Posted on 02/07/2010 8:33:28 AM PST by Kaslin
There are lots of reasons for excluding gays and lesbians from the military. But current supporters of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy insist that really, it all comes down to cohesion. Keep gays out, and soldiers will stick together through thick and thin. Let gays in, and every platoon will disintegrate like a sand castle in the surf.
John McCain sounded this theme at a Senate hearing the other day, arguing that the existing law rests on the belief "that the essence of military capability is good order and unit cohesion, and that any practice which puts those goals at unacceptable risk can be restricted." A group of retired military officers said the ban on gays serves "to protect unit cohesion and morale."
Maybe this concern is what really underlies the exclusion of gays and lesbians. But I'm not so sure. In 2007, Gen. Peter Pace, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked about it, and he offered a different rationale. "I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," he said. Could the opposition stem mostly from a simple aversion to gays and their ways?
It's not completely implausible that in a military environment, open homosexuality might wreak havoc on order and morale. But the striking thing about these claims is that they exist in a fact-free zone. From all the dire predictions, you would think a lifting of the ban would be an unprecedented leap into the dark, orchestrated by people who know nothing of the demands of military life.
As it happens, we now have a wealth of experience on which to evaluate the policy. When you examine it, you discover the reason McCain and Co. make a point of never mentioning it.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Fail.
Very good article. I used to be against having gays openly in the military until I gave it rational thought. Gays have served in the defense of this country and have served it well. After learning how well it has worked for the Israelis how can we rationally say it would not work here?
You might want to address billeting, the lifetime ban on donating blood and also the treatment of families within the military structure. Also, I’d be interested to hear how it would enhance military readiness and performance.
“Sodomy is neither the change we want nor can believe in,”
Gays have been honorably serving in our military all along. Keeping it to themselves seems to have worked quite well too.
Sexuality has no legitimate place in the on duty military and nobody really cares what they do in their off duty hours. This is just more “look at me” legislation and social experimentation with our military.
I would like to see Rasmussen do a poll on this of people who have served in the military and another among people who have not served. My guess it would be about 75/25 against gays in the military and about 40/60 among non veterans.
Interestingly enough, when I went to the site to read the entire article, there was to the left a huge ad for browsing for “gay” contacts. How lovely.
From a WSJ exerpt at “No Left Turns”:
“There are many foolish reasons to exclude homosexuals from serving in the armed services,” writes Mackubin Thomas Owens in today’s Wall Street Journal, but “. . . this does not mean that we should ignore the good ones.” The trouble with too much of the debate over the proposed revoking of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, is that it does precisely that. Those in favor of permitting the service of openly gay individuals in the military are guilty of conflating opposition to the change with simple-minded anti-gay prejudice and they have never confronted (let alone answered) the serious arguments against them. As Owens explains, the central and most imperative function of a military in a liberal society is to win the nation’s wars. All questions having to do the organization and regulation of that military must, of necessity, be subordinate to that over-arching aim. There is no other (good) reason for us to maintain a military if it is not for this purpose.
Serious people—who otherwise have demonstrated no particular animosity to homosexuals and who have unquestionable experience in understanding what it takes to build a military capable of performing this function— have argued, persuasively, that the presence of open homosexuals in the military is a problem for unit cohesion and, therefore, is a distraction from that all important function. Their objections deserve a fair and open hearing, free from cheap cries of “homophobia” and simple-minded comparisons with racial bigotry from the peanut gallery. The problem for cohesion, in this instance, has nothing to do with personal dislike on the part of soldiers or their commanders; it has to do with inherent and unchanging understandings of the nature of warfare and friendship. We cannot insist that these things change just because we would like them to comport with some more “progressive” understanding of “fairness.” Well, I suppose we can petulantly “insist” upon it . . . but we do so at our peril; for nature is an even more stubborn thing than a liberal interest group.
One of the comments was right on the mark. Gays will expect special priviliges.
Now, if one of these guys hits on you, you kick thecrap,out of him and you are up for assault, but he is out on his ear. With the new rule, you would be the one who was out.
Always been gays in military. When shit hits the fan, all those divisive issues that tear America apart (racism, politics, sex orientation, ect) go by the way side. Then we become Americans trying to survive. This is just for public consumption.
When did Israel start accepting gays in the IDF? I was not particularly impressed with the IDF in Lebanon. What about the Six Day War, the Yom Kippur War? Were there gay soldiers in the IDF then?
placemark.
I am glad you were able to finally think of it rationally, but thinking of something rationally does not automatically make it right.
“Don’t ask. Don’t tell.” Seems simple enough.
The Israeli military has a draft. Though I suspect that if you “tell” in the IDF, you’d be hounded and harrassed beyond bearing. It’s the nature of the warrior: If it isn’t there you’re finished.
Many years ago, I was at a foreign post where Marines, USAF, Navy and Army military were stationed. A multi-service investigation uncovered a huge homosexual ring that encompassed officers, enlisted, high and low ranking civilian employees and foreign nationals involved in one-on-one as well as group homosexual liaisons.
Rank was meaningless in these liaisons, and good order and discipline were absolutely compromised. The investigators were astonished by the breadth of the activity. Scores of military personnel were released, civilians were reprimanded but I don’t believe any were relieved of duty.
True to form, the liaisons took place in public restrooms and other sordid venues, even though they could have met at private off-base quarters and probably not gotten caught.
This was before DADT, but this gives a hint of what will be going on in the military that condones homosexuality. Every straight officer or enlisted will wonder if he or she will get fair treatment from a gay supervisor, given the proclivity of gays toward one another.
I once heard that if you put a group of blacks, hispanics, whites, and orientals in a room, that they will tend to congregate with their racial group. The only other identifier that transcends that is being gay — they place their gayness above all other indentifiers. Is this what we want for our military?
This entire argument hurts more than it helps. The state of ‘Being’ can be no crime. It is the actions taken that hurt or help unit cohesion, and those actions hurt or help whether the actor is straight or gay, male or female.
Simply being ‘gay’ is no more a crime or problem that being straight, male, or female.
An indecent act is an indecent act. Is it different if the act is indecent straight or gay? It is by definition indecent. That is where efforts should go, a persons actions, not towards who or what they are. Let the flames begin.
but the military admits hundreds of felons each year, including some violent ones. If unit cohesion can survive the presence of killers, rapists and child molesters, why would it shatter on contact with gays and lesbians?
Perhaps the straight soldiers and sailors recognize this too. They recognize that keeping gays in the closet or in fear of being summarily dismissed, may be the only way for straight soldiers and sailors to stay competitive. They may know they are faced with this “force within a force” that seeks in every way to outperform as a way of proving social worth. The possibility of straight soldiers and sailors having to “up their game” in order to compete may scare the hell out of them and so they opt to keep their gay colleagues in a coercive detainment instead.
In that way, perhaps gays in the military is similar to blacks in professional sports half a century ago. A majority of white players may not have wanted them and said the reason wasn't anything other than team cohesion. However, the ugly truth might have been that they had seen blacks play and they were threatened by their abilities to perform, compete and even (heaven forbid) win.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.