Let gay soldiers serve

President Barack Obama told a gay-rights audience on Oct. 10 that he intends to scrap the military's ban on open homosexuals, which is good news for anyone who thinks this is no time to be rejecting patriotic young men and women who want to serve their country. The bad news is that he didn't say when he plans to follow through on that promise. Our advice: The sooner the better.

This is not a matter of concern only to one-issue activists on the left and right. It has real, damaging side effects to a military that is badly strained by years of fighting two wars.

Since the existing policy, known as "don't-ask, don't-tell," came into being in 1993, it has forced the discharge of more than 12,000 service personnel, at a cost of $363 million. That doesn't count gays who never join, or decide not to re-enlist, because of the policy.

Those figures come not from gay-rights groups but from Air Force Col. Om Prakash, in an article that appeared in the Pentagon's Joint Force Quarterly and won an award from the secretary of defense. Prakash argues that these costs are unacceptable, because by fostering lying and hypocrisy, don't-ask, don't-tell actually undermines the unit cohesion that it was supposed to foster.

Supporters of the ban insist that many heterosexual soldiers and sailors will leave the military if gays are allowed to serve openly. That's a fanciful fear. In Canada and Britain, a majority of service members expressed aversion to allowing gays in the ranks, but Prakash notes that "after lifting their bans, the result was 'no-effect.'"

Don't-ask, don't-tell was a reasonable compromise when it was adopted. The Chicago Tribune said so, and so did Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who is gay. But the social environment has changed a great deal since then. In 1993, only 44 percent of Americans thought the military should accept open homosexuals. Today, 75 percent do.

Gen. Colin Powell, who helped devise the policy as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said, "Sixteen years have now gone by, and I think a lot has changed with respect to attitudes within our country. And therefore, I think this is a policy and a law that should be reviewed." Gen. John Shalikashvili, who held the same job, has gone further by endorsing outright repeal.

Obama agrees, but he has yet to take any concrete steps toward getting rid of the ban. Yes, he has many other issues to deal with. But pushing a Congress controlled by his own party to act would not exactly swallow up huge chunks of his time. Given his pledge, and given the clear harm the ban is doing, the president has no excuse for delay.

Above is a syndicated MCT editorial that appeared in the Chicago Tribune on Oct. 14.

2 comments

Michael

Thu Oct 22 2009 12:29

Your husband, and other service members, are currently in close physical proximity with other male soldiers, they just may not be aware. They do need to 'get over it' as this is the reality. Soldiers were uncomfortable when blacks were fully integrated, but they adapted. The fact is, the UK, Australia, Israel, Canada, France, Spain, Germany, South Africa and 22 other countries have policies that do not forbid gay men and women from serving. Only countries such as Iran, North Korea, China, Cuba and other autocratic governments ban gays from military service. Studies have shown that the full lifting of the ban on gay service has not led to any identifiable negative effects on troop morale, combat effectiveness, recruitment and retention, or other measures of military performance. Furthermore, available evidence suggests that policy changes associated with the lifting of the ban may have contributed to improvements in productivity and working environments for service members.

Anonymous

Tue Oct 20 2009 14:19

I find this is a very complicated issues with no good answer. I don’t think it is right or affordable for the US army to be discharging gay people. On the other hand I can see where the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy comes in handy. Being the wife of a husband who serves in our armed forces I have had several discussions with him on this topic. I can see where having to shower and be in close physical proximity with male soldiers, who may or may not be physically attracted to him, may cause unit cohesion problems. It would be like asking the straight men and women to shower together, I think this would make anyone uncomfortable. You can’t just ask millions of our armed forces to just “get over it” and change their comfort zones and ways of thinking over night either. Unit cohesion is so important when our soldier’s are in battle. It is a comfort for me to know that the guy next to my husband is looking out for him. I know it would be a comfort for a gay person’s partner to know that also. Someone who has a predjudice against gay people may not be looking out for the guy next to them. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m saying that’s the way it is. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was in place for a reason to create unit cohesion but it also serves to create protection from violence or neglect against gay soldiers, as I mentioned above. I do think it needs revision because it’s not fair that so many people are being discharged when we need them, but it has it’s pros also. I’m not sure there is a good answer.

Add comment


I am not posting spam. I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Enter the characters in the image above:

log out