Should Gays Be Allowed To Serve Openly In The Military?

Today, the US Senate passed the bill repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The US House has already passed it. The Senate vote reconciles with the House version, allowing it to go immediately to Obama's desk so he can sign it into law.

I'm interested in discussing this. I'm a veteran of the US Army. I'm also one who doesn't care one way or another about what gay people do.

The poll will close in 90 days (March 11, 2011) and the subject moved to the Social Issues section. Discussion will remain open indefinitely.

I'm of two minds about this. Personally, it would not matter to me in the slightest; it's no skin off my nose what two consenting adults do.

However, my opinion means less than squat in the great big scheme of things. When one is talking about something like the military, it needs to be remembered that the most important thing that matters is unit cohesion and the affect any such policy will have on our fighting forces - the grunts actually on the ground pulling the trigger on the bad guys; and not the paper pushers in D.C., or the many support personnel who will never see a war zone up close and personal or have to rely on another to have their back in a real fire fight.

As I recall, a key justification behind this last minute push is a poll that the Pentagon conducted on all military personnel and their spouses (why spouses were included is beyond insane since the spouses are not doing the fighting or having to work with gays in the military). This seems more designed to increase the odds in favor of a politically correct outcome. While the survey of all military personnel and spouses did not oppose ending DADT, a narrower look revealed that those units actually doing the fighting had a much more negative view of ending DADT.

I have the following taken directly from the Department of Defense’s own report on the issue titled “Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Dated November 30, 2010:

Among the Services, the Marines were consistently more negative in their responses about the effect of repeal. The combat arms communities in both the Army and the Marine Corps were also more negative about the effect of repeal than others in their Services.

For example, as discussed earlier, approximately 44% of all Service members said that their unit’s effectiveness “in a field environment or out at sea” would be negatively impacted by repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Nearly 60% of respondents in the Marine Corps and in Army combat arms said they believed there would be a negative impact on their unit’s effectiveness in this context; among Marine combat arms the number was 67%.

And then there was this extremely enlightening paragraph from the report:

If the Working Group were to attempt to numerically divide the sentiments we heard expressed in IEFs, online inbox entries, focus groups, and confidential online communications between those who were for or against repeal of the current Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, our sense is that the majority of views expressed were against repeal of the current policy.

My primary concerns with this report, which approved the repeal of DADT by the way, are twofold: One, anyone who knows anything about the military knows that the Pentagon and ranking brass are extremely political. As such, I view with a jaundiced eye work product such as this DOD report as the current political winds are screaming for a repeal and those who want to advance in the military hierarchy are quite well aware of that. Two, is the survey upon which this report and its conclusions are based. For example, in the two services which are actually on the ground pulling the triggers, the Army and Marines, only 25% of the survey samples were, in fact, those in combat arms; the rest of the sample were people who never see combat, many who never even deploy, and of course spouses.

All of this is a moot point of course, DADT is now repealed. Now the future will tell the tale. We shall know soon enough if this was a good move or a bad move.

I personally am sincerely hoping it turns out to be a good move. The alternative would not be a good thing at all.

I think it was the right decision.

I agree that unit cohesion is critical, but I don't think it will be affected. None of the soldiers who filled out the survey know how unit morale would be affected by the presence of openly gay soldiers in their unit. They were asked a hypothetical question, and they used their imaginations to answer it. But they don't really know. I expect that the nature of war would force unit cohesion.

As long as the openly gay soldiers are disciplined, professional, and effective at their jobs, there shouldn't be a problem. If there is, it's not on their end.

kronos wrote:I think it was the right decision.

I agree that unit cohesion is critical, but I don't think it will be affected. None of the soldiers who filled out the survey know how unit morale would be affected by the presence of openly gay soldiers in their unit. They were asked a hypothetical question, and they used their imaginations to answer it. But they don't really know. I expect that the nature of war would force unit cohesion.

As long as the openly gay soldiers are disciplined, professional, and effective at their jobs, there shouldn't be a problem. If there is, it's not on their end.

I tend to agree with you on this kronos; though I am still withholding final judgment until we see how this shakes out in the real world, and what steps are taken in dealing with the concerns that combat units expressed in terms of berthing and hygiene accommodations and so on. As you note, a lot will depend on how responsibly openly gay soldiers comport themselves.

But when you consider that many Western nations have already allowed openly gay military personnel, including Israel (not a wimpy military force by any measure), it's obvious that it can be done without hurting unit cohesion.