On Nov. 30, a group of 28 retired generals and admirals released a letter urging Congress to repeal the law mandating the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding gays.
Pointing to studies suggesting that there are more than one million gay and lesbian veterans and 65,000 gays currently in the armed forces, the generals and admirals point out, "They have served our nation honorably."
This letter in itself, of course, will not move Congress to act but it chips away a little more at the legitimacy of the law and it can provide additional support for politicians who are willing to speak out about the issue.
The letter followed by just two days a Nov. 28 CNN forum for GOP presidential contenders in which all the candidates (except Giuliani) expressed support for the current policy, arguing that it is "working" or that it would be disruptive to integrate open gays into the military. Sen. John McCain said specifically that senior generals had told him that the policy is "working."
Is the policy working? Well, a lot of deplorable policies have "worked," depending on your goal, but that doesn't mean that they are the best policies or that other policies would not work better. Racial segregation in the military "worked." For that matter, racial segregation in the whole Southern society "worked" too. At least for white people. Stalin's concentration camps "worked." Islamic "honor killings" of women who have been raped "work" too, I suppose, if you are not the victim. But do many people want to defend those policies as the best policy?
Remember those Arabic linguists a couple of years ago who, despite the military's crying need for Arab-language translators, were discharged because they were gay? Is that an example of the policy "working"? What about all the other skills gays may have been taught that are lost when they are discharged from the military? More examples of the policy "working"?
What is particularly interesting is that people on both sides point to the same fact-that the U.S. is at war-to support their position. In an op-ed article for the New York Times last January, Gen. John Shalikashvili wrote, "Our military has been stretched thin by our deployment in the Middle East and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."
By contrast, the Republicans all say that it would be a distraction to allow open gays into the military during wartime. As former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee put it, morale and unit cohesion are paramount in the military and the DADT policy protects both. But Huckabee is not well-informed. First, gays are already in the military, an increasing number open about their orientation.
Second, a Rand Corporation study several years ago concluded that what counts is not "unit cohesion" but "mission cohesion"-a common commitment to completing the task at hand. And you might think that a military at war has a more important and easily identifiable mission than a military at peace. So integrating gays during a war would be the best time to do it.
Third, the British military began allowing openly gay personnel to serve several years ago and found-to its expressed surprise-that there were virtually no problems. And fourth, small surveys of military personnel have shown an increasing acceptance of open gays in the military.
The military itself seems to be ignoring the policy. The New York Times points out that discharges of gays dropped by 50 percent between 2001 and 2006-from 1,227 to 612. Military recruiters themselves, hard-pressed to meet their quotas, sometimes ignore the gay ban. I believe I have previously told the story of a friend who told the recruiter he was gay. The recruiter said, "I didn't hear a thing," and promptly signed him up. This is not just a policy that has lost its legitimacy, it is a policy in tatters.
Nevertheless, Republican candidates clutch at any possible rationale for keeping gays out of the military even if it has no basis in fact or prudence. I have no doubt that if the nation were at peace they would all say that because we didn't need more military personnel there was no real need for allowing open gays. (Giuliani, to his credit, has said that if it were peacetime, he would work to rescind DADT.)
No doubt for most of the Republicans, their position is rooted in a religiously motivated hostility to gays. But no doubt too they are aware that most GOP primary voters have similar views, so they are boxed into an inflexible position.
2 Comments for “DADT Once Again”
posted by Brian Miller on
Unfortunately, gay voters have destroyed their political capital on this issue.
By faithfully supporting Democrats who made DADT happen (Bill Clinton), Democrats who aren’t in a hurry to repeal DADT (Clinton, Obama), or Republicans who think it’s a great idea (all the present GOP candidates), they’ve sent the message that it doesn’t matter.
There’s no political penalty for supporting anti-gay policy, for both Democrats and Republicans. Whereas many see a severe penalty for supporting pro-gay policies.
Since Democrats and Republicans can count on undying support from their gay constituencies — regardless of what they do — why take chances?
Hence the present paralysis. It will continue, unfortunately, until gay voters cost a “can’t lose” Democrat or Republican a close race due to his or her position on gay issues — and cause some pain to the petulant politician in the process.
Democrats and Republicans don’t fear the gay vote — it’s predictable and led by a procession of useful idiots. They do fear the social conservative vote. Do the math.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
So, they agree we’re at war. But THIS time, with an ALL VOLUNTEER military.
You’d think with the coalition support having an open policy and with new recruits being informed of an open policy, that the issue has already been rendered academic.
There IS no issue except in the imaginations of the Congress.
As a matter of fact, I’ve noticed on almost ALL issues around gay people, overactive imaginations regarding gay sex.
And lack of it regarding all ELSE of merit gay people can and do offer society.
Go figure.