A Breakthrough Argument on DADT

by on

On CNN's "State of the Union," National Security Adviser (and retired four-star general) James L. Jones argues puts a powerful frame around repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell:

I have served my country in uniform since 1967, and in that period, we covered racial questions, racial integration. We've covered the integration of women in the armed forces. People suggested that that would be a national security problem if we did both of those things. It turned out to be, as a matter of fact, a force multiplier by doing those things. People - and I grew up in a generation where they said if you integrate members of the gay community, that will be a national security problem. That will probably prove itself to be false as well.

Proponents of DADT are down to arguing, in effect: Why mess with a policy that works in time of war? As Daniel Pipes puts it, "Now is not the time for social experimentation in the armed forces." Jones has the answer: integration is not a distraction, it is a force multiplier. With those two words, "force multipler," the general has given pro-repeal forces a rallying cry. Let's shout it from the rooftops.

6 Comments for “A Breakthrough Argument on DADT”

  1. posted by Bobby on

    I think is wonderful that we have straight Generals defending gays in the military, who could have more credibility than them?

  2. posted by Jorge on

    Possibly conservative gay ex-military people. There’s at least one out there.

    I’m a little curious to know how the integration of African Americans (a distinct minority) into the military turned out to be a force “multiplier”. But I’m not wonkish enough to actually find out. It’s a nice fresh argument that complements the argument against kicking out all those gay Arab linguists.

  3. posted by Amicus on

    More conservative military here.

    As long as there is one prospective gay soldier that is better than the worst nongay soldier, one can make a ‘force multiplier’ argument.

  4. posted by Amicus on

    I’ll reproduce this here as de facto support for the former General’s statement (Jones is really a thinking man’s solider), ganked from a comments section:

    I spent 14 of my 22 years in command, from platoons(5), to companies(3), to battalions(2). I as intelligence and had to make a decision based on the best interests of the unit and in the larger arena, of the Army.

    I chose the “don’t ask, don’t tell” back before it ever existed. If I had thrown everyone out who I suspected or who told me they were homosexual, my units would have been in a crisis. I couldn’t have done the mission. There’s no way to gather the information and analyze it to produce intelligence, if you are missing large number of soldiers, beyond the usual lack because the training is so rigorous over 50% drop out before finishing the training.

    Now start yanking soldiers out in the numbers the Army did between 1977 and 1997, when I retired, and the combat arms commanders would be screaming for information I had no way to provide in the detail they needed it in. So I pursued a not so unilateral policy of letting sleeping dogs lie. That way, my units functioned at a high rate of effectiveness, over and over. Homosexuality wasn’t an issue, nor did any of my seniors, to include general officers who were my direct raters or senior raters.

    Had this become common knowledge, I suspect I would have been offered the chance to resign or stand a court-martial. The change is coming, ADR Mullen has made it clear and SECDEF Gates agrees. There are sufficient younger officers in place now to nudge the policy into place, despite people like McCain. It’s people like him that don’t get it and create phantom masses of soldiers worried about being in the shower, etc, etc, etc. The fact is the military can’t function without everyone, in a joint effort.

    By the way, joint was once a dirty word because the purity of each branch of service would be tainted somehow by coming into contact with members of the other branches. Somehow we got through that, and through integrating women into the military mainstream, despite the squawking nuts from the far right.

    This change may go slower at first, at take more time to complete, but as more and more senior officers and sergeants retire, the easier it will become. Interesting tool was used to help the integration of minorities and women into the military and enforce fair treatment, the performance evaluation. I guarantee if you add a block to include gays and lesbians to the equal treatment, “supports the program” , type comment, and officers don’t get promoted or get removed from leadership positions, people will line up to toe the line, at least officially, at first.

  5. posted by Bobby on

    “Possibly conservative gay ex-military people. There’s at least one out there.”

    —No, we gays have no credibility because we’re going to be accused of self-interest. I would rather have an straight general saying that he took showers in front of gay men in his unit and had no problems with it. Political Science 101 – If you want to convince people that meat is good, get a vegetarian to defend it.

    DADT isn’t really about gays but straight issues with gays.

    Take a look at this comment.

    “Its not in the field [that he has a problem with gays]. Its in the barracks or on the ship where there is little or no personal privacy”

    So who better to address those issues? Who has more credibility? We need other straights that have dealt with this to answer questions.

  6. posted by Jay on

    I always wish our former speaker of the house newt Gingrich would of done more for gay ppl since his daughter was gay.

Comments are closed.