opposing one specific war mean that one is anti military?
posted by etjb on
“When both military and civilian polls are 70% or more against the ban, things will change.”
Last time I checked, most Americans oppose the ban, but do not expect it to change under the current pro-Islamofascism administration and leadership.
“instead of another court imposed decision.”
The USSC has made it pretty clear that it is not eager to touch gay rights cases.
“many Americans are angry is because their feelings are rarely taken into account.”
Well, a majority of Americans do not vote.