Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Work: Opening Up the Military

The active duty military is being stretched to the limit by the war on terror at the same time service members are being discharged in record numbers under "don't ask, don't tell." President Bush has called for increased recruitment causing renewed debate on everything from increasing already high monetary enlistment bonuses to the reinstatement of the draft. Meanwhile, top military leaders continue to resist a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell", a policy that some say conflicts national ideals, national security and our ability to maintain the strongest possible troop. There is however growing decent within and without the ranks on the merits of the compromise policy signed into law by Presidnt Bill Clinton which became effective in 1994.

Earlier this month Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., introduced legislation to reapeal "don't ask, don't tell." The bill has over 100 bipartisian cosponsors who argue that the military needs all the qualified volunteers it can get. Among those testifying before a committee were Veteran Marine Staff Sgt. Eric Alva, an Iraq war veteran and recipient of the Purple Heart.

Alva, noted that since 1993 more than 10,000 servicemen and women have been discharged for revelaing their sexulaity. Many of these were combat tested troops as well as Arabic translators. This after the famous 9/11 commision noted the need for more human intllegince which Arbic linquist provide. It has also been noted by the General Accounting Office (GAO) that it costs the American taxpayer $250 million to $1 billion to investigate and remove gays from the military. Alva isn't alone in his dissent over continuing "don't ask, don't tell."

John Shalikashvili, former Joint Chiefs chairman when the Defense Department adopted its "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military says he no longer opposes allowing gays to serve openly. Shalikashvili, who retired in 1997 after four years as the top U.S. military officer, had argued that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would hurt troop morale and recruitment and undermine the cohesion of combat units. He said he has since changed his mind after meeting with gay servicemen.

"These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers," Shalikashvili wrote in an opinion piece in New York Times. His view could carry weight at a time when advocates of lifting the restriction on gay service members argue that the military, under the strain of fighting two simultaneous wars, can ill-afford to exclude any qualified volunteers.

Shalikashvili is not the only former military officer to change his mind about gays in the military, though he is perhaps the most prominent. John Hutson, a retired two-star Navy admiral who was the Navy's top lawyer, said he thinks the nation has undergone so much cultural change over the past decade that allowing gays to serve openly in the military would enhance rather than weaken the cohesion of fighting units. Hutson went on to say however, he didn't believe any change would occur during the Bush administration.

Rep. Marty Meehan praised Shalikashvili's and Alva. "There is no place in this country for discrimination, be it on the basis of race, creed or sexual orientation, and there is certainly no place for institutional discrimination codified in federal statute." Meehan said in a statement.

New York Senator and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton also addressed the issue. Politically motivated or not, Senator Clinton, during an unannounced speech before the Human Rights Campaign stated, "The policy doesn't just hurt gays and lesbians, it hurts all our troops, and this is a matter of national security, and we're going to fix it." The former first lady publicly opposed the policy in 1999 during her first New York Senate run. Clinton's leading rivals for the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama and John Edwards have also called for a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." The renewed opposition within the party has led some to wonder whether a win for the Democrats in 2008 would lead to a Harry Truman style Executive Order.

Executive Order 9981 was signed on July 26, 1948 by President Harry S. Truman to racially integrate the armed forces shortly after World War II, which he had the authority to do under Executive Order without the need for any enabling legislation to be passed by Congress, where like today, it likely would have met with opposition. In 1950 the Korean War broke out and the U.S. Army, which had done very little desegregating since Truman had issued his order, sent the segregated Eighth Army to defend South Korea. The first months of the Korean War were some of the most disastrous in U.S. military history. The North Korean People's Army nearly pushed the American led United Nations force off the Korean peninsula. Commanders on the ground, faced with staggering losses in white units began accepting black replacements, thus integrating their units. The practice occurred all over the Korean battle lines and proved that integrated combat units could perform adequately under fire.

However, not everyone agrees that the ban isn't working or that it should be repealed. Many republicans still support "don't ask, don't tell", and members may be reluctant to revisit such a divisive issue. Republican Sen. John McCain, a possible presidential contender in 2008, recently called the military policy "very effective." More importantly the views of the top U.S. military officer, General Peter Pace, current chair of the joint chief, were recently made public, though not under the most positive circumstance.

Gen. Peter Pace came under some fire when he told a newspaper he believed homosexual acts are immoral comparing such acts to service members who have affairs with other service members' spouses.

"My upbringing is such that I believe that there are certain things, certain types of conduct that are immoral," Pace told the paper, "So the 'don't ask, don't tell' [policy] allows an individual to serve the country ... if we know about immoral acts, regardless of committed by who, then we have a responsibility. So from that standpoint, saying that gays should serve openly in the military to me says that we, by policy, would be condoning what I believe is immoral activity."

A recent non-scientific online QuickPoll found that Americans are split on this issue. Asked to respond as to whether they agreed with General Pace's characterizing homosexuality as immoral 49% responded "yes" 51% "no". Though the poll reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who chose to participate and cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole; the results do reinforce other polls. A Boston Globe poll taken in 2005 found that 79% of Americans believe gays should be allowed to serve in the military.

Military servicemen, while mixed in their opinion generally support a repeal of the ban as well. A career soldier who asks to be identified only as Rich K told me:

As someone who spent 20 years in the military I can state with certainty that Gays are there, always have been, always will be. I also watched several people sign up, receive months, if not years of technical schools at military expense, then claim to be gay and get out, taking their skills with them, and promptly start in civilian jobs in their field at 60-100k a year. The objection most men have to gays is that they are afraid that they might be subject to the same unwelcome male attention to which they themselves subject women. The gay ban is in place because homosexuality is banned by the Bible, no other reason, countries without such a ban have experienced none of the problems the U.S. homophobes claim are inevitable.

A female soldier "JoJo stated:

I known plenty of people what's the big deal we are keeping with the all volunteer force then let every one in. I've known a few in my time and it didn't make me nervous or ever become an issue. We deploy with other countries that allow everyone and no one thinks anything of it, until they get back then realize that the country had an open policy. I am still in and don't care who you love.

Not all the responses however were on the side of an open military. C. J. was more inline with General Pace's position:

The policy of banning homosexuals in the military is the correct one. Not only is their lifestyle wrong, but it is also detrimental to good order in the military. The majority of soldiers are straight, and they certainly would not take well to having homosexuals in the barracks with them. It's been commonplace for homosexuals to be on the receiving end of a beating in the military. If they want to serve, then they either need to keep their mouths shut about their "preferences", or they need to become heterosexual, as they should be to start with.

Charles, a veteran recalled:

Well, I'm gay and I served 7 years. My fellow soldiers pretty much KNEW without me saying anything and they didn't care. I even heard one of them say if anyone were to mess with me then they'd kick that person's a**. Even though I never actually came OUT to anyone, it was still a good experience. I'm sure I was one of the lucky ones, though.

It is not clear whether or not "don't ask, don't tell" is here to stay or a speed bump on the highway to a more open military policy towards gays and lesbians. It is clear that as the war on terrorism continues, and possibly expands, discouraging potential recruits and discharging seasoned service members does not enhance the military effort.