Now that Congress has decided to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the armed forces, the military faces the real challenge: implementation.
The new policy will be put in place when the president, the secretary of defense, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) have all certified that it can be done in such a way as to minimize any adverse impact on military effectiveness. On the one hand, President Obama would like to see the revised law put into action as soon as possible, and Admiral Mullen, chairman of the JCS, has been pushing for repeal for some time (indeed, he started before consulting with the service chiefs).
Advertisement
On the other, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has expressed concern about the policy’s impact on military readiness and effectiveness, and he has indicated that it could be some time before he certifies the change. However, Secretary Gates has also indicated that he is leaving soon, and President Obama may very well replace him with someone who thinks differently. And this is the great danger: that the repeal will be expedited for political reasons no matter the impact on the military.
The Pentagon report on the issue acknowledges that lifting the ban will seriously and adversely affect the health and effectiveness of the U.S. military. To begin with, lifting the ban will lead to increased administrative nightmares driven by outside political groups with goals that transcend national security.
It is true that the Pentagon has already addressed some of the more basic concerns voiced by opponents of lifting the ban: Fraternization rules, which currently prohibit senior-subordinate relations between men and women, will apply to homosexual relations as well; public displays of affection while in uniform are not permitted; no special arrangement will be made for billeting. (This last one is likely to cause the greatest problems for commanders.)
The fact is that homosexuals have always served honorably in the military, and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was designed to help them. As a result of this policy, homosexuals who are willing to subordinate their sexual orientation to their duty have been allowed for the most part to serve without interference.
This will change once the repeal is put in place, as outside groups with a broader homosexual agenda are thrown into the mix. The irony is that this agenda will be pursued at the expense of currently serving homosexuals, who are more concerned about serving their country than validating a homosexual “lifestyle.”
The Pentagon report claims that the key to “overcoming resistance” is “training and education.” As it is, military members are subjected to politically correct “sensitivity training” on a variety of issues, e.g., sexual harassment and “diversity.” Once homosexuals become a favored group, things will only get worse. The Marines and the Army will receive sensitivity training in spades because, as the report shows, those services, the mission of which is to conduct close ground combat, are the most “resistant” of all. Indeed, the report reveals that 45 percent of Army troops and nearly 60 percent of Marines (67 percent of those in Marine combat arms: infantry, artillery, and armor) who have been in combat zones say that repeal would have a negative impact on unit effectiveness.
Perhaps the best we can hope for is that implementation will be “staggered,” starting with the support establishments (where unit cohesion is less important) and leaving combat units for last. This would be in line with the practice of other countries that permit military service by open homosexuals.
Such an approach is also in keeping with the “functional imperative” of the U.S. military — fighting and winning the nation’s wars. The fact is that advocates of repeal never identified a single benefit of repealing the ban when it comes to recruiting, retention, unit effectiveness, and readiness of the force. Staggering implementation is a way to minimize the adverse consequences of Congress’s action.
I'm a Captain in the US Army. Currently, I'm a Cavalry Troop Commander. The repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" is going to cause issues. The Soldiers under my command are predominantly white, southern, and pretty conservative. I think I can speak for most Soldiers in combat arms when I say that this ban will cause problems. Despite what the public believes, we in the combat arms branch are not a very open group and this is going to require a total culture shift that we're not yet ready for. I'm training my Soldiers for our next combat deployment in February. Will I have to cancel a rifle range now to fit some sensitivity training into our schedule?
Also, the Pentagon study seems a little flawed to me. I did an informal poll amongst my Soldiers about the study. Out of 92 Soldiers, not a single one was part of the polling. It appears this study was posted online and was voluntary. A Soldier is not going to participate in anything voluntary. The people who supplied most of the answers accepting homosexuality were the people who wanted to be heard or who had a stake in this issue. The Pentagon could get the survey completed by 100% of the force in a day if needed. If commanders are told that their Soldiers will complete a survey, then those Soldiers will complete a survey. Instead we're left with some groundbreaking Pentagon study that I, a combat arms Soldier, didn't know about until it was published. Hardly representative.
The author hit upon the points that I've commented on the last several days. The DOD is a huge bureaucracy. And federal bureaucracies tend to have agendas seperate from their original mission. Outside lobbyists, namely gay activist groups will apply more and more pressure on the DOD as time goes by. Senstivity training is the least of thier worries.
To begin with, there is the UCMJ. The UCMJ is essientially the constituion for military members. To civilians it is autocratic, oppressive, and unfair. Military members are subject to a whole host of prohibitions that most civilians would never tolerate. The underlying reasons for this is to establish a code of conduct and behavior that leads to unit cohesion, combat efficiency, and discipline. A military member can be court martialed for adultery, failure to report (AWOL), and receive non-judicial punishment for "conduct unbecoming". There is also prohibitions against sodomy. If military members are caught in the act in a combat zone they could be court martialed (same holds true for fornincation). If the repeal of DADT is to mean anything, I would surmise that the UCMJ will be rewritten and the sodomy laws removed. However, that then brings up other problems. If the law are removed, what happens to the service members who must live in the same barracks as openly gays soldiers? Civilians will respond that they will just have to "get over it". Easier said than done. As the author pointed out, most front line combat soldiers are southern, religious and conservative. They may just decide to not re-enlist if they believe thier unit or service is an immoral one.
Some people have opined that this may just be a problem with support troops (REMF is the more unchairitable term). That is, the front line combat soldiers can remain straight, while the rear support troops will have gays in thier ranks. Again, this creates a problem of division amongst our service people. And in the Marines, every Marine is a rifleman. Also, does thier mean that the USAF will go gay? Or that gays will fill stateside or non-deployable support billets? This kiind of distinction will only corrode our military. Besides, will the DOD now force every service member to say whether he or she is gay or straight? Finally, in services like the Army and Marine Corps, officer promotions are tied to combat commands. Will openly gay officers be allowed to lead straight troops? How will these mainly conservaitve, religious soldiers react to a CO who is openly gay and perhaps married to another man? And if gays officers do not fill combat commands, will the DOD be forced to fill quotas for them?
There have been negative consequences to don't ask, don't tell as qualified soldiers have been forced out of the military because of their sexual orientation. We need the best to serve, not just straight soldiers. Many of those who have been forced out have had skills desperately needed by the armed services.
Anony Captain,
I am in the army too. I'm at Fort Jackson. I'm a nurse corps officer. I tend to agree and validate all you say. I served in the 1st Cav 3rd Brigade. The demographic slice of Americans on whom we rely overwhelmingly to do the hard grunt work of combat arms: infantry, arty in the army and USMC-- those are folks who will see this as one more big elitist scheme shoved down onto them the "unwashed, un-enlightened" of our nation.
Anony Captain you are correct. No relliable polling data can be deduced from a volunteer survey. That makes it non-random if what you allege is factual. This is like the poll of telephone owners in 1936. As it turns out if you owned a phone you were likely to vote R. Ditto the poll of readers of the Literary Digest. Not a representative cross sectional sample. If this was voluntary the data and conclusions drawn are worthless.
You know and I know that this will require all commanders to consult JAG as to just how "openly" anyone can serve. What is the accepted by reg definition of "openly" gay anyway? Rainbow bumper stickers? Being seen entering or leaving a leather bar? Marching in a pride rally?
Will chaplains have to preach from a redacted Bible now?
Will married gays get BAH to live on post in the family housing?
Let's accept the fact that gays are smarter than most straights. Let's allow and encourage gay physicians to join the medical corps, gay therapist the specialty corps and gay lawyers the JAG corps.
But in the fish bowl of a 16 man barracks bunk bay? Prolonged field training exercises with zero privacy?
Confine the gays to the MOS branches where the more "enlightened" troops are. And try to recruit more "enlightened" troops to the low brow MOS fields.
It's amazing the generation gap on this issue. Not to call Owens a geezer, but his concerns are more typical of people in retirement age than people in my generation born in the 1980s and after. Young people just don't have an issue with gays, while geezers obviously do. I guess that's how they were raised, just as old people resisted racial integration.
The military is a young force, so no surprise that 92% of military who have served with gay people have no issue, including 84% of Marines.
I'm not sure if geezers are funny or sad, or both, but they are certainly clueless about how young people feel about homosexuality.
I sincerely doubt there will be any problems, despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the supporters of the ban on Gay Americans in the military. All of our allies have successfully and uneventfully integrated Lesbians and Gay men into their militaries without problems. And most American military personnel already say they serve or have served with Gay soldiers without any problems.
I think it's also important to note that when young men age 18-25 register for Selective Service, they are not asked about their sexual orientation. And I suspect that if the United States ever finds itself in a major military conflict that requires reinstatement of the draft, the issue of Gays in the military is going to be the LEAST of our worries.
For what it's worth, I really don't care if any soldier, Gay OR Straight, is disciplined or booted out of the military because of inappropriate conduct when on-duty.
That's not what's at issue here. A qualified soldier should not be at risk for losing his career simply because of who he's dating on his own time. Under DADT, if Sgt. Mike is dating another man off-base, and his commanding officer is informed of this and asks him about it, Sgt. Mike can either lie or tell the truth. Either way he is jeopardizing his military career.
Hold all soldiers to the same standards of professional behavior, regardless of their sexual orientation, and the military will be able to do its job just fine.
In a combat zone (I've been deployed to Southwest Asia three times), a soldier is subject to UCMJ and an abrupt end to an honorable military career for drinking a prohibited alcholic beverage, but now can openly engage in a homosexual relationship. What have we become?
I'm a retired Marine gunny. I believe I have some standing to comment on this issue. The fact is, troops, particularly in ground combat outfits, are never going to accept a homosexual platoon sergeant, or a gay company 1stSgt, or a gay battalion commander, etc. They will do their duty and faithfully execute lawful orders, as all Marines have always done, but acceptance? Never.
Agreed that this is going to cause many problems. I am a retired USAF officer--it only took 5 minutes for myself and some of my peers to come up with several logistical minefields concerned with this issue--without even mentioning "right and wrong". What happens when someone enlists with a certificate of homosexual marriage granted from one of the states that is allowing it? Does this couple get base housing? Does the "spouse" get medical care and an ID card? Commissary priveleges? On and on and on. Squadron functions and Christmas parties are sure to be more interesting--same sex married couples dancing in the O'Club? I don't see how any of this can be avoided--advocates of this position can say that these issues are secondary, and that the military needs to work all this out to end the "discrimination" that's been going on for these many years. They have no idea what they're talking about--this is nothing less than a total cultural realignment of the US military, and not for the better. Bottom line here is that the US military is now forced to condone homosexuality--something that is both unnatural and immoral, and has been judged so throughout all of human history. Now that DOD has condoned this behavior, all aspects of military life will be changed.
@NRO: thanks for your near silence during the DADT debate. We sure could have used more thoughtful and informative articles like this BEFORE the new law was passed.
@spenser: yeah, I'm sure the whole gays-in-the-military thing is working well for such mighty armies as those in France and Belgium.
Look, I've been commenting everywhere I could that the DADT repeal is only the beginning for homosexual activists. This has never been about liberty, but about imposing a far-reaching agenda on everyone else. (@libertarians like Allahpundit at Hot Air: thanks for being the "useful idiots" in this debate.)
You know, it may even turn out that all of the changes are tolerable. But to get to this point, we've had to decide that we prefer our military look a certain way than have it fight with optimal efficiency. And to some extent that requires us to feel as though the end of history has arrived, and no other fighting force in the world will ever overtake us.
Call me a pessimist, but I'm skeptical. And if the Chinese or Russians come knocking, offending people suddenly becomes less of a concern.
I have yet to read anywhere of any benefit to anyone from this change (besides lawyers and politicians). All of the negative outcomes I have read about seem very plausible and likely.
I have not seen any sign of a large or small group of people that have been waiting for such change in order to join the military and serve our country.
I really can not understand how anyone can see this change as something to celebrate.
Spenser,
As anyone knows who has worked with our "allies", none of their combat units is close to comparable to ours, with the exception of a few Brit, Aussie, and Canadian regiments. This isn't a direct result of openly gay service, but is a result of the same social engineering silliness that is more important to them than fighting skills and readiness.
Its a volunteer military. We will know by 2012 if "implementation" will work. Either recruiting and retention affected or it isn't. I haven't got a clear picture at present who will rewrite the UCMJ, the Justice Dept. or congress. Constitution states congress shall make the laws governing land and naval forces. Someone that knows may answer question for me in this comments section. Yes, liberal party about over when 112th congress convenes next month. I don't see new congress rushing to do this, but who knows? Someone said this is just beginning. If it is a disaster we're going to need to make sure credit goes where it is due. If it goes smoothly, well then Lady Gaga, our new military expert will have been vindicated.
"There have been negative consequences to don't ask, don't tell as qualified soldiers have been forced out of the military because of their sexual orientation."
J Kenninger,
The Pentagon released a report this week that stated that 85% of gay who were discharged from the service early did so on thier own accord. That is, the overwhelming majority were not "outed" and forced to resign. Your talking point has no merit.
Alex 0_0 said: "Young people just don't have an issue with gays, while geezers obviously do. I guess that's how they were raised, just as old people resisted racial integration."
What a complete asinine statement. Do you speak for all young people in America?
The problem with homosexuality has nothing to do with the age of people opposed to the behavior. I'm in my 30's (prior Navy guy); I see the acceptance of the gay lifestyle into our armed forces, as further proof of the degradation of our morality and culture.
The issue many of us "geezers" have with homosexuality is a religious one. Were I a minority, I would be highly offended by the racial comparison you are attempting, when comparing the struggle to end slavery with the practices of the LGBT community.
One has nothing to do with the other.
A better comparison would be polygamy and homosexuality. If we accept gays marrying and getting special treatment for their choice, why not accept multiple marriages? How about marriages between kids and adults? What about pets? This is a moral issue, not a racial one.
And if it really is true that the youth don't have a problem with homosexuality, then it is because we have failed this generation by not teaching them the Christian morality of our founding.
"There have been negative consequences to don't ask, don't tell as qualified soldiers have been forced out of the military because of their sexual orientation. We need the best to serve, not just straight soldiers. Many of those who have been forced out have had skills desperately needed by the armed services."
Yes, but there have also been negative consequences for people kicked out of the service for not meeting arbitrary weight standards or for smoking pot, which most people in the civilian world don't have an issue with. And they may have been really good at their jobs as well. What you fail to acknolwedge is that some types of behavior can cause problems. Note I didn't say homosexuals cause problems. Behavior can cause problems.
This is not the simple, benign issue you are trying to make it out to be.
I speak from the polls: over 90% of people under 30 support repeal of DADT, as do 77% of Americans in general, and 70% of active-duty personnel. The same generation gap also exists for same-sex marriage, which people under 30 overwhelmingly support.
Your religious objections are your right, but are completely irrelevant to the issue. The military is not a Baptist church. And I seriously doubt you are a day under 65 or something.
Unless I missed it, I'm surprised no senator offered an amendment to DADT repeal that would have allowed Army and USMC combat units to continue under current policy. Both the services exclude females from assignment to direct combat billets, ostensibly for the same reason they wanted to continue keeping out homosexuals. Such an exemption would be workable and would have served as a good middle ground, opening up over 90 percent of military occupational specialties to gays. To be honest, as a former tanker, I can tell you that many support unit jobs are not unlike jobs in the private sector and could accomodate gays with few problems. But let's not meddle with the warrior units at the tip of the spear.
