Don’t ask
WASHINGTON — Repealing “Don’t ask, don’t tell” may be the right thing to do, but there’s only one reason to do it: military effectiveness.
Yet, repeatedly, we hear the argument that disallowing gays and lesbians to be “openly gay” in the military is a denial of their civil rights. This argument isn’t only mistaken, it is misplaced. Approaching DADT as a civil rights issue is appealing and convenient, but it’s really not quite that. Or rather, it isn’t only that.
The military may be a microcosm of society in some ways, but it most definitely is not a democracy. Individuals don’t have the usual rights that we honor in civilian society and, in fact, forfeit their freedoms when they wear the uniform.
If you want to test your free speech rights, try criticizing your commanding officer.
This issue is so fraught with emotion and personal conflict that it’s difficult to summon the necessary dispassion. It feels silly and patronizing to say that gays and lesbians are equal to the task of serving in the military, because it is so obvious and true.
Moreover, gays and lesbians already have served honorably and valiantly, so what, one might ask, is the big deal? Why make people pretend they’re not who they are?
Then again, is that really the most relevant question? Given the nature of the military, the more pressing concern is whether changing the current policy will enhance—or at least not undermine—military performance.
In combat, as all who have served will tell you, unit cohesion is crucial. Whether serving as “openly gay,” the definition and ramifications of which remain unclear, will affect that cohesion is the great X-factor—the thing that can’t be measured or fully understood in advance. The enlightened views of a few urban dwellers for whom “unit cohesion” is an abstraction are not necessarily useful to the debate.
Does the fact that society as a whole has become more accepting of gays mean that the military environment will be equally welcoming? Or will we see special training camps for guys who just can’t get with the program?
I posit these questions with open heart and mind. As a civilian without military experience, I accept my limitations in making such judgments but would urge those contemplating a new policy to check that their motivations are moored to military rather than civilian imperatives.
There’s no question that attitudes toward gays have relaxed in the 16 years since DADT was passed. A new generation of Americans has been raised to respect and accept gays and lesbians without prejudice. Views also have softened among older Americans, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen, who favor repealing DADT.
Even my Marine vet brother, who survived Khe Sanh in 1968, insisted for years that gays would have been a huge problem in Vietnam. Today he says: “Gay schmay. If he has the guts to go through the things I did, then good for him. … No doubt we all served with gay guys and never knew it. Gays aren’t stupid, and they darn sure know who is friendly and who isn’t. I say leave it to the troops and forget about it.”
The operative words in his mellower assessment may be “never knew it,” which remain central to arguments in favor of keeping DADT intact. To what extent, if any, does “knowing” affect cohesion and what, exactly, does “knowing” entail? The truth is, we don’t know and a policy change would constitute an experiment.
Among sober arguments favoring repeal of the current law is the particular idiocy of banning or removing someone who is otherwise useful to the military only because of sexual orientation. The several Arabic-speaking gays who were scrubbed when the military was sorely lacking in communications personnel in Iraq come to mind.
Equally absurd is the notion that gays cannot abide by the same rules against fraternization as heterosexuals. There’s simply no evidence that gays are less able to control their libidos than are heterosexuals.
More questions remain than can be posed, much less answered, in this space, and Gates may need every minute of the 11 months he has requested to study the issue. Whatever one’s personal opinion, the guiding principle should be only what is best for military effectiveness.
“Be all that you can be” was a nice recruiting slogan, but the military really is not about you. And the right to serve belongs to no one.
Kathleen Parker is a columnist for the Orlando Sentinel. Her e-mail address is kathleenparker@washpost.com.
Feb 10, 2010 at 8:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
If the problem was truely who-showers-with-whom, the solution would be to build individual shower stalls, not kick out well qualified service men and women.
Comparing male-female living arrangements to gay-straight also doesn't hold water. On average, males have a clear size and strength advantage over females. On average, people of the same gender do not.
Feb 10, 2010 at 1:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
I have no problem leaving such decisions to military leaders. On the subject of who should or should not be hired, I am as thoroughly unqualified to make the decision for them as they are to make the same decision for me. This issue is just one more predictable consequence of an abominated definition of human "rights".
Feb 10, 2010 at 1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Growing up, I didn't know any homosexuals, (or I wasn't aware I did). As an adult, I made friends with people, who happened to be gay. They were people first, and by the way, who happened to be sexually attracted to the same sex. How does that affect me? Nada.
Many women are right. This issue is about male insecurity about their own gender. Some "real" men feel being fearful and tough about gays made them stronger heterosexuals. A real man treats everyone equally, different or not. They do not have to choose to isolate people who are different them. If they do, they are weak, and from a country of many unique folks, un-American.
Feb 10, 2010 at 12:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
the homosexual in the shower being compared to a woman in the shower is not a fair analogy. the woman could have every guy in the shower looking at her. its the opposite for the homosexual. HE is the one (potentially)doing the looking. to use that analogy correct would mean the woman is the one staring the men down.
if someone, regardless of their sexuality, is willing to take a bullet for this country then they should have all the rights in the world to share what makes them happy.
Feb 10, 2010 at 11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Doesn't the question come down to some men who are afraid other men will treat them the very same (obnoxious, condescending, and patronizing) way they, themselves, generally treat women? Time for a reality check! Courage, commitment, personal accountability, intelligence, self-control and dedication have nothing to do with gender-preference unlike intolerance and bigotry.
Feb 10, 2010 at 11:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
All this talk about gays - I thought they are homosexuals. Stop calling homos 'gays'.
Feb 10, 2010 at 11 a.m.
Suggest removal
The reality to uncomfortable situations and the military social system will be dealt a difficult hand if the policy is changed.
Case in point: currently most policies regarding inappropriate situations, for sake of argument if a female feels threatened [not by physical contact, but by stares or comments] the consenting definition is if she feels uncomfortable it needs to be addressed. Think of the expanded policy that will have to be addressed after a change to don't ask don't tell.
To those that have never served, the service is one of the most racial, religious, sexist, and pick-any-other "ist" awareness groups there are to work; all must attend mandatory awareness courses/training, many of these are done on a yearly basis.
It is simple to sit back and say no big deal just change it, reality, as in most cases, are far different than perception.
Feb 10, 2010 at 10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
I recall the case of a high school sophomore who was believed to be gay by his classmates. In the showers after gym, some of the straight guys sexually accosted him. So, it seems to me that perhaps in the showers the gay guys (real or imagined) aren't the problem. That case is also instructive in considering why there are not coed showers. It's important to protect the prey from the predator.
DiGriz: You had an excellent post at 12:54, but one statement in there explains why DADT needs to go. Near the end of your post, you wrote, "The emphasis when you serve is...not who you bring home at night." That's the problem. Straights are able to date who they want. If a gay person dates, they are subject to discharge. So, under DADT, "who you bring home at night" DOES get them tossed out.
Feb 10, 2010 at 9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
PBRMan, I wouldn't have a problem showering with women though. Maybe they should make showers coed?
Feb 10, 2010 at 9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
How many of you women would feel comfortable showering, bunking, sharing a bathroom, and walking around in your undergarments in front of other men? My guess is honestly, not many of you. Now you know why men would have this same problem with gay men. It isn't homophobia, it is a class of comfort zone.
Feb 10, 2010 at 9:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
andre_linoge, touché.
Feb 10, 2010 at 9:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
How is DADT going to make anybody feel less "uncomfortable"? They're still going to be taking showers with gays they just aren't going to know who they are.
Feb 10, 2010 at 2:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Yup, DADT is real fair.
"Lt. Col. Fehrenbach faced a double persecution, first when Cameron Shaner falsely accused him of [redacted], then when the US Air Force decided that defending himself was grounds for firing."
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/20/pilo...
http://blog.mattalgren.com/2009/08/lt-co...
Feb 10, 2010 at 2:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
"So 99% of the people in the military are supposed to feel "uncomfortable" in the shower to appease the small minority?"
"Most people in the military aren't as ignorant as you are making them out to be and don't have a problem with gays..."
First, your "99%" is completely made up. Second, if 99% are truely uncomfortable, how can "most" not have a problem with gays?
Feb 9, 2010 at 8:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
justathought,
You said " Open your mind a little, how egocentric is it to assume that the gay man in the shower next to you wants you? Perhaps try and find the common ground in the fact that you're both the kind of people willing to stand up and fight for your country!" If that is the case then why have seperate showers for the males and females. As long as the female doesn't have an interest in a certain guy than it is ok for them to shower together? So 99% of the people in the military are supposed to feel "uncomfortable" in the shower to appease the small minority? Or do you suggest the gay people have thier own shower time? Most people in the military aren't as ignorant as you are making them out to be and don't have a problem with gays but there are concrete reasons for DADT. By the way good post Digriz
Feb 9, 2010 at 1:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Good post DiGriz.
Feb 9, 2010 at 12:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
whats the slogan? "be all the you can be" accept gay, huh? so...gay folks are good enough to put their life on the line fighting for our freedom to discriminate against them. Ironic, no? Ugh, we need a separation of "sex and state". And if military folks are uncomfortable serving next to a gay person, too bad...that is YOUR problem, not theirs! Open your mind a little, how egocentric is it to assume that the gay man in the shower next to you wants you? Perhaps try and find the common ground in the fact that you're both the kind of people willing to stand up and fight for your country! The good news is that the old school homophobic ways are on their way out, and those who believe homosexuality is a "sin" are quickly becoming the minority. God is Love, not exclusionary or judgmental.
Feb 9, 2010 at 12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Well how has the shower situation been handled in the past with DADT? It may not have been necessary to ask but I'll bet they were able to tell once they were all in the showers!
Feb 9, 2010 at 12:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Wow, how about you actually talk to someone who has served, in the last decade at least. When the military leaders agrees that DADT needs to end, then that's the end of the story. I'll believe them over the homophobes any day.
Feb 9, 2010 at 12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
I think many are missing the point. In basic training, tech school, and at some duty stations, you are roomed together. Community showers, sleeping arrangments, etc. They don't coed these things, for obvious reasons. But just like the uncomfortableness a female would be in those situation, I can see a straight person feeling the same. A male would be checking out a female, just like a gay person would be checking out a straight person. It would just be uncomfortable for everyone.
Feb 9, 2010 at 12:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Under the current system, if they are up for promotion and someone else wants it, he or she could "turn them in" for being gay and get them discharged"
.
Military promotion system does not work like some school district or fortune 500 company. Turning in someone will not help your promotion prospects so you may want to drop this from your argument.
Feb 9, 2010 at 12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
I didn't serve. Are you bitter because they didn't pay for your operation?
Feb 9, 2010 at 11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
andre_linoge, if they did pay, would you then decide to join? I'd support it if it attracted more qualified troops like youself.
Feb 9, 2010 at 11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Do straight people run around telling everyone they're straight?
.
Yep, they do. Wedding Rings, pictures, openly sharing stories about their wives/girlfriends/husbands/boyfriends.
.
Currently, good soldiers aren't allowed to share information about likely the most important person in their lives.
.
I am not brave or strong enough to volunteer for the huge commitment/sacrifice to serve in the military. It is time that the military welcomes all who are.
.
It is a FACT that the military has lost good, highly qualified soldiers due to this policy. During a time of TWO wars...how smart is that?
Feb 8, 2010 at 8:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Actually it's not just about freedom of speech and freedom to be yourself, although, those are important. Yes there are gay men and lesbians serving valiantly in the military right now. Under the current system, if they are up for promotion and someone else wants it, he or she could "turn them in" for being gay and get them discharged. If they refuse someone's personal advances, this could also be done. It is a setup designed to blackmail good soldiers because anyone can report that they believe someone is gay and hurt their career by doing so. It is a dangerous and discriminatory policy that has to be changed.
Feb 8, 2010 at 1:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
You know, you hear so much about how brave, courageous, and unflappable soldiers are, unless there's a question of gays. Then apparently they turn into scaredy-cats. Armored mobile Soviet cavalry? Not scary. Engage according to field manual. Gays? Oh no! What shall we do?
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.