Bit by bit, support for the military's ban on openly gay service members is crumbling. In a recent and important op-ed in the New York Times, retired army general and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997, John Shalikashvili, concludes that the anti-gay "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy should be phased out.
Shalikashvili's stand is especially significant because the Joint Chiefs, who comprise the nation's top officers in each branch and advise the president on military matters, were the most influential opponents of President Clinton's proposal to lift the ban on gays in the military back in 1993. In fact, their opposition to lifting the ban was the decisive factor in creating DADT as a "compromise" that would supposedly allow gay Americans to serve as long as they hid their sexual orientation.
In fact, DADT changed nothing in practice since it was always the case that service members whose homosexual orientation was unknown could serve. In some ways, DADT appears to have made things worse, perhaps by heightening awareness in the military about the presence of thousands of gays in the ranks. Discharges for homosexuality have risen almost every year since the policy became effective.
The basic reason Shalikashvili gives for his conversion is that the experience of the last 14 years has shown that allowing gays to serve openly would not undermine morale, harm recruitment, or hurt unit cohesion -- long the main claims of those who have opposed allowing gay Americans to serve.
He cites four factors as support for his new view. First, we can look to the experience of more than two dozen other countries (including the world's most effective militaries, person-for-person, Britain and Israel) that allow gays to serve openly. These military forces have not suffered the problems predicted by opponents of allowing gays to serve openly.
Second, attitudes in the military have softened considerably since 1993, when many service members strongly opposed letting gays serve. A recent Zogby poll of more than 500 military personnel returning from Afghanistan and Iraq showed that three quarters were comfortable interacting with gay people. Only a small percentage indicated they would have a serious problem serving with gays.
Third, Shalikashvili has interviewed gay service members and learned that gays are already serving openly and honorably in many units. His interviews included "gay soldiers and marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew." Back in 1993, Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA) luridly took reporters on a tour of the cramped quarters in a submarine to demonstrate the inappropriateness of allowing gays to serve. Shalikashvili's interviews showed him "just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers."
Fourth, the country can no longer afford the luxury of discharging perfectly capable military personnel. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the larger war on terror, require an all-hands-on-deck approach to military recruitment and retention. "Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job," concludes Shalikashvili.
The time has come for Congress to look seriously at lifting the ban. Other former military leaders and supporters of DADT have urged likewise. A study earlier this year showed that DADT has not only cost the country the service of thousands of personnel, but has also wasted hundreds of millions of dollars in lost training and expenses for investigations of soldiers' private lives. Polls show that a majority of Americans favor lifting the ban.
I'm guessing the new Democratic Congress will be reluctant to revisit the issue just now, however. Other issues -- like what to do about the mess in Iraq -- are far more pressing. The Democrats' Achilles' heel is the perception that they are hostile to the military and weak on defense, a perception that voting to lift the ban might unfairly reinforce. At least that is what they will fear.
Of course, in the unlikely event President Bush were to announce that he favors a reconsideration of DADT, that would give Congress the political cover it needs to move forward. Bush could paint such a move as an effort to strengthen the nation's defenses in time of war.
The change could proceed incrementally, perhaps beginning by allowing gays to serve openly in administrative and other positions where heterosexuals' privacy concerns are least implicated. Or the ban could be suspended for the duration of the Iraq war and then reviewed in, say, five years. Or Congress could simply repeal DADT as federal law, allowing the president to decide what policy to have, as presidents could do before 1993. This would enhance executive power, and when has the president not favored that?
Shalikashvili also wants to proceed slowly with the change, not take it up as the first issue in the new Congress. "By taking a measured, prudent approach to change," he writes, "political and military leaders can focus on solving the nation's most pressing problems while remaining genuinely open to the eventual and inevitable lifting of the ban. When that day comes, gay men and lesbians will no longer have to conceal who they are, and the military will no longer need to sacrifice those whose service it cannot afford to lose."
11 Comments for “Another Blow to the Military Ban”
posted by John on
You’re delusional if you think anyone will get near this subject, no matter what some general says. Heterosexuality is next to godliness or at least patriarchy and that’s the way it will remain as long as the USA represents the new Jerusalem. Unfortunately for gay people, our country is unlikely to give up this holy role without initiating Word War 111.
posted by John on
I should have said unfortunately for gay people and mankind.
posted by inahandbasket on
It seems to me that right now is a bad time to lift DADT. Not allowing gays to serve while the military recruiters are now scraping the bottom of society’s barrel for cannon fodder is rather amusing to watch.
Spare me any patriotic blather about serving one’s country. What self respecting gay American would want to join the military to get blown up in Iraq when that same gay person can’t even marry and designate her/his survivor benefits to the spouse?
Lesbian and gay Americans, sit this out, pop some pop corn and watch the folly of the government deal with the mess of Iraq.
The only thing better than watching Shrub & his Mayberry Machiavellians mismanage this illegal war is the potential re-institution of the military draft without lifting DADT. I’d buy a front row seat to watch that debacle. Can you imagine 30 – 40% of young Americans ‘discovering’ their homosexual identity!?
BWAHAHAHA!!!!!!
posted by jomicur on
Oh, sure. Our political leaders make policy decisions based on facts and common sense. (That’s what got us into Iraq–and is keeping us there, isn’t it?) And the Christian right, which dictates policy to both major parties, values truth and fairness. (That’s why they’ve abandoned creationism and embraced science.) Right. Why haven’t I seen this before?
posted by Regan DuCasse on
I know a very strong and strapping gay man who served in Iraq with the Marines, right after 9/11.
I remember reading about gay soldiers with Purple Hearts who were still committed to continue to serve.
Now that our little candy assed (never served in combat) ex Guard President won’t even TALK about the DADT or lift it.
Let alone what the hell kind of strategy bullshit he’s got in mind.
If they lift the ban, and even start to actively recruit young gays and lesbians as the British have done.
As much as I’ve hated the bans and DADT…I’d tell my gay fellow citizens.
Unless gay folks get the FULL ride AS citizens, marriage…adoption of kids…openness without discrimination.
I’d say
Uncle Sam…FUCK YOU!
Now that shit has gone South…NOW this country wants to tap it’s gay talent.
What a friggin’ insult.
Rove, Rumsfeld…the whole crew.
Ain’t sorry to see you go.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Gays should be able to serve in the military (though I don’t see *why* a gay person would want to serve).
jomicur is also correct in noting that the big-government socialist state of today that the Democrats and Republicans have constructed for their own benefit demands full payment (and often disproportionately higher payment) from gay people than from heterosexual people — with precious few of the so-called “social benefits” that it provides.
This is one reason why I find the popularity of socialism in the gay community to be so perplexing. Gay people tend to work harder, achieve more, and (often) get more duress than heterosexual individuals from the same backgrounds. We’re the winners, the survivors, the people who are creative and successful in the arts and business. Why would we want to have our income drained from us to support a system that has delivered the mediocrity and downward spiral of contemporary socialist systems — trailer parks, welfare moms, overleveraged and overworked families who demand their poor financial decisions be supported by those of us smart enough not to make such stupid decisions?
posted by Alan down in Florida on
The Chimp in Chief is sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq and has committed to increasing the size of the military by 93,000.
Current recruiting is unable to meet its goals despite lowering standards and recruiter fraud.
The President and the Congress will approve DADT as a way to achieve their numbers long before instituting the draft again.
Also it will be seen as a sop by politicians to gays to make up for all these anti-same sex marriage amendments that have passed.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Oh yes, it will be a useful fig leaf for politicians who got burnt by the backlash against anti-gay campaigning in the last election.
Of course, after Democrats (who committed against ending DADT right after the election) manage to get it through with Republicans, they’ll hail themselves as “putting themselves on the line for gays” and will tell those uppity homos that they “got something,” so please sit down and shut up and vote for increased taxes and spending for our latest pet project. 😉
posted by Greg on
“are now scraping the bottom of society’s barrel for cannon fodder”
—Who the hell are you to insult anyone serving in the military? The bottom of society? Cannon fodder? Where do you live? San Francisco?
Queers like you make me sick, always thinking that you’re better that your kind is better than everyone else.
Anyone who serves in the military deserves our respect.
Including patriotic gays which you are obviously not.
posted by Juan Estevez on
This is something that really makes me sick.
I’ve got a few friends that are still in Iraq and Afghanistan…fighting for Uncle Sam. They haven’t come out, and that’s why. Because they love their job, they love their country.
Anyway, nice article.
I’m out,
Juan
Juan @ http://www.livegaycamera.com
posted by Bobby on
Glad you feel that way, Juan. A lot of liberals think anyone in the military is a stupid redneck with nothing better to do than join the military. And if they see black people in the service, they say they’re not there because they’re patriots but because they couldn’t get scholarships to go to college. Of course, these are the people who think we’re closed-minded, go figure.