Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
The House has voted 250 to 175 to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The repeal was shot down once by the Senate when it was attached to a larger bill, but now it’s going back to the Senate as standalone legislation.[1. Doonesbury is currently doing a series on DADT.]
Can someone please tell me why this is even an issue? Beyond the fact that certain politicians want to make it an issue, I mean.
One argument I’ve heard is that the presence of homosexuals will be too distracting to our soldiers. Um. How’s that again? Is all that military training and discipline so flimsy that it falls apart the moment Neil Patrick Harris strides into the room? (Okay, bad example. NPH disrupts entire nations by sheer force of awesomeness. But you get the idea.)
If our goal is really to guarantee the comfort and safety of our soldiers, maybe we should stop worrying about homosexuality and instead ban straight men from serving. You know, given that “a female soldier in Iraq is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire” and all.
John McCain has argued that the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy is working. He argues, “The military is at its highest point in recruitment, in retention, in professionalism, in capability.”
We’ve been fighting how many wars for how long now? The military has been working for years to improve recruitment and retention. Or are you implying that retention is up not because of those recruitment efforts, not because our children are growing up never knowing a United States that wasn’t at war, not because the economy and high unemployment push more people to enlist, but simply because people are eager to join a gay-free club?
Even the Pentagon says:
This comes after a study which incorporated responses from more than 100,000 active servicemen and women, more than 100,000 family members of those servicemen and women, discussions at 51 different bases and installations, and much more.
Major Alan G. Rogers also researched this issue. He was killed in January of 2008 in Iraq by an IED, and was buried with full honors at Arlington. Oh, and he was gay.
From Major Rogers’ Masters thesis:
Current policy on gays in the military seems to rest on many faulty assumptions – namely that homosexuals will jeopardize unit cohesiveness. My research has been unable to justify that position and has found that the opposite is more true. Denying service members the right to serve freely and openly violates basic dignity and respect of the human experience and puts our national security at risk.
For almost a decade, I’ve been hearing how nothing is more vital than our National Security. I’d expect this to mean we welcome and thank all those who volunteer to serve our country. That we would want every qualified serviceman and woman we could find. Yet bewteen 1997 and 2006, more than 11,000 men and women have been kicked out of the military under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.[2. This includes a disproportionate number of women and minoroties, by the way…]
Apparently for for some people, homosexuals are an even greater threat than the terrorists.
—
Tweets that mention Jim C. Hines » Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell -- Topsy.com
December 16, 2010 @ 10:30 am
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ken O’Shaughnessy, Michelle Muenzler and Bridgett T, Jim C. Hines. Jim C. Hines said: New Post: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell http://bit.ly/hVzPQ4 […]
kimberlycreates
December 16, 2010 @ 10:36 am
“Is all that military training and discipline so flimsy that it falls apart the moment Neil Patrick Harris strides into the room? (Okay, bad example. NPH disrupts entire nations by sheer force of awesomeness. But you get the idea.)”
Okay that made me laugh right out loud. Maybe we should build a force of NPH clones and send them in to countries harboring terrorists. That would certainly disrupt all further terrorist activity. And if we get some stereotypical gays in this elite force, the occupied countries could get some kick-ass home remodeling in the deal too. And maybe a few good musical numbers.
Jim C. Hines
December 16, 2010 @ 10:53 am
There was a similar comment over on LJ. Ever since, I’ve had the vision of Neil Patrick Harris and George Takei as military generals, kicking ass and taking names…
Ken Marable
December 16, 2010 @ 10:56 am
Fanfic time!!
Jim C. Hines
December 16, 2010 @ 11:01 am
🙂
Ken Marable
December 16, 2010 @ 11:02 am
Agreed entirely. Now the main argument is “we’re too busy with these wars, ya’know” but even with that, it doesn’t buy a whole lot of time since we are thankfully moving towards getting out of both of those.
And with McCain, I just can’t listen to anything he has said with a straight face anymore. If you haven’t seen it, I highly, highly recommend the Daily Show’s “It Gets Worse” PSA on this topic. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-15-2010/it-gets-worse-psa)
kimberlycreates
December 16, 2010 @ 11:13 am
I don’t know, that would be like unleashing a nuclear-warhead of awesomeness on them. Is that really ethical?
Stephen Watkins
December 16, 2010 @ 1:04 pm
Republicans have rather shown their true stripes on this issue. When the Senate shot down the repeal in the previous bill, the official Republican stance was “Wait until the Pentagon’s report is complete, so that we can see what the results say, before we procede on this issue.”
Well… the report is out. It is quite unequivocal in what it says. And yet, the vast majority of Republicans in the House still voted against repeal, and the chances of overcoming a silly parliamentary rule in the Senate (vis-a-vis the 60-vote hurdle) seem slim. This was never about what the report says, or about “combat-readiness”. It was always about homophobia and appeasing the religious conservative base.
One man or woman’s blood bleeds as red as the next, regardless of race, creed, color, gender, or sexual orientation. That’s the main sacrifice, and the main qualification that we need to ask of our soldiers.
KatG
December 16, 2010 @ 2:14 pm
“Can someone please tell me why this is even an issue?”
Because a lot of the same politicians who were in the House and the Senate who blackmailed Bill Clinton into signing DADT are still there in Congress, like John McCain. They have to keep playing to their base. In 2008, the radical right got tired of Bush and co. not keeping their social conservatism promises and with the economy too, the Republicans lost. In 2010, while some of them won, others lost and the radical right controlled the campaigning. Plus, if it’s repealed, it’s Obama making good on campaign promises, which is a loss for them and their strategy of continually opposing and claiming to represent the majority of Americans. Opposing it costs them no funding or earmarks. Right now, though, they have four Republican votes in the Senate for repealing, which should give them 60 — the two Maine senators who know they are toast in the party anyway, Scott Brown who has to play to a bluer Massachusetts electorate, and Lisa Murkowski, who owes the Democrats regarding her election. Joe Lieberman, who is cozying up to the Democrats re a re-election bid, is leading the charge. So it’s got a shot of ending.
Steve Buchheit
December 16, 2010 @ 3:48 pm
Not to mention some of our NATO allies allow homosexuals to serve while being open about their sexuality, and some of them of officers who have since commanded and served win our forced in both joint exercises and even combat, and there have been no reported problems. So, experiment already conducted. No problems. It’s time to stop being distracted by shadows and get back to the real work. Of course, ideology like faith is not a reality based philosophy.
Jim C. Hines
December 16, 2010 @ 7:27 pm
But … but real work is hard!
I say that in jest, but a part of me wonders how much of a factor it really is.
Hel
December 16, 2010 @ 10:32 pm
My understanding is that it’s an issue because a large chunk of the population is still homophobic. “Distracting to soldiers” and “But it’s working!” are just code phrases for “gays make me uncomfortable” and “I’m okay with the idea with using my personal beliefs to infringe on the rights of others because choosing* to be gay gives them less rights than I have.”
*I originally wrote being but then remembered that if you’re homophobic you tend to ignore science
John Hoover
December 17, 2010 @ 3:47 pm
You mentioned recruitment levels. The thing that no one wants to talk about is that military recruiting is much easier in an economy where the unemployment levels hover around 10% – and are even higher in some parts of the country (like Michigan) and in certain segments of the population (like high school and college graduates and people over 55).
Before the onset of the “recession” the military was having to lower its standards (in terms of educational levels, psychological profiles and criminal records) to have enough soldiers to perform the task that was being asked of them.
So if you want to have higher standards in your military, an economy where no one can find a job is one way to do it.
Jim C. Hines
December 17, 2010 @ 3:52 pm
I remember the reports on the lowered standards, now that you mention it. I had forgotten about that…
I touched on the job/economy situation in the middle of the post, but I think it got a little lost amidst everything else.
Tyler Tork
December 18, 2010 @ 8:48 am
Aside from the 100,000 who responded to the survey, I thought it was significant that 400,000 or so didn’t respond. Feelings about this issue are apparently not high among the troops — so there seems even less excuse for discrimination.
On the other hand, it’s been reported that many military bases hold religious gatherings where attendance is mandatory — “social conservative” Protestant religion, of course. I suspect there are a lot of middle-level commanders who do their best to make things difficult for the ungodly in their organizations. And there’s a lot a commander can do without being provably discriminatory.
John Hoover
December 18, 2010 @ 9:58 am
There are a couple of dimensions to the chaplaincy problem. The first is that conservative evangelical churches have “targeted” the military as a field for evangelism. The second is that more “mainstream” denominational pastors do not enlist. The second problem exacerbates the first. All of this is, of course, a bit of an evasion of the first ammendment. I had a friend who served for 20 years in the Army chaplaincy corps, and he made it clear that the chaplaincy was never intended as a form of evangelism, but that the spiritual needs of the soldiers were to be addressed from their own frame of reference. Also he was a lifelong democrat and a member of the ACLU. Not what you think of as an Army chaplain.
J. Cheatham
December 25, 2010 @ 9:43 pm
Being currently enlisted in the military, I can honestly tell you there will be problems. ANY change brings about problems and they will be worked out. You will have those who won’t be able to cope and we will remove them. As for Gen. Amos’s assertion that it will be too distracting to Marines in combat and will cost lives. It’s amazing how focused you become when bullets are flying in you’re direction. The only reason you’ll be worrying about someone checking out your ass is because he should be checking out that movement in the bushes. The fact is they are serving now, we just don’t know which ones are. (At least the denser of us don’t. The rest don’t really care.)
Jim C. Hines
December 27, 2010 @ 8:35 pm
Thanks, J. I really appreciate getting comments and feedback from people who are enlisted and have some first-hand knowledge and experience to share.