Centerfield

My stance is that I would like the military to be able to take anyone that wishes to serve; however, the military should be maintained to maximize effectiveness, above all else. So, if that means discriminating against certain types of people, so be it. My concern is that soldiers will not be as effective if they are uncomfortable with some of their fellow soldiers. Whether that is fair, or ethical, is beside the point.

I've heard from some soldiers, who are generally open-minded, that it wouldn't be that big of a deal these days. While I like to think that is true, I will absolutely leave it up to the military itself to make that decision. Nobody outside the military should be able to interfere with their personnel policies.

I think the policy should be phased out sooner or later, with the timing depending upon an assessment of how ready troops are to accept it, but ultimately with a plan to get rid of a policy that amounts to discrimination based on sexual preference.

It doesn't need to happen today or tomorrow, but I think it can be done within the next decade, and that it won't be that big a deal one it happens. If the military can't be a successful meritocracy that pays little mind to personal variances that are unrelated to being a good fighting soldier, what hope is their for meritocracy elsewhere.

And here's the thing...it's about tolerance, not acceptance or approval. Any soldier can decide for his or her self how he or she feels about serving with each other soldier. That's their right. But unless the issue is a question of whether some soldier can in fact fight courageously and competently alongside fellow soldiers, your feelings are just that, feelings. You can have them, but don't try and turn them into an argument about why some otherwise qualified soldier ought not to belong. Get over yourself. You're a soldier first.

How about shifting to "Don't flaunt" is an interim step. That would mean not making advances to same-sex staff on military grounds or having pictures of one's same-sex lover in one's private storage space or other similar displays of one's homosexuality. Other than that, one would not need to deny being homosexual.

Missing from the discussion is the effect of discrimination against gays has on military preparedness. During peace time, it is generally not an issue as the loss of gays from the service is not a hindrance for getting adequate peace time troop numbers. However, during wartime, the additional numbers are harder to find, hence the military is now resorting to issueing waivers for certain moral, and in cases criminal offenses, in order to recruit suffient troops. So the question becomes, which is worse, allowing acknowledged gays to serve or allowing some of these waived recruits to serve?

The issue of preparedness is particularly acute in some specialties, such as languages, in which we have an extreme shortage which is only exacerbated by purging the service of gays. It seems that while we have a war going on against Salafism, some people are more interested in fighting a war against gays.

They could do an interim policy where open homosexuals just can't serve in combat positions. That's where unit cohesion and sharing the foxholes and what not have some merit to the arguments. But translator positions, backoffice intelligence, etc., let's make use of all the resources we have.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall reading that "no gays in the military" was a matter of law, rather than administration policy. If so, "Don't ask; don't tell" is about as far as a President can go until the Congress changes that law.

Justin, the argument you make (and variations on the "it damages morale"/"the troops wouldn't like it" theme) could have been, and was, made with equal or greater force in the late 1940s regarding integrating blacks in the military. So are you saying Truman was wrong to integrate the military when he did? Or are you saying that some kinds of discrimination based on irrelevant-to-the-mission criteria may be acceptable, depending on what the irrelevant characteristic is?

Or, it suddenly occurs to me, is Pat making the case for (temporary) segregated, all-gay, units in the army? Hey, it worked in WW II for blacks and for Japanese Americans (my father-in-law was in the 442, and they did damn well by us).

wj,

You're quite correct that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a legislative policy, mandated by statute. President Clinton pushed for its enactment, but it is ultimately the province of Congress, not the President, to change the policy.

I was not suggesting segregated "all gay" units. I was suggesting a policy similar to that with women right now. Women are not allowed to serve in "combat" positions. They can't be infantry, they can't be fighter pilots (the fighter pilot thing is pretty silly, I think; there are no foxholes in the air, and physical upper body strength is not that important). Anyway, women can serve in logistics roles and support roles and supply roles and intelligence roles, just not combat.

Adopting this policy for open homosexuals would not be creating some new practice, merely expanding an existing policy, which has been fully developed over the past 40 years, to a new group of people. The hardcore anti-homosexuals in the military (not that this is a military policy, but it is certainly influenced by military thinking) mostly argue in terms of unit cohesion in combat missions. This gets around that objection easily. The folks who keep pointing out how silly the homosexual exclusion is usually point to those discharged from the service with foreign language skills that are desperately needed right now. This would allow them to continue serving in those roles, satisfying that argument. Thus, it counters and addresses the main arguments made by each side of the debate. Simple.

As for President Bush's actions being determined by the current state of legislation, two things. One, there is discretion in the interpretation of "Don't tell." That is, Bush could promulgate that it be interpreted to mean that any way others find out constitutes a violation on the part of the one who is outed or he could promulgate that a violation would require being in others' faces about being homosexual. Second, in time of war it is possible to issue waivers, as is currently done for those with criminal records.

Scott, I agree with you. But I do think it's a bit much for members of Congress to object to "Don't ask; don't tell" (or its effects) when they are in a position to actually do something about it. If they simply removed the restriction, _then_ they could object to the way Bush (or any other President) was dealing with the issue. But at the moment, it looks to me like the ball is in their court. And, frankly, I'd like to see them do something about it sooner, rather than later.

The statute is 18 USC s. 654. It pretty precisely defines what "tell" means in section (b). There's not a lot of discretion left to the Secretary of Defense to decide what "tell" means, really.

A discussion of the history of the policy and current issues related thereto is available here from the Congressional Research Service.

So are you saying Truman was wrong to integrate the military when he did?

I'm saying it should be up to the military, and only the military, to decide who to let in, and what jobs people should do. Since the President commands the military, your example doesn't give me any reason to change my opinion.

The military is part of society. It scares me to hear people talk as if the military should be able to adopt its own policies without regard to how it affects the overall society. Unless we plan to be Spartans and maintain a constant state of war (which I guess the Bushies would like), it makes no sense to allow the military to dictate what it considers the appropriate social arrangments on the basis of some spurious "combat efficiency" argument. The fact is, the military has no idea how having open gays would effect "combat efficiency" because they have never tried it. I think it's more of a "I'm not comfortable with this, so let's not change anything" which isn't any different from the arguments the same military advanced for not having blacks in combat units.

The United States military is the most powerful military in the history of the world. There is not a single country or even group of countries that comes even close to matching American combat power (at least conventional combat power). And people are saying that having gays in the military would reduce combat efficiency so much that the military couldn't function? As opposed, I guess, to degrading the military by involving it in wars all over the world and forcing troops into endless tours. That, of course, is much better than having gays in teh military.

As for saying, it's ok as long as they make no sexual advances, that's like saying, it's ok to have men go to school with women as long as the men promise not to rape the women. Why should you assume that gays would be any more prone to make unwanted sexual advances than anyone else. Are you saying, in effect, that no woman in the military is safe from the sexual advances of male soldiers.

I am utterly appalled by what I am reading here. While I agree that Clinton was probably right not to push it too far, it's time now to end the idea that "combat efficiency" is the standard by which we judge the value of anything the military does. If having gays hurts combat efficiency temporarily, then it just means the leadership will have to become more creative.