The Timing and Impact of Ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
The 17-year-old debate about whether to allow openly gay troops to serve in the military escalated last week with the release of a Pentagon report that found that 70 percent of the military believed that repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" law would have little to no impact on their units. But the report found much stronger opposition within the Marine Corps, the military's elite Special Operations community, and the Army's ground combat forces, suggesting that many of those fighting the nation's wars would be far from comfortable serving alongside an openly gay service member.
The issue is divisive both inside and outside the military. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers on Thursday that it was imperative that Congress act before a federal court unilaterally struck down the ban, plunging the military into a period of uncertainty about what rules to enforce. But on Friday, the four-star heads of the Marines, Army, Navy, and Air Force all warned against trying to repeal the law this year, arguing that doing so would add stress to forces already pushed nearly to the breaking point by long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Marine Commandant James Amos warned that repealing the ban had the "strong potential for disruption at the small-unit level" and could damage the effectiveness, morale and cohesion of his forces.
Let's talk this week about the report and how policymakers should proceed. Should the views of combat personnel fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan be given more weight than the views of the rest of the military, even if combat troops compose only a fraction of the total force? Should the ban be eliminated throughout the armed forces at the same time or in phases, with some branches of the military integrating openly gay personnel before others do? What, if anything, should be done with troops who simply refuse to serve alongside openly gay colleagues? And perhaps most important, are Democrats right to try to eliminate the ban during the current lame-duck session of Congress? Or are Republicans correct in arguing that a change of this magnitude shouldn't be considered during a time of war?
December 6, 2010 2:24 PM
DADT: Enough Already!
By Joseph J. Collins
Professor, National War College
Congress should act to terminate the Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) policy. This is the opinion of the President, the SECDEF, the CJCS and some of the Chiefs. It is also the opinion of 70 percent of the Armed Forces, and this old soldier, who spent a decade in infantry and armored forces before wandering into the wussy world of policy and strategy.
Is anyone surprised that ending DADT is not popular among Marines and soldiers in the combat arms? Those units --- the land where mother is only half a word --- depend on massive doses of testosterone. Anything that appears to interfere with the manufacture and distribution of testosterone and hetero-macho behavior is to be shunned, avoided, or condemned. Of course, this doesn't exclude homosexuals, many of whom fit right in to the bonding and buddy behaviors that characterize the life of combat soldiers. A surprising number of combat arms personnel admitted to knowing one or more homosexuals in their units.
Two facts soften the impact of this change for combat arms soldiers and marines: 1) Most grunts and tred heads...
Congress should act to terminate the Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) policy. This is the opinion of the President, the SECDEF, the CJCS and some of the Chiefs. It is also the opinion of 70 percent of the Armed Forces, and this old soldier, who spent a decade in infantry and armored forces before wandering into the wussy world of policy and strategy.
Is anyone surprised that ending DADT is not popular among Marines and soldiers in the combat arms? Those units --- the land where mother is only half a word --- depend on massive doses of testosterone. Anything that appears to interfere with the manufacture and distribution of testosterone and hetero-macho behavior is to be shunned, avoided, or condemned. Of course, this doesn't exclude homosexuals, many of whom fit right in to the bonding and buddy behaviors that characterize the life of combat soldiers. A surprising number of combat arms personnel admitted to knowing one or more homosexuals in their units.
Two facts soften the impact of this change for combat arms soldiers and marines: 1) Most grunts and tred heads know members of their unit who are gay and indicate that their performance was up to standard and did not take away from their unit. 2) The foreign militaries in Israel, Canada, UK, and Australia have blazed a trail for us and proven --- as the CNO said --- that this transition is less of a hassle than anyone imagined.
Worried about two on-going wars? Fine. Suspend discharges under DADT and allow for a year of training. Any unit going into combat will have had time to come to grips with this. Units already in combat don't have time to worry about this. They are fighting for their lives and are interested most in performance under fire, not how you seek happiness in your off duty time.
The Army combat arms and Marines need to find gay combat veterans to teach these courses. Their mantra should be: I'm gay, and I have the Silver Star; or I'm gay, and I can kick your butt; or, I'm gay, and I just finished my 5th combat deployment." Let's get this change over with and move on. We have wars to win, and this lingering debate has become a distraction.
Read More
December 6, 2010 1:05 PM
Obedience is not an issue.
By Col. W. Patrick Lang
The service chiefs made it very clear that they and the armed forces will obey the law whatever it is. That is not the issue. The question really is whether or not the implications and unintended consequences of such a change are fully understood in an atmosphere of fevered political correctness and incomplete data.
In my opinion the DoD study is a bit of a joke. It is badly defective in execution. 72% of those who were sent the questions neither completed nor returned it. Their absent responses are not in the data base created by the study. This creates a sample that self selected for engagement in the outcome. What does that mean? What about the 72%? Were they indifferent as to this change in the law? I doubt that. It seems more likely to me that they have simply "shut down" over this issue in the belief that the change will take place inevitably and their opinions were sought as mere "window dressing." That is exactly the way that the results of the study are being used selectively to justify the change. For example; one of the statis...
The service chiefs made it very clear that they and the armed forces will obey the law whatever it is. That is not the issue. The question really is whether or not the implications and unintended consequences of such a change are fully understood in an atmosphere of fevered political correctness and incomplete data.
In my opinion the DoD study is a bit of a joke. It is badly defective in execution. 72% of those who were sent the questions neither completed nor returned it. Their absent responses are not in the data base created by the study. This creates a sample that self selected for engagement in the outcome. What does that mean? What about the 72%? Were they indifferent as to this change in the law? I doubt that. It seems more likely to me that they have simply "shut down" over this issue in the belief that the change will take place inevitably and their opinions were sought as mere "window dressing." That is exactly the way that the results of the study are being used selectively to justify the change. For example; one of the statistics being cited by the proponents of the change "demonstrates" that service members who believe that some in their unit are gay are not disturbed by this and that unit performance was not adversely affected by this suspicion or knowledge. What is never said by proponents is that all such gay soldiers were functioning at the time in the circumstances of the present law and therefore under somewhat artificial conditions for them. At the same time other daa in the study indicate that a majority of ground force combat arms soldiers (Army and Marine Corps) believe that service of openly gay soldiers in their units will adversely affect unit performance. An honest approach to this data would require that these two data sets be considered together especially since it is all derived from the 28% sample.
The government is going to change this policy. Everyone knows that to be the case. The proponents of the change should admit that this study is concerned with an artificial universe of opinion created as an information operation. It may or may not represent actual opinion in the armed forces.
Read More
December 6, 2010 8:50 AM
Who Can Be a Brother—and Can’t
By Col. W. Patrick Lang
“Should the views of combat personnel fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan be given more weight than the views of the rest of the military, even if combat troops compose only a fraction of the total force?” - Dreazen
You don’t get it. It is in the infantry, armor, and Special Forces where this is a big issue, not in the rest of the armed forces. It is among those who personally and regularly engage the enemy with their bodies and small arms up close that the issue arises as to who is or can be a “brother.” General Amos expressed this very clearly in his quotation from a letter from an infantry lieutenant. Read it.
For civilians, this is a social justice issue. For the grunts, this is a survival issue.
December 6, 2010 8:48 AM
Soldiers Follow Orders
By Col. Robert Killebrew
(U.S. Army, ret.), Consultant
Hope you don't mind me coming back like this -- in a hurry, and just want to make a few points.
First, the armed services follow orders. It's certainly OK for the service chiefs to voice their opinions, and I think buried in their comments is a plea that we drop the ban in a measured way. But if Congress ends the law, they'll comply. And if a straight soldier refuses to fight alongside a gay one, then he should be punished in whatever way is appropriate under the UCMJ. The services don't get to debate about their makeup--if they were, they'd still be an all-white-male organization.
I don't get the "breaking point" argument; I'm obviously retired now and not in a unit preparing for deployment, but my experience tells me that troops in combat, or getting ready to go to combat, really have other things to think about.
Whether the Dems try to cram this bill through Congress in the lame-duck session obviously has little to do with the merits of the argument, but rather the political wisdom of trying to force a bill through before their authority dimini...
Hope you don't mind me coming back like this -- in a hurry, and just want to make a few points.
First, the armed services follow orders. It's certainly OK for the service chiefs to voice their opinions, and I think buried in their comments is a plea that we drop the ban in a measured way. But if Congress ends the law, they'll comply. And if a straight soldier refuses to fight alongside a gay one, then he should be punished in whatever way is appropriate under the UCMJ. The services don't get to debate about their makeup--if they were, they'd still be an all-white-male organization.
I don't get the "breaking point" argument; I'm obviously retired now and not in a unit preparing for deployment, but my experience tells me that troops in combat, or getting ready to go to combat, really have other things to think about.
Whether the Dems try to cram this bill through Congress in the lame-duck session obviously has little to do with the merits of the argument, but rather the political wisdom of trying to force a bill through before their authority diminishes. I think not. I'm for repeal of the law, but I also agree with Bob Dole that there has to be some kind of congressional consensus on major legislation, which this has become. Unfortunately, this needed piece of legislation, the real effect of which is fairly minor, is going to become just another chance for the Republicans to jam up the machinery of government to deny the President any kind of legislative victory.
Read More