FACEBOOK
TWITTER
The Debate Over Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
Veterans Today has received notification from Iraq War Veteran Ashwin Madia the Interim Chairman, VoteVets.org asking us to help rally support for repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy.
I’ve decided that instead of taking a one sided view on this issue that it would be fair to compare the reasons given by supporters for repeal to the reasons given by opponents for not repealing DADT.
Robert L. Hanafin, Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired, GS-14, U.S. Civl Service-Retired, Veterans Issues Editor, Veterans Today News Network
Reasons to Support or Oppose the Repeal of Our Military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DNDT) policies
SOURCE: [US NEWS] Is It Time to Repeal the Ban on Gays in the Military?We will begin with what concerns opponents of repealing DADT and follow with reasons given by proponents of repeal. The opposition views comes from Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, a nonprofit conservative to right of center THINK TANK specializing in military personnel issues.The proponent views come from Iraq War Veteran Ashwin Madia the Interim Chairman, VoteVets.org
NO says Elaine Donnelly, President of the conservative leaning THINK TANKCenter for Military Readiness,
Elaine Donnelly
She notes that, “recent mandates for “equal opportunity” as the highest priority, and the ongoing drive to repeal the 1993 Eligibility Law regarding homosexuals in the military, threaten to undermine morale, recruiting, retention, and overall readiness.
Should DADT be repealed, strong leadership and sound priorities will have to be applied in all matters, including personnel policies that impose heavy costs in return for little or no benefit.
These include:
- counter-productive gender quotas,
- double standards in training and disciplinary matters,
- misinterpretation of the law banning homosexual conduct in the military,
- overly generous pregnancy policies that worsen deployability problems,
- and universal “sensitivity training” to convince everyone that social engineering “works.”
Pentagon officials must address social issues of concern to CMR.
A strong volunteer force depends on well-trained, cohesive units that are ready for deployment worldwide on short notice. With fewer troops… available, each person in uniform is more important to the mission, not less so.
Liberal Critics Advance the Agendas of Civilian Feminists and Homosexual Activists
The military is a resilient institution, and its people are responding with courage to the ongoing challenges of War in the Middle East. For their sake, sound priorities in the field of social policy should be restored. Relentless pressure from liberal critics will continue to advance the agendas of civilian feminists and homosexual activists.
Obama should reconsider campaign promises.
On the issue of gays in the military, President Obama should reconsider his campaign promises. Now that he is commander in chief, [the President] needs to build a bond of trust…with the troops he leads. In that capacity, the president should disregard the demands of gay activists who want him to suspend enforcement of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. That law often confused with [President] Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” administrative policy, clearly states that gays are not eligible to serve in uniform. The law enjoys widespread support, especially in the military, and federal courts have upheld it as constitutional several times.
In May (2010), the Michael D. Palm Center, a University of California-Santa Barbara think tank, issued a report recommending that [the President] sign an executive order suspending enforcement of the 1993 statute. The Palm Center polemic cites the rarely used authority underlying presidential “stop-loss” orders sometimes issued to keep troops in the field beyond their tours during a military or national emergency. The contrived premise is legally absurd, but if [the President] buys it and unilaterally stops enforcement of the law, keeping gays in the military, the troops would perceive that action as an evasion of his oath to “faithfully execute the office of the president of the United States.”
Presidents do not get to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore. A politically expedient presidential executive order effectively nullifying the 1993 law would disrespect Congress and constitute a serious, perhaps irreparable breach of faith with men and women who volunteer to serve. That would be only the beginning of major problems if [President] Obama signs legislation to impose the gay agenda on the military. The open-ended bill reintroduced in this Congress (H.R. 1283) would forbid discrimination based on “homosexuality or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived.”
Close Quarters and Living Conditions
The new “nondiscrimination” law would affect all military branches and communities, including Army and Marine infantry, special operations, Navy SEALs, and submarines. Unlike workers who return home at night, military personnel must accept living conditions that involve “forced intimacy,” with little or no privacy. This would be tantamount to forcing female soldiers to share private quarters with men—a situation that would be unacceptable to the majority of military women even if misconduct never occurred. Stated in gender-neutral terms, the new law would require military persons to accept exposure to persons who may be sexually attracted to them.
Mandatory diversity training programs—designed by experts whose credentials in gender studies and gay culture say nothing about common sense—would attempt to overcome the normal, human desire for modesty and privacy in sexual matters. This quest would be inappropriate for the military and unlikely to succeed.
Zero Tolerance of Dissent.
A corollary policy would enforce “zero tolerance” of dissent. This means that service members who want to report inappropriate actions could face questions about their own attitudes toward “sexual minorities.” Many will not file complaints, even in cases of assault or abuse of rank, because of fear of career repercussions. Commanders who take sides in emotionally charged disputes also could be accused of a “failure of leadership” or “intolerance” that violates the zero tolerance policy.
The Palm Center effectively confirmed these consequences in its May report, “How to End ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ “ A section of the 29-page document, billed as a road map for gay equality, recommends that “the Defense Department should work to identify the most potent ‘carrots’ and ‘sticks’ for implementing the new policy.”
Undermine Recruiting, Retention, and Readiness in the All-Volunteer Force.
Career “carrots” would reward commanders who embrace the new law while downplaying problems. “Sticks,” or “strong sanctions for noncompliance,” would deny promotions and end the careers of anyone who disagree, including chaplains who [may] leave as a matter of conscience. These involuntary losses of good people would compound the harmful effects of shortages caused when others decline re-enlistment or avoid service in the first place.
58% Against Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT)
In the 2008 Military Times Poll, 58 percent of 2,000 active-duty subscribers said they opposed repeal of current policy—for the fourth year in a row. Responses to a new survey question found that if Congress repealed the 1993 law, almost 10 percent would not re-enlist, and an additional 14 percent would consider ending their careers. Many first-termers normally leave, but the loss of even a few thousand careerists in communities, grades, and skills that are not quickly or easily replaceable would come at a crippling cost—especially when we are at war and trying to grow the Army and Marine Corps.
Honorable discharges of gays who were misled about eligibility to serve are far fewer than losses due to pregnancy or weight standard violations. Clarify the meaning of the law, and such discharges could drop to near zero. There is no national security argument for legislation that would undermine recruiting, retention, and readiness in the all-volunteer force.
A distinguished group of retired flag and general officers recently delivered to Obama and Congress a statement supporting the 1993 law, signed by more than 1,000 retired officers, including 51 of four-star rank. Noting that it “protect[s] good order, discipline, and morale in the unique environment of the military,” the officers wrote, “As a matter of national security, we urge you to support the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military , and to oppose any legislative, judicial, or administrative effort to repeal or invalidate the law.”
This is good advice—Obama and Congress should take it.
71% Would Stay in the Military Despite Repeal of DADT
[Veterans Today Editorial Comment: However, Elaine Donnelly fails to mention that the 2008 Military Times Poll found that 6 % had no opinion and 71% would continue to serve despite DADT being repealed. The Palm Center notes that there are flaws in the 2008 Military Times Poll cited Finding That Troops Won't Serve Methodologically Suspect.]
*******************************************************************
Counter Argument
Iraq Veteran Ashwin Madia of VoteVets.org
This is an issue I’ve personally dealt with. In the Marines, one of my proudest moments was being one of the first to successfully defend a gay Marine from being discharged from the service. I’ve seen – first-hand – how keeping this policy in place hurts the military.
Here are the facts:
- A military review of troops reinforces the findings of our own poll of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. Specifically, three-quarters of those in the military are fine with gays serving openly. It simply isn’t an issue to those serving. [See SOURCES below]
- Repeal will happen in a way that the military itself implements, and on its own timeline. Congress only will authorize a repeal, not dictate its implementation. That’s why Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has urged Congress to pass it.
- We have discharged thousands of able troops under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, with a particular focus on the kind of troops we need most right now – those who serve as translators. Translators don’t just help our men and women in the field communicate with the population, translators also serve as intelligence officers, helping to thwart potential terrorist attacks. Under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, hundreds of them have been kicked out of the military.
- Investigating claims that someone is gay takes up precious resources. It means officers have to spend their time conducting an investigation, instead of spending their time trying to defend America. It means millions of dollars, overall, are spent to conduct investigations, instead of that money going towards badly needed equipment.
Strip All the Political Rhetoric Away
Uncle Sams says Gays need not enlist
When you strip all the rhetoric away on this issue, it comes down to this: We need to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell to make our military stronger. And, those who oppose a repeal are doing so for purely political reasons – not because of any legitimate care for the military.
But, unless you speak up now, and put your name on the line, politics will beat out sound policy. You cannot let that happen.
SOURCES for Counter Argument:
[Fox News] Pentagon Study: Low Risk to Ending ‘Don’t Ask’ However, FOX also pointed out that there was a strong minority within especially the Army and Marines that would continue to oppose any change to DADT.
- [NOLA] Gays serving openly in military pose little risk to war effort, Pentagon study group concludes
- [UPI] Military survey: Most OK serving with gays
- [STAR TRIBUNE] Pentagon study on gays serving openly in military finds minimal risk to war effort
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=60946
Posted by Robert L. Hanafin on Nov 19 2010, With 0 Reads, Filed under Military, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
COMMENTS
To post, we ask that you login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with VT and post.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Feedback
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by dave ness jr, Veterans Today. Veterans Today said: New post: The Debate over Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell http://bit.ly/avtUuE [...]
This response was sent into me by a my good buddy Stephen Noetzel.
Bob;
You said in transmittal of this article that you “really don’t see how REPEAL (of DADT) will help the military”
This admission reveals that you are not your usual well-informed self on this particular subject.
What you need to look into is the jobs that gay soldiers were doing….when they got kicked out.
What are the primary MOS’s of the Bounced Out Gays???
Top of the list: Interpreters. Critically important Arabic Interpreters.
Also lots of other critical field-support jobs that require extensive training and education.
These good folks are not usually ‘grunts’ Bob….they most often hold (held) some of the most critical service jobs. And they are hard to replace.
Every high ranking officer is well aware of this fact.
That’s why almost all of them support repeal of DADT.
Veterans Today Editorial Response: Steve my focus was on how the repeal of gays serving in the military would benefit the services from a recruiting posture not retention.
I honestly did not consider the MOS or AFSC of any gay folks forced to leave the military, The though did cross my mind that their numbers would not be as significant as having a waiting list of gay people lined up to join the Armed Forces in any capacity.
However, I did Google the Military Occupation Specialty (MOS) of gay people forced out under DADT. I came up with a final count of 20 Arabic interpreters. Yes, Arabic is among the hard languages (right up there with Chinese, Japanese, or Korean) to train anyone in unless of course they were born into an Arabic speaking family thus are bilingual.
Opponents, including Elaine Donnelly, take the position that young folks were trained as linguists “never should have been accepted at the elite Defense Language Institute in Monterey in the first place. Resources unfortunately were used to train young people who were not eligible to be in the military,” she said.
In the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 543 Arabic linguists and 166 Farsi linguists graduated from their 63-week courses, according to a DLI spokesman. That was up from 377 and 139, respectively, in the previous year.
SOURCES:
Report: More gay linguists discharged than first thought
Records suggest U.S. military places anti-gay position over national security
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6824206/ns/us_news-security
How ‘Don’t Tell’ Translates – The Military Needs Linguists, But It Doesn’t Want This One
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A29683-2003Dec2?language=printer
Major Bob,
When I served, all I really cared about was that the guy next to me could shoot straight and fast. If that now includes females, I would still want them to shoot straight and fast. Survival is the name of the game.
That said, I would NOT want a foxhole or patrol partner (male or female) who was more interested in my sexuality than being alert for any potential enemy. My foxhole or patrol partner should have the same expectations from me. It takes serious, well-trained discipline to maintain this level of decorum.
Second to personal survival, the next major drive in most humans is the procreation of the species. Sexual drive far overrides common sense, especially when we are young, hyper-metabolic with a full load of wandering steroids in our bodies.
As a fully heterosexual male, I would not want (or be able) to run around in a sleeping quarters with naked women — it makes no sense. I would feel the intense need to procreate.
Conversely, I wouldn’t want to be around naked, openly gay men eyeballing or trying to grope me. Quite frankly, my desire to protect the species would probably have me up for a minimum of assault and battery, and a maximum of ‘man’slaughter. Of what benefit is that to America and our Military, or to the person who has different sexual proclivities.
DADT seemed to provide a balanced approach for managing a difficult hormonal situation. It is pure biology we’re dealing with, not logic.
In 1993 DADT was considered one of the great gay-rights victories for all humankind. Yet, gays and lesbians have to keep pushing the envelope. It’s stupid of them. Read the words: “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” In other words, don’t flaunt your sexual preferences of any kind, and don’t limit it to just gays and lesbians.
If you want to carry the envelope of illogic a little further, I had an acquaintance in highschool– named Pete T — who preferred female sheep to female women. I’m serious. How would you like to be on a scary night patrol with this guy when he spots a field of sheep? What if he was in Afghanistan and switched his preferences to camels?
So, just ride with DADT, keep your mouths and flies shut, and do your job.
Then, the rest of us could give a shit less.
T.V.
Texas Vet, Thanks for your service. The 1993 “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” “compromise” was no great victory for the gay and lesbian rights movement. In fact it was a great setback and simply a rewriting of the previous policy from 1981 simply called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. If and when the law is repealled gay and lesbian servicemember will continue to use discretion and act and behave appropriately as they always have been doing. The only difference is that they won’t have to be constantly subject to discharge if someone accidentially finds out or if a third party outs them. Admiral Mike Mullen endorsed repealling the law back in February when he said that servicemembers should no longer be forced to lie about who they are. He is right and we need to get rid of DADT and do so right away.
agree with Texas Vet,
…58 percent of 2,000 active-duty subscribers said they opposed repeal of current policy—for the fourth year in a row
I am far more concerened about females and males sharing living spaces than gays sharing living spaces with straights. Young men and women living together? Kidding me right? There is a reason why college boys and girls don’t share the same living space. That will make the USA military into the USS Maturnity Ward.
roughly 5% of the population is homosexual. But there are far more females going into the military than homosexuals. This is where the real issues are going to lie. The DADT is a red herring. There are few homosexuals in the military over all.
Most homosexuals are not going to be attracted to the military. those who do are for career reasons. Most homosexuals will want safer jobs…like police work (insanly safe career over all.), guards, ect, white collar workers.
I see no reason why an openly gay soldier would make a straight solder less safe in battle. That argument of “attraction under fire” doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Not with oppisite sex soldiers either.
I would rather see our military go back to being a militia rather than a standing force. It’s too big, too expensive and too harmful. Nowhere in the constitution does it say we are to have a big professional standing army. A well regulated militia was called for.
Rachel: “I see no reason why an openly gay soldier would make a straight solder less safe in battle. That argument of “attraction under fire” doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Not with oppisite sex soldiers either.”
T.V. => The problem is not under battle conditions, but the reality that most “battles” are preceded or followed by long periods of waiting, some of it very boring. In the actual battle environment, you are right, straight, gay, male, female, is all irrelevant. Survival wins out. The problem is the down times. At that point, stress release, often driven by practicing procreation of the species takes over. Thus, the problems.
But, a good, well-thought out response, Rachel. And I agree, the male / female problem is potentially much bigger than any gay/straight “downtime” issue.
T.V.
Texas Vet, There are two names you should google. The first is USMC SSG Eric Alva, who was the first casualty of OIF in March 2003. He got his right leg blown off by a land mine just a few miles into Iraq from Kuwait. SSG Alva had served in the US Marines at the time for 12 years. Some of his fellow Marines knew that he was gay and didn’t care. He was also in a combat arms (combat engineers) unit. He publicly came out in 2006 to show the folly of DADT. The second person is USAF Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach. Lt Col. Fehrenbach has served in the US Air Force for 19 years. He had an exemplary carrer as a fighter pilot. He protected Washington, DC airspace in the weeks following 9/11. He participated in the “shock and awe” boming campaign of Baghdad in March 2003. In 2008, he was outed by a third party to the Air Force after served discreetly like he was supposed to. Since then he has been subject to discharge and has so far sucessfully fought it. He has served openly for TWO YEARS and there is no sign that he has damaged morale or unit cohesion.
Is this Dino S. from Nevada? If so, go KM Royals!
T.V.
agree with this
…………I would rather see our military go back to being a militia rather than a standing force. It’s too big, too expensive and too harmful. Nowhere in the constitution does it say we are to have a big professional standing army. A well regulated militia was called for.
Hi fixtheticket,
Then you’ve got to love the new “healthcare bill”. Buried in its 2400+ pages is the ability for the President to have a private army a million strong withing the borders of the U.S., PLUS a million person strong reserve force.
This Presidential private army and reserve is outside of the purview of the U.S. Military, Federal Law Enforcement, Local Law Enforcement AND groups like the FBI.
I guess the idea is to give the American citizens heart attacks — therefore it fits in within the “healthcare bill”?
yeah,
that “healthcare bill”
has lots of “goodies” stashed in there,
including the implantable chip
This would be a negative sign towads the military.
Vote no
Hi Edward — Could you clarify that a little more?
Thanks, T.V.
I urge everyone to view the website of the so-called “Center for Military Readiness”; http://www.cmrlink.org. It should be called the Elaine Donnelly Vanity Site. It has a picture of her along with her bio on the home page. The entire website is composed of nothing but rants from Ms. Donnelly in National Review Online and Human Events about the evils of DADT Repeal save a few articles opposing the expansion of gender roles in the military. Ms. Donnelly has not revealed whether she has any staff or what the membership of CMR is. The organization’s address is a post office box in Liviona, Michigan. The CMR is being run out of Donnelly’s residence. She has never served in the military and one must wonder why this is such a driving issue for her. Vote Vets by contrast is a credible veterans organization with a robust membership. It is headed by Iraq War Vet Jon Soltz. The organization has taken on and dealt with serious issues facing our service members, military families and veterans. I do not know Ashwin Mada’s background, but from the article he definetely has served and appears to be a military lawyer since he shares his experience of defending a gay Marine subject to discharge. Who has more credibility on this issue?