Finally, albeit reluctantly, top U.S. military leaders are ready to acknowledge that we can all be grownups about sexual preference. Maybe.
In his State of the Union speech last week, President Obama called for the end of the policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell”, or what I like to call “let’s pretend”. And now it appears the military has responded rapidly, despite their lack of visible response during the speech.
A senior Pentagon official told CNN the military leaders are expected to support the president, but also will tell him to what extent they think allowing gays to openly serve will hurt the morale and readiness of the force.
“All they want is a little bit of time” to come up with ideas on how to implement a change in the policy, if it’s approved by Congress, the official said of the Joint Chiefs.
It’s that bit about “if it’s approved by Congress” that concerns me now. Democrats should be fully on board with this change, and they certainly should have the votes. But that was true of other issues on the table. I suggest we may want to hold off celebrating this proposed change until it becomes official.
#1 by Richard Warnick on February 2, 2010 - 8:55 am
Well, it’s mighty nice to hear that military leaders “are expected to support” the Commander-in-Chief. Oh, wait, that’s their job.
#2 by shane on February 2, 2010 - 9:04 am
I am glad I didn’t say it first Richard.
If it had been a repub president telling the military to torture kittens i am sure the news would already be full of talking heads asking why it was taking so long to do what they are told to do. Well, Faux “news” would be full of that anyway.
I assume the end of “let’s pretend” will destroy our military, which means we don’t have to blame any future problems there on two unending and poorly executed wars with multiple deployments, no strategy, and no defined goal. Thank the goddess Bush is off the hook for that now too. Since the budget is now Obama’s problem, and there is no move to investigate anyone for starting the war, and we all know 9/11 was Bill’s fault, all that really leaves us with is figuring out a way that Hilary shot Dicks lawyer friend in the face…
#3 by shane on February 2, 2010 - 9:06 am
Ooops, eft out an “l” there in someones name, didn’t I?
#4 by cav on February 2, 2010 - 9:19 am
I don’t get to ask?
Or…you don’t have to tell?
I just hope I’m not counting on one of ‘them’ to occupy my foxhole.
#5 by Richard Warnick on February 2, 2010 - 9:32 am
Sometimes DADT got truly bizarre. There was a medic in Iraq who was “outed” by someone else, and dutifully went to his unit commander to confess to being gay. According to the Army regulations, the commander’s responsibility at that point was to investigate. The commander then informed the medic of the surprising results of the investigation: “You’re not gay.” There was no way they were going to lose their medic in the middle of a combat deployment.
Joseph Heller couldn’t have said it better.
#6 by Richard Warnick on February 2, 2010 - 10:12 am
This just in:
I guess our military establishment has changed greatly over the years. I remember an instructive conversation I had with a major when I was a young lieutenant. He told me to do something, and out of sheer dumbness I asked him why. The answer: “Because I said so, lieutenant.”
Now the Commander-in-Chief gives an order, and they want to study it?
#7 by Richard Warnick on February 2, 2010 - 10:40 am
Clearly this is going to be the topic du jour.
Glenn Greenwald thoroughly clobbers Brookings war cheerleader (and chickenhawk first class) Michael O’Hanlon and then off-handedly flattens Utah’s own…
#8 by Weer'd Beard on February 2, 2010 - 11:11 am
Why would congress need to be involved? DADT was enacted by Clinton as an Executive Order, Obama could do the same thing to end it.
I think Barry wants it to fail, because Like his Clone W, he hates the Gays.
I’ll be cheering and giving props, if Barry DOES do the right thing, but I have my doubts.
#9 by cav on February 2, 2010 - 12:20 pm
Gay or straight, so many of these folks are still being subject to the profit-hogging military in all of its guises.
Gay or straight, they’ll still be returning from these immoral theaters w / PTSD, sick stories they will likely keep bottled up, Depleted Uranium in their lungs, missing limbs, and of course – dead. Some of them will even take it out on their spouses, others or even themselves. All for maintaining the bureaucracy.
Gay or straight, those who are in these staged ‘big-lie’ profit enterprises, have, like the rest of us been suckered.
But, ours is not to reason why…our ‘bettors’, like Cheney and Boenher, know best how our energies ought to be utilized.
#10 by cav on February 2, 2010 - 12:29 pm
Of course the above rant will be equally meaningful if you were to substitued ‘Dem or repub’ at the beginning of the top three para.
#11 by Kevin Owens on February 2, 2010 - 3:04 pm
This question will surely demonstrate my naivete, but isn’t it a problem to have homosexuals and heterosexuals sharing the same barracks? Undressing together? I mean, the military doesn’t bunk men and women together for that reason, right?
#12 by Richard Warnick on February 2, 2010 - 3:15 pm
Kevin–
Gay and straight soldiers share the same barracks already, that’s part of the hypocrisy. With rare exceptions it’s not the World War II barracks you’re thinking of, a whole platoon sharing one bunk room and one bathroom. More like a college dorm. We’ve had an all-volunteer Army since 1973.
#13 by Kevin Owens on February 2, 2010 - 3:23 pm
So, if homosexual behavior is allowed to be practiced openly, then the barracks situation would have to change, right? Because then it would be legal to make sexual advances on another soldier of the same sex?
How would the military handle this? I don’t think they could set up a “lesbian” dorm, because of the separate-but-equal problem.
#14 by Richard Warnick on February 2, 2010 - 3:41 pm
Kevin–
Nobody is going to be making sexual advances “openly,” as you say. There is such a thing as good order and discipline. It’s strictly enforced. In fact, on foreign deployments even married couples can be brought up on charges for having sex (off duty, in private).
Homosexual conduct (as opposed to sexual orientation) is a punishable offense under Army Regulation 600–20 (PDF).
#15 by cav on February 2, 2010 - 4:27 pm
See the locker rooms of both superbowl teams.
#16 by James Farmer on February 2, 2010 - 4:45 pm
Kevin:
Are you just stirring the pot or really as clueless as your observations suggest?
#17 by Kevin Owens on February 2, 2010 - 8:25 pm
James, I’m being sincere. I assume the reason homosexuals aren’t allowed to be open in the military is the same reason we separate men from women in the showers: to avoid sexual distraction and to minimize sexual harassment.
If the policy were based on homophobia alone, it wouldn’t be “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, it would be “Don’t Be Gay.” I think Mr. Clinton’s policy was a pretty good compromise because it allows homosexuals to serve as long as they keep it to themselves, thus everybody wins.
Does nobody think it would be a problem for heterosexuals and open homosexuals to be sharing close quarters? If so, do you think the problem could be mitigated?
#18 by Larry Bergan on February 2, 2010 - 10:09 pm
This wouldn’t be happening now because they need more soldiers, would it?
#19 by Becky Stauffer on February 3, 2010 - 6:00 am
Kevin,
When you, Kevin, find out that someone you know is gay, how does it affect your interaction with that person? Does it automatically mean they start making sexual advances to you? Or do you fear they might? Do you believe being gay makes a person a sexual predator?
Or do you realize that, like the rest of us, they are looking for relationships with reciprocal feelings and attraction?
And how does knowing vs not knowing one’s sexual preference change them or you or your mutual interaction?
#20 by Uncle Rico on February 3, 2010 - 7:11 am
Richard already answered this question: they already are! And that doesn’t/won’t change simply because we all close our eyes and pretend it’s not the case.
#21 by Weer'd Beard on February 3, 2010 - 7:44 am
Yep, Kevin your comments are foolish. Right now we have Men and women serving together (tho not bunking together…tho we do have gays bunking with straight soldiers now, talk to any soldier and they know of gays in their unit, and of all that I’ve talked to nobody cared)
as for sexual advances or behavior, it’s not permitted. It does happen. A friend of mine told me about bedding a female sailor in his Navy days. He told the story with a bit of shame, as he knew if he was caught he’d be discharged from the Navy (I believe dishonorably).
So any problems you see are simply solved through administration.
Hell I don’t even see a problem with women being fully integrated so long as they meet the physical requirements.
The only criteria we should have for military members are “Are they a good soldier? Y/N?” Race, age, sex, sexual orientation, martial status, accent, education, social background, religion, ect ect, should not be a factor in the modern military.
#22 by Richard Warnick on February 3, 2010 - 9:44 am
Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen really spoke out for justice yesterday. And Senator McCain lost his last shred of integrity by flip-flopping.
Like Admiral Mullen, I’m willing to bet that every officer knows of colleagues and friends forced out of the military because of their sexual orientation. It’s wrong, and honor demands we fix this.
#23 by Richard Warnick on February 3, 2010 - 12:32 pm
BREAKING: Hatch: I’m Open To Repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
#24 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on February 3, 2010 - 12:51 pm
Honestly, I think Kevin has a good point. We separate male-female barracks for a reason, and that reason has to be addressed in this context.
The fact that we already have homo- and heterosexual servicemen and women sharing quarters is a product of “let’s pretend”–if we stop ignoring that they’re serving together, we might ask the same questions Kevin is. Pretending that there are no gay people in the military, though idiotic, solves a lot of potential problems.
Once we recognize and admit that they are there, is there any impact? From what I’ve read, it seems that there isn’t all that much. Many servicemen and women already know homosexuals in their units, and it doesn’t bother them, by and large. I guess they learn to cope. We’re all adults, right?
But I wonder if there is a legitimate concern. You can bet there are some servicemen and women who wouldn’t mind changing in front of each other, sharing showers, and so on with the opposite sex, but do we let that affect policy such that all servicemen and women must do so? The potential exists for problems to arise, even though those problems will primarily exist in cases of misconduct, e.g. homosexual servicemen and women coming on to same-sex members of their unit, or heterosexual servicemen and women reacting cruelly to the mere knowledge that another serviceman or woman is homosexual.
Are these problems we should take into account? Or should we simply leave it up to the soldiers to be mature? Can the line be removed entirely, such that women and men share quarters, showers, etc.? If not, why not?
As with most issues, this one can’t be simplified into right or wrong. We know what must be done, but how should it be done, and what can be done to mitigate the problems that may arise? When the policy changes, it shouldn’t be merely through repeal. Human behavior has to be taken into account as well, and a new policy devised.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#25 by Richard Warnick on February 3, 2010 - 1:12 pm
Dwight–
Last night, Rachel Maddow interviewed Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach (video link). He pointed out that 25 nations allied with the U.S. have long ago successfully coped with gays in the ranks. All it would take is a few phone calls, we could get some good advice. There is no need for any year-long study, that’s ridiculous.
For people in the military, this is totally an issue of right and wrong. Military culture emphasizes truth-telling, and a policy that forces officers and enlisted service members to lie is inconsistent with both personal and institutional honor, as Admiral Mullen eloquently said yesterday.
#26 by Weer'd Beard on February 3, 2010 - 1:26 pm
Dwight, also there are no public facilities segregated by sexual orientation. Has there been a problem with you going to an unsegregated bathroom? Gym Shower? When I went to college and summer camp before that I was never quizzed in my orientation to protect me from having a gay roommate.
Your fear is little more than the fear of the dark. Grow up.
#27 by shane on February 3, 2010 - 2:03 pm
I have to admit, I love watching straight men and women react oddly around people who are gay, and of their gender. It says to me that they think that the person in question will make sexual advances that are not accepted.
It is basically the same sex version of the guy who doesn’t know that he is offending the women he is hitting on, that he has gone too far, and that what he is doing isn’t flirting but sexual harassment. The important difference is that it is almost always in the mind of the person who is uncomfortable. It is a wonderful table turning.
Ask yourself this Kevin: If you start to flirt with a woman and find out that she is gay, do you keep flirting with her? I mean it isn’t personal, she is just not going to be interested! Do you really think that gay men are going to hit on you when they know you are straight? Seriously?
I think one of the reasons homophobia seems to be stronger in men, is men all know the one sexist jerk who treats women like meat. And the idea that some guy who thinks of potential sexual partner that way might be looking at you instead of some female “other” is pretty damn upsetting.
In personal experience, gay men tend to be the nice guys though. Maybe they are just more evolved than sexist pricks.
#28 by Kevin Owens on February 3, 2010 - 3:19 pm
Becky, my personal experience is too limited to adequately answer your question. In the few cases where I did find out someone was gay, it didn’t change my opinion of him.
Shane, I was just thinking about the scenario you mentioned. It is a fear of mine. Once, a really creepy guy came up and put his arm around me, in a weird way, and it made me upset and uncomfortable. Nobody should have to put up with stuff like that.
Anyway, regarding the original topic, it seems that those on here who actually have experience in the military don’t seem to think it will be a big deal to let people express their sexual preference openly. If it really doesn’t have an impact then it’s nothing to worry about.
#29 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on February 4, 2010 - 8:04 am
Richard–
As I said, I’ve read a bit and I haven’t found any problems with gays in the military. It seems wise to ask those nations which have successfully implemented openness policies for advice. I certainly agree that a year-long study is ridiculous.
As for this issue being one of right and wrong, my point was that it can’t be simplified into merely right and wrong. The fact that openness has been a challenge before is evidence enough of this. Whether it’s an issue of right and wrong to let gays openly serve (and I think it is), decisions of this type have to be made in the context of predictable results. Contrary to the studies, this will have an effect on some of our servicemen (the homophobes, if nothing else), and that has to be taken into account, and provisions made to improve a successful implementation. That’s all I was trying to say. I personally am in favor of repealing DADT.
I mean, let’s face it, as long as soldiers like the one who killed Schindler are around, you can’t speak for all of the soldiers. To many of them, this is absolutely a matter of right and wrong; it’s wrong to let gay people serve in the military, and right to seek them out and kick them out.
Weer’d Beard–
Let’s not make this personal. I don’t have a problem with this issue (sometime I’ll have to tell you about my date with 4 straight girls and a gay guy). I was just bringing up the reality that there are some people who won’t be mature enough to cope. We need to be aware of this fact.
Shane–
Do you really think that straight men are going to hit on straight women when they know they’re not interested? Seriously? Hey, there’s always hope for the desperate.
Personally, I’ve been hit on by two gay men before, and slapped in the butt by a third. In one instance, I was on a date with 4 straight girls and a gay guy. He complemented my looks and pulled my face uncomfortably close to his at one point, and I surprised him by responding in kind a few minutes later. After that, he was a little more shy, but he still gave me sweet smiles and winks for the rest of the night.
In the second case, my friend provoked me to stimulate him verbally over AIM, but I told him I didn’t appreciate his advances. I had to tell him this on two separate occasions before he left it alone.
In the last case, well–he slapped every guy’s butt.
Of straight guys I know, I’ve never seen that kind of forwardness and insensitivity to a girl’s physical and psychological comfort-zones. Maybe they are just more evolved than. . .well, you finish that sentence. Generalizations are a pit trap, and I don’t want to go there.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#30 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on February 4, 2010 - 8:12 am
Kevin–
One of the first steps in analyzing this problem, I think, is recognizing that admitting one’s sexual preference doesn’t necessarily equate to making sexual advances. Such advances are already against the rules in the military, whether homosexual or heterosexual. A big part of the problem is that heterosexuals are largely insisting that preference matters, when it should really be a non-issue. Sexual advances and sexual behavior will always be wrong in the military context, but telling people that they have to work extra hard to not reveal personal qualities or else get kicked out of the military is just as wrong if not worse. Unlike individual violations of sexual policy, which affects morale in only a small group and may be committed by homosexuals or heterosexuals, DADT is a policy that affects thousands (~9500 since 1993), effectively telling them that being a gay person invalidates your desire to serve your country, and affecting morale for them and all of their unit members concurrently.
#31 by Richard Warnick on February 4, 2010 - 9:28 am
Dwight–
I appreciate that you’re trying to grapple with this issue honestly. If you know anybody in the military, ask them how much their personal preferences get taken into account by commanders making decisions.
I’m not saying there’s no politics in the armed forces, but it does work differently than in the civilian world. This is why the Army was able to implement racial integration before the rest of America. It’s not majority rule, and nobody worries about buy-in on the part of people with personal beliefs at odds with the policy.
#32 by Kevin Owens on February 4, 2010 - 9:54 am
That’s true, but just because they’re against the rules doesn’t mean they won’t happen. If you had men and women shower together routinely, you would get some sexual misconduct even if it were against the rules.
On the plus side, at least repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell will make conscription more equitable. It’s not fair that people have been able to opt out of mandatory duty just because they had unusual sexual preferences.
#33 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on February 4, 2010 - 10:51 am
Kevin–
That’s a point I can agree with. There is a conflict of interests in having shared showering quarters between individuals who are sexually attracted to one another, or even if only one is sexually attracted to the other.
This is the point in the discussion where we say, “How can we mitigate this potential problem?” rather than “Potential problem? Run away, run away!” I always hate it when people point out a problem and, rather than finding a workaround, simply give up. I don’t assume that’s what you’re doing, by the way. I’m making an observation about human behavior.
Richard–
Point taken. But I have to point out that a commander can’t order his soldiers to have a good attitude. He can watch them outwardly, but what boils under the surface is out of reach.
I suppose what makes most sense to me is to implement procedures that allow heterosexual soldiers to avoid uncomfortable situations with known homosexuals–primarily in the area of showering. I’m no military person, but it seems like we must have such procedures to assist women and men from being in compromising situations with each other already. Why can’t we extend the same procedures to this situation? It seems like it could be made a very small thing, with very small application.
And on the matter of bias, which I see underpinning this whole discussion: is it reasonable to say that a woman hates men because she doesn’t want to shower in their presence? A male who feels uncomfortable showering with a homosexual male doesn’t necessarily hate them. Homophobes and the like will, of course, feel uncomfortable as well, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who feels uncomfortable is a homophobe. There’s just a sexual element injected into the activity that doesn’t belong in a sexually neutral environment.
Dwight Sheldon Adams