Tuesday, May 5, 2009

From The New York Times;

In the Barracks, Out of the Closet

By The Editors
military(Photo: Logan Mock-Bunting/Getty Images)

President Obama has said he will abolish the 16-year-old “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which allows gays and lesbians to serve in the military only if they do not disclose their sexual orientation. Nationwide, polls show that a majority of Americans support lifting the ban on openly gay members of the military. But support in the military’s ranks and among retired officers is mixed. While several prominent retired generals and admirals have urged a repeal, others have said that allowing openly gay people to join the service would hurt recruiting and retention.

How would lifting the ban affect the military ranks? And, as the first step, if the president acts to change the policy, should it be by executive order or should it be by act of Congress?

We Need an Executive Order

Aaron Belkin

Aaron Belkin is an associate professor of political science at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and director of the university’s Palm Center, which focuses on sexuality and the military.

Research shows that getting rid of “don’t ask, don’t tell” need not be complicated.

Among the more than 20 nations that allow open gay service, each pursued its own path to implement the change. Even though the strategies varied, no foreign military has reported overall problems.

Successful transition requires only two things: First, leaders must send clear signals of support for the new policy. Second, military regulations must treat all people the same by holding all service members to a single standard that does not mention sexual orientation.

But what about the politics? While three quarters of the public, including a majority of Republicans, support open gay service, there is a stalemate in Congress, where conservatives from both parties block change.

The president should simply order the military to cease making findings about the troops’ sexual orientation.

A forthcoming study by experts in military law, sponsored by the Palm Center, shows that President Obama can circumvent the mess by signing an executive order commanding the military to suspend discharges for homosexuality. The law requires that the military discharge service members found to be gay. But nothing requires the military to reach such findings. The president should simply order the military to cease making findings about the troops’ sexual orientation.

Some worry that a future president could reverse such an order. But once people see gays serving openly and legally without problems, it will be politically impossible to go back to the way it was. For now, the best course of action is to proceed via executive order, not legislation.

An Act of Congress Is More Binding

Aubrey Sarvis

Aubrey Sarvis is the executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a nonprofit policy and legal organization working to end “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

In 1993, Congress declared that it was O.K. to fire members of the armed forces because they’re gay.

But times have changed: a majority of the American people want this discriminatory law gone, and a solid majority of the younger generation of service members who served in Iraq and Afghanistan don’t see the big deal with serving with gay people.

If an executive order were issued, the next president could come along and wipe it away.

Congress, and only Congress, can repeal the law, and it should do so cleanly. This is no time to entertain legal theories, interim or temporary solutions — like President Obama’s issuing an executive order under his national security umbrella.

If an executive order were issued, not only would there be an unnecessary and distracting showdown with the legislative branch, the next president could come along and wipe it away. Moreover, repeal by an act of Congress, coupled with a non-discrimination policy for the military, is the only sure-fire way to protect against future employment discrimination in the ranks based on sexual orientation.

But some Congressional supporters of repeal — incorrectly thinking that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is still the hot potato it was the 1990s — are sitting on the sidelines. They haven’t heard from the president lately on the subject, and they want to know where he stands before they act.

To show where he stands, President Obama should cut “don’t ask, don’t tell” from the defense budget he will be submitting to Congress shortly. It takes money to discharge and replace service members kicked out under the law. Trust me, Congress will get the message.

A Real Risk to Readiness

Robert Maginnis

Robert Maginnis is a retired Army lieutenant colonel, a national security and foreign affairs analyst for radio and television, and a senior strategist with the United States Army.

I was part of the Pentagon group that helped craft the homosexual ban. Needless to say, we certainly discussed the consequences for lifting the ban.

The ban protects combat effectiveness, which the Pentagon defined as the product of unit cohesion and readiness. Cohesive units are built through the constant and close association of people over time, which produces a mixture of trust and confidence. Openly serving gays polarize and fragment that critical trust and confidence.

We warned about the risks to readiness in terms of medical, recruiting and retention factors. The Army’s surgeon general said that there were increases in health costs associated with the gay lifestyle, and sociologists warned of the detrimental impact on recruiting and retention that would result from allowing gays to serve openly.

Openly serving gays polarize and fragment that critical trust and confidence that cohesive units depend upon.

Recently, more than 1,000 retired flag officers sent a letter to President Obama expressing their concern that lifting the ban would undermine recruiting and retention. This view is shared by many active-duty members who responded to the Military Times’ 2008 annual poll, which asked about homosexuality. It found that 10 percent would not re-enlist or extend their service and 14 percent would consider not re-enlisting if the ban were lifted.

We cautioned Congress about comparing other nations’ experiences with ours. Even countries with the most liberal homosexual policies, like the Netherlands, tend to apply policies that result in dissimilar treatment of homosexuals and besides, policies of other nations are seldom relevant for the U.S.

Finally, we advised Congress that our military discriminates on many bases to maintain combat readiness. That basic “discrimination” is reflected in the fact that only four in 10 young Americans qualify for service.

The burden of proof that lifting the ban would do no harm rests with those who would change the policy. So far, change advocates have offered no credible proof.

Integration Is Easy

Jon Soltz

Jon Soltz served as an Army captain in Iraq and Kosovo. He is chairman of VoteVets.org, a veterans organization with more than 100,000 members.

Currently most people opposed to a repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” are delaying a decision by saying that the integration of openly gay soldiers is too difficult to do; but in reality, it’s pretty simple. This isn’t like integrating blacks and whites after World War II. We aren’t integrating anyone here. We are just allowing gays and lesbians in these units to stay.

The military has very strict guidelines that monitor heterosexual relationships under official codes of conduct to prevent fraternization in the ranks, specifically in regards to public affection in uniform and dating among officers and enlisted personnel. Those guidelines would simply be adjusted to include same-sex relationships as well.

Instead of wasting valuable time investigating if someone is gay, we can enforce the same laws used to govern heterosexual relationships.

Military Life Is Difficult Enough

Elaine Donnelly

Elaine Donnelly is the president of the Center for Military Readiness, a public policy organization that specializes in military/social issues.

Future officers should not have to cope with the consequences of repealing the 1993 law, often referred to as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which states that homosexuals are not eligible for military service. Current law recognizes that the military is a “specialized society” that is “fundamentally different from civilian life.” It appreciates military personnel who, unlike civilians going home after work, must accept living conditions often “characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.”

Everyone can serve America in some way, but there is no constitutional right to serve in uniform.

Repealing this legislation would mandate “nondiscrimination” based on “homosexuality or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived” — essentially assigning special status to homosexuals. This would require constant “diversity training” to overcome normal human desires for modesty and privacy in sexual matters — an inappropriate quest that is unlikely to succeed. Corollary “zero tolerance” policies would deny promotions and end the careers of thousands of dissenting personnel, including chaplains. The result would be significant losses of experienced career personnel in grades and skills that are not easily replaced, breaking the all-volunteer force.

Put simply, changes in American popular culture do not justify policies that weaken military culture. Everyone can serve America in some way, but there is no constitutional right to serve in uniform.

What’s more, radical social change is unjustified, since discharges due to homosexuality are few compared with those for weight standard violations or pregnancy. Clarify the law by restoring “the question” about homosexuality that used to appear on routine induction forms, and such losses could be zero. Repeal the law, and personnel losses, voluntary and involuntary, could be huge.

No one has explained how repeal would improve recruiting, retention, team cohesion and readiness in our military. The 1993 law, which federal courts have upheld as constitutional several times, deserves continued support.

The View From Britain

Craig Jones

Craig Jones served in the British Royal Navy for 20 years. From 2000 to 2008, he was involved in the efforts to integrate gay men and women into the British armed forces.

The United Kingdom approach to “gays in the military” was not developed through altruism or enabled by a broad acceptance in the military that they needed to reflect the society which they served. This was a policy born out of protest from senior officers and implemented through absolute necessity after exhausting the options of every court in the U.K. and Europe. Right now it’s difficult to imagine what the fuss was all about.

Here in the U.K., almost 10 years on, it’s difficult to imagine what the fuss was all about.

Almost 10 years on, a new generation of senior officers are responsible for the quiet success of a policy that honors the covenant between politicians, military commanders and the men and women who may face the ultimate sacrifice for their country. All servicemen and women should have an expectation that the military and the government will care for them and their families come what may.

In facing the challenges of integration, it is not enough to simply allow gay men and women to serve without the fear of dismissal. If the U.S. decides to lift the ban on gays in the military, it must extend its provision of welfare services to the families (partners) of gay personnel, develop a supportive gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender community and put in place education and support initiatives that will ensure they are welcomed and valued as members of the military.

This will need unswerving and substantial top-level leadership. For some individuals this will mean sweeping aside personally held moral judgements. For a very few, this may mean a foreshortened career to uphold a moral position.

Senior officers in the U.K. would tell you that they faced a thousand greater challenges in their military careers than the challenge of integrating gay men and women.

The Locker Room Issue

Brian E. A. Maue

Brian E. A. Maue is a professor of policy analysis at the United States Air Force Academy. His views are his own.

Two of the biggest challenges to an openly gay American military come from the military’s attempts to “prevent hostile work environments” and “segregate sexual preferences.”

An openly gay military would be the heterosexual equivalent to forcing women to constantly share bathrooms, locker rooms and bedrooms with men.

Consider that the U.S. military does not allow swimsuit calendars in its workplaces because they can negatively affect the morale of female military members (NATO environments can differ). The American military also does not allow male behavior that might reduce female morale. For example, if a female soldier was sexually uncomfortable with the way a male soldier looked at her, she or anyone who witnessed the situation could file a complaint, even if the man thought that his glance was not done in a sexually aggressive manner. Similar complaints would arise if a male soldier shared a female soldier’s bathroom, locker room or bedroom.

Thus, if the morale of a heterosexual female military member can be negatively affected by an swimsuit calendar or by the behavior of a male soldier with no sexual interest in her, could she lodge a similar “hostile environment” complaint if she was forced to share a bathroom, a locker room or a bedroom (say, in a tent or in the barracks) with a lesbian soldier who has no sexual interest in her?

The military has traditionally prevented unnecessary privacy violations and complaints by separating men and women wherever privacy issues could arise. This policy mirrors that of many non-military institutions: businesses and schools have separate bathrooms and gym lockers for males and females, and airport security agents do physical searches of passengers who are the same sex as they are.

In contrast, an openly gay military would be the heterosexual equivalent to forcing women to constantly share bathrooms, locker rooms and bedrooms with men. Combining sexual preferences (i.e., lesbians with heterosexual women) would challenge American military commanders with privacy violations and dignity infractions that would reduce unit effectiveness.

All It Takes Is Leadership

Edith A. Disler

Edith A. Disler is a 25-year veteran of the United States Air Force who has served as an ICBM crew member and a conventional arms control inspector. She is the author of “Language and Gender in the Military.”

Though the Department of Defense touts its 1947 integration of the races in advance of much of American society, it has fallen woefully behind in its policies regarding sexual minorities.

Rescinding this policy will land with a dull and almost imperceptible thud, rather than with the crash that some predict.

By the time the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is rescinded, same-sex marriage will be legal in at least four states, the State Department will have accommodated employees in same-sex relationships with assignments to socially appropriate nations, gays will have long been welcome in security and enforcement agencies like the C.I.A. and the F.B.I., and top corporations will have long been attracting lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender talent with partner benefits. Therefore, given the positive social distance covered by American society and government, rescinding this policy will land with a dull and almost imperceptible thud, rather than with the crash and fuss some predict.

However, as we’ve seen with the partial integration of women in the military and the full integration of the races, a change of policy doesn’t necessarily create a positive change of environment unless leadership is competent and accountable.

Uniformed leadership from the four-star service chiefs on down must therefore: 1.) clearly and firmly state a policy of absolute respect for all service members regardless of sexual orientation, 2.) incorporate an honest give and take in seminars and presentations designed to address myths and stereotypes and highlight the military service of gay Americans, and 3.) use existing systems of discipline, enforcement and medical care to insure discrimination against sexual minorities is dealt with expeditiously and justly.

As we who have served know, any policy is only as good as the leadership’s backing. Leaders who balk deserve to be punished under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. As for the troops, don’t underestimate — despite the occasional chest pounding and grousing on the subject, they’ll salute smartly and follow orders.

1994 Is Here Again

Jim Inhofe

Jim Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, is a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

There is good reason why Democrats in Congress appear to have recently decided not to push to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.” They fear they don’t have the votes and, perhaps, worry about a backlash by voters last seen in 1994 when President Clinton was in office.

Our military is the strongest in the world, and I believe much of that has to do with the levels of professionalism and standards the military sets. I agree (and I believe a majority of the American people do too) with section 571 of the 1994 National Defense Authorization Act, which states:

The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

This week we marked the first 100 days of the Obama administration. In a Youtube statement, I warned Democrats that, in addition to their unprecedented spending spree, pushing for liberal causes like abortion rights, gun control, gutting the defense budget and universal health care, will put the President on track for a repeat performance of 1993 — when a young Bill Clinton entered the Oval Office under the banner of “change.” He had everything. He had the House and the Senate, and the far-left had their hooks in him.

There is no evidence more visible that the American people are already rebelling against the far-left agenda than Senator Arlen Specter switching parties to become a Democrat. He did this for one reason, and that is his advisers told him he couldn’t retain his Senate seat as a Republican. In other words, the same people who supported Senator Specter six years ago have soundly rejected him today.

That, my friends, sounds like 1994. The extreme liberal agenda is not sellable to the American people. Just wait and see

 

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)