Don’t Ask Don’t Tell; Still Messing Things Up

June 23rd, 2008 By: Claudia, Assistant Editor | Tags:
Leave a comment | Trackback

DADT, still alive, still wrong, still harming our servicemembers.

The ridiculous policy known as “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is affecting primarily women, data from the 2007 discharges shows:

While women make up 14 percent of Army personnel, 46 percent of those discharged under the policy last year were women. And while 20 percent of Air Force personnel are women, 49 percent of its discharges under the policy last year were women.

So women are more than twice as likely to be discharged because of DADT. I’m a bit surprised, because I would expect homophobia to focus more strongly on males (after all, plenty of homophobes think men kissing is “icky” but women doing it is “hot”). No reason is given to why this could be. 

 

This ridiculous policy, whose justification is the same weak one that was once used to keep women out of the service, needs to be struck down. It denigrates soldiers that are perfectly valuable, and it tells the hundreds of thousands of gay veterans (who were never caught) that they are less worthy than their straight brothers and sisters because of what they do in their private life. It’s also extremely expensive, having cost well over 200 million dollars in lost recruiting and training.

 

If the Israeli Army, not quite a boy-scout troop (which also wouldn’t let gays in) can continue to be effective while allowing the openly gay to serve (along with more than 20 of the 25 NATO countries) I think we can handle it, no?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  1. Connor
    June 23rd, 2008 at 14:38
    Reply | Quote | #1

    It is a ridiculous policy…more homosexuals are being discharge than before it was implemented.

    So the obvious thing to do would be to go back to the previous policy, wouldn’t it?  A straightforward ban would be less ambiguous.  And would help improve unit integrity.

    Perhaps Israel and many of the European nations allow homosexuals to serve, but they aren’t Christian nations like the US and thus don’t have the same moral values.

  2. Claudia, Assistant Editor
    June 23rd, 2008 at 18:13
    Reply | Quote | #2

    Perhaps Israel and many of the European nations allow homosexuals to serve, but they aren’t Christian nations like the US and thus don’t have the same moral values.

    Whoooo boy, where to start. I’m always astonished by Americans who don’t know their own Constitution. You made several mistakes in a very short phrase, almost impressive.

    1. Israel is officially Jewish. Have you heard of Leviticus? You must have, it contains the single most cited phrase used by homophobic Christians (only if pressed about shellfish will many try to find something in the New Testament). You perhaps are unaware that it contains rules relevant to the Jewish people. Israel is Jewish, but they don’t force all the rules of Judaism uppon their people, otherwise the whole country would be orthodox.

    2. Many European countries are officially Christian. Do you know where the Pope lives? Hint; it’s a European country. Do you know which country originated protestantism? Spain is considered 80% Catholic. Somehow though, people are able to separate religious beliefs from fundamental rights and freedoms.

    3. So many European countries are officially Christian and Israel is officially Jewish. Do you know which country IS’NT officially religious? The USA!
    I’ll wait while you recover from your shock.

    The US may have lots of Christians IN it, but it has no official religion (never mind "Christianity" is a very loose religious term that includes anything from Russian Orthodox to the United Church of Christ, which is gay accepting). That means, amongst other things, that laws can’t be established soley on the basis of their religious backing. So if ANY country can’t prohibit gays serving on the basis of religion, it’s the US, not the other countries.

    Please give me a reason that gays are a bad idea in the armed services that is NOT based on "it’s icky!" or "God says it’s wrong" and that wouldn’t automatically prevent, say, women from serving.

  3. Connor
    June 23rd, 2008 at 18:22
    Reply | Quote | #3

    You’re hiding behind the word "official".  European countries are predominantly secular, even if they have official state churches.  It may be in their constitutions, but the people don’t believe  The US, on the other hand,  is a  highly religious nation even though we don’t have "official" religions.

    As to why, given that you won’t accept religious reasons, it’s due to unit cohesion. 

    The military, while not a monolith as many of its opponents suggest, is more conservative than civilian society.  You may agree or disagree with this, but that’s how things are and homosexuals are not as welcome there as they are in the civilian world. 

    And it’s somewhat difficult when you’re in a front-line combat unit and you have to worry about whether the soldier next to you is lusting after you.  Or when two soldiers develop an exclusive, sexual relationship.  That also interferes with their ability to work as a group.

    That’s also why you don’t see women working with men on the front-line units:  You can’t have sexual relationships breaking up the unit.

  4. wj
    June 23rd, 2008 at 19:57
    Reply | Quote | #4

    Connor, the objections to gays in the military fall into two basic groups:
    1) the vast majority, which are identical (except for the group) to those made when President Truman eliminated racial segregation in the military:  Bad for morale!  Right.  Sure destroyed US military effectiveness, didn’t it.
    2) those which essentially reduce to: if we enforced the regulations against sexual harassment when gays are involved, we would have to actually enforce them when women are being harassed.  Oh, the horror!

    The military may be more conservative than the general population.  But I suspect you would find that the troops are rather less so than the senior officers — who are mostly the ones getting upset at the prospect.

  5. Claudia, Assistant Editor
    June 23rd, 2008 at 20:59
    Reply | Quote | #5

    Conner, look up the matter. Several studies show that a plurality of servicemembers know that there are gays around them and do not object to the idea of them openly serving.

    There kinda more worried about coming home with all their limbs.

    Oh and women not serving in combat roles is BS as well, never mind the fact that in the new wars where battle lines aren’t as clear women have been effectively in the line of combat anyway.

  6. Connor
    June 23rd, 2008 at 22:23
    Reply | Quote | #6

    Once again the vague terms…"plurality" and "effectively".  When I served in the Marines the men I worked with definitely weren’t comfortable working with homosexuals.  The military isn’t a monolith, and perhaps homosexuals would work out in some areas.  But not in others. 

    And being "effectively" in a front-line unit after being trained to drive a truck isn’t nearly the same as really being in a front-line unit and being trained in combat.

  7. Jason, Managing Editor
    June 23rd, 2008 at 22:32
    Reply | Quote | #7

    When I was in the military (15 years), I occasionally encountered people who were not comfortable working with blacks or with women.  That was their problem to solve, suppress, or to get out of the service.  It was not a proper reason to exclude blacks or women from the unit, Connor. I seriously doubt that GEN Shalikashvili is ignorant of what is necessary to run a front-line unit, yet he says now that it is time for the anti-gay ban to go. Furthermore, I would state with certainty that the generation that makes up the junior enlisted ranks now has a much lower level of objection to homosexuals anyway, having been brought up in a much more tolerant and diverse popular culture than you and I did even just 10 or 20 years before them. What may have been a politically necessary (non-)compromise in 1993 might be outdated now.

    If some people now are uncomfortable serving in a front-line unit in Iraq with a Muslim soldier, would you suggest that Muslim soldiers be excluded from front-line units?

  8. Bob
    July 19th, 2008 at 20:33
    Reply | Quote | #8

    First of all, we don’t have a Christian military force.  And for your information, Israel and our Nato allies that permit gays to serve are historically Judaic-Christian .  If superior military forces such as Britain and Israel allow gays to openly serve, then we should too.  And, no one doubts the effectiveness of Sparta as a military power, though it was virtually all gay warriors.
    Gays lesbians have served in the military throughout our history, but denied the right to self-identify as gay.  They’ve been captive, wounded and killed.
    Our military should reflect modern acceptance of gays in military service.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.


Warning: is_writable() [function.is-writable]: open_basedir restriction in effect. File(error_log) is not within the allowed path(s): (/home/p6525pol:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php:/tmp) in /home/p6525pol/public_html/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 500