In my view, the strongest argument against President Obama’s proposal to allow gays to serve openly in the military is the claim that it will somehow impair unit cohesion. Yet as columnist Steve Chapman points out, several of our allies allow gays to serve openly with no such ill effects:
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....
A couple of dozen countries already allow gays in uniform—including allies that have fought alongside our troops, such as Britain, Canada, and Australia. Just as there is plenty of opposition in the U.S. ranks, there was plenty of opposition when they changed their policies.
In Canada, 45 percent of service members said they would not work with gay colleagues, and a majority of British soldiers and sailors rejected the idea. There were warnings that hordes of military personnel would quit and promising youngsters would refuse to enlist.
But when the new day arrived, it turned out to be a big, fat non-event. The Canadian government reported “no effect.” The British government observed “a marked lack of reaction.” An Australian veterans group that opposed admitting gays later admitted that the services “have not had a lot of difficulty in this area.”
Israel, being small, surrounded by hostile powers, and obsessed with security, can’t afford to jeopardize its military strength for the sake of prissy ventures in political correctness. But its military not only accepts gays, it provides benefits to their same-sex partners, as it does with spouses. Has that policy sapped Israel’s military might?
The Australian, British, Canadian, and Israeli armed forces are all among the best in the world. If they allow gays to serve openly with no ill effects, that strongly suggests that the US can as well.
I have not followed the literature on this subject in detail. So it’s possible that there is a body of data somewhere showing that these nations’ military capability really has been impaired in some way by allowing gays to serve. I highly doubt it, but I lack the knowledge and expertise to be sure.
One could also argue that the US armed forces are so different from those of these other countries that their experience is irrelevant. Given the quality of these armies and the fact that all of them rely heavily on US-style weapons, organization, and military doctrine, I’m skeptical of that claim too.
It may be that US troops are much more homophobic than those of these other countries, and therefore won’t effectively serve with gays. That too seems a dubious argument. An April 2009 poll showed that 50% of survey respondents in military households support letting gays serve openly, with 43% opposed; 56% reject the view that allowing gays to serve openly would be “divisive.” That suggests that homophobia in the military is far from universal. As Chapman points out, there was no outcry by servicemembers or decline in unit cohesion when the ban on openly gay troops was temporarily lifted during the 1991 Gulf War. Attitudes towards gays are considerably more favorable today, which makes problems even less likely.
To my mind, opponents of allowing gays to serve openly in the military need to show that the ill effects they predict have actually occurred in these other countries. If they can’t, they should support the idea of allowing the armed forces to choose the best available recruits regardless of sexual orientation.
MaryG says:
Clearly written and argued.
Also: there’s the understanding in military culture, you park your baggage at the door. So even if there were a greater incidence of homophobia amongst the American recruits, what the military says goes. Period.
You learn to quickly put aside old prejudices, I hear, and bond anew with your new ... colleagues. Like a sports team, there is a greater mission uniting, not dividing the individuals who are individuals no more (despite the relatively recent “Army of One” marketing slogan.)
That’s why when the military ended color segregation, it worked so quickly and the anticipated friction was overcome or nil.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 5:49 amlibertariansoldier says:
“One could also argue that the US armed forces are so different from those of these other countries that their experience is irrelevant. Given the quality of these armies and the fact that all of them rely heavily on US-style weapons, organization, and military doctrine, I’m skeptical of that claim too.”
And I believe you would be very wrong. Your skepticism would be warranted if you felt their cultures are similar to the US (especially those areas overrepresented within the military). However the reaction of the soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines will be driven much more by their prior formation growing up and experiences than by what kind of rifles they fire.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 6:12 amRoger says:
Did the armed forces of any of those other countries improve as a result of the change? Is there any data in support of improvement?
You demand proof of ill effects, but not of benefits.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 6:28 amChrisHo says:
It would seem that many of the arguments against gays serving in the military were used as reason to not allow women to serve.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 6:39 amspudbeach says:
Also relevent would be desegregation of the armed forces under Truman. There were major elements of society that were avowedly racist, and there was talk of the difficulty of making the transition. In the end, I think that history is unequivocal that the difficulties were worth it. Perhaps the results of integration of gays into the military will also be adjudged worth it.
And on that same note, I still have not heard any argument for keeping the gays closeted that wasn’t advanced for keeping the races segregated. From “those negros/gays can’t fight” to “those negros/gays will be let loose on our unsuspecting boys in uniform” to “those negros/gays will impair unit cohesion”, it’s all been done before.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 6:42 amIlya Somin says:
You demand proof of ill effects, but not of benefits.
The benefits are pretty obvious:
1. You can choose the best available personnel, regardless of sexual orientation. In some cases, at least, the best person available will be openly gay.
2. Resources will no longer have to be spent on enforcing “don’t ask don’t tell.”
3. We will no longer be discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation in the armed forces.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 6:46 amTim says:
Although I do think that gays should be allowed to serve, I do not think making any comparisons to any other military is appropriate. We are the only world superpower. We are the standard, not the others. They take suggestions from us, not the other way around.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 6:46 amIlya Somin says:
I do not think making any comparisons to any other military is appropriate. We are the only world superpower. We are the standard, not the others.
Really, so we have nothing to learn from others’ experience? The US military itself disagrees with you on that point. They devote extensive resources to studying Israeli and British military efforts, among others (e.g. — Israel’s various wars, and Britain’s Falkland Islands and Northern Ireland campaigns). The US and these other countries have similarly structured armed forces and often face similar enemies, using similar weapons and doctrines against them.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 6:50 amBuddy Hinton says:
The US Army is not needed.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 6:58 amChrisHo says:
I don’t suppose you care to elaborate as to why.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 7:26 amAnderson says:
The argument I’ve heard lately is that the U.S. military is unique in its proportion of Christian fundamentalists whose morale will be impaired by having to serve with gays.
To me, that would raise the issue of whether Christian fundamentalists should be allowed to serve in the military, not whether gays should, but I suppose I’m biased.
Regardless, I suspect that the military can handle its own, and that very few fundamentalists would indeed have to be court-martialed to make the inclusion of gays work out. Tho I’m sure every single one of those would become a hero on Fox. (Fox’s Book of Martyrs, if you will.)
Quote
February 10, 2010, 7:30 amBuddy Hinton says:
The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are unjust and counterproductive and standing armies are bad. If a real threat, one that would require an army, emerges, then we can do a draft. As things stand, we should send them all home with a bit of severance pay. It is a bit silly to debate gay people in the military when the obvious larger issue is that there should be essentially no military at this time.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 7:38 amFantasiaWHT says:
Wait, if 43% of the military is opposed to it, how are we supposed to believe that allowing gays won’t be divisive? Aren’t those 43% basically saying that they are going to be disaffected by the change?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 7:52 amcorneille1640 says:
A quibble: This survey, at least as you have presented the results, does not necessarily mean that US soldiers aren’t more homophobic than those of other countries. Perhaps in other countries, only 10 per cent of households supported letting gays serve openly.
Another quibble: At least when it comes to Israel, I imagine one could argue that the continual threats to its security provide a more unifying bond than any alleged disruption to cohesion caused by letting gays serve openly.
An anti-quibble: I agree with Mr. Somin’s and Mr. Chapman’s overall conclusion that gays should be allowed to serve openly.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 8:09 amBT says:
Gays are already in the military. This is just a matter of a policy change. My dad, who served in WWII and Korea, said he knew guys that were gay. I think it is fairly safe to say that gays have served since the first armys were formed thousands of years ago. We are losing a lot of good personel because of DADT.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 8:12 amBABH says:
It’s unfortunate that the debate so often focuses on (3) to the exclusion of the more important (1) and (2). Repealing DADT will enhance national security. The fact that it will also advance the civil rights of gays and lesbians is, to me, merely a happy accident.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 8:25 amPensans says:
Yeah, I am sure we can trust studies about unit cohesion in such a politicized area.
Look at climate change studies; that’s just temperatures and they could politicize it.
And, look who is making this argument. Only an effete look Volokh could pretend not to understand how queer culture will affect military life.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 8:31 amegd says:
This should not be a consideration at all. The only valid reason to remove DADT is to increase the effectiveness of our military.
The military isn’t some sort of petri dish for political correctness, it’s job is to provide security to the country. Anything that doesn’t add to that goal is irrelevant, and Congressional action that may decrease our effectiveness should be rejected outright.
I don’t see any problem with the military opening up a few select units to openly homosexual individuals as a test to see how the change would affect morale and enlistment. But if the results prove to be negative, then the P.C. crowd needs to acknowledge that allowing openly gay members to serve is wrong. Similarly, if the results are positive, the anti-gay groups should acknowledge that the repeal of DADT is a benefit.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 8:37 amShelbyC says:
What would destroy morale is strict “PC” type anti harassment rules designed to protect gays.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 8:49 amDaveW says:
Will Allowing Gays in the Military Really Impair Unit Cohesion?
I don’t know. I served in the USMC from 82–86, but that was almost 30 years ago now. At that time I would have said it wasn’t a good idea. Society is now a good bit more tolerant of Gays and I would think the young folks in the military would be more accepting.
I’m not sure how you’d deal with the facilities issues or if that even is an issue. We had to deal with the sexual tension of having healthy young females serving side by side with healthy young males but we housed them in separate facilities and of course they had separate bath and bathing facilities. It seems to me like this could be more of a potential problem on ships than on land...if it is a problem at all.
I think they should do it, I just don’t know exactly how they’d approach the issue.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 8:51 amoledrunk says:
I am a Regular Army Veteran. The new policy will restore the old WWII and Korea policy. DGT. Don’t get caught.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 8:56 amG. May says:
As a recently retired enlisted Marine, this subject has always been of intense interest to me. As to the comparison to other militaries, it depends on whom you ask within those militaries if allowing homosexuals to serve is a hindrance. From my personal experience not having to rely on the media or “studies”, the environment in foreign militaries is not quite as warm and fuzzy as is usually portrayed. Then again, neither is the U.S. military so “homophobic” (a frequently abused term) as Prof. Somin accurately points out.
To get a good feel for the real atmosphere, you have to talk to the enlisted folks in a relaxed environment. You don’t talk to the officers and you don’t interview the enlisted because you won’t get candid opinions. This is true of our military as well as those of the nations mentioned above as their cultures most closely resemble ours. And this is a cultural issue.
Personally, I’m of the opinion that gays should be allowed to serve openly or not at all. DADT was always something that just didn’t sit right with me. Philosophically, I’m of the opinion that gays should be allowed to serve openly. Twenty years of enlisted experience in the Marine Corps taught me that the reality of the situation gives a second thought or two. And this includes having served with many homosexuals, some of whom were exemplary, most average, and a few dirbags (the regular distribution of competence).
The closest parallel I see in the implementation of allowing gays to serve openly is in that of allowing women to serve alongside men. Talk to the high brass of the Army, Navy, and Air Force about mixed gender basic training and you’ll get a pretty PC response about its success. Talk the enlisted trainers in a frank and candid environment and you get a different picture entirely — good luck getting these kids to keep their trousers buttoned and legs closed.
Throughout my career, I was never able to answer the housing question. We don’t house men and women in the same barracks rooms for what should be obvious reasons. Just having women in the same barracks, let alone co-ed rooms can be a nightmare of “good order and discipline” on a frequent basis. I’m not going to house two homosexuals together for the same reasons. Are you going to house a gay man with a straight woman? Are you going to have the Company Gunny interview people in the Company to determine who’s ok?
Let’s forget about these unacceptable invasions of privacy even for the military. Let’s just look at the fact that getting it all sorted out is a ridiculous burden to place on an enlisted leadership already overburdened with a host of responsibilities that have little to do with operational readiness. Carry this forward to a deployed environment and the problems begin to compound.
I’ve just never seen an adequate answer to this problem. If there were one, I’d probably lean even farther toward allowing homosexuals to serve openly. I think there are other issues that need to be addressed such as — sexual harrassment (want to watch a small, mixed gender unit grind to a halt?) and perceptions of favoritism. These are two issues mixed gender units grapple with every day and it certainly does effect operational readiness, so I can imagine what compounding the possibilities would do.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 8:57 amHouston Lawyer says:
Shelby C and Richard Aubrey hit upon what I believe to be the larger problem. It is not so much the individual soldiers who may be gay that are the issue, but the institutional response of the military. I would predict that the number of men lost from the military as the result of making off-color sexual references would be far higher than the number drummed out now for violation of DADT.
One thing our military doesn’t need to spend time on is on how to make the military “gay friendly”.
When the military was desegregated, the draft was in force, so volunteers were not required.
If the military becomes too gay friendly, it will affect recruitment. My ex-wife told me she declined the opportunity to play college level volley ball because in her words “she is not a lesbian”.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 9:03 amA reader says:
I would predict that the number of men lost from the military as the result of making off-color sexual references would be far higher than the number drummed out now for violation of DADT.
Oh, I don’t know; there’s no epidemic of men getting kicked out for assaulting women despite the fact that 30% of women in the armed forces have been sexually assaulted. It seems a leap to imagine there will be one for mere sexual harassment of homosexuals.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 9:06 amruuffles says:
Ha ha.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 9:06 amruuffles says:
No no, you mean 30% of women in the armed forces report being sexually assaulted. We all know the weak women will lie and cheat to get their way.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 9:07 amStephen Goldstein says:
I don’t know enough to conclude whether, or not, gays should be permitted to serve openly in the US military. I can appreciate the arguments both for and against this and I worry when some, as has been done in this thread, dismiss opposing positions without real argument.
I also don’t like Chapman’s strawman, “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.” Since we know the first part isn’t true and we doubt that the consequences would include the second, it’s settled, right? Wrong!
I’m glad the Pentagon is about to undertake a study regarding this issue but my residual concerns are that the objectives and methodology could result in a PC-driven conclusion such as the recent Ft. Hood massacre report that, reportedly, concluded that the episode was nothing more than a tragic instance of, what has become all too common, work place violence.
I also think that the policies of countries like Australia, Canada, Israel and the UK are relevant but not determinative; can we agree that their experience is, at least, as important. And shouldn’t one also consider the policies of countries like China and Russia.
And finally, ChrisHo wrote above, “It would seem that many of the arguments against gays serving in the military were used as reason to not allow women to serve.” At first reading this may look like a strong argument because, of course, we know how the issue of women serving was settled. Except for three things: 1) of the “many” arguments, which are the same, which are different and are they more, or less, compelling; 2) of the reasons that are the same, with many years of experience, which have proven valid and which have been shown to be without merit; and 3) women do not serve in all roles in all units in all services — would a similar policy for gays and lesbians be acceptable?
Anyway, that’s what I think.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 9:08 amDavid says:
As someone who worked (as a civilian) with the Navy and Marines for most of my career, I am of two minds about the issue:
1. On the one hand, I think this is an issue where legislative action will follow cultural change: only when there is a preponderance of acceptance on the part of the actual troops in uniform, in barracks, will it make sense to change the official policy of record, which–leaving aside the adverse impact on a few–has served us tolerably well for almost two decades.
2. OTOH, I also remember the push to integrate women fully into the military in the 90s, and how that went, on the whole, tolerably well, but of course, marred by a few high-profile incidents (the Kara Hultgreen incident; Tailhook; several ugly incidents at the service academies). Did those incidents mean that the military were averse to women in the combat branches? To some extent, yes: but the incidents themselves were relatively isolated. Yet, they were treated by TPTB as symptomatic, and many highly competent and qualified officers (no doubt some enlisted as well) either left the service or had their careers ruined in the process.
If TPTB are willing to accept the ineluctable fact that there are jerks everywhere, then the process would go a lot smoother. But if we are to feel empathy for the gay soldier, sailor, airman or Marine whose career is ruined by that fact, logic and justice suggest we have to act similarly for the small minority on the other side (by “small minority”, I mean of course those who are unbendingly “intolerant” of gays), and NOT similarly ruin the career of (e.g.) the devout Christian soldier who quotes Leviticus.
If I had confidence that there would be no witchhunts by the pro-gay side, I’d be willing to change the law in a heartbeat.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 9:15 amDaily Pundit » Don’t Confuse Us With Reality says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Will Allowing Gays in the Military Really Impair Unit Cohes... The Australian, British, Canadian, and Israeli armed forces are all among the best in the world. If they allow gays to serve openly with no ill effects, that strongly suggests that the US can as well. [...]
Will Allowing Gays in the Military Really Impair Unit Cohesion? The Relevance of Allies’ Experience | Liberal Whoppers says:
[...] more here: Will Allowing Gays in the Military Really Impair Unit Cohesion? The Relevance of Allies’ Experienc... [...]
Dale Gribble says:
Not only should gays be able to serve, maybe we should draft them. Gays men should be able to hump a ruck, machine gun, a few hundred rounds of ammmo and a radio. I dont think any women would be able to do that
Quote
February 10, 2010, 9:32 amMaryanna says:
Interestingly, I was talking to my husband about this the other day. He spent 13 years in the army, served in combat under 3 presidents (Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton), has all of the appropriate decorations, tabs and accoutrements on his uniform and, in his words, “wore black berets before they handed them out to every REMF they could find.”
He tells me that he routinely served with soldiers that were generally known to be gay and that it was never a problem among the operators. The people that had a problem with gay soldiers were REMFs who were usually more concerned with pogey bait than with training. He is specifically alive today because a gay soldier (Ranger) kept him that way in Mogadishu after he was shot in the left lung.
My military experience was both shorter and less exciting, and I only knew of a couple of gay women. They kept it pretty quiet and no problems were had.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 9:36 amPJens says:
I would much rather serve next to a competent gay person than an incompetent straight one. Yes, I believe gays have served well and ought to serve in the military. My question is though: Why hasn’t DADT worked? Doesn’t it allow gays to serve?
I am not asking or expecting gays to stay in the closet. I am asking a valid question. If DADT doesn’t work, what makes us think allowing a more controversial policy will be better? There is no way to measure how many highly qualified people will choose not to enter the military if gays are allowed to openly serve.
Also, I believe the president is doing this for political reasons, not because he has the best interest of the military in mind.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 9:40 amFrank Drackman says:
Its purely anecdotal, but I served as a Military Anesthesiologist during the First Gulf War, the one “W“‘s daddy ran.
Assigned to a field hospital close to the front lines, the 6ft 4 Male Nurse who slept next to me joked that he was gonna “Boo-Foo” me one night.
I figured he was joking since he had pics of his Wife and Kids arranged on the MRE box that served as his bedside table...Wife & Kids, just like Senator Larry Craig or Governor McGreevey has...
I still slept in the Post Op tent for the remainder of the war....
Quote
February 10, 2010, 9:42 amFrank Drackman says:
The guy slept “Next to me” in the sense that he slept in one of those 1930’s military cots that are impossible to assemble without tearing your rotator cuff. And he was 6–4, 280lbs, over 300 with his flack jacket, helmet, etc...
and this was BEFORE DADT...
Quote
February 10, 2010, 9:46 amVehical Driver says:
I am just impressed on how civil and reasonable all sides of the argument where on this blog. I expected this to be a controversial issue.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 9:51 amKentM says:
Having just completed over a year undergoing instruction at Naval Nuclear Power Training Command in charleston, sc, I have had an Instructor(ETC(SS)) on podium flat out state that he didn’t care who a sailor shims rods with at night as longs he shims rods into the reactor correctly when asked about gays in the military. I have heard my classmates express their non-concern about gays in they military and I have also been in class with a few people who we all new where homosexual and no one made a big deal about it. lol, Straight guys would even go with the lesbians downtown to try to catch straight girls at the gay club.
Given these set of facts I doubt the military would have any trouble adjusting to a change in policy.
Also given the way the Navy needs Nuc’s and the amount of money spent training us to be Safe Trusted Nuclear Operator I don’t think they would put a gay Nuc out and I know for a fact that the NNPTC doesn’t care unless you wish to be put out and even then they still made the guy take the test that Friday morning and told him think about it over the weekend.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 9:51 amCheckEnclosed says:
Isn’t an argument of the form: “We should continue to discriminate against Group X, because if we don’t, then incompetent members of Group X will benefit from PC excesses”
one that ought to be categorically rejected?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 10:00 amBoonton says:
Roger
You demand proof of ill effects, but not of benefits.
I can prove a cost to having the policy, good qualified soldiers are being tossed out of the military. Proof: If a gay soldier was in some otherway unfit, the military would rather push him out for those reasons than the politically charged one of being gay. Since people are being kicked out for being gay we are therefore losing talented, qualified soldiers and that’s an ill effect that would be resolved by eliminating the policy.
Now could you measure an overall improvement in the entire military? Probably not. The number of gays kicked out in any given year is less than 100 and measuring the military’s performance is almost impossible to do. Unlike the economy which has a semi-good macro metric (GDP), I doubt any such metric exists for the military. If changing the policy results in, say, 60 more good soldiers serving well each year I doubt we’d be able to see the good on the macro level even though it would be very real.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 10:02 amS says:
I have heard, anecdotally, that enforcement depends entirely on the commander’s discretion, which maybe one reason for DADT’s failure, in addition to arbitrarily dismissing people with expensive and needed skills. I would assume they have better ways to deal with unit cohesion problems then a tangential, at best, blanket ban on often uncontroversial speech.
Both my uncle, Marine who stormed Iwo, and my Dad, Army Pfc, who fought in Korea, say they served with gays and think its time to let them serve openly.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 10:10 ambellisaurius says:
Morale can be a funny thing, but ultimately, the military takes orders from on high and eventually will live with it. The worst case scenarios probably have more to do with retention and recruitment than morale, but that would be a money issue. However, perhaps the image improvement would help with recruitment of the types of folks who go to ivy league colleges, which are the kinds of folks that should be serving more anyways, since they tend to be the types who benefit from our international presence (vis a vis freedom of the seas, international trade, etc..) than the folks from Country B (as tom schnelling called it) who live in a much more isolated manner.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 10:10 amGays in the Military: Other Countries Do It says:
[...] Somin: The Australian, British, Canadian, and Israeli armed forces are all among the best in the world. If they allow gays to serve openly with no ill effects, that strong suggests that the US can as well. [...]
td says:
Of course there are no demonstrable ill effects just as there would be no ill effects in legalizing SSM. That’s the point, these are not reasonable positions, they are fantasies propagated by people with deeply bigoted agendas and there simply is no way around that.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 10:31 ammikeyes says:
Last time I heard, the military was not a democracy. Besides, I’m with Barry Goldwater on this one: “I don’t care if you are straight, as long as you can shoot straight in the defense of your country.”
I served with gay and lesbian soldiers in combat situations while serving in the Medical Corps. The Medical Corps would probably not be effective if the ban on gays in the military was enforced. In today’s military women are not allowed in combat roles. This does not mean that they are not in combat as the distribution of Silver Stars has shown. It just means that they are not in those units that are specifically designated as “combat.”
Every unit is expected to defend themselves in today’s combat philosphy. Those units (MPs for example) that have men and women not only are fighting together, but they live together in the field. I had women in my tent during Desert Storm. We just had to accomodate.
There is no reason that the same accomodations can’t be present in a DADT free military. It is really just a matter of acknowledging that gays and lesbians have been serving forever and move on. If anyone tells you that there were no gays in their units, it is more of a reflection of that person’s attitudes than anything else.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 10:32 amA. Criminal says:
‘Gays Too Precious To Risk In Combat’
Quote
February 10, 2010, 10:35 amConnecticut Lawyer says:
The experience of the Israeli military is something the US should pay close attention to. If gay service has not impaired their fighting effectiveness (which is the only issue here), then that would suggest the same thing would happen to the US military.
Is there any data on woman soldiers in the Israeli military? Honestly, I think allowing women to serve in line units is much more of a threat to military effectiveness than allowing gay menn to serve.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 10:50 amBABH says:
False. In fact, over 800 a year are lost on average, at a cost of about $35 million a year.
Both before and during DADT, discharges of gays and lesbians consistently drop during wartime and spike in peacetime, suggesting that commanders have always been happy to have gays and lesbians in their units when it matters most.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 10:51 amSun Tzu's Nephew says:
Roger that.
I’m a retired USAF officer (26 years), starting as an enlisted guy and being a pilot and squadron commander. I know there were gays in my units. I didn’t care unless and until it impacted their ability to carry out the mission.
I don’t recall an instance where it did. OTOH, family abuse, alcohol and drug abuse, poor financial decisions, to name just a few situations, all impacted mission readiness, negatively. The Air Force has gotten better since the late 1970’s in preventing drug and alcohol abuse but it still happens, and still has a negative impact on mission readiness.
As Barry Goldwater said, “I don’t care if they are straight, as long as they shoot straight”. And if some young airman has a problem with the idea of “some gay dude checking out his junk” I offer this suggestion: http://www.atomicnerds.com/?p=3213 — which I offer as the definitive internet comment on this topic.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 10:56 amrishi says:
Uhh, benefit #1 = more people who want to be in the military would be able to serve.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 10:57 amlgm says:
I agree with this
Going further, integrating the army was one step in reinventing our country without racism. As Ilya Somin points out, this was so good for the country that it would have been work a small sacrifice in the quality of our armed forces. Allowing gays to serve will help the country overcome homophobia. That’s just as great a public good.
You don’t have to argue that the country is ready, though it seems to be. You have to trust that our soldiers will adapt, as they did with integration.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 10:59 amSun Tzu's Nephew says:
I’ve known just a few unit commanders that were diligent about finding gays (before DADT) and discharging them (after, when it became known through other means). These were not particularly effective commanders, IMHO, they lost focus on the mission.
The military exists to carry out it’s mission — defense of the United States primarily, and as Clauswitz said, executing politics by other means. If Clinton (or Congress) had wanted to make it legal for gays to serve openly, they could have, instead we have had nearly 20 years of this joke of a policy that impedes mission effectiveness.
In the military, people’s personal, sex life should be just that: Personal, and not in the public view. I don’t want to know what various sexual practices the people I work with engage in — gay or straight. I just wanted to know that the airplane would work correctly, that the fuel wasn’t contaminated, that my pay would show up in my bank account: That everyone did their assigned job well. Today in civilian life I still don’t want to know that sort of personal information about the people I work with.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:03 amChris Travers says:
I think this comparative method is quite appropriate where limited questions are raised and answers need to be asked. The alternative is to simply say “we have no data” which seems false to me.
Certainly we shouldn’t just say “we should redesign the US armed forces based on the Israeli experience” but when asking specific questions we should look at as much data as we can because the alternative is to substitute imagination for information.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:05 amAllan Leedy says:
This irrelevant reference to allies’ experience completely ignores the concept of American exceptionalism.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:06 amChris Travers says:
Ok, so accepting your points for the sake of argument, should gays be allowed to serve openly in the air force?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:07 amPliny the elder says:
I know that gays openly serving in the army I joined 29 years ago would have been extremely difficult; the culture was heavy (hetero)sexualized. That said, the culture has changed and is changing. I suspect that repealing DADT will get a yawn from most folks in the military. I do not have any strong feelings, viewing it as alegitimate policy dispute.
BTW I am over 1/3 of the way through my Iraq tour and just got back from the Syrian border.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:07 amBABH says:
This made me laugh out loud — I graduated in the last RIP class to be awarded black berets.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:09 amSun Tzu's Nephew says:
Back in the day, well over 50% of the military was opposed to blacks serving. Same with females (thats one I was around for, in the beginning). In both cases, the Commander in Chief said “do it” and the military saluted and carried out the mission.
So it will be with gays.
Note that much (if not the vast majority) of the argument against is from people who haven’t served, but think they know better?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:10 amSun Tzu's Nephew says:
When (not if) gays serve openly in the US Military, they will serve better and more openly than any other nations gays.
There, satisfied?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:12 amWatney says:
I believe that gays in the militaries you cite are restricted as to role. No front line combat with its attendant conditions and cohesion expectations. Can anyone confirm or refute?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:12 amSun Tzu's Nephew says:
I know some gay women who could. Straight ones, too. Some straight men who couldn’t. At least one gay guy who couldn’t.
Gotta come up with a better way of testing....
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:16 amyankee says:
No, it does not. The “don’t ask” part of the policy is that the military should not go investigating whether or not servicemembers are gay absent some kind of heightened grounds for an investigation (I’m not sure about the details). But the statute prescribes that servicemembers “shall be separated” if shown to be gay.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:16 amJKB says:
The real issue here is if you get rid of the “polite lie” and permit gays to serve openly, then you have the problem of sexually attracted individuals (at least one) berthing together. If you have that then you can’t logically justify separate berthing for males and females. Eventually, we do have an egalitarian situation where the servicemember’s berth is governed by their rank and affiliation.
Or you berth heterosexual males with heterosexual males, heterosexual females with heterosexual females, homosexual males with homosexual females and the damn bisexuals in a room by themselves. And having experience with military berthing, ten minutes after that rule goes in effect, most everyone will come out as bisexual.
Of course, there would need to be efforts to crack down on aggressive sexual overtures and assaults as that is what is detrimental to unit cohesion.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:18 amjustaguy says:
A couple of issues that have not been discussed:
1) I have read, but not confirmed, that many of our allies who accept gays do not accept them into combat roles. Even for the one or two serious fighting forces we are discussing (most are jobs programs, not serious fighting forces), if they do not place them into the combat roles, then their experiences are not the same.
2) The open display aspect of gay for US forces and the cultural differences will also be quite different. Currently the above comments show that except for a few publicized cases, the military looks the other way and doesn’t care about gay service members. Act like everyone else and not affect the important aspects of unit cohesion and no one cares. Allow a few open and notorious gay displays, which will happen if allowed, and the impact on unit cohesion goes up.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:19 amSun Tzu's Nephew says:
And thats one of the problems: People (gay or not) are ‘outed’ as a way of attacking them. If the commander thinks the accusation is true, they’re administratively separated. It’s an administrative irrelevance to what is important — the mission.
Also, i someone doesn’t want to serve any more (or deploy overseas), they claim they’re gay and get out.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:21 amrjfarel says:
The comparison to the experience of Australia, the UK, and Canada is not relevant because they depend on the U.S. military for their security. Would anyone accept the argument that the U.S. should enact huge cuts in the defense budget because Australia, the UK, and Canada seem to be doing just fine spending a fraction of what the U.S. spends?
The real comparison needs to be with the IDF. How did they do it? Did they really ban homosexuals from serving in line units?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:21 amSun Tzu's Nephew says:
Thats not true — the Canadians (for example) have gays in combat, I believe the Brits do as well. The former head of one of the NATO nations (Denmark?) was openly gay, it was quite a ‘scandal’ back in the early ’80’s over there...for about five seconds, then we decided that we didn’t care (I was a fighter pilot in Germany at the time).
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:24 amSun Tzu's Nephew says:
And what, she thought it was infectious?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:28 amSun Tzu's Nephew says:
Oh, boo-hoo. If the current crop of military can’t handle what every 15 year old Tiffani Amber (who’s genes endowed her with a big rack and early development) can, with everyone checking her out, then we might as well disband the military.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:31 amSkyler says:
Comparing our military to these is like saying, “oh, that two year old doesn’t wipe its bottom, you don’t have to either.”
We set the standard for military effectiveness, not those countries. They have hardly been role models to emulate.
The Brits, since their “enlightened” policy, has had their sailors taken prisoner who embarrassed all of western civilization from their bed wetting teddy bear hugging displays of craven cowardice.
Not all people in those militaries are craven cowards, and it’s possible that we have some such miserable excuses for men in our military too, but I think for now we can say that their admission of homosexuals has not made them better. Probably made them worse.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:35 amtrashhauler says:
If analysis of foreign armies is required, then it should go a bit deeper than “Hey, those guys haven’t collapsed because they let gays in.” There are actual measurements of unit cohesion that can be used. And, we should bear in mind, the values in such measurements vary widely depending on the status of the unit in question — whether they are in garrison or deployed, in reserve or in active combat. Some of the cohesion measurements will be decidedly second rate based on recent combat experience.
In addition, if gays are to be let in the military, does that end our objections to women in close combat units? After all, their impact on unit cohesion is functionally similar.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:35 amOren__ says:
I would presume that our soldiers are professionals and can regulate their behavior to maintain the standard of discipline that is required of them.
Given that they have performed in an exemplary fashion every other task that we have entrusted to them — most far more difficult — there is no basis to conclude that they cannot do this.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:35 amSMSgt Mac says:
It is interesting how an assault on the rights of the majority in promoting the agenda of a tyrannical minority are so easily shrugged off. DADT isn’t perfect, but allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military poses risks to good order an discipline we do not need to take. I think the greatest problem is too many of the uninformed or inexperienced tend to view the military like a ‘job’ when it is a way of life.
An Illustrative Tale that I posted at my place years ago. (all quotes approximate since it has been 25 years)
One of my most interesting off-duty moments while stationed at Keflavik NAS (Iceland) in the early 80’s came while sitting in my quarters watching the weekly AFRTS cable show called “Feedback”. The show was like a weekly Commander’s Call and bulletin board all wrapped up in one. This particular show was the monthly edition with the senior commanders of the Naval and Air Force components of the Icelandic Defense Force taking telephone questions from people on the base.
There was a grand opening (or reopening ) coming up of a dormitory that would house the unaccompanied Senior Enlisted (mostly Navy Chiefs) with the top floor to be dedicated to housing unaccompanied female naval personnel. This was controversial at the time because the Navy housed its people by units, and the new arrangement would move the females out of ‘female-only’ areas of their respective unit living quarters. The female personnel were not at all happy about this change: they did not want to be separated from their units — so the phone calls (mostly from female Navy enlisted) became more and more irate as the show went on.
The AF Colonel was barely containing his enjoyment at his counterpart’s difficulty in fielding the tough questions, when the Navy Captain finally blurted out at the last questioner that he really “didn’t see the problem” with or “understand everyone’s resistance” to the move and that this new arrangement would help “protect the females from ‘all the predatory’ males”…when the female caller responded with heartfelt concern:
‘But who is going to protect me from all the females?”
The Colonel and Captain’s jaws dropped and crickets chirped for a while….
Then the Captain responded sheepishly with:
‘um, ah, we like to think that we don’t have that kind of problem …
And the show wrapped up faster than you can say “DADT”.
So all you people who say it won’t be a problem to lower the bar of acceptable behavior and allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military and that it won’t be prejudicial to good order and discipline, I hear:
‘um, ah, we like to think that we won’t have that kind of problem …
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:39 amsardonic_sob says:
Having a larger population from which to recruit and retain is a priori a benefit. If the benefit comes with no documentable ill effects, so much the better.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:40 amSkyler says:
Ilya wrote:
Yeah, the Marines study the Gallipoli campaign vigorously, too. Because we don’t want to screw up like they did.
Studying military operations does not mean that we like how they were done. Your assertion is absurd. All militaries study all other military actions because there are always lessons to be learned, usually what not to do.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:40 amOren__ says:
I always thought this was a matter of capability, not unit cohesion.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:42 amRuss Smith says:
I’m a retired AF officer, and I now work in the defense industry. It’s not the “openness” that worries me. What worries me is the probability that the administration, this one and future ones, will bow to the pressures from the professional lobbies & force me to annually celebrate a lifestyle choice. We already have to submit to annual “diversity training,” the assumption being that we are all hate-criminals-in-waiting.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:44 amtrashhauler says:
Sun Tzu’s Nephew wrote:
“Oh, boo-hoo. If the current crop of military can’t handle what every 15 year old Tiffani Amber (who’s genes endowed her with a big rack and early development) can, with everyone checking her out, then we might as well disband the military.”
Snark aside, this post illustrates the deep ignorance of most who comment on the subject of unit cohesion. The problem is not (primarily) the uneasiness felt by the non-gay. The problem is that once pairing is allowed (as it will inevitably be), then all the same issues arise that currently occur in mixed gender units. Even with non-fraternazation rules, the existence of couples, real or imagined, will cause more incidents of jealousy, clique-forming, favoritism, and retaliation than is likely to be found in a single sex-oriented unit.
The problem can be dismissed easily enough by the non-participants. Commanders in combat, however, must attempt to manage chaos. We do them no favors by giving them additional variables, whilst demanding perfect mission accomplishment.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:46 amS says:
If you think gays in the British Navy is something new, than you don’t know the traditions of the ‘Rule Britannia’ Navy. Just ask Winston Churchill.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:46 amG.R. Mead says:
The issue is not “What harm could it do?” Unless you can define the EXISTING elements that contribute to unit cohesion and result in these types of superlative military virtues, you have no business changing anything. Without knowing what it is that exists before you change something — you cannot predict the consequences to a system that has adapted itself to function pretty darn well.
This system is deep stuff involving psychosocial and hormonal factors in the provocation of oxytocin — which in males is seen primarily expressed ion protective aggression. It is a sociobiological issue, not a political one. This protective aggression functions as to definable categories — evolutionarily speaking — mates or potential mates (i.e. — women), offspring (i.e. — children); or closely related kin (i.e. — siblings).
A category can be extend to like-kind subcategories but the root categories cannot be crossed because they are qualitatively different. Male-for-male protective aggression is the foundation of unit cohesion — the only functional sociobiological category in this deeply ingrained neuro-hormonal system is sibling protection or quasi-sibling protection ( if we extend the category by active culture). In military usage this system has been transferred to what are essentially adoptive kin — the proverbial “Band of Brothers”.
The inclusion of women was of serious concern because it altered this, and requiring service men to include service women as adoptive sisters — but most importantly NOT as mates of potential mates (and the risks of altering those status perceptions is always at the fore now with women in forward units). The nature of mate-for-mate protective aggression is much more exclusive and isolated to be of much military use, and traditionally, relations of this sort negatively affect unit cohesion. This has been reflected in a certain degree of group misogyny in military traditions around the world. It serves a survival purpose that abstract concepts fairness would disallow as a matter of distaste in its expression — but in ignorance of its root functions and without providing a substitute.
It is true that there are a few historical examples of homosexual military units of exceptional repute — (e.g. the Sacred Band of Thebes), but in such example the protective aggression instinct was that of an adoptive mate — notably the Sacred Band was formed of distinct pairs of warriors. The similarity in both of these instances (Sacred Band vs. Band of Brothers) this protective aggression relation is mutual and bilateral. Therefore, the unit coheres militarily — but in each case quite differently. Though the quasi-mate bond is more intense — it is also more isolating, and therefore qualitatively different from the quasi-sibling bond. Thus, the only way that homosexuals can be integrated into heterosexual units coherently in terms in one of these protective aggrression categories is if they are seen primarily as adoptive siblings — not as adoptive mates or potential mates.
Unwanted sexual attraction (heterosexual or homosexual) provokes the inverse form of exclusive aggression, which again, looked at as purely sociobilogical, excludes (aggressively) from the quasi-mate category any persons undesirable as a mate — (regardless of sexual preferences — this dynamic is also part of the long history of overt misogyny as a form of negative mate-exclusion mechanism.)
Gays are and have always been in the armed services, and like it or not, a certain way of accommodating them has evolved, and, again, like it or not a certain key aspect of that has been a degree of social pretense combined with related expectations of accepted behavior — comporting with that of relations between quasi-siblings, a category open to all male, or female or heterosexual or gay — regardless of sexual preferences — That is how the successful integration of women has been accommodated — by adopting them as perceived siblings and ACTIVELY sublimating their role as perceived mates.
Promoting or allowing gays to be seen as desirous of potential mates within a unit — creates a serious and fundamental category error in terms of the sociobiological and neurohormonal basis for unit cohesion — by creating sytemic risk of mate-exclusion agression — within units. In short, the existing aspects of unit cohesion are premised on those two elements — presence and a certain expectation of behavior that does not include mate-like behavior. People don’t charge machine gun nests or throw themselves on grenades for policy reasons — the motivations are deeper, and are not altered by changes in “policy.” Although changes in behavior that are allowed or caused by policy can positively or negatively change the dynamic of those systems.
This would not be a problem in the Sacred Band historical example as a basis for military organization. But that would be of overt homosexual soldiers, pair bonded. It would offend the same abstract concept of fairness, and other abstract concepts of a moral nature — but militariyl speaking is at least admissible as being a functionally successful and proven system (though certainly not widely so, for perhaps obvious reasons). The difference between this manner of offending contemporary sensibilities by overt segregation and the abolition of DADT would be that unit cohesion would not be placed at risk in the former approach. the alternative is the continuation of a useful and life-saving attitude of quasi-sibling categories, and actively suppressing or sublimating sexual aspects of the military relation, (regardless of sexual preference). Anything else risks lives.
Due caution MUST be observed. Lives are at risk. Abstract ideas of fairness don’t enter into it — at least not at the risk of affecting a supremely effective basis for military cohesion illustrated in our armed forces.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:47 amEduardo says:
I would not include some of the mentioned armies as among the best in the world.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:49 amRob in CT says:
“It is interesting how an assault on the rights of the majority in promoting the agenda of a tyrannical minority...”
LOL! Thanks for the laugh.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:53 amtrashhauler says:
Oren asks about the objection to women in close combat units:
“I always thought this was a matter of capability, not unit cohesion.”
Only partially. The real objection (one that few commanders will willingly admit to in public) was always the complications that come with managing two genders 24/7, and especially under stress of combat. Experience with police isn’t similar because of they can go “off the job.” In the military, with even the strongest prohibitions about fraternization, inappropriate relationships between different genders result in more courts-martial each year than any other cause.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:55 amChris Travers says:
Would you support a pilot program then?
Or does “due caution” mean “never under any circumstances can we change this?”
I understand the need to be sceptical of change. Indeed, I share some scepticism. The fact is we don’t know for sure what unforeseen consequences may occur.
But it seems to me that this illustrates a need for baby steps rather than an attempt to stop time by removing the batteries from the clock.
I consider myself to be a fairly Burkean conservative. However, that doesn’t suggest a right or left wing position on anything. It suggests instead that all major changes should be done with due caution and that they should be broken down into baby steps instead of orchestrated wholesale.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:56 amGeorge Baily says:
I have no position one way or the other and I don’t have a problem with gay marriage. But the posts seems to be glossing over a lot to get to the desired end.
Comparing the US military to armies that have been largely or totally awol in recent conflicts is not apt. The Australians and Canadians have not tested their arrangement in combat engagements of significance, and I don’t believe they had that arrangement in WWII when the Canadian army was quite good. Aside from selected small units like snipers, no one has any idea of how good it is today. Everyone thought the French army was quite good in 1939 too. The Brits don’t provide data to show that has worked in combat areas, and if gays composed portions of front line troops. I’d like to see that, not hear only that gays “serve.” (where: in supply? Finance?). The Israeli experience is the most compelling for the mentioned reason that they can’t really screw around with PC solutions. But I have some questions: did Israel allow gays to serve in either of the large wars (67/73) that marked the Israeli army as so proficient? If not, and the experience is new, on what experience do we link Israel’s policy to the US which seems to be embroiled in conflicts every few years? On the comparison to women: as of now,women pilots and seamen-er seawomen-sailors-seem fine. No hard data on front line combat troops. But even as to navy and army stations, a high rate of pregnancy that decimates the numbers, experience and presumably cohesion of units. On the announcements of generals: I know the higher ups in any army or police force can be pressured into saying anything. Also that soldiers are sometimes resistant to things they ought not ot be (e.g., blacks in the military, whihc was integrated in 1948). All I am saying is that an effective combat force isn’t always somehting to be tinkered with by inhabitants of salons who want it to reflect their view of how it ought to be. I recall that gays ahve been decorated pilots, valued sailors and so on. we ought to strive to acheive fairness and not exclude people absed on sex. But...this being combat and often a matter of life and death (yes, yes, thought of the comparison to police officers, but they go home at shift’s end), the issue is if a policy that is more open about it all will work.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:58 amS. Beck says:
A note from Israel: The IDF does have gay soldiers in all kinds of jobs, including combat. While a draftee can opt out of service by saying ‘I’m gay and I can’t subject myself to sleeping/showering/whatnot with others of the same gender’; this out is rarely taken.
It seems to me–and I suggest it for discussion–that a big difference between the IDF and the US Army is that our soldiers are not sent off for long deployments in distant locales. IDF soldiers get home leave at least once in 3 weeks, and are usually less than a 3-hour bus ride from home. So it is expected that whatever social/emotional/sexual arrangements you had at home, you can keep them going in the army. Which defuses the whole ‘how can they handle the sexual tension’ issue considerably.
–S.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:01 pmjoe says:
Did you actually bring up that tired, worn out, “lifestyle choice” canard? Really?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:04 pmAcquisitions Committee says:
If there is enough rum before the sodomy, it’s not gay.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:05 pmSonicfrog says:
And yet, how many times have we heard that the Israelis do things better than we do... punishing the Palestinian thugs, airport security, why don’t we bomb the Iranian uranium like the Israelis did with Iraq....
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:06 pmMichael Chaney says:
1. I’m sure that at some point soldiers said they’d also quit if they had to serve alongside blacks.
2. They’re already serving with gays — just closeted gays. They likely won’t be terribly surprised when the closet doors are removed, and likely won’t care.
3. If it’s such a big deal, why not phase it in the same way blacks were brought in. Create a separate gay brigade (looks like a brigade would be about the size needed). I’ve jokingly said before that we should put them in charge of military detention areas and let the enemies know it.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:07 pmSuzy says:
I don’t understand why the shift away from DADT will affect these subtler issues of unit cohesion. We acknowledge that sexual attraction between males already exists within units, or among people who “berth” together. All the things mentioned that can go wrong, like bonding between pairs or jealous aggressions, can already happen. The training that aims to create the best relations within a unit has to be powerful enough to overcome these concerns already. Does the shift from secrecy to openness necessarily make that more difficult? One might argue it does just the opposite. Potential areas of concern could be openly identified and addressed, with the benefit of self-policing of behavior within the group. In short, how is honesty going to be detrimental, especially when we’re trying to achieve the best possible cohesion?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:07 pmcharles says:
Once the decision has been made to allow gays to serve openly, the organizational hierarchy will skew any reports as to the alleged success of its policy. No data will ever be provided or available as to any detrimental impact on morale or unit cohesion. The countries that have already made the change will never admit to any real problems caused by the change. Neither will the US generals whose main concern is to bend over backward to the progressives’s PC proclivities so their own careers won’t be derailed. DADT works. Why change it? Because PC concerns override all other concerns.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:16 pmAcquisitions Committee says:
Why do we let civilians control the military, anyway?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:19 pmWhadonna More says:
Didja catch where he said:
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:21 pmG. May says:
“I would presume that our soldiers are professionals and can regulate their behavior to maintain the standard of discipline that is required of them.
Given that they have performed in an exemplary fashion every other task that we have entrusted to them — most far more difficult — there is no basis to conclude that they cannot do this.”
Your presumption is wrong. The largest demographic in the military is males age 18–24. Despite their professionalism and discipline, you can’t train away a few million years of evolutionary instinct.
You are clearly unaware of the countless hours that commanders and senior enlisted must spend on such non-operational matters like sexual harrassment, perceptions of favoritism, and various types of training intended to “educate”. The effort spent in adjudicating or preventing sexual misconduct, sexual harrassment, and allegations of favoritism is absurd. You don’t get that in male-only units.
It’s not hard to understand why you try to keep the opportunity for sex out of a military environment. It happens so much in mixed-gender situations that, judging by your naive remark, you’d be shocked. I’m not saying integrating homosexuals can’t be done, but until you’ve lead (managed) a mixed gender military unit at the enlisted level, you just can’t appreciate how silly it gets.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:22 pmSkyler says:
Since someone brought up women in the military, I’ll just point out an obvious point that is rarely talked about. Units act different, usually less assertive or aggressive, when there are women in it. That might be okay in a nuclear reactor or on the flight line, but in an infantry unit I’m sure you can see that this is not a desirable characteristic. This is a law of human biology and we won’t over come it.
Although many homosexuals are otherwise masculine and just as strong or strong-willed as you could want, there are still other factors involved that make this a bad idea.
It comes down to this: Whom do we need in the military? Young men. We don’t need women. We don’t need old men. We have those, but in a meaningful war we will need young men and lots of them. How does one get young men to join up? There are lots of reasons they join, but number one among those reasons is that young men like to be part of something they perceive as being tough. They want to prove their masculinity and virility. If we allow homosexuals to serve openly, then this image of being tough will be compromised.
If you don’t understand this, then you don’t understand 18 year old men. They may be able to vote, but they are still not fully grown and they are usually still trying to prove that they are men. Just like having women in units changes the male behavior, so will having homosexuals change the military culture in ways that proponents like to ignore.
Once we allow homosexuals to serve openly, the ones that were mature and responsible will live exactly like they would have before DADT. The political reality is that we’ll suddenly have flaming homosexuals who will push the limits of acceptable behavior again and again. Who will want to join the navy when outside every navy base will look like the village people?
Additionally, we’ll likely have bed wetting, teddy bear hugging sailors like the Brits have because that’s the type of recruit we’ll be getting and our sensitivity training will not discourage this mindset.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:25 pmsecond history says:
Incorrect. The military has been a leader in civil rights over time. Truman integrated the military in 1948 long before other societal institutions would see blacks and whites working together. Public education integration began in 1954 and integration of employment, voting, and the use of public facilities wasn’t protected until 1964 and 1965.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:26 pmdavidclinton says:
One side issue that comes up as a result of discussions on allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces is just how few members of our society’s elites are veterans or serve in the armed forces. One way to become at least somewhat of an expert on military culture is to sign up for military service. I have a feeling that most readers of this blog are highly patriotic, highly intelligent, and highly educated–exactly the type of people with the skills needed for our current conflicts. As such, I invite readers who meet the other requirements (healthy and in the case of the Army, under age 42) to sign up. In addition to honorable patriotic service, you will gain the benefit of knowing about military culture and gain helpful insights into this or any other military personnel/human resources issue.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:27 pmS says:
This is an irrational argument because DADT is the very definition of a politically correct policy — don’t discuss or reveal the truth because others maybe offended.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:29 pmWhadonna More says:
Re: above post.
Screwed up the tags somehow — SunTzu’s Nephew said the second bit.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:29 pmSonicfrog says:
Sociobiological issues?????? And here I thought you were arguing that abstract ideas shouldn’t enter into it. Sociobiology... has it become the new Social Darwinism? Are you prepared to argue that none of the people who have received MOH’s are were gay? Really?
And, BTW, this guy completely destroys your whole premise — Medal Of Honor recipient Thomas Kelly. Quote:
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:30 pmG.R. Mead says:
I would say “no” because the error is not an error of means but of category. Purely as a military matter, I am open to the “Sacred band” model to test it in modern circumstances, but politically this approach is almost inconceivable. It would provide category boundaries that the proposed system lacks.
The other approach SOUNDS rationally appealing in the abstract, and SOUNDS like a parallel to integration of race and women and but only if one ignores these root categories that frame protective aggression. The system of unit cohesion is cthonic not aethereal — it is not abstract or linearly rational — which is why people go in harms way willingly for others. It is playing with fire, not tinkertoys. Understanding this risk, one would not rationally attempt it, because of the category error involved.
Integration of women provoked related risks, but whether sees her as mate or sees her as sister a possibly coherent bond is still there; and the “mate exclusion” is possible but not inevitable. The “mate-exclusion” aggression mechanism operates with automatic force in the context of the heterosexual soldier — if the sibling perception fails. Sexual aspect of all internal military relations should be suppressed or sublimated. Ironically, this sexual suppression mechanism is seen also in our current enemies, in far more extreme (and militarily and socially questionable forms) — so moderation in all things and a helathy hypocrisy has its purposes.
Love and war are naturally allied. Extreme care must be taken with their boundaries, however, as they are just as jealous as they are desirous of one another. THAT, the more subtle and (frankly) hypocritical sublimation of sex, love and violence (vice the negating and violent suppression of all sexuality, and with it individual personhood, seen in the jihadi approach) is the answer — The “Band of Brothers” model is equally applicable, regardless of sexual preference. It substitutes one love of person for a different love of person, and so is healthy personally, socially and militarily — vice the substituting of abstract rules negating all forms of individual personal love as in the jihadi example — or trying to wave away undeniably exclusionary aspects of sexual aggression that we ignore at our peril if they occur within military units.
Survival comes before personal fulfillment — and military action is all about maximizing survival.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:33 pmDerHahn says:
I may be not non-military but the argument that some commanders use DADT to get rid of members of their units that they don’t like is unpersuasive to me. Any large organzation like the military has suffcient regulations of conduct that any number of reasons can be found to discharge or transfer an undesirable member. If prohibitinos sexual orientation and behavior aren’t availabile, other ways will be found.
Find a copy of Col Michael L Lanning (ret)‘s The Battles of Peace for what happens when military units lose their cohesiveness (especially the last chapter). It details his experiences as a company commander in the post-Vietnam army in Europe, and his use of army regs to clean up his unit.
Suzy — I would appreciate some of the former military folks opinion but ISTM that self-policing of behavior within the group is pretty much the definition of losing order and discipline in a hierarchial organization like the military. Or to put it another way, what if the unit decides it’s going to self-police open gays by going Code Red on them whenever they are transfered in? I’m guessing that’s not the sort of PC self-policing you’re thinking of.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:36 pmRandy says:
We have already lost dozens of Arabic translators due to this silly policy. Many of the people thrown out were trained by the military at great expense.
I would love to hear from defenders of DADT or excluding gays how our national defense has been improved by throwing out the very people we need.
To paraphrase, I don’t care if an Arabic translator can is gay, so long as he can translate. Isn’t that what we should really be concerned about? Or is unit cohesion so fragile in our military that the mere presence of an openly gay translator will cause our fighting men to just fall apart on the battlefield?
I have a bit more respect for the professionalism of our soldiers to think not. Most guys are secure enough in their own sexuality to handle it. If you aren’t, then perhaps you shouldn’t be in the military in the first place.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:38 pmsmitty says:
Keep a weather eye out for arguments predicated upon the scalability of people.
The notion that a battalion of Brits is a battalion of Japanese is a battalion of Brazilians, or that policy for a Dutch flotilla is workable for the US Navy just doesn’t quite meet the practical light of day.
Policy wonks are such, however, as a method of reality avoidance. The willingness to test empirically the results of any of this is around 0.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:38 pmtrashhauler says:
Whadonna More wrote:
“Didja catch where he said:
trashhauler: I’m a retired USAF officer (26 years), starting as an enlisted guy and being a pilot and squadron commander. I know there were gays in my units. I didn’t care unless and until it impacted their ability to carry out the mission.”
—————
Actually, I didn’t write that, though I too am a retired USAF officer. I don’t have any particular animus towards gays, but I have had uncomfortable advances once or twice. I’ve also commanded mixed gender crews. Activities during a mission is only part of the job. In some ways, that’s when sexual orientation will be the least immediate concern.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:40 pmSkyler says:
Only people who haven’t paid attention say this.
The Israelis completely and embarrassingly failed when they attacked Lebanon. Maybe they had too many homosexuals? I wouldn’t go that far, but it is hardly proof that they’re better.
It’s kind of like how the British officer kept lecturing to my battalion before we went to Iraq that the Brits know more about how to deal with Iraq because they’ve been fighting an insurgency in Ireland for so long. He told us we should remove our body armor and helmets and walk through the towns like we’re their friends. The performance of the Brits in Basra speaks for itself. They evacuated the city and left those people to the mercies of Iranian agents and terrorists. I wonder if their incompetency was a result of homosexuals being allowed in? Again, I won’t go that far, but it is hardly proof that it made them better.
I won’t say that having homosexuals in the military caused these militaries their displays of incompetence and bedwetting. I think that the mind set that allows homosexuals in the military infects the thinking of the people in the military and the government.
We have no reason to use any of these nations as an example of how to run a military.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:41 pmDavid McCourt says:
I would not put much credence in what the British MOD has to say about the success of its change in policy towards gays in the military. I’m not saying there have been problems, but only that official reports assessing a policy that has official backing from the top will not find those problems if they are there. If you asked the MOD, they would tell you that the British Army’s most recent and disasterous round of regimental amalgamations has had no ill-effects on morale. No one, except maybe Gordon Brown, believes that.
Also, this is not exactly the most opportune time to be pointing to the Israeli Defense Forces as an organization displaying continuing excellence in the face of change. To be blunt, the Israeli army performed poorly in southern Lebanon four years ago, and, for perhaps the first time in its existence, found itself outfought on the ground, ending in a humiliating failure to achieve its objectives. See http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/matthewsOP26.pdf I say this as someone who wishes to see Hezbollah destroyed.
Anyway, I’m not at all suggesting that the deficiencies in Israeli’s infantry are the result of gays in the army, just that Israeli forces are a poor example to use for the “before” and “after” pictures.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:41 pmRandy says:
Skylar: “There are lots of reasons they join, but number one among those reasons is that young men like to be part of something they perceive as being tough. They want to prove their masculinity and virility. If we allow homosexuals to serve openly, then this image of being tough will be compromised.
Once we allow homosexuals to serve openly, the ones that were mature and responsible will live exactly like they would have before DADT. The political reality is that we’ll suddenly have flaming homosexuals who will push the limits of acceptable behavior again and again. Who will want to join the navy when outside every navy base will look like the village people?”
Oh please, Skylar. If you read the comments of people who have actually served in the military, you will realize that your outdated and rather disturbed notion that gay men are just frilly and effeminate — not to mention flaming — is not only offensive but wrong. If you really think Admiral Mullen’s 40 years of experience serving alongside gays is a lie, then take it up with him.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:45 pmMJH21 says:
This is all ancedotal and speculative, but here’s what I think. I served in the USAF for 8 years and I think that the change will cause morale and disciplne problems for a while, maybe even a small decline in enlistment/re-enlistment rates, but then people will get over it and it won’t present much more in the way of problems than racial and sexual discriminatory incidents already do. But . . .
People who have never served just flat don’t understand how formal and traditional the military is when they say “What’s the big deal?” In the military, almost everything about your individuality is resticted not just by law and regulation, but by the mores of the atmosphere. You not only have to wear a uniform on duty, you have to wear it a particular way. You not only lose your right to criticize policies and make public statements, it’s flatly against the law. You lose almost completely, control over where you will live. Serious freaking loss of individuality and autonomy. And it’s the same with social mores. A heterosexual couple making out in public on a military base would likely draw glares if not outright complaints. I was a cop and actually had people call and complain to the law enforcement desk about women sunbathing in bikinis in the park. It’s that “conservative” of an environment. So, believe me, the first time two gay servicemen (in or out of uniform) walk to the BX holding hands or kiss each other, there will be an serious uproar.
That’s not a reason not to move ahead with abolishing DADT, but people who don’t understand military culture don’t understand what a stir this will cause.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:46 pmjohn mosby says:
@bellisaurius: doesn’t the Wal-Mart Nation benefit more from the USA’s international presence in some ways than the Whole Foods Nation?
If the borders closed today, the elites would go on happily munching artisanal local produce, wearing boutique bespoke clothes, etc., while the great unwashed would suddenly have to find a substitute for everything made in China, grown in Chile, etc....
JSM
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:48 pmTim McDonald says:
Lifestyle choice it is. If it was genetic, it would have bred itself into near extinction by now. It is possible that my assumptions are wrong, I would say a gay person is at least 5% less likely to have children than a straight person. Run that out to 100 generations and tell me how it is genetic again. If you can point to a gene that all gays have, and all straight people don’t have, I would be willing to discuss it, otherwise, the statistics speak for themselves.
The issue as I see it is that we are asking the military to be the first to move from tolerance to acceptance. I have no problem with mandating tolerance, but I do have a problem with attempting to mandate acceptance. I suspect that there are a lot of people in the military who are willing to tolerate, who would not be willing to accept. And at that point, the military would indeed begin to lose effectiveness.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:50 pmjoe says:
Perhaps if that’s how genetics worked, but it doesn’t. Have you ever taken a biology class? If your premise is false (or “assumed”) then your conclusion is necessarily false.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:54 pmADF Alliance Alert » “Will Allowing Gays in the Military Really Impair Unit Cohesion? The Relevance of Allies’ Experience” says:
[...] Ilya Somin joins the discussion at the Volokh Conspiracy. [...]
AndyinNc says:
Does this mean that straights will finally be able to serve openly in the Navy?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:57 pmSkyler says:
He says to the man who first joined in 1982, with a tour in an infantry battalion in Iraq in 2005 and another tour in a different infantry battalion in Afghanistan coming in December 2010.
What is your military experience? It’s not relevent, except where it helps you form a cogent argument. Try to form one.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:57 pmAndyinNc says:
PS It’s the Air Force that needs to be abolished, not the Army.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:57 pmNomilk says:
But, you neglect to mention, sodomy was a hanging offense under the Articles of War.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:02 pmL says:
1. Some US military doctrine derives from the Israeli one. Of course, running combined-arms warfare has nothing to do with the social make-up of the fighting units.
2. In Israel, universal service has been universal. However, for a long time the Israeli army generally refused security clearance to homosexual soldiers. The theory was that closeted homosexuals could be blackmailed, so their cases need extra investigation, and the policy was codified in the general staff order in 1993 which otherwise said that homosexual soldiers should be considered according to the ordinary criteria for military service. This order was reversed 1998; officially the army no longer cares for the sexual orientation of its members and army regulations do not mention sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is no longer considered compromising for security clearance purposes.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:05 pmG. May says:
“If you aren’t, then perhaps you shouldn’t be in the military in the first place.”
What is your military experience, if I may ask?
As someone qualified to determine who should and should not “be in the military in the first place”, allow me to explain that it’s not about technical competence. There are many people that display technical competence in certain professions that are valuable to the military, but are not suited to a military lifestyle. Homosexuals aren’t the only people discriminated against by the military.
No one is saying that homosexuals can’t perform military tasks. The issue is with everything else that goes with the military lifestyle. This is not some 9–5 job. It’s a close quarters environment that is 24–7, not very private, and most effectively performed when its members are bonded well together.
The argument that the military is somehow running short of qualified personnel because of homosexual discrimination is “silly” as well. Right now, the military’s stance is that allowing gays to serve openly is detrimental to unit cohesion. The most effective counter to this is to disprove this claim, or force the military to prove it.
Your simplistic characterization of unit cohesion is also duly noted.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:06 pmJeff says:
Most if not all of the commentors here have no real experience with this issue and that includes those that have served (thanks btw). Nobody has answered the How question.
How will we house openly gay service members ?
It can be done but by definition it will change the way things are done and that can be positive of harmful.
To those that think that a commanding officer can just administratively discharge someone he or she thinks is gay I would say this. In the case of the Navy you don’t know what you are talking about. Period. Early in my service as an officer in the Navy (early ’80’s) I had to serve on an administrative review board convened by my Captain to decide if one of our sailors should be discharged because he had been accused of being gay. If my Captian could have just discharged this sailor he would have because he didn’t like this particular sailor (he really didn’t like most of the sailors who served under him either). Its was made abundantly clear that the Captain wanted this guy out of the Navy. 3 Officers were selected and in the end we voted 2–1 to keep the guy and the one officer who voted to discharge was very clearly doing so to avoid the wrath of the Captain and not because of the evidence offered. This particular sailor was an older member of the crew (in his 30’s) and was consider a great worker but not someone looking to rise up thru the ranks. He was happy with his lot in life and worked very hard. His division officer was a salty old warrent officer who very clearly said “If he is gay then I want ten more guys just like him because he’s my best worker”.
Fix the issue of living conditions just like was done for women and gays can openly serve with little or no effect on moral. Wave your hand and change the law without that and you will effect morale.
So again I ask, How will this be implemented ? Good, reasonable answers to that question is how you will get this changed otherwise just repeating “because its fair” 100 times won’t win the day.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:08 pmFrank Drackman says:
Allright, how many y’all ever been/are in the Military??? And the Air Force doesn’t count unless your a Pilot.
How bout our Biggest and Toughest Allie in WW2, The Russkies?? Nazi’s slaughtered millions of em and they still wouldn’t quit...
Do they have Homos serving openly??
lets do what they do.
frank
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:09 pmbadlaw says:
That’s because the jerks haven’t shown up yet.
I’d also ask two things: one, it strikes me as odd that so many people say they have served with people they knew were gay. Are you all saying you knew for certain (they admitted it) or did you guys just infer that they were because of mannerisms or their voice? A bunch of straight guys doubtfully have “gaydar”, and it strikes me as a bit bold for a gay guy to be that open about it given the atmosphere and DADT. So I wonder about that.
Second, how much discretion does the military have in enforcing DADT? Couldn’t they just phase it out if they felt crippled by it? I’m sure they look the other way on a lot of stuff we don’t know about. It seems like doing away with it in spectacular fashion (because if the Dems overturn it, it will be a media spectacle) would just bring more issues to the military.
I’d also like to concur with the poster who is skeptical of the “science” around such a politicized issue. I don’t trust anyone to objectively undertake this issue. Also, a point that is never brought up is that more women are kicked out under DADT than men. Either that’s because women don’t do a good job of hiding it, or more lesbians enlist than gay men, or something, but we seem to be worried about the effects of this policy on enlisted men, but not so much with women.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:10 pmdave72 says:
Gays’ inclusion in the military, or any other group is generally a non-event because there are so few of them in the total population — 2 to 3%.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:12 pmGiangho says:
No other armies have the ops tempo of the U.S. military so comparisons there are practically meaningless. While we do have women serving there are still some specialties in which they are not allowed and there continues to be readiness problems,(not all related to pregnancies),in those where they are allowed. (As a matter of interest, many of the armies you picked for comparison do not allow women to serve in anything other than an administrative capacity.) Notice also that the big push to allow gays does not come from within the ranks but from people who have for the most part, no skin in the game such as ADM Mullen and others who will never have to serve with a homosexual. As a 30 year Army veteran with three combat tours as an infantryman I can tell you with cetainty that the leadership problems in the small units will be a very heavy ADDITIONAL burden. Also, with homosexuals in the service, they will bring their current “life partners” with them and they will require housing, medical, and all the other ancillary family services offered to all members and mostly currently overstrained. There is no right to be in the service just as there is no right to be a police officer or fireman. We have always discriminated in employment, especially in the public safety sector, against people who are considered a liability to the misson whether it be size, strength, disease, or impairment. Homosexuals have and continue to serve if they so desire. Homosexual activity is still against the UCMJ, a law enacted by congress. Allowing homosexuals to serve openly seems to be a “feel good” move for folks not at risk of serving and it is cetainly not a force multiplier.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:13 pmSonicfrog says:
Skyler, I was hoping someone would bring that up. Do you really think that one setback marks the Israeli military as an abject failure? Victor Davis Hanson at NRO certainly doesn’t. But maybe he hasn’t been paying attention either. It’s not like we haven’t had any setbacks. But those can also be blamed on gays in the military I suppose.
And yet you do, or else you wouldn’t be using these examples.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:14 pmmikeyes says:
That’s the problem with the Navy, they let all those homosexuals in without heeding Churchills words about “Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.” The answer, of course, is to beat them until morale improves (or let them get drunk on the job.)
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:15 pmG.R. Mead says:
You obviously read just enough of what I wrote to confirm your own prejudice. I am fine with gay soldiers — there are and have always been gay soldiers... It is how they are perceived and integrated that is the question — and if they are perceiveed as sexual beings in a unit context there is a problem. There was a problem with women also, as sexual beings in a unit context, and continues to be (And for the record, I was and remain opposed to women in a combat role for these related reasons). As a Navy guy that problem is even more acutely noted. There at least was a non-problematic category for women to fill ( as quasi-sibling) and both categories can work. While the quasi-sibling relation is militarily optimum — a woman as a potential mate can also work — just less well. In that context the choice was between best and not as good.
But, while problematic and serious, the problem with the sexual dynamics of women entering the unit setting in combat is LESS serious than the problem with the sexual dynamics of gays entering the unit setting. Here the unit cohesion choice is between optimum (quasi-sibling) and disastrous (exclusion aggression). And this risk is not culturally mediated in that circumstance.
Sociobiology is not an abstract but an empirical observation that systems of culture and evolved human biology actively affect one another — and in different proportions in different settings as they relate to the impact of the circumstances on differential survival or reproductive success. Endless varieties of culturally acceptable hairstyles exist, as these are not essential to differential survival or reproduction, and wide variations are almost purely culturally mediated. In circumstances where survival or reproductive success is critical, or BOTH are in play, cultural factors are presumptively LESS determinative of the outcome.
This presumption has been tested empirically and is supported by much study in human, non-human and even computational populations. In this instance, BOTH biological factors are coming into play. If you do not see the problem for categorically determinative evolutionary behavioral systems taking a role in combat situations that predominate over “prescribed” cultural categories — then I cannot explain it to you.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:17 pmChris Travers says:
See, but here is where you lose me.
I am all for “due caution” as you put it. However, what you are asking for is not caution but prohibition against any attempt to seriously study the issue. Seriously studying the issue will, at some point, require looking at actual experience and, if it appears that existing data supports experimentation, then we need to see what the impact actually is.
What I strenuously resist is that we need to change things overnight (evolution usually better than revolution). This is a recipe for disaster. Instead we need to see small incremental changes, review the effects, etc. DADT can be seen as one type of baby step.
As you correctly put:
However, that doesn’t get at the heart of the issue. What you are asking for is that we place speculation ahead of data and stave off change not by thinking it through and gradually working through issues, but by advancing dogma over empiricism. I think we need to be open to distrusting our own instincts in what maximizes survival in military action. This means looking at the experience of allies and, if this is encouraging, beginning pilot programs in some units of our own armed forces. Like it or not the data is encouraging. If someone comes out as gay during a time of war, the immediate response is skepticism (is this individual shirking duty?) but when in a time of peace it results in a discharge. When you combine this with experience of allies, this is encouraging.
However, this shouldn’t mean throwing caution to the wind. Everything will be better if we conduct quality policy experiments, review the results, be open to various interpretations of the data gathered, and continue to study the issue. In the end, we may have a more effective military rather than less.
Long-run the shift needs to be away from punishing inclinations to punishing inappropriate relationships and advances between soldiers. The move towards mixed-gender units is going to require this anyway. If the change occurs slowly and incrementally, and if we are watching the situation and adjusting as necessary during that process, there is no reason it has to be bad.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:18 pmRetired Sailor says:
I retired from the Navy in 2007, so I am old enough to remember a time before women were assigned to combatant vessels, and young enough to recognize the change in societal views towards homosexuality since the signing of DADTDPDH (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue, Don’t Harass–the last two are often omitted, but are really important to understanding the purpose of the statute). I am also gay, although I was in self-denial until I had already served 11 years. There is a lot of opinion above, some spot-on and some ill-informed.
When I originally joined the Navy, I didn’t think that it was a good idea to allow gay service members to openly serve (ironic in retrospect). It was at the height of AIDS hysteria, and for the most part, the only people who were contracting the virus were gay men (only a few years before, it had been referred to as GRID–Gay-Related Immune Deficiency). For that reason, openly gay service members (especially men) would have been subjected to strong intolerance. Coupled with societal disapproval of homosexuality (which was stronger in the service than in the general population), it was a bad idea. When DADT was passed, it seemed to be a slightly better way of dealing with the situation; it allowed those that were gay to serve, as long as they kept their mouth shut and their fly zipped.
Now, however, things have changed. As surveys show, a majority of the population supports allowing gay people to openly serve, and disapproval in the military is softening as a result. The top brass (most of whom are at least a generation older than the majority of troops) still have the attitudes of their youth, when homosexuality was unspeakable. And while I encountered anti-gay sentiment (not directed at me), it was not the virulent kill-them-all type, but the “I don’t want some guy gazing at my meat in the head” attitude, which is not the same thing at all. If you asked those guys if they would willingly serve alongside gay men, a lot of them would say no, but I strongly believe that few, if any, would not re-enlist solely because they had a gay shipmate. They may grouse and grumble, but they will adjust, just like their older colleagues did in the 1990s when women first were assigned to combat vessels/units.
As to the behavioral issues, it is true that homosexuality has a behavioral component, which differentiates it from the desegregation issue in the 1940s. However, from personal experience I can confirm that I am able to shower among other men without become aroused, and able to control my libido to avoid making unwanted advances towards another man. It’s not a difficult task at all. In fact, I had one guy who worked for me whom I suspect was gay, and he was far less of a headache for me from an administrative standpoint than three of his straight co-workers whose personal lives were messes (two of them had eight kids between them, with seven different women, and only one marriage in the bunch) and another who had an affair with a woman, and was chronically late to work because he was dropping of his kids with his wife and the kid with the other woman at two different daycare centers. I’ve also had to deal with fallout from relationships between heterosexual couples which have gone sour; there’s not much of a difference in a gay relationship. In fact, since unexpected pregnancies are never going to be an issue for a gay couple, that eliminates one of the biggest headaches for a supervisor. Dealing with unwanted gay advances should be dealt with the same way we deal with unwanted straight advances; we don’t need to rewrite military discipline policies just because there are now openly gay people serving.
It’s understandable that some people are uncomfortable about gay people; for some, it’s because they don’t know anyone who’s openly gay, although they might well know someone who is concealing their orientation (especially in a military environment). What is not understandable is how they use this to justify keeping in place a policy which has resulted in thousands (I’ve seen figures between 11,000 and 30,000) soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines (all of whom *volunteered* to serve) getting kicked out because someone found out that they were gay. Lawrence v. Texas invalidated sodomy laws nationwide; it’s now time to do the same in the military by elimination DADT and removing article 125 from the UCMJ. And FWIW, I am not a radical gay-rights activist; in fact, I am a registered Republican who voted for John McCain in 2008.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:19 pmMikee says:
My son is a military cadet. He grew up as one of two kids, and he and his sister have had their own bedrooms all their lives. The extreme physical closeness of the group activities he underwent in his freshman year was an eye-opener to him. While it wasn’t hazing, it was pretty rough and very physical. He and his classmates experienced things together that he still won’t tell me. He came home after just three months at college with a new and wickedly filthy sense of humor and, as he put it, he is “very comfortable with his sexuality.”
That was just the Corps of Cadets at Texas A&M. Boot camp and barracks life is undoubtedly much more complete an education into the wide range of possible human behavior, and the supremity of mission over all obstacles. Sexuality and its expression by individuals is a minor obstacle to accomplishing the mission, usually. When it is not it can be dealt with by removal of the offending individuals to other duties or other places.
If the PC environment that allowed Major Hasan to continue serving, until he went Jihadi, can be avoided regarding gays and lesbians in service, then by all means let the homosexuals serve openly. The problems will be preferential treatment based on sexual orientation, oppression under color of authority based on sexual orientation, and inappropriate sexual activity among those serving, much more than unit cohesion issues. This is pretty much the same list of issues as women in the military had to overcome to achieve further opportunities for career advancement. And they still have all these issues with lesbian vs straight women.
Avoid the “tolerance and diversity” totalitarian PC crap, and openly serving gays will likely do just fine.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:20 pmSkyler says:
Mike yes, the British navy was kept afloat with slave labor. Kidnapping enough sailors to run their ships was a huge burden and caused a couple of wars. Keeping their men drunk kept them from mutinying and allowed them to not improve conditions. Hardlly a successfuly model, even if your comment was tongue in cheek.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:22 pmbailey says:
Don’t we currently have an army where the most important value, according to General Casey, was diversity (at the expense of 13 soldiers being killed by a terrorist in the ranks who wasn’t drummed out because he was in a preferred category). Anyone who can say that “performance” is the most important thing to the Command must have slept through the Hasan incident.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:24 pmChris Travers says:
I would argue here that while biological functions and needs determine sociological requirements, they don’t determine much beyond this. I would argue that sociological structures need to be seen from a structuralist perspective and only anchored in functionalism (and hence sociobiology) as a way of looking at how they are sometimes applied. In essence it is a small but important piece of the picture. Without empirical data, I wouldn’t want to trust speculation based on such principles as to how it would specifically manifest in the armed forces.
Hence the need for study.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:26 pmThe Strategic MC says:
One of the favorite hobby horses of the anti-DADT crowd and preferred LGBT Task Force talking point is the “Arab Translator” anecdote. If you are referring to the forced separation of arabic linquists from DLI (Defense Language Institute), they weren’t kicked out for “being gay,” they were involuntarily discharged for sexual misconduct. You know, engaging in sexual activity when and where they should not have. Of course, once the intimate details of the misconduct were revealed, the perps were found to be in violation of the DADT policy. I don’t know about others, but their reckless behavior, to say nothing of their lack of “professionalism” kinda drastically undermined their value to the military.
“They devote extensive resources to studying Israeli and British military efforts, among others (e.g. — Israel’s various wars, and Britain’s Falkland Islands and Northern Ireland campaigns).” Both British campaigns conducted, btw, prior to the adoption of openly gay enlistment policies.
“Also: there’s the understanding in military culture, you park your baggage at the door.” Indeed. To include your sexual proclivities.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:27 pmCornellian says:
“Right now, the military’s stance is that allowing gays to serve openly is detrimental to unit cohesion. ”
That is not the position either of the Secretary of Defense or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:29 pmG. May says:
Clearly you have never served in the military. These aren’t your fellow co-workers you only see at work. You know a hell of a lot more about people with whom you serve than with whom you work. Also, most people in the military aren’t totally stupid you know? You also might be surprised at how open some homosexuals are while serving.
DADT is very difficult to enforce. Not paying attantion to the “Don’t Ask” part of it can get you in hot water. It’s also a supreme headache to enforce. Quite frankly, any commander who decides to go that route is a masochist who either A) has too much time on his hands, or B) has the time to carry it through because he has poor priorities.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:30 pmSonicfrog says:
Adm. Mullen has no skin in the game?????? Now, it’s one thing to to say that I, as a person who hasn’t served, has no skin in the game, but an Admiral, who has MORE years serving than you, is accused of having no sin in the game????
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:31 pmBABH says:
If we were referring only to them, you might have a point. To date, however, at least 59 Arabic and 9 Farsi specialists have been kicked out under DADT.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:31 pmFrank Drackman says:
Warstory Time...
Its 1992 and a Batallion of Tired Marines boards the Air Farce C-141 for the short flight from Guantanamo to Cherry Point...
The Air Farce Male Stewardess,(I’m not sure what the correct title is, but they did the same thing as Civillian Stewardesses, except they didn’t serve you a snack)stands up to give the Safety Brief, and when I say he was effeminate, he was Flaming like an F-16 Viper in Stage 3 Burner...flight suit skin tight instead of baggy like their supposed to be...and in a voice that made Andy Dick sound like Clint Eastwood...
“You All Need to Put your GUNS away!!!”
If you’ve never served with the Marines, or seen “Full Metal Jacket”, you NEVER call your “Weapon” a “GUN”, unless you want to undergo some serious ball busting.
Guy ran off like a frightened Deer...
and I never got my snack
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:32 pmChris Travers says:
BTW, I completely agree with this statement. The argument seems to be limited to if and how DADT should be repealed and that is a good thing.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:34 pmDaveW says:
Heh. Good one. My inner Marine is ROFL.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:34 pmTitle10vs50vsAllNessecarryMeans says:
Spoken by someone who has obviously never spent a day in uniform. No offense, but logical arguments != reality.
As for gays in the military — guess what they are already there, and in most cases no one cares until it becomes mission affecting. That said, within the SOF environment let the individual units decide on their policy.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:39 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
Jeez...otherwise the military controls the civilians. Did you sleep through junior high civics?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:42 pmMJH21 says:
Frank Drackman:
“And the Air Force doesn’t count unless your a Pilot.”
You have no idea what you are talking about and no class to say something so disparaging about the men and women who serve there.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:46 pmTCO says:
I think women in ranks are more of a problem than gays.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:49 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
I’ve been a commander in combat (a fighter squadron in DS). I know I had gays serving under me at that time. Did they pair up? Per capita, far less than straight couples did — in my career, I think I had one gay ‘couple’ to deal with, and that was before DADT.
I punished bad behavior, when I had to. I didn’t worry about shibboleths of unit cohesion being destroyed by gays: I had enough unit cohesion being destroyed by ostensibly legal behavior (like young airmen losing their security clearances for alcohol or financial misbehavior).
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:51 pmG. May says:
If I recall correctly (and I freely admit that I may not), I believe these were their personal opinions.
Additionally, I don’t think you’ll find a unified message centering on repealing DADT coming from the CJCS and JCS offices. There are some internal objections as to timing that specifically revolve around unit cohesion in today’s world.
I’m also not sure you could get far implying that that’s not the military’s stance if the CinC, SecDef, CJCS, JCS, and a majority in congress are for a repeal. One would think a repeal to be a foregone conclusion and a relatively easy task. Not so.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:51 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
Why yes, Frank. And you?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:52 pmBrian says:
The mess the Navy has made of this has done nothing but reinforce the concerns a lot of people would have regarding gays in the military serving openly. In the Navy, if you’re white and someone cries out “racist”, you’re career is over. If you’re a male and a woman claims harassment, you’re career is over. No evidence is actually needed in either case. But the same low threshold does not apply in the reverse direction.
The concern with gays for many isn’t that some small percentage of them might not behave appropriately. The concern is that a gay sailor will be able to destroy your career with just the allegation of harassment, while actual harassment committed by a gay sailor will be ignored.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:53 pmG.R. Mead says:
There is only one successful model of military integration of overtly and pervasively homosexual soldiers, and that is the Sacred Band. If we are not prepared to emulate THAT model to test its dynamics, then we are not actually interested in a genuinely empirical study — but as you say, we are indulging pure “speculation” without any antecedent evidence that it does or should work.
Integration in non-combat situations is not admissible evidence because unlike women, on whom oxytocin has durable influence and long-lasting effects — in men it is short-acting though intense as it is destroyed by androgens in the blood. However, it plays a predoominanting role in precisely the extremis of combat situations in which oxytocin-driven protective aggression has survival value for males — for better or worse — and the “worse” part is the problem here.
What you are proposing is essentially a form of “forbidden experiment.” Trying a “Sacred Band” unit does not have those moral risks (to the lives of real people on absolutely no evidence of efficacy) nor requires us to ignore real military risks of unit breakdown.
Unfortunately, only instinct keeps people alive in extreme situations, and carefully honed instinct can keep people alive in situations yet MORE extreme and for much longer than otherwise — the application of rationality is in observing the fit of the instincts to the situation an to carefully select and emphasize those instincts in training with the greatest survival value. Soldiers and sailors do not rationally prosecute battle — they may rationally plan for it and rationally prepare for it — but when attack comes — All hell breaks loose — they do what they trained for or they die, and many die anyway.
The answer in both the sex and sexual preference issues is the traditionally evolved one the sublimation of sexual roles into a quasi-sibling relation and controlling every form of relation that intrudes on those roles, as militarily dangerous. Adultery remains an enforced criminal offense in the military still, and for good reasons, having nothing to do with subjective confessional moral principles, but everything to do with the life and death consequences of objective moral principles that enforce optimum roles for people placed in mutually dependent survival situations.
Your experiment is playing with real lives at real risk — and my moral teaching does not allow such things.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:53 pmT. Shaw says:
Flipping idiotic liberals do not have the even weakest grasp of the obvious. This is not about allowing gays to become soldiers and go to war to get zapped or wasted by an IED.
Gays (disciplined people who want to follow the rules, i.e., discipline) serve and will continue to serve. The status quo: no one asks and no one tells what goes on in one’s private life.
This brouhaha is all about forcing America to, in effect, swear allegiance to the concept that it’s better-than-okay to be gay. Well, 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian faith and morals teaching and biology say it isn’t. And, if you liberals think it’s okay to be gay, you better be consistent and “think” it’s okay for me to believe that sodomy, as is adultery, is a sin.
This is my question: Does any gay want to be an airborne ranger? If so, I gave you credit for better functioning gray mattter.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:57 pmSkyler says:
Yes, of course, and all the evidence of women being problems aboard ships, the coverup of the massive prostitution rings in the first gulf war in Bahrain, the loss of trained people from Iraq from pregnancy — those are all not allowed to be addressed. Politics have decreed that women are not to be discriminated against and damn the results. Political correctness, similar to the army’s refusal to notice the Jihadist medical doctor until he actually killed people, has caused the army to put women in the infantry by simply calling them “military police.”
Yet, we’re supposed to just close our eyes and ignore these problems and not analyze them.
The same thing will happen with homosexuals in the military. It will become a combination of people being forbidden to express their disapproval, military officers not wanting to be the one to admit there is a problem or that they can’t accomplish their mission, and homosexuals with agendas flaunting their behaviors.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:57 pmThe Javelineer says:
Ilya wrote, “The Australian, British, Canadian, and Israeli armed forces are all among the best in the world. If they allow gays to serve openly with no ill effects, that strongly suggests that the US can as well.”
What if I wrote, “The Australian, British, Canadian, and Israeli health care systems are are all among the best in the world. If they have socialized health care systems with no ill effects, that strongly suggests that the US can as well.”
American society and mores are different, in some cases very different, than Australian, British, Canadian, and Israeli society and mores. If Ilya’s argument by analogy was comparing for example technologies, which operate irrespective of society and mores, his argument would work. Unit cohesion is mostly dependent on society and mores, so his argument by analogy fails.
That being said, it is time we look again at this issue. I think society has changed sufficiently to allow openly gay service members. That decision must come from an examination of US commands, not foreign ones.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:59 pmTRE says:
As long as the rules are enforced I don’t see how it could be a problem. I think maybe part of the problem is that there is wild fraternization between male and female soldiers that would technically be violations and if gays did something similar thing it would upset people.
When it comes down to combat, there are probably no bigots in foxholes. so to speak.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:59 pmRandy says:
Stratigic: “If you are referring to the forced separation of arabic linquists from DLI (Defense Language Institute), they weren’t kicked out for “being gay,” they were involuntarily discharged for sexual misconduct.”
Do you have a link or any support for that notion? Because it simply isn’t true.
I fully support existing regulations: any soldier doing sexual misconduct should be discharged, gay or straight. That should handle the problem. But if you haven’t engaged in any sexual misconduct, then you should be allowed to serve. Especially when our nation’s defense depends upon it.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:00 pmCrazyTrain says:
As to Number 3, supporters of the status quo see that as a feature, and not a bug.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:01 pmBrian says:
Given a choice, I’d rather have openly serving gays and no women serving on a ship with me than the other way around. With the former situation, at least you don’t end up with a number of women going into rates requiring strength (mechanics, welders, etc.) that aren’t large enough or strong enough to actually do the job. The slight chance of being creeped out sometime in the showers pales in comparison to that.
I’m definitely a firm believer that, if a job has strength requirements, they shouldn’t vary by gender.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:04 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
Well said. Punish behavior, if necessary. Expect people to behave correctly and they generally do.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:05 pmMark says:
Alright, so we seem to know three things:
1) Everyone in the US Military is aware that homosexuals serve, and most soldiers are personally aware of who in their unit is a homosexual.
2) This has been the state of affairs for, according to anecdote here and elsewhere, at least 50 years.
3) The US Military is the premier military in the world and has been over the last 50 years.
And the fear is, so we’re clear, that if we permit homosexuals to openly admit what everyone around them already knows, something bad will happen?
I submit to you, gentlemen, that this “cohesion” issue is makeweight. Perhaps something else is at play?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:07 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
I’m with you — but also, if legitimate performance criteria exist, anyone who meets those criteria should be given the opportunity to serve.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:07 pmRandy says:
Skylar: ” It will become a combination of people being forbidden to express their disapproval, military officers not wanting to be the one to admit there is a problem or that they can’t accomplish their mission, and homosexuals with agendas flaunting their behaviors.”
And yet, gays are currently serving in the military without any problem at all. The issue whether they can be open about it. Gee — how can all these gays be currently serving when they are wearing makeup and dresses and all that?
If anyone joins the army because he wants to express his disapproval of homosexuality, then he doesn’t deserve to be in the military in the first place. Go join the Catholic Church instead. If military officers see a problem in sexual misconduct, they are free to discharge anyone under that reg.
As for homos flaunting their behavior, you really have a problem with stereotyping gays, don’t you?
Javileer: “American society and mores are different, in some cases very different, than Australian, British, Canadian, and Israeli society and mores”
You’re argument only makes sense if you assume that the American society is more homophobic than that of the Australian, British, Canadian and Israeli socieites. Do you have any evidence for that, or are you just making it up? And if it is true, why? And if true, then I would argue you have a much bigger problem in society than having gay serve openly in the military.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:10 pmSkyler says:
Dave, clearly you haven’t been watching television the past several years. Fully 60% of the population of the US is homosexual. Unless you watch Bravo channel. Then about 80% of the population is homosexual. No wonder young people think it’s normal.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:10 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
It’s clear he’s never had his carcass rescued by PJ’s, or had a crew chief keep a 20 year old airplane working so he could go convert 5000 lbs of jet fuel into noise....
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:13 pmShelbyC says:
Well, from what I hear about the Russkie military...
I understand that homosexual activity wasn’t forbidden in the Soviet army, at least not in practice. And remember when Yeltsin said that whatever wasn’t forbidden was mandatory?
Let’s not do what they do.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:15 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
What makes you think there aren’t Rangers who are gay now?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:15 pmbadlaw says:
OK, so perhaps they’re open about it. It’s just interesting that so many veterans served with multiple known gay soldiers, who openly admitted it. And these stories don’t end with them being kicked out, so I’m assuming they went on, being open about their homosexuality...even under DADT.
Which makes my point about discretion. And you’re right, I haven’t served. I wasn’t trying to force my opinion because I know I have no idea what military culture is like. That just seems a bit incredulous to me. Someone having a high voice, fey mannerisms, and a lisp doesn’t make them gay, but to people who aren’t, that tends to be the stereotype. So thus, there may be a lot of people that’s like “I served with a bunch of gay dudes and I didn’t have a problem with it” because they figure guys who have not admitted to being homosexual, but fit a certain idea, but still be gay.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:16 pmPaul says:
The military is blue collar, working class. It is the last bastion of old American. Male, stoicism, duty, sacrifice. Although weakened, mostly by political flag officers, they, the living, the people it draws from have fended off the left and all their loser notions.
The soft elite do not serve. Nor do liberals. Nor the failed, crippled products of the welfare state. They are too lazy, too brain damaged.
You might of noticed working class males rejecting attending the tax supported welfare farms known as ‘higher education’. You make the military into the image of lefty America then you lose the core. You will lose the working class males. You will have to, as Rome did, outsource your military.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:17 pmsecond history says:
From a RAND Corp. Research Brief, Changing the Policy Toward Homosexuals in the U.S. Military (1993):
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:17 pmSkyler says:
Yes, Randy, I am fully in favor of repealing DADT and reverting to the status quo ante when they were not allowed at all.
But, then as now, homosexuals are not a problem so long as they keep it to themselves.
I am not referring to any stereotype that is not already flaunted in places like San Francisco parades. I don’t think such people are typical of otherwise normal and civilized homosexuals. What I’m saying is that if DADT is repealed, the homosexual movement will not be contented with otherwise normal behavior. We will see people in the military flaunting these stereotypes because it will fit the agenda.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:18 pmG.R. Mead says:
Which in its truly empirical sense cannot be done as it is the extreme form of the prisoner’s dilemma. In the quintessential engagement, two fellow soldiers who willingly risk their own lives for each another have a chance for survival; if one of them defaults, they both die.
The driver is a powerful hormone — Oxytocin. In all human beings bonding AND protective agression is driven by oxytocin ( we are only now starting to get a handle on its complex and seemingly contradictory effects). It promotes both pacification of male aggression in the context of mate-bonding and child-rearing, for instance and yet provokes external aggression in protecting them (and in dis-bonding or exclusionary mating behavior — the problem at hand).
Oxytocin modulates the HPA axis (adrenals basically — the fight-or-flight system) to serve its needs. It has a direct release into the brain, and provokes parasympathetic sexual systems (hence a part of the problem fpor the subject matter.) It has musculoskeletal effects (which adrenals do not) that are large enough to stabilize joints and stengthen the structure (perhaps providing an physiological explanation for reports of improbable or extreme feats of lifting in rescue situations. It has vascular effects (like its cousin vasopressin which modulates blood pressure) and in combination with contraction of smooth-muscle-like fascial tissues underlying the skin may seal or prevent active bleeding of superficial wounds while yet increasing blood flow while in operation. Oxytocin has a positive feedback so that, even for males on whom it is short-acting, if the extremis provocation continues the production of oxytocin continually increases as long as it is present — as it does in childbirth for women. This is not a subtle or dismissible component of any survival situation involving primary social bonds.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:20 pmChris Travers says:
Hmmm... Reading my point and your response suggests I was less than clear. My appologies.
Certainly it is true that instincts are important to survival in a crisis. I didn’t intend to imply they weren’t.
I was thinking however that we have certain impulses (instincts is probably the wrong word, though sometimes they may rise to that level) about what we think would probably be beneficial in a crisis regarding structure, ethics, etc. when such a crisis is not immediately before us. Sometimes these match what happens and sometimes they don’t. I would suggest that folks on both of these sides are usually driven by the impulses more than by empirical data.
I think the proper approach is that of understanding that, until we study it, we won’t know for certain. And the study will probably need to have an experimental aspect.
Is that a statement of theory or of fact?
The simple issue is that if we are discussing how gay soldiers are integrated rather than if, then everything is going to depend on details. A model is only going to get you so far. Indeed it seems to me that the major problem with progressives is that they try to emulate models, rather than trying to use models to understand current dynamics and seeking incremental change.
Societies are incredibly complex things and it takes a tremendous amount of hubris to assume one’s understanding is sufficient to be able to unconditionally direct or oppose change. Yet drift affects societies just as it affects languages. And the drift towards more acceptance of gays will, if current trends continue, eventually require that DADT is repealed.
The question to my mind is whether we oppose such a change in an incremental fashion now and the social earthquake occurs, or whether we commit to the change now but seek to slow it down to the point where the change is manageable and where the disruption can be contained.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:22 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
You’ve got that right. Overseas, you live on a base that is an island of normality among a very foreign country — even in Europe, it’s quite a different society, different language, different food, different social mores. If you’re in a country where people aren’t overtly trying to kill you you can get out and enjoy the experience but mainly, you’re on a base thats 2 1/2 miles long and 2 1/2 blocks wide, with 5000 people. You live with them, eat with them, watch movies with them, drink with them, engage in sporting events with them. When you do go off base, it’s often with the same people you are with all day long anyway.
You know way more about those people than you do the folks you work with. You know who’s spouse has a drinking problem, who’s kids are doing well (and not) in school, who’s got financial problems, who fights with their spouse. And you don’t know it from the participants, you hear about it from everyone else. It’s the quintessential small town where everyone knows your business, even before you do, and thats even without a society that has your boss at work responsible for your housing, food and everything else going on.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:24 pmBABH says:
[Raises hand] I was a gay airborne ranger (B Co, 1/75) for four years and three combat tours. I might still be in today if it weren’t for DADT. Some of my comrades knew I was gay, some didn’t. The only reason I didn’t tell more people was that I didn’t want it to come to the attention of commanders.
Say what? Men and women aged 18–30 talk about almost nothing *but* their sex lives. The reality is that any of the 65,000 gays and lesbians now serving honorably could be fired at any time for no good reason.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:25 pmHoldfast says:
I have 10 years enlisted service in the Canadian Army (’92-’02 — both reserve and regular), and I can state for a fact that in that time I never saw a single openly gay male serving. Now my experience was with combat engineers, and I was attached to infantry, arty and armour units at various times. There may very well have been gays serving openly in the Air Force, the Navy (we always assumed it was majority-gay, but that may have been our prejudice against their uniforms) or various HQ or REMF units, but not in the line units. There were certainly lesbians and bi-sexual women, especially in the MPs for some reason.
So, the way Canada dealt with the subject of openly serving gays in the combat arms was simply not to have any, based on what appeared to me to be an unofficial policy of DTDGSK (Don’t Tell, Don’t Get Sh*t-Kicked), but I never actually saw this policy enforced, it was simply the vibe. Similarly, though women were legally allowed to serve in any branch, I never saw a single woman in the regular infantry — they were certainly present in the other combat arms, but the infantry was 100% hostile and any potential applicants quickly got the hint.
I guess my point is that those studying the issue would do well to investigate the actual situation on the ground rather than reading official policies and talking to a bunch of Ruperts who are guaranteed to mouth the PC party line for fear of their careers.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:27 pmThe Strategic MC says:
Wow.
Straight to: “Do you have a link or any support for that notion? Because it simply isn’t true.” So that’s how it’s gonna be? Well, here you go:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/attack/main529418.shtml
And in the linked incident, the seven who confessed to their sexuality were identified to authorities by the two caught in flagrante delicto. Their confessions included incidents of sexual misconduct to the effect that “yeah, we do that stuff in the barracks all the time.”
I remember this particular incident well. It created quite a stir back in 2002 as we in the military had to fight back with the truth against the LGBT “spin.”
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:27 pmsecond history says:
That’s a crock. According to a 2005 Heritage Foundation study:
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:30 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
Well, the Air Force is the more intellectual of the services, but I had mid-level NCO’s in my squadron who had undergrad degrees. I had an E-7 who had a Masters. And I had every junior enlisted attending college courses off-duty, since it was a great deal — the AF paid for it. I even administered the oath at two or three commissionings of enlisted who earned a college degree and got promoted.
I know people in the Navy who were enlisted, and earned their commission via bootstrap and other programs. One went from a junior enlisted to a Commander, the chief engineer on a Nimitz class aircraft carrier.
And when I was in Germany, I taught a few classes (math and physics), we had Army enlisted in class as well.
Don’t think that the US military is a bunch of blue-collar uneducated and proud to stay that way hicks.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:31 pmChris Travers says:
Hmmm.... Not entirely sure if we are agreeing or disagreeing.
First on the agreement side, it is clearly true that sexual entanglements between soldiers in the same unit would be a problem and not just for the low-level reasons you suggest. On a larger level you have issues of messy breakups, and the like. I don’t think we are arguing over that point.
The question for me is not whether DADT goes because our society is drifting in that direction and demographic shifts suggest the policy is not likely to be sustainable much longer. The real question IMO should be what replaces it.
The goal should be to prevent romantic and sexual entanglements within units. A gradual and incremental policy change has a fighting chance of containing this problem by allowing time to address what sorts of unforeseen problems can occur. If we change quickly we lose that chance.
IMO, what should replace DADT is a very strict prohibition against ANY sexual interactions within a unit or between units which are stationed together. Sexual advances should be punishable as well. This is already becoming a major issue where women serve alongside men on some types of navy ships and the same general approaches can apply. If we go that route though, I see no reason if a man admits he has a sexual partner of the same gender back home why that should be a big deal by itself.
Do you disagree with anything here?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:34 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
Well, Canada has had female infantry officers killed in AStan.
My wife was a member of the Canadian forces (reserves)....and she knew of openly gay members in her unit. And at least one former Commandant at the RMC is openly gay, I believe.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:36 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
Well, Canada has had a female infantry officer killed in AStan.
My wife was a member of the Canadian forces (reserves)....and she knew of openly gay members in her unit. And at least one former Commandant at the RMC is openly gay, I believe.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:36 pmG.R. Mead says:
The Sacred Band is a fact. A curious fact. There are no comparabally successful modern examples of armed forces systemically integrating openly practicing gay soldiers in enduring combat engagements I am aware of, and certainly none that have engaged in the optempo of actual combat seen by United States forces in the last seventy years. I am open to counterexamples, if you have them.
They are integrated now. Hypocritically, but successfully. All liberties need not be overt to be effective, and some liberties are better covert for all of society to function equably.
Well, demographically speaking — that won’t happen. This is a narrow window for a narrow problem, in practical military terms, and the thing is to see that it does little institutional harm — however it is dealt with.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:42 pmM. Report says:
Will Allowing Gays in the Military Really Impair Unit Cohesion? The Relevance of Allies’ Experience
The Mission comes first; Any Gay who accepts that,
and is willing to follow the same rules on sexual
conduct that apply to Straights, should be allowed
to serve; Anyone, including Muslims, who insists
that the military compromise its mission to adjust
to the demands of their personal beliefs, has no
business in uniform.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:47 pmFrank Drackman says:
I served 8 years in a Hierarchial/Sexist/Racist/Homofobic Organization...
Medical School/Residency
The Military was like a friggin Berkely Garden Party in comparison...
Example...1st yr Med School I got called a fag for wearing a “Queen” T-shirt featuring Freddie Mercury, who I didn’t know was Gay, and didn’t care.
2d year, got told to “Take those balls out of your mouth” when I mumbled an answer to a question I didn’t know
3rd year, got called a pussy cause I had to go to the bathroom during a 12 hour orthopedic trauma case...
4th year, got called a fag for matching to anesthesia and not surgery...
Just try and find a Gay Urologist...
Frank Drackman
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:47 pmDaniel says:
10 U.S.C. 654 does NOT address orientation; homosexual conduct is what is at issue. And even then, the burden of proof is on the government to separate a service member if credible, substantiated evidence demonstrates that s/he engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act, unless the member proves by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) such acts are a departure from usual behavior; (2) such acts are unlikely to recur;(3) such acts were not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;(4) the applicant does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts; and (5) retention is consistent with the best interest of the service branch and proper discipline, good order and morale.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:52 pmSonicfrog says:
G.R. Mead
Sociobiology is not widely accepted or highly regarded in the scientific community. This doesn’t mean that it not illegitimate, but its scientific tenants are speculative at best.
Now that I think about it, even I’ve used sociobiology to speculate why most societies through history seem to have had some sort of deity worship. It may be in our genetic code.
When early hominids began developing a more complex brain and started wondering about the environment and all the strange and magnificent things around him, trees, rivers, the sun, the moon, and all that, his only way to deal with that complexity was to create an all powerful God or set of Gods to explain the things he couldn’t understand. Because these beliefs helped human tribes to come together as a unit and provide a reason for cohesion, they became a part of the human evolutionary condition — This propensity to believe in a deity or deities is due to something hardwired into the brain of our species. So even though this belief system defies logic in a modern world that IS able to provide real explanations for the world around us, it persist to this day.
That is why we believe in God.
PS. The misuse of sociobiology to keep gays from serving openly is exactly the same as the use of Social Darwinism for all sorts of things early in the last century. It’s kind of the argument of last resort when there’s nothing else left.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:53 pmCato The Elder says:
IMO, there are much better reasons for women not to serve (at least in certain areas) than there are for gays.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:58 pmG. May says:
No.
When people can be categorized on their own declaration, you run into trouble. As has been brought up numerous times — how do you handle billeting? Categorize people based on their declarations and this becomes an issue.
What about promotions? Race and gender are already factored into many promotions, especially the higher you go in rank. If you think sexual orientation won’t become a factor in the promotion process, you’re unfamliar with the absurdly PC atmosphere in the military. There will be a separate category for people who simply declare a personal predilection (or whatever the sensitive term for it is these days).
Then there are performance evaluations and tasks within the unit. Serving homosexuals avoid allegations of favoritism and harrassment because no one is allowed to acknowledge it. Repeal DADT and you open them up to what heterosexual men and women deal with on an all-too-frequent basis.
These are all very real concerns that deal with unit cohesion on several levels (from largest to smallest). These need to be addressed before repealing DADT.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:59 pmChris Travers says:
Still the issue is that homosexuality is more accepted among younger generations and I don’t think parental indoctrination will be sufficient to overcome peer influences in this area. In other areas (abortion etc) we are seeing the pendulum swing the other way, but with acceptance of gays this is not happening. This is curious because it shows that future right/left approaches are going to confront different sets of issues than are immediately apparent today.
IOW younger individuals, going to school or college with openly gay students, having openly gay teachers and friends, etc. are becoming more accepting of homosexuality, while at the same time the pendulum is swinging back in other areas. This is fascinating and I wouldn’t bet on the window being narrow. I don’t think you can simply argue that the social conservative position of today will be the social conservative position of 2050.
Similarly, I think we will find that gay marriage bills, initiatives, and court decisions continue to march on together with one another. These will likely continue and accelerate this trend by ensuring that more people know that some of their friends are gay. As this continues, I think DADT will look more and more outdated and antiquarian. I honestly don’t see how it will survive.
Not only that but as more states allow for gay marriage, more conflicts will come up about DADT..... I don’t think DADT could survive without DOMA for example and if DOMA is ever either struck down or repealed something will have to replace how we integrate gays in the armed forces. It’s better to be considering alternatives now than it is to have them suddenly removed with little time to adapt.
Agreed on this point. So the question is how to address both the success and the hypocrisy. Clearly, sexual entanglements within a unit or between members of units stationed together is a threat that must be dealt with. Certainly one important success has been containing that threat where homosexuality is concerned. Certainly we don’t want to lose it. Indeed, I think we should be looking at how to expand that success to mixed-gender units and straights as well.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 3:02 pmCato The Elder says:
The book behind me on my shelf, The Triumph of Sociobiology says you’re wrong and begs you to read him. The giant E.O. Wilson himself invented the field, and just published a massive tome on ants based on its theories. I haven’t read cogent criticisms not from leftist “studies” department.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 3:03 pmG.R. Mead says:
. Let’s put this in more common terms. You misperceive the depth of the problem, in part because of the functional language used by the military : “unit cohesion.”
We are talking about nothing less than LOVE. Though it is impolitic to name it so modernly, the ancients had no problem calling it by its right name. Men die willingly for love of others and for nothing else. Nothing. Period. Men willing to die for each other can defeat ten times their number equally trained who are unwilling to do so. “Wars are won in the will.” Military history is replete with examples — some quite celebrated — the Sacred Band prominently among them, I note. We celebrate, not their killing but their supreme example of love for one another. That’s why there is a Medal of Honor. Interfere with that, even a little, and you increase the chance that a man who does his duty may not come home to tell the tale. How many of those men is anyone’s “educated guess” worth? It is really quite that simple. Isn’t love complicated enough with people actually trying to kill you and your buddies without adding anything else to it?
These are my choices? I suggest that no change or retrograde change(from you perspective) is actually more likely — demographically speaking — see my link in the post just previous.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 3:04 pmDaveW says:
Sun Tzu’s Nephew said:
Really. 100% of your E1s-E3s were attending college huh?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 3:09 pmCato The Elder says:
I should first of all say that I mostly support the full inclusion of gays in the military, from the standard libertarian thinking. But the question I want to know is: Is DADT really that big a deal to closeted and serving gays as of now? It’s sort of like the issue of gay marriage, I think; I know alot of activist groups angst about its passage but on the other hand I’ve read the thoughts of quite a few gay men who are ambivalent about the issue, some even positively against it. It’s one thing for “activists” to feel put upon and discriminated; do the gays actually serving feel the same way? That would make a large difference to the priority scale I would place the issue on.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 3:12 pmThe Strategic MC says:
Daniel, thanks for posting the relevant regulation.
Funny, but it has been my experience that most commands, at a minimum, abide by this, in both letter and spirit. Due to the acute level of political sensitivity and very real possibility of outside review, most commands are extremely reluctant to discharge personnel on the basis of sexual orientation alone.
The overwhelming majority of DOD discharges for violation of the DADT policy are of the self-referral “I’m gay and I want out” variety. Even then, many of these self-confessed gays are told, if there are no witnesses present, to go back to work and pretend that they never said anything. You might never know that if you listened to what the anti-DADT advocates have to say.
30 years active duty and I have no direct knowledge of a witch hunt for gays.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 3:15 pmCato The Elder says:
Isn’t it positively discriminatory to believe that men will lie about sexual conquests and escapades but women don’t do the same thing? The withholding and provisioning of sex is one of the strongest bargaining tools women have! If we were talking a criminal case brought against an African-American you would be one of the first to pipe up about the dangers of relying on long-term recollection in ambiguous, fleeting situations — why not the same with other crimes?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 3:19 pmG.R. Mead says:
There is no problem with hypocrisy — sex and hypocrisy always belong in the same sentence — it is to powerful and deep to handle directly, especially in this context. To the contrary, hypocrisy is most sane and useful in the context. Clearly, people have sex to have a family, and yet in most families I know everyone carefully pretends that there is no sex going on — if unhealthily so with much grave offense at the very idea — and if healthily so with much nodding, winking and earthy innuendo.
Where, Oh where, did this fetish for “let’s just get everything out in the open and all will be well” come from? NO. Just NO. Personal things involve our persona which is our mask, the roles we all have to play, sometimes several at once. It is not different for me as attorney arguing a case I find unpersuasive or disagreeable, than for a gay man acting his proper role in military unit, we just have different masks is all. We must respect them — they are not false though they are part pretend.
Sex brings families into being, but families are not ABOUT sex. The analogy is the same, and the military is and must be closer to family than profession to function well. Love makes men good soldiers but soldiers cannot and must not be about the love.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 3:22 pmHoldfast says:
Sun Tzu’s nephew:
What type of unit was your wife in? Combat or REMF? Your lack of detail renders your comment useless as a refutation.
You will note I wrote “gay males” in the first instance, though I admit I neglected to do so in the second. I also noted the presence of lesbians and bi-sexual women. Your comment notes the presence of gays, but does not specify as to male or female, or as noted, whether your wife’s unit was combat arms.
This list of Canadian casualties in Afghanistan assembled by the CBC seems pretty complete and is stated to be current as of Jan 29, 2010. I note the following female soldiers:
Capt. Nichola Goddard, 1 R.C.H.A. (Artillery)
Tpr. Karine Blai, 12e Régiment blindé du Canada (Armour)
Maj. Michelle Mendes, Intelligence
Pray tell, which are the “female infantry officers killed in AStan” to which you referred.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 3:32 pmSonicfrog says:
The Triumph of Sociobiology... written by a sociobiologist. Gee, I’m thinking he would have come to a different conclusion. That would be like me deciding that Scientology was legit because I read an endorsement from not only John Travolta, but also from the man himself, Tom Cruise.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 3:36 pmTim says:
No, I don’t think we have a thing to learn from a foreign military. The toughest troops I ever fought again were our own in war games. We have the most professional, talented, best-equipped troops on earth.
We, as a world superpower, have nothing to learn from other countries. Just think of the consequences of abusing and exploiting this argument. Should we get rid of the death penalty because most civilized countries have? What about abolishing or nearly abolishing the jury system because other countries did?
Most of the countries you’ve mentioned would probably look very different today without our influence, or not exist at all. They currently maintain standing armies much smaller than they otherwise would in a world where the USA didn’t play referee.
Our military doesn’t take policies from Britain and Israel. They’ve made their choices and ours will make theirs. The top military commanders seem to believe that there is no reason why gays cannot serve openly. That should be sufficient, regardless of what some other country does.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 3:43 pmSonicfrog says:
Look, I don’t consider sociobiology to be the out and out fraud that scientology or the anti-vaccination movement is. But to say that it’s mainstream is also not at all accurate. And to use SB as a basis for upholding DADT only weakens the argument.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 3:44 pmHoldfast says:
Tim:
America has by far the best overall armed forces in the world, but that should never mean that the US military has nothing to learn from anyone else. For instance, the Israelis, in 1973, were the first to experience the use of massed ATGMs against their tanks — American armor officers studied that, studied what the Israelis did right and what they did wrong, and learned from it. The British experience in the Falklands was the first instance of effective aerial attacks on western warships since WW II, including a new threat, the anti-shipping missile (in that case the Excocet) — certainly the US Navy learned from that.
On the other hand, America has by far the largest all volunteer military in the world, and is the only nation that routinely practices large-scale expeditionary warfare. The US military also recruits from the American civilian population, which, while similar to other western populations, is on average far more religious and conservative than other western nations (a fact libs hate, but cannot deny). On top of that, enlisted members of the Army tend to skew even more religious than the average American (whatever that is), whether Hispanic RCs or Midwestern Protestants.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 3:51 pmcls says:
A young man I know, who was stationed in Iraq, said that the military was fully aware of numerous gay soldiers and kept them intentionally, at least until their tour of duty was over. Then they discharged them. So apparently it was fine to have them under combat conditions but once they got home they were discharged and lost their benefits.
He told me that most the units had gay men in them, that the soldiers knew, and that they didn’t care. He said most the concern came from the old farts who ran the military not the soldiers themselves. I visited him in Germany and we traveled to Prague together. I had booked an apartment through a “gay hotel” and when we got there I asked for a map of the city. All they had was a “gay map” which showed the city but the location of gay businesses. We spent the weekend in Prague and then drove straight back to the base. Because I was a civilian they had to search the car while we waited, before entering. I had not even thought of the map and left it sitting on the back seat in open view.
When we got back in I was horrified at what I had done and apologized. He told me not to worry that a lot of people assume he’s gay anyway (he actually isn’t, by the way, they just assumed he was). He was an officer as well.
So the reality, as I see it, is that people simply have prejudices against gay men and then invent excuses to justify their pre-existing bigotry.
As for “sharing facilities” should I assume the men whining about that never showered in university or high school, or that they never went to a gym? Good lord, are they so stupid as to think that all the other men in the showers were heterosexual? It is bizarre that high schools used to force everyone to shower together after mandatory gym class and no one demanded gay be exempted. Actually the argument, when I was young, went that it was good for them and “might make a man out of them.” So they had mandatory sharing of facilities. We all survived thank you. I just can’t believe how stupid people are to assume that “sharing facilities” hasn’t been going for centuries.
I’ve seen the old photos of water fountains for blacks or for whites but I never once saw a public shower that said “gays” and “straights”. Get over it.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 3:54 pmSkyler says:
Just where do you think they got those missiles and the idea to use them that way?
And yet, if the British had followed our lead, not only would they have known that aluminum on ships is a really dumb idea (the USS Belknap melted after a collision with the USS Kennedy and the Brits weren’t paying attention or they wouldn’t have had aluminum on their ships in the Falklands war), and would have had better anti-anti-ship missile defenses. They were reduced to using helicopters as decoys.
Any military examines other militaries’ experiences for the simple fact that war is not something you do all the time and whenever a new example comes up it’s wise to study it. But that doesn’t mean that we have to think the other military is good.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 3:58 pmPintler says:
The word I hear is that much of the AirLand Battle doctrine is based on Soviet theory. The Marine Corps Commandant’s includes books by Giap, Rommel, Mao, von Mellenthin, Clausewitz, Slim, to name just a few. My understanding is that the service schools (West Point, War College, etc) routinely study the campaigns of foreign generals from Scipio Africanus to Zhukov. Are those all merely considered lessons in how not to do things?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 3:58 pmJohn Herbison says:
I have no military experience, but as a citizen and a patriot I find offensive any suggestion that our service members are simultaneously brave enough to serve honorably alongside closeted gays, but too craven and lily livered to serve next to self-identified gays. If that were the case, would it be the straight service person or the gay one who lacks the kind of courage that society expects from its armed forces?
Sexual coupling between any two soldiers/sailors can be problematic, (and possibly a violation of the UCMJ, whether same sex or opposite sex,) but I would think that male/female coupling (with its risk of pregnancy) would be more detrimental.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 4:02 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
Thats right. Except we didn’t have any E-1’s, by the time I got them they’d been through enough tech school they were E-2’s. There were a few who were hesitant, but they got a little college experience in low-stress classes (aviation history was a favorite) and they got the learning bug.
I had a talk with my First Sergeant (the guy with the Masters degree), and made it clear to him that I would look very favorably on anyone who partook of the opportunities for education in the Air Force, and looked disfavorably on anyone who didn’t. Since things like off-duty education are a criteria on APR’s, it was easy enough to do legally, I also made a particular point of offering praise to students during Commanders Calls, during visits while they were working, etc.
I didn’t expect them to get a degree (although I certainly didn’t hinder them) but getting some core classes done was valuable to the Air Force (better writers, better understanding of history and psychology) and hence, to me. It is also something my Group commander tracked about my command abilities, and hence my OPR’s.
I also pushed everyone into whatever PME they were eligible for as soon as possible.
Funny, but excellence academically also seemed to have a positive effect in other leadership metrics: My squadron had a lower rate of bad indicators than the other squadrons in the Wing. We also dominated athletically, during field days. And never got less than outstanding during operational evaluations.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 4:07 pmPonderosa says:
This is a volunteer military. The issues are recruitment & reenlistment.
In the past, an order would be issued and it would be followed. Now soldiers are free to enlist or re-enlist as they choose. In the poll mentioned above — 43% oppose “letting gays serve openly”. Doesn’t that give any one pause?
43 percent.
Soldiers can vote with their feet. The repeal of DADT may or may not have an effect. But that it is not a gamble we should take.
As for some of the other arguments:
- Israel uses conscription. So not a valid basis for comparison.
- Integration was done with conscription in effect. Again not valid.
The US Army has at least 540K in active duty.
- The Australian (ADF) Army has 28K permanent soldiers
- The Canadians have 19K in the LFC.
I will grant they are fine soldiers But c’mon, really?
So then there is the loss of 100 or even 800 soldiers per year due to DADT. And? So? Gays can still serve and good people are lost all the time, for a variety of different reasons – retirement…death. What is the point? That 2% of 2% can’t express themselves?
To my mind, supporters of the repeal of DADT need to show how it will improve national security or at the very least cause no harm.
Ilya, it is incumbent on those who want change to make the case.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 4:10 pmHoldfast says:
Skyler — I think the ATGMs came from the Soviets, via Egyptian and Syrian crews . . . not sure I get the point.
Everyone can learn something from someone else — while the US is clearly the best overall, sometimes other countries develop skills or techniques through experience that can be useful. Anyway, I think we are arguing about historical trivia — which is fun, but not too relevant to DADT.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 4:10 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
My wife was in 3 Field.
And I thought that Goddard was Infantry since she was serving with the PPCLI. I see that she was seconded from Armor, still a combat arm.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 4:16 pmG.R. Mead says:
Ah. “The argument is winning support so let’s deny it credibility.” Take out “sociobiology” and put in “hormonal action under common threat.” Bullets aren’t fair. Neither is evolution. Or do you seriously argue/believe that evolution has not equipped the human organism with mechanisms more basic and overriding that the neocortex when people must combine to combat existential threats?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 4:19 pmChris Travers says:
So suppose DOMA goes away. Then what about DADT and gay married couples vs straight married couples? I think you would very suddenly have very real Constitutional issues. I think it is worth trying to develop alternatives before we are in a tight situation there.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 4:21 pmmalclave says:
Recruitment and retention is an issue. My feeling is that alowing gays to openly serve would probably not have any serious adverse effects to those... but I hope the government has more information than just “feelings” before implementing the proposal.
What is more likely, in my opinion, to cause a negative impact is the people enlisting primarily to serve as test cases. Will the military treat gays equally, or will they be a federally protected class functionally exempt from discipline because they’ll sue?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 4:21 pmHoldfast says:
Sun Tzu’s Nephew wrote
“My wife was in 3 Field.
And I thought that Goddard was Infantry since she was serving with the PPCLI. I see that she was seconded from Armor, still a combat arm.”
3 Field what? Ambulance? Artillery? Engineers? Women’s Field Hockey? Squadron? Regiment? Do tell.
And I specifically said there were women in the Combat Arms, just not the INFANTRY. You also have not said whether your “wife’s” gay compatriots were male or female. Damn you are dense, or maybe just lying. Definitely a Rupert.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 4:30 pmfrankcross says:
I’m struck by a couple of things. First, I get the feeling that some of the opponents view this is a liberal reform and opposing everything liberal and therefore kneejerk against it. Of course liberals do the same on other issues. Ideology seems imprisoning.
Second, I am struck by just how many of these arguments were more powerful arguments against integrating the military by race. And they were made at the time. I.e., losing reenlistments, they’ll sue if they are disciplined, etc. Of course, race and gender preference are not the same. But I think the people who make these arguments should either:
– explain why the issues would be problems with gays though they were not with blacks
or
– take the stand that the military should not be integrated, because these problems arose.
Simply rehashing the old arguments without these elaborations is unpersuasive.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 4:36 pmHoldfast says:
Oh, and Goddard was Arty, not Armor, as I wrote in my post. Perhaps you should have taken a reading course during your copious free Air Force time. I would also suggest looking up terms like “combat team” and “battalion task force”. Goddard was not “serving” with the PPCLI, she was the FOO that was part of a combat team which included PPCLIs.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 4:36 pmHoldfast says:
frankcross — I really don’t think there was a lot of fear of blacks suing the army for bad performance reviews in the late 1940s — their position was already pretty tenuous. In fact, there was generally a lot less suing going on back then. Also in the 1940s and 1950s you had a draft to hedge against losing enlistment.
Maj. Hasan has demonstrated rather well the pernicious (and deadly) effects of the government’s (incl the military) policy of favoring certain minorities.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 4:43 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
A difference without distinction. She was combat arms, attached to the PPCLI, she died doing her job in your military for your country. What exactly is your problem with that?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 4:45 pmHoldfast says:
My problem is that I posted some very specific comments, you attempted to refute some of them use false and misleading information, and then when caught out you just sort of waive it away and claim it is all the same. I have no problem at all with Capt. Goddard’s service — this discussion is about how the issue of gays, and tangentially women, are dealt with in allied militaries. I suppose we could also talk about the politically correct over-promotion of Maj. Mendes and her subsequent suicide, but we’ll leave that for another day.
Your utter lack of precision leads me to suspect that if you were ever an AF officer, you were CO of the grounds maintenance squadron. Good day sir.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 4:54 pmRandy says:
Strategic: “And in the linked incident, the seven who confessed to their sexuality were identified to authorities by the two caught in flagrante delicto. Their confessions included incidents of sexual misconduct to the effect that “yeah, we do that stuff in the barracks all the time.”
According to the article that you linked, two out of nine Arab linguists were caught in sexual misconduct, the remaining seven were kicked out merely for being gay. You should read the article before you quote from it.
Dan Choi is an Arab linguist and when he came out as gay on national tv was advised that he will be kicked out. No sexual misconduct associated with him.
From an AP article:“The Associated Press disclosed today that three more Arabic linguists have been fired by the military under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that requires separation when a commander learns a service member is gay or lesbian. The linguists were investigated after military officials listened in on conversations conducted on a high-level government computer system which allows intelligence personnel to communicate with troops on the frontlines.”
So no, they didn’t find sexual misconduct; rather the military looked for evidence that they are gay.
But you still avoid the issue: Should any person be fired if they are an language translator merely because they are gay?
” In the poll mentioned above — 43% oppose “letting gays serve openly”. Doesn’t that give any one pause?”
Not really. Similar percentages were found when enlisted people were asked the same question in Britain, Australia, Canada and so on. After the ban was lifted, there was virtually no change in enlistment.
In fact, in Australia, a large segment of officers said that they would quit if they had to serve with open gays. None a single one of them did. Furthermore, under the coalition forces that existed for several years in Iraq and Afganistan, our forces DID serve alongside the British and others who have openly gay officers and enlisted men. I don’t recall a single American GI threatening to quit the military on that basis.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 5:05 pmBut They Aren’t Superpowers. | Little Miss Attila says:
[...] see, permitting gays to serve in their Armed Forces is different. Or [...]
nice strategy says:
Which they will, in all likelihood, just as happened in other armed forces.
I think this is precisely what homophobes are worried about. Being gay has to be a big negative deal, because once it isn’t, it shows how ridiculous it was to make it a big negative deal in the first place. Unit cohesion and other arguments that sound legitimate are, in at least some cases, being proffered by people who will look like fools in a few decades if being gay loses its stigma and all the supposed bad effects of that don’t happen.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 5:07 pmRandy says:
Cls: “So the reality, as I see it, is that people simply have prejudices against gay men and then invent excuses to justify their pre-existing bigotry. ”
Thanks, CLS. However, you do realize that your experiences as an enlisted serviceman count for nothing among people who are against gays serving in the military and who never served themselves, right? For them, your opinion is either of no value or just plain wrong. According to them, you are a mindless low class uneducated runt who is supposed to hate gays because Americans are uniquely homophobic (unlike those prissy Brits and Israelis). You can’t be trusted around gay men because sooner or later, you’ll start acting gay. IT will be more important for you to listen to Judy Garland recordings than figuring out a way to fight the enemy and stay alive. You will succumb to the nefarious advances that gay men are always making. You will be uneasy around any gay man because, well, you’re supposed to feel uneasy around gay men. It’s the American way, and that must be preserved at all costs, even if we lose valuable translators.
In other words, because you have no problem serving with gays, no one can’t trust you.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 5:09 pmNoah David Simon says:
Since when has this blog become so enthusiastic about science and data that we would decide that data could not be obscured? Was Al Gore’s data real science? Surely you know that a biased experiment is possible by controlling the axioms? The problem with science is one creates the testing axioms. judging merely by skill you create a bubble that ignores a correlative of the environment of the subject. Do we really know yet what the setup of the experiment you claim is? given the right setup one could say that pornography causes violence to women. That is what the feminists were saying for two decades. it was hogwash. I’ve gone over the studies. science works within the context of it’s controls. The studies on porn were concluding as to what was angering people. The data was completely irrelevant to the study. Here is some more information on the flawed http://xrl.us/porn studies that the feminists sold to the mainstream
Given Science the progressives have pushed an agenda that is hateful of heterosexual men and spent most of the last half century pushing drugs like Ritalin on young boys who were merely different then their femme counterparts. Could this not just be more of the same Blue State hatred that has destroyed society and has led America to decline?
We idolize Asia’s strong educational ethos, but seem to fear Asia’s strong cultural patriarchal view of the family. Strong traditional Jewish values were patriarchal too. I’m not saying that we should turn the world upside down for anyone, but the gender revolution and the ability to create innovators seem to be running parallel. Femmes have strengths. their emotional quotient gets work in the modern world, why are we still doing this to men? more on this argument here http://xrl.us/feminists
My personal take is that, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is a disaster. I differ with Sarah Palin who pardon my French doesn’t have any balls to say the reality that sexuality in the military doesn’t mix. does anyone remember Abu Gharaib? the social left condemns Abu Gharaib, but was not that a homosexual act in the military? Nothing like that ever surfaced before and photography is one hundred years old. this is mass sexual hysteria. It isn’t like Gay people are financially burdened as an segment group either. It is the straight men that really need the military for financial reasons... not that affirmative action should lead decisions, but still considering the amount of meat and potatoes guys out of work, this is unfair. just because there are gay men in the military already doing well for themselves doesn’t mean they are not hurting people around them. Funny the way everyone is so keen on diversity and tolerance, but you can’t respect difference until you understand what different is. I love gay people. I respect them as well. I want to see them do well, but I don’t want to be naked in the same shower with them. women don’t want men looking at them naked, but most ladies in the Blue States are trying to force gay men into the military. It is wrong. The military is a team effort. being able to shoot a gun well is not as important as contribution to the team. No skill is as important as the team. the team gets demoralized by sexuality. In the end... it comes down to the majority of the military to decide. they are the ones to sacrifice their lives and they should be honest with what they want and what they are thinking about. Perhaps it is better to allow the military to do what was working before they became sexually confused. we used to win wars with the good old boys.
The ladies on the View said that the boys in the military want this.
I’m wondering what stat leads “The View” to the idea that the military wants this? Shouldn’t they at least reference this information for the rest of us who don’t have an inside track of what is going on? They just made this up and expect us to all nod our head and agree. forget the politics here and just think about what kind of shoddy information is being distributed here. it isn’t just an oops moment. They just spoke for all of the armed service men. the best analysis on sexuality to this day still remains in Freud’s pen because he never had the presumption to control the experiment like Gloria Steinem’s friends do. he merely wrote down the experience and that is why Freud is still useful today. it is why Freud is still talked about... even when he is wrong. These people on this TV show think their “VIEW” is their opinion. Your “VIEW” starts with what you see, not how you interpret what you saw.
the APA said there is no GAY GENE. indeed there is no nature, only nurture when it comes to a person’s unobjective biological activities. that means people aren’t born gay according to either one of the largest if not the biggest psychological association. assuming demons based on behavior would take away the free will argument that the social left is doing anyway. social liberals and superstitious nuts have so much in common. The cultural opinion of an organization rarely has any influence on my opinion, but the depth of their study is impressive. perhaps if the gay community were more objective then midevil freaks it might help us improve their condition. as offensive as this ritual might seem it pales in how it disgusts me to see the hypocrisy of those that believe that gay men are born that way and fail to apply the standard of judgment towards everyone else. would it seem fair to many of the readers here if I were to say women are born more likely to nurture? it is fair to me, but I suppose my values aren’t punitive. my take is that there are many causes that lead to a person’s taste. I would rule out Demons and Gloria Steinem however and would not ask any government to set any government contracts like marriage based on such arbitrary abuse. I ask the same behavior for the military. Let the soldiers decide what they want and stop pushing one survey. There are some huge egos involved in this and they have proven in the past to not be taking accurate surveys.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 5:21 pmMichael Mahoney says:
can we extend this rationale to the referencing of their law within our courts?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 5:29 pmNoah David Simon says:
when a gay military has no effect on the troops I assure you the men in the military will be telling you this. Till then don’t assume that any outside data is not pressured.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 5:30 pmSkyler says:
Absolutely false. First, it’s not a fear of homosexuals, so trash that bigoted term.
Second, the military, if this ridiculous trend is allowed to continue, will salute, say aye aye, sir, three bags full, and continue to operate with just another impediment. Military officers do not admit that they can’t handle a problem and they won’t admit they can’t handle this problem. It’s just the same as no captain of a navy ship will ever admit that women aboard and pregnancies are a problem. They’ll just deal with it.
It’s just a bigger burden to bear. If the civilians decide that’s what we should put up with, so be it. But that doesn’t make it the right decision.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 5:33 pmNoah David Simon says:
Also after reading Foucault’s analysis it is his presumption that many Greek soliders were gay almost by a rule, and not by acceptance. Does this mean that we should assume that this would work in an American military? Maybe in a gay cultured small band of men who were intimate in more then one way it might work. This logic fails when we should apply it to one of the largest militaries in the world in the same way that we think we could apply one military culture to another military culture. That of course depends on if one accepts that any of these studies you mention on this blog are true... which I doubt is true anyway.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 5:41 pmG.R. Mead says:
OK, we are moving the bedposts off the battlefield, now? WTH does DOMA have to do with this issue? What does DOMA have to do with a traditional posture toward veiling ALL sexual relations, of whatever stripe, moral or legal claim to legitimacy, from public view, though not out of public concern — negatively or positively ?
Classically, there are three forms of rhetoric or persuasive speech — i.e. appeals to influence conduct or behavior — Logos or reason, Pathos or emotion, and Ethos or culture/morals.
There are good rational policy reasons for the tradition’s stance that sexual matters should NOT be regulated rationally — though it is necessary and rational they should be regulated. Sexual conduct is natural but not notably amenable to appeals of reason — therefore useful and successful social controls over the adverse consequences of sexual conduct are not primarily rationally-based, and therefore need not be explicit — though the boundaries in which various regulatory regimes framed by both Ethos and Pathos should be clearly lined out — so everyone knows when they enter an area in which to exercise due care, and according to what standards of judgment of their conduct and that of others.
Hence, among other things, we get the line we call “marriage,” since you mentioned it. It does not need a rational justification (though there are many), because it is not primarily a rule appealing to the reason, but rather to both Pathos and Ethos, controlling or counterbalancing those contending natural and primal forces with a countering emotional structure invested into long-standing ethical and cultural traditions.
The emotional appeal of that is clear — whence the desire of gay couples to possess it. But they do not get the true emotional content invested IN it by those that MADE it, nor the depth of culture associated with it. Instead, they have combined their particular Pathos or feeling with reasoned argument of equality — which almost entirely misses the point of marriage as a social institution. Their sexual nature appears to be different, and so they should (rationally) not expect to enjoy a structure that evolved for a different nature, with a culture and set of emotional bonds all its own. That they have no institution of equal dignity is a complaint, but not one with any weight of either emotional appeal or of cultural weight. For anyone without the pathos of the gay perspective, it is a nakedly rational appeal that can never touch or call upon the native pathos and ethos that underlie what marriage is and does for individuals and societies.
I am applying essentially the same policy reasoning to deal with conduct related to the military regime where sex and violence are now intersecting — in a circumstance obviously not primarily governed by reason.
Operative reasoning only goes so far on such issues — and that is not an unreasonable position to take.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 5:42 pmCatCube says:
My personal suspicion is that allowing homosexuals to serve openly will have the biggest of the problems that allowing women to serve has.
On net, women in the military is probably a good thing, but ther are very definite disadvantages:
The first is the difference in physical strength between the average male and average female. All I’ve got is anecdotal, but when you do a battalion run, the first and furthest to fall out are the females. Some hang in there, but they’re rare. The APFT, of course, is adjusted by sex (BTW, the standards for sit-ups are the same for males and females). I’ve never seen anything that leads me to believe that homosexual males are weaker than heterosexual males (and the APFT doesn’t differentiate), so this won’t be a problem.
The second problem, and the one that WITM and homosexuals in service shares, is that having people who want to bang each other is a continual leadership headache. I think it was G May above who emphasized the phenomenal amount of time is spent on Prevention of Sexual Harrassment, IG Complaints, EO Complaints, and the like. I want to hang a big “and roger” on his comments. Especially in the training base, we have separate living quarters with an alarm for the females, and the 21R (electrician)trainees would be disabling the damn thing pretty often.
Now, I think that on net, WITM is a good policy is because it opens up a full 50% of the population to military service. However, we have had to expend significant resources to get it to the point that it’s worthwile.
Now, we’ll have the same problem with open homosexuals that we do with females, but we probably can’t do the same mitigation. Are we going to have separate barracks? I can see that being a political problem, not to mention that it’s explicitly putting people sexually attracted to each other in the same room with very little supervision. We can’t segregate homosexuals from each other the same way we segregate males and females.
Similarly, I share the suspicion of many people above that homosexuals will become an unofficial “protected class” the way that females are now in EO matters. You seriously do not want an EO complaint filed against you.
Now, we have these downsides, for what? Opening up recruitment to a few percent of the population? It was worth it for 50%, but to be honest, only barely.
PS: At this point, someone who thinks he’s clever always chimes in saying, “Well, none of this is a problem! Some of this is going on right now.” Right, but it’s heavily restrained by the social unacceptability of homosexual contact. It seems that straight privates can’t wait to get in each other’s pants the instant the Drill Sergeant turns their back, or all ranks when they think that no one can see them. And that’s with the presumption that having a male and female off by themselves are up to no good.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 5:45 pmtrashhauler says:
“The RAND study (Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessment) suggests that although the presence of a known homosexual may affect social cohesion, it is unlikely to undermine task cohesion, provided that the individual demonstrates competence and a commitment to the unit’s mission. Therefore, researchers conclude that the presence of known homosexuals on the force is not likely to undermine military performance.”
___________________
Rand specializes in USAF questions. They are right to suggest that task performance supersedes other considerations if you are a pilot or aircrew. That doesn’t mean inappropgriate sexual pairings aren’t a problem. There are famous cases of whole squadrons being disrupted by heterosexual misbehavior. And once the unit is so thoroughly disrupted, the individual task performance doesn’t matter, because the unit won’t be given any tasks.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 5:56 pmTim says:
I’m not sure what bearing that has on social policy, but if you want the answer, yes, those are all history lessons on how not to do things. We study our allies and our enemies to know what we may face, which, while it ultimately may shape our policies, we are calling the shots.
Case in point, the choice for NATO to demand 7.62x51 cartridges in the 50s. The British had a smaller, ~7mm cartridge that had longer range, better ballistics, and less recoil. We demanded 7.62x51 and that’s what we got. The rest is history–the M14 and FAL were produced in large numbers, only to be made all-but-obsolete by assault rifles within ~10 years or so. Would this still have happened if we’d adopted the British cartridge? Maybe, or maybe not. But if you own a .308 rifle today, thank those people who made that decision in the 1950s, because .308 is capable of nothing that 7mm can’t do better at any range, and yet .308 is popular and cheap because it was adopted by NATO.
This is just one example for which there are many others. We choose what’s best for us. The world follows and has little say in the matter. That’s the price they pay for not having a several hundred billion dollar defense budget, like we do.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 5:59 pmtrashhauler says:
What “if being gay loses its stigma and all the supposed bad effects of that don’t happen.”
______________
The more likely case is that we’ll literally soldier on and no one will bother to report the difference in performance. There will be some difference, of course, and discerning professionals will be able to readily identify it. It’s just that they won’t be asked to do so, lest they upset the new protected class.
Another inevitability is that most gays will forego the privilege of joining the Service, whilst cheering on their compatriots who do.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 6:08 pmfrankcross says:
Holdfast, I don’t understand your point. First, because allowing gays in does not represent a special benefit on which litigation could be based. It is simply equal treatment. But I’m intrigued by your claim that preferences has a deadly, pernicious effect. What are you suggesting? That women should be excluded from the military?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 6:50 pmSkyler says:
Then I probably wouldn’t have as big a problem with it. The real problem is that there is a radical politcal/social agenda attached to the issue. Homosexuality is wrong per se, but so are a lot of things. I cringe at the thought of San Francisco style gay marine pride parades. I can’t imagine how we would instill fear in our enemies that way.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 7:24 pmThe Strategic MC says:
“You should read the article before you quote from it.”
Did I misquote or misrepresent the article?
I didn’t make a distinction btwn those who were caught in the act and those who admitted their homosexuality. While I used a generic “they” and didn’t provide a 2/7 breakdown, the fact of sexual misconduct remains. Also remember your assertion: “...Because it simply isn’t true.” Actually, it’s way true.
The value-added that I provided (not included in the article) was that the seven had also admitted to sexual misconduct (not just being gay) after having been identified by the other two as participants in the barracks extra-curriculars.
The meme preferred by many is that arab linquists were separated for merely being gay. Not true.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 7:33 pmHoldfast says:
Frankncross — I addressed your points comparing desegregation to the repeal of DADT head on — not sure what you don’t get. You brought up lawsuits, not me — I just pointed out that at the time of desegregation, the courts were not stuffed with whiny lawsuits by aggrieved minorities and special interest groups the way they are today.
I also don’t think that Maj Hasan was a woman.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 8:11 pmSonicfrog says:
You’re right. Bullets aren’t fair. Nor are terrorist bombs. They will
kill both straight and gay alike. So both groups should have the inalienable right to fight for our country to defend against those who would kill us — both must combine to combat existential threats.
... And with that, you have just proven the critics of socio-b right on target.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 8:17 pmChris Travers says:
Simple.
Do same-sex spouses get the same benefits as opposite-sex spouses? or does DADT mean “no benefits for same-sex spouses?” Or is there an alternative?
How would DADT change if same-sex couples were entitled to the same survivor, etc. benefits as straight couples?
Basically this gets into the sticky web of how one legal change makes things harder to maintain other legal statements.
In essence we are moving from the battlefield here to the HR office and the courtroom with this question....
Quote
February 10, 2010, 8:43 pmChris Travers says:
G R Mead:
I do agree that sexual relationships should be veiled. However, if DOMA goes, then you have massive problems regarding married gay couples, survivor benefits, tracking these benefits without violating DADT (a chinese wall around those who process benefits?) etc. I think it would be VERY HARD to keep up a DADT policy of same-sex, married as a matter of public record, could still serve. I think it is likely to cause problems very soon simply because state records of such marriages are public. One could, I suppose, order folks not to look into such records as long as DOMA remains intact, but as soon as one puts one’s same-sex spouse on any piece of legal paperwork, you have problems. Removing DOMA would change the legal structure of same-sex marriages in relationship to the army and would undermine DADT fatally.
What’s your alternative? Keep DOMA just because of being afraid of gays serving openly in the military?
Think of what would happen for programs like this.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 8:50 pmKalroy says:
Women serving in the military has had a detrimental effect. From the lowering of physical qualifications and expectations, to the lowering of technical qualifications for diversity (remember the first female aviator to die in a carrier landing?). Not to mention the lessening of camaraderie among men, because they were no longer in their exclusive club. As a blue collar craftsman I know that working with another craftsman who happens to be a woman works fine, but working with a woman who happens to be a craftsman (or worse who owes their position entirely to diversity quotas) creates a hostile working environment, slams morale, reduces productivity and quality. The question is whether those detrimental effects are outweighed by the benefits, and that question is entirely subjective.
Also note that most (but not all) of the negative effects are the effect of the lowering of expectations for women when compared to men. Also note that some women can and do meet the physical expectations and that every specialty will be different on this. The more physical specialties (combat, welding, etc)the more pronouced the negative effect of lowered expectations are.
Funny part is that this not caused by the possession of a vagina. It is caused by being forced to cover for, bear the load for, and fix F-ups for someone who was placed in a position they are not qualified for. Placed in that position simply because they have a vagina.
Kalroy
Quote
February 10, 2010, 8:58 pmTim says:
Nonsense. If there’s one thing that economists are good at measuring, it’s productivity. Women entering the US work force have made us more productive and created more wealth than ever before.
I do not agree with allowing women to meet lower standards in military service, either, but I certainly wouldn’t argue it’s because it’s unclear whether they are beneficial to us or not. Of course the women in the military are both hard working and productive. The deeper question should be why we have qualifications for jobs that have both men and women, and yet men must meet a higher standard for the same job. It is a fact that we have kicked males out of the military for failing to make physical fitness standards, and that women serve every day who lack the strength and endurance of men we’ve already kicked out. How we justify that is beyond me, but it definitely happens.
You are claiming that women are the problem, and that men are picking up the slack for them. Then, without data, you are implying that the net result of allowing women to serve has been negative. That is nonsense.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 9:20 pmRandy says:
“I didn’t make a distinction btwn those who were caught in the act and those who admitted their homosexuality.”
And why not? If you engage in sexual misconduct, then you should be discharged. Just being gay isn’t sexual misconduct.
” While I used a generic “they” and didn’t provide a 2/7 breakdown, the fact of sexual misconduct remains.
How so? I guess you are assuming that EVERY person who is gay is engaging in sexual misconduct, that simply isn’t true.
Also remember your assertion: “...Because it simply isn’t true.” Actually, it’s way true.
The value-added that I provided (not included in the article) was that the seven had also admitted to sexual misconduct (not just being gay) after having been identified by the other two as participants in the barracks extra-curriculars.
Really? So merely having sex of any kind with consenting adults is ‘sexual misconduct”? Then I guess you would have to discharge the majority of servicemen today. I know of no military regs that require its servicemen to remain celibate during their service if unmarried.
And why exactly were these guys asked about their sexual orientation? Don’t Ask means don’t ask. If they guys didn’t tell anyone about their sexual endeavors, then why is anyone asking at all?
IT seems that you want to trap gays — find out who the gay ones are, get them to tell on their fellow enlistees, then get them to confess to having sex, and then discharge them.
This is exactly the type of action that DADT was supposed to end, the searching out and rooting out of any gays. At the very least, the policy is supposed to allow gay people to serve in the military so long as they don’t tell anyone about it. Seeing as how they at least seven of these nine didn’t tell anyone until they were identified by a third party, that’s prima facie evidence of a violation of DADT.
This is exactly why the policy is such a disaster. Good people thrown out of the military.
And you *still* are avoiding the question: Why should any translator be discharged merely for being gay?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 9:49 pmRandy says:
What I find really amusing is that people — in today’s dangerous world — really believe that our country is better served by discharging people who have sex that they disapprove than by having those people translate communcations that can affect the lives of our military people, and the whether a muslim extremist will succeed in blowing up some buildings.
Since when is sexual abstinence is more important than winning the war on terrorism? If an Arab linguist wants to screw around with his mates, whether the mate is male or female, who the hell cares? They are taking far more risk than any busybody sitting here in the comfort of their own home.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 9:56 pmKalroy says:
Then I was being unclear. I am stating that allowing women to serve by lowering standards so that they can serve has been negative. It has. When a man (or a woman who meets the same standard as a man) has to load a fifty pound bag of sand into a sandblaster because a woman (and very rarely a man) can’t physcially pick up the fifty pound bag, hump it on their shoulder walk seventy yards and place it in the machine, then you have one person not being productive at their own project, and another person standing around and not being productive while someone else does their job for them.
I know on this we agree, so I think that my thoughts came out muddled in written form (heck, they could be muddled in my head suffering from a surfeit of scotch as I am this evening). It is not that women in the military are necessarily detrimental, it is that it is detrimental because of the implementation of policy.
As to women increasing productivity in the non-union, for profit, workplace this is entirely true. The difference being that the women are usually expected to compete with the men and because of sexism in the workplace often have to do better than the men. As a welder, I can state that the female welders I’ve met in that environment are as good as the men. However, I can count that number on my fingers. That number goes up greatly as the job becomes less physical and goes down as the job becomes more physical.
As to data, mine is entirely from personal experience and based on stories from a large number of others with the same experience as myself. Having spent nine years in the US Air Force as both a Metals Processing Specialist and a Aircraft Metals Technologist (ie welder/heat treater/electroplater and welder/heat treater/machinist) I both seen and experienced the morale drop that comes from having to carry, make up for, cover for, and fix f-ups for a fellow technician who made it through technical school and who is still in the career field because of their sex.
Again the real problem isn’t women in the military, it’s the way that policy was implemented. Thing is, there is no other way that policy was going to be implemented and there is no way that the policy will be corrected. Because of this the men will always have something to gripe about, and the competent women will always have to live with the suspicion that, unless they excel far beyond their male co-workers, most of their co-workers figure they are in their position because of their sex.
Kalroy
Quote
February 10, 2010, 10:30 pmKalroy says:
Again me being unclear. I should have said “I can count that number on the thumb of one hand, but Cindy was an outstanding welder and worker.”
Kalroy
Quote
February 10, 2010, 10:39 pmG.R. Mead says:
There is the problem right there. Serving in a role involving protective violence isn’t about rights it is about duties — to save the lives of others — not find personal fulfillment. Thus, anyone who wants to serve must be willing to sublimate his or her LIFE to the service of others, and at least while on duty, be willing to undergo any privation in that calling — up to and including death.
Why is this so difficult to get across? And why does sex as an aspect of life (like drinking for us sailors) get a pass on the “Ooh, that’s too hard to give up because it intrudes on my “right to define my own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
I mean, come on. You’ll give up your life– but not the display of what makes your nethers wobbly?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 10:52 pmJohn Moore says:
As others have noted, with regards to the military service, this should only be evaluated in a utilitarian sense: what does it do to our military effectiveness? There has never been a right to serve in the military, and the whole concept of this being about rights is as absurd as the blind demanding to serve.
trashhauler writes:
This is an important issue, and can cause corrosive damage. The PC reaction to this is even worse — look at how incompetently our military handles the issue of Muslims. Those who believe that “soldiers take orders and we will order them to behave” are denying human nature.
The issue of women in the military is raised to show how integration of gays should not be a problem — “we did it okay with women, so we should do it with homosexuals.” It rests on a huge lie and a lack of proportion.
The integration of women into almost all units has led to many, many problems, some of which have been described above. In my branch of service, it led to the “USS Pregnant,” a ship which lost its combat ready status due to the pregnancy of too many of the crew. Integration of women still causes a lot of problems.
TailHook was an example of the Navy losing a significant number of highly skilled, expensively trained pilots directly due primarily to the PC changes in the Navy, and it only failed to cripple Navy Air because it coincided with a major need for reduction in force.
Overall, the increase in military discipline/unit cohesion problems is significant (depending on the unit) and the PC approaches to dealing with it are a serious problem.
However, with an all volunteer servicce, there is an overwhelming need to integrate women.The problems caused by integrating women are, it appears, significantly overshadowed by the fact that women constitute 50% of the eligibility pool, and much higher percentages of certain pools.
There seems to be no such need for gays. They constitute a tiny part of the recruiting pool, although in a few specialties they might be critical. In those cases, the problems their integration would bring would be a necessary pric, and DADT is not a bad solution from the military standpoint — gays who obey the rules (and in the military, if you don’t obey the rules, you don’t belong — special operators excepted) and are needed will be used.
Forcing the military to take gays on the same terms it took women, however, is likely a lousy choice. I don’t think the costs come close to justifying the gain (especially in light of the successful use of gays through DADT).
Finally, none of this is to imply that we didn’t and don’t have gays and many women who have and are performing admirably, defending us all and bringing honor to themselves. The problem isn’t the individuals, it is the social situation and human nature.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 10:54 pmG.R. Mead says:
Since they aren’t spouses the question does not arise. Nice folks, good members of the Church and for all I know need to confess less than I do, but not spouses, like I am not horses.
Positivism is the modern just-so story — which still cannot make the leopard spotless.
“Glory!” By which I mean, of course, “that’s a good knock-down argument for you!”
;->
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:00 pmChris Travers says:
But that’s my point about DOMA. If DOMA is repealed they will be spouses. Then how will DADT work?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:01 pmG.R. Mead says:
Your argument turns on the word, “If...”
I find this more encouraging
And if it were to occur, then why should not religious people simply refuse civil marriage — better tax benefits anyway — Civil marriage as it stands now under no-fault laws (a Bolshevik legal innovation interestingly) is less enforceable than a contract for bubble gum. Push come to shove, I’ll stick with the “merely” notional “flesh of my flesh, imperil my soul if I be faithless, till death do you part” thing.
Seems more durable somehow — this illegal religious marriage thing ...
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:11 pmG.R. Mead says:
Leopards, man. They still have those darned spots. How many reams of statutes must be drafted to change them...?
Obviously, you did not google the quote.
And I still don’t think you have grasped the doubled-edged nature of “irrational” social roles in the face of paper reasoning...
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:15 pmCarl says:
The caliber of discussion in these comments is much better than I’ve seen in other places. I think there are legitimate criticisms for and against these policies that have been articulated much better than I could.
That being said, I think another topic of contention which is only hinted at above is the execution of this policy. Some people want to think that it’s an easy law– we repeal it, feel good and go home. The folks who have to live the military lifestyle know full well that’s not the case. After everyone else has forgotten about it, they have to sit through the mandatory EEO sessions and Sexual Harrassment preventions and a littany of these brilliant PC requirements passed down the Chain of Command by ‘Those in Charge’ and ‘Who Must Know Better’. They will be the people talking about how successful the integration is, just like the IDF and Brits. As previous commenters alluded to, while we can learn from any other militaries experience, just because they did it doesn’t mean we should. We definitely don’t want to emulate the recent Israeli experience in southern Lebanon or the British experience in Basrah.
Quote
February 11, 2010, 12:02 amChris Travers says:
G. R. Mead:
I think the issue is that we are coming at things from opposite angles. I spotted the Kipling reference immediately. However, let’s start by looking at different approaches.
One of my major hobbies is studying historical linguistics, Indo-European comparative mythologies, and related topics. These areas tend to be studied from a fairly “structuralist” perspective. In essence the structures are looked at first and only after they are understood are efforts made to understand functional units. This is important because often the structural units, rather than the functional application of those units, are the elements where one can show greatest genetic resemblance. For example there are many places where the structural resemblance between Zeus and Thorr is much more clear than any functional resemblance. The same is even more pronounced between the Gaulish Taranis and the Irish In Dagda despite the fact that there is a very clear genetic link.
Consequently when I look at a problem like DADT, what I see is not a military policy in isolation, but a military policy which is tightly bound to other policies relating to homosexuality in the modern world. DOMA, questions of gay marriage, the demise of sodomy prohibitions outside the military, etc. are all closely bound together. They are in essence a part of a social structure relating to certain ideas regarding sexuality and gender roles. Change one small part, and the whole structure will shift. I firmly think that even with a rise of a new social conservatism, that acceptance of homosexuals in our society will continue to increase. The real divisive issues are likely to be abortion, divorce law, etc. Premarital sex and teenage sex are unlikely to to be major issues either. We may see the pendulum swing slightly back on some of these issues but I don’t think it will go very far.
The problems arise because when one thing changes other things have to shift around to maintain a stable and complete system. As more states legalize gay marriage, pressure to repeal or strike down DOMA will increase.
DOMA, however, strikes me as the one thing which makes DADT a workable policy. As long as same-sex spouses (recognized by the state as such) are not recognized by the federal government, then you can forbid folks to look into state-sanctioned marriage records, etc. But if the federal government ever recognizes the marriages then suddenly you have a huge equal protection problem because DADT would essentially forbid a gay man from taking advantage of certain statutory benefits, and, worse still, a civilian (the same-sex spouse) might have standing to sue over it. This is what I call the “sticky web problem” (you have a sticky spider web, you cut a thread, and the shape of the web changes). Suddenly you have a very good chance that courts will look less favorably on DADT and throw it out.
Culture, a nebulous concept that includes our laws and language as well as material artifacts, isn’t a simple thing. It is always changing and adapting to its own changes. If we are wise, we value stability and work towards achieving it, and avoiding rapid unnecessary change, and we certainly don’t go looking for progress (towards “social justice,” “privatization,” or any other good idea). In the culture wars, each side can be expected to win some battles. The gay rights side will win, I have full confidence based on what I am seeing in actual demographic studies rather than in rhetorical pieces. It is less clear which side the abortion debate will go, on the other hand. Certainly we are not heading back to the 1890’s concepts of sexual morality either.
What I hear you saying is that there are certain functional requirements in the army, and that homosexual relationships between individuals in a unit threaten these. In this I agree with you. I further agree with you that gay men pose a number of challenges that even having straight women in the same unit don’t pose. I further agree that, improperly handled, these could be very problematic for a number of reasons (including a few beyond what you mention).
I am not sure what you expect society to do when Doe v. US Army Corps is filed sometime after DOMA is repealed and Mr Doe argues that DADT is unconstitutional because it prevents his (unnamed) husband from enrolling in survivor benefits with him as a beneficiary. I don’t expect a court to be unsympathetic to such a claim. At very least, it might carve out a huge exception to DADT regarding benefits enrolment. But once that door is opened, I don’t think DADT can survive as a policy.
You seem to think we can cross these bridges when we come to them. I think we should be starting to look at them now so that we are able to address the problems that can arise before there is a major shift in what’s acceptable.
What I would actually propose would be for Congress to authorize pilot programs looking at units and repealing DADT on some units, going one step at a time, rolling this out and developing alternatives as necessary. Otherwise I fear we are headed for a train wreck.
Quote
February 11, 2010, 1:20 amShane says:
My brigade lost its only uniformed Arabic linguist to DADT on the eve of deployment. He was also one of the more experienced intelligence professionals with more deployment experience than any of the other intel guys. The Arabic linguists we used instead were civilian contractors who were paid over $200k/year, partially tax-free. Two quit halfway through our deployment, and we paid the remaining civilians overtime to pick up the slack.
When we discuss unit cohesion, that’s the baseline we need to compare to — not some idealized magical land where everyone loves each other. It’s time to repeal DADT, which has done far more harm than good since the war on terror started.
Quote
February 11, 2010, 3:21 amKirk Parker says:
Jeff,
Can’t speak directly to this, I’m just comparing assertions here, but:
If the statement “inappropriate relationships between different genders result in more courts-martial each year than any other cause” is in fact accurate, then maybe the issue of living arrangments for women doesn’t yet fall into the category “problems that have been solved”?
Quote
February 11, 2010, 3:48 amNoah David Simon says:
I would like to point out the obvious flaw in the Volokh comparison to the Israeli military. I have read in several studies in the South Pacific that societies that are small and intimate are more likely to accept Gays into their culture. Perhaps Israel reflects this dynamic. When a society is intimate then differences like sexual tensions are accounted for by the intimacy of close family. I posted the link to that story below:
Gay men’s evolutionary advantage: being ‘super uncles’ — http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2523199 via Kittybergers http://ff.im/fvqn6
I don’t agree with the article’s findings which makes the argument that being Gay is a born trait in conflict with the APA findings, but much in line with some of the rhetoric being pushed by our media and is reflected in our culture obviously: Majority supports gays in U.S. military: poll http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2547240 via Kittyburgers http://ff.im/fK759 ‚but the study is interesting in that they found that smaller numbers cause acceptance. Differences are always workable when people become intimate with those that are different. We begin to respect each other and our boundaries better then those that are exactly like us.
Quote
February 11, 2010, 6:24 amG.R. Mead says:
Well that IS ironic. The quote was to Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty:
That argument was rational, clear, linear — and completely wrong:
People make language and social structures like — well, ... like spiders make webs... Spider webs are evolutionary artifacts not objects of arbitrary invention — and human languages are the same. Meaning only exists between people needing to transmit meaning to one another — I do not need the word “chair” to know that thing I call a “chair” when I see one. But You and I, between us need the word to indicate what I know and you know , when we see or think of the thing that we call “chair.” So it is not within the power of any one person or even a small group of people to alter the meaning of words or social structures to which they refer at their whim — at least not without disproportionately large and unintended consequences. If I saw the chair up and make a potrack out of it, it certainly has the elements of the chair left in it — but it is nonsense to call it a “chair.”
Not even spider webs react to damage in the way you assume... they can withstand a number of the spiral threads being broken without the stress concentrations that might cause them to change shape — If YOU made a web it would do what you suggest, but then you did not evolve to make webs.
Do you know what happens when the spider’s web has too many broken strands, such that it does begin to change shape ? She abandons it and builds another one that works pretty much like the original. Read Longman’s article on the actual demographics curve again.
People do the same thing as spiders do when their evolved survival mechnisma become too bent out of shape. They abandon them and start over. Cities are not the source of civlization — they are its artifacts. So, be very careful what you are clipping and stretching. The end result of the process in real, evolved dynamic systems is not the linear progressions you so trivially assume — but a non-linear discontinuous disjuncture and either extinction of the whole social structure — or a recursion to the root state of that social structure.
You are already in one — I suggest you hold on tight. The web’s gettin’ kinda tattered...
Quote
February 11, 2010, 11:05 amChris Travers says:
True (of course this doesn’t apply in the same way to formal institutions’ structures, to formal laws and the like and to truly highly prescriptive languages or dialects, like computer languages or legalese). Of course if we hold this, then as society continues to change (due to normal social forces, etc), as acceptance of homosexuality increases, and as DADT becomes harder to approach, that logic would seem to suggest “we dont have to worry about it. When it becomes necessary then society will find ways of coping.” That’s all well and good.
I actually disagree with Longman’s thesis. I think there is are a number of interlocked reasons for the conservative shifts in America today. Contrary to what Longman thinks, I actually think many of the same forces which promoted counterculture in the 1960’s promote religious fundamentalism today. Keep in mind that I left the religion of my parents (Quakerism) for Neopaganism.
People aren’t just social products of their parents. They are social products of drifting languages and cultures as well, and the forces which condemn secular progressive ideologies (except as necessary for a pluralist society) are the same whether one gives up on progress, entertainment, and materialism (as a friend and fellow-Neopagan put it, “American Idolatry”) to become Asatruar, Quaker, or Pentacostal. Certainly parents provide a great deal of influence, but I think Longman overstates that influence.
As you say (and I agree), it’s a nonlinear process.
One important piece of data involves differences between views by younger Americans on abortion vs. homosexuality. What we are seeing is a swing back away from acceptance of abortion but towards greater acceptance of homosexuality. I think this is quite interesting and suggests things are more complex than one might assume just reading the Longman article. I think there are a number of reasons for this but they go beyond what is on topic here.
I personally think this will lead to the end of DOMA and universally accepted gay marriage here in the US. I also think the trends suggest that the view regarding abortion will (unfortunately) lead to eventual criminal penalties on that practice.
(I am a Norse Pagan and think abortion and infanticide should be legal up until 9 days after birth, as Norse legal tradition allowed. And I would also note that pro-choice Lutherans are less likely to actually have abortions in practice than pro-life Catholics.)
The spider web was just a metaphor. Human societies are self-healing in ways that spider webs aren’t. The fact is that when humans build new societies they rarely build it identical to past models (see the US, republican Iceland, and the like). The main point is that this is nonlinear and that changes in one structure don’t necessarily cause decay but instead force a shift in the culture. This is not far from what Karl Marx articulated as the Historical Dialectic, but is very different from how that idea has generally been applied. Indeed changes in one part of the society can cause changes in seemingly distant parts over time as things shift around.
In the end, I suppose nobody knows how the complex forces which work cultural change will transform our culture. The above are my best guesses.
Quote
February 11, 2010, 8:43 pmSteverino says:
Uhh, Ilya, how do you propose we opponents go around and gather the evidence?
When these sorts of policies get implemented by advocates at the top of the chain of command, only supportive evidence is allowed.
Contrary evidence is not allowed. Or at the very least, not welcomed. It is potentially career ending to offer it; two cases that bear this out concern LT Hultgren and MAJ Hasan.
In both cases, the obvious fact that either one was likely to get someone killed was intentionally ignored due to diversity goals.
In LT Hultgren’s case, her flight instructors did speak up. But they were shut up by their seniors who had previously decreed that LT Hultgren would graduate to the fleet, no matter what her deficiencies. They didn’t want to hear it. But that was back in the ‘90s. By 2009 those lower down had learned better.
What point is there in speaking up about MAJ Hasan’s jihadist tendencies if the only likely result is you getting hung out to dry, not MAJ Hassan?
Again, I can’t emphasize enough how much the Army’s own report on MAJ Hassan’s atrocity illustrates just how much it wants to ignore the problem.
It all comes down to who do you think is an honest broker. And, frankly, I mistrust the establishment.
That is based on 20 years of service, during which I observed just how desperately the establishment wishes to view its diversity initiatives as a success.
Quote
February 12, 2010, 11:12 amG.R. Mead says:
You misunderstand his thesis, because again you are looking at an instance of an individual’s formative influence... there are always the odd sports ands outliers — What forms a cultural ethos however, are these same evolutionary forces such as Longman’s demographics properly describe (the resulting cultural outlook which he concludes is likely to predominate, he himself does not particularly support, I might add, so you may dismiss confirmation bias in his result).
His point is that development of the ethos is driven by the predominating cultural assumptions of those who predominantly procreate. The rest is math.
Here is an opportuntiy for what I hope you will take as a gentle lesson. However strongly you feel about its merits, Norse neo-paganism, is not a ethos — not because I can prove it logically wrong, but because it has no living tradition that an individual can look to, experience and on an empirical observational basis engender some trust in him that it has a practical and moral efficacy for guidance in living.
Ethos is by definition not a set of rules but a living tradition. The Amish have a proper ethos. Neo-pagans do not — becasue an ethos is framed by an understanding of what is necessary and accepted to do in a community — REGARLDLESS of one’s personal opinion about it. Neo-pagaism is almost defined by boundless subjectivity — or at least bounds that are not noticeably restraining in many ways.
That is what makes ethical arguments objective arguments — they are the product of a long and broad human devotion of effort at coming to a understanding of something and acting in accordance with that understanding. THAT aspect — a living trust in operative and structural principles of a broadly functional society is what is classically meant by ethos. The forms of ethical argument are in this way objective — as distinct from logical or reasoned arguments, and the third classical form, emotional or pathos arguments.
Pathos arguments classically are ALSO understood objectively, not subjectively, a problem for most moderns who do not typically think about or communicate in feelings in an overtly objective way. Filmmakers do. They must do to be successful — and one can learn much about the objective elements of argument to feeling from watching good movies. Classiaclly this was source of abuse noted in the Sophists who expressly taught people the objective methods of pathos arguments — but ( and this was the scandal) without regard to conforming them to either ethical or logical standards. It is the coincidence of all three that assures one as to the likelihood of truth — and any point supported only by one or two of the three is much more likely to be in serious error.
... but they need not be self-wounding either.
Quote
February 12, 2010, 5:05 pmThe Strategic MC says:
Randy, you said:
“Really? So merely having sex of any kind with consenting adults is ‘sexual misconduct”? Then I guess you would have to discharge the majority of servicemen today. I know of no military regs that require its servicemen to remain celibate during their service if unmarried.”
No, “merely having sex of any kind with consenting adults” is not sexual misconduct. Breaking curfew, having sex while a student at a service school (DLI) with another student and in government barracks when such behavior is prohibited is sexual misconduct.
“And why exactly were these guys asked about their sexual orientation? Don’t Ask means don’t ask. If they guys didn’t tell anyone about their sexual endeavors, then why is anyone asking at all?” I doubt if they were asked directly if they were gay. They were probably asked to respond to the allegations of the first two that they had been violating curfew and having sex in the barracks.
“This is exactly the type of action that DADT was supposed to end, the searching out and rooting out of any gays. At the very least, the policy is supposed to allow gay people to serve in the military so long as they don’t tell anyone about it. Seeing as how they at least seven of these nine didn’t tell anyone until they were identified by a third party, that’s prima facie evidence of a violation of DADT.”
30 years active duty and I have no direct knowledge of a “rooting out” of gays. And I repeat, the original charge was sexual misconduct relating to having sex in the barracks. Once they admitted to having sex, I’m pretty sure that the investigators were no longer constrained by the “don’t ask” dictates of the DADT policy.
“IT seems that you want to trap gays — find out who the gay ones are, get them to tell on their fellow enlistees, then get them to confess to having sex, and then discharge them.”
Who is this “you” that you speak of? The overwhelming majority of DOD discharges for violation of the DADT policy are of the self-referral “I’m gay and I want out” variety. Even then, most, if not all, of these self-confessed gays are told (if there are no witnesses present) to go back to work and pretend that nothing had been said (The Strategic MC’s preferred method for dealing with self-referrals).
“Why should any translator be discharged merely for being gay?” To be honest, they shouldn’t be, and unless they admit to being gay or are caught in the act, they aren’t. I would suggest, however, that this group shouldn’t have tempted fate by exercising a reckless disregard for the rules. And I’m not even talking about DADT violations. That senior leadership knew that they were engaging in inappropriate behavior (thus leading to the “trap”), says nothing good about either their judgement or their discretion.
The DLI is also a pretty strict and demanding place. All of these linquists were required to hold a top secret security clearance, given the sensitive nature of interpreting voice intercepts and participating in military interrogations. You can lose this clearance for simply having too many traffic tickets or demonstrated financial irresponsibility. Curfew violations and sexual misconduct in a service school environment? Yeah, you can lose a clearance over that.
Quote
February 12, 2010, 8:50 pmSteverino says:
Exactly right, Ilya. And given the fact that most of the campaigns you mention occurred before gays were allowed to serve openly, or for that matter the combat exclusion prohibiting women from serving in front line units was lifted, it ought to be incumbent on you to demonstrate that this “progress” has in fact improved things.
It is beyond silly for you to suggest that the Falklands War tells us anything about gays in the military, as that war occurred in the early ‘80s and the British military wasn’t forced by a court to accept homosexuals until 1999.
As far as the Israelis go, I am forced to wonder what effect court rulings have had on military efficiency. I am, of course, forced to wonder because such questions can not be entertained in our PC culture. As SMSGT Mac notes, “we do not like to think we have that kind of problem.”
So, WE DON’T!
But the fact is that the IDF did not exactly perform in a stellar fashion against Hezbollah in 2006.
I dutifully note it would be completely unacceptable for me to ask why. There are certain questions that can’t be asked.
But I also note that a military that can not question its sacred cows is doomed to failure at some point. We may do fine against primitive tribes for a while, but that’s not really the point.
I tend to lean toward SMSGT Mac’s position. Not because he influenced me, but because we’ve both ridden herd on the 18 and 19 year olds who populate the military. I do not believe that a law school professorship provides similar insight.
I also acknowledge that my view is not the universal position. Sun Tzu’s Nephew is apparently an AF officer with different expeirience’s. Apparently he is unaware of any occasion when an individual’s homosexual behavior rose to the level that it attracted command attention.
If so, he was serving in a different military than I was. Because I helped process out several gays who did time in prison. Two that immediately spring to mind was a department head in a squadron that slipped date rape drugs into young sailors drinks so he could later drill them, and a CO who was engaged in public sexual frolic after hours at the base shopping mall.
The latter was kind of funny, as the Masters-At-Arms had no idea they had arrested their own CO until they removed the ski mask. All the participants in the public sex effort were wearing ski masks.
There was nothing funny about the other individual.
In any case, it is a complete myth that we lose lot’s of good people because of DADT. The military loses s%^$birds. Only a fraction of a percent of the military is processed out for homosexuality in any single year, and most of those who are out themselves. The others needed to be gone.
What is missing from the conversation, if we can call it that, is the fact that intergrating blacks into the military had a long history. There were, in fact, black units for years. Although segregated. And developing evidence that integrated units performed better than segregated units.
Simply decreeing from on high that sexual orientation is the same as skin color just doesn’t carry the same weight.
Quote
February 12, 2010, 9:19 pmThe Strategic MC says:
“The military loses s%^$birds. Only a fraction of a percent of the military is processed out for homosexuality in any single year, and most of those who are out themselves. The others needed to be gone.”
Agreed. What goes unmentioned is that the overwhelming majority of gay servicemembers are known to be gay by their co-workers (yet retain their positions), exercise the good judgement not to engage in inappropriate behavior at the workplace, are competent and hard working, and don’t advocate for special status.
In my experience, those who “out themselves” do so not to avoid “living a lie,” but to unburden themselves of the responsibilities of their military committment.
Quote
February 12, 2010, 10:42 pmPhil Collins says:
Obama says that he wants to repeal “Don’t ask; don’t tell.” If it’s repealed, that might mean that gays will be banned from serving. Before the current policy was implemented, in 1993, gays weren’t allowed, in the military. If the current policy is repealed, the military would use the policy they used right before the current one.
Quote
March 5, 2010, 3:28 pm