DADT – I’m Asked to Tell My Thoughts

I’ve been asked to tell my thoughts on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Honestly, I think it’s time to repeal this policy. I have several justifications for thinking so. I’d also like to address some of the concerns that are frequently mentioned by opponents of repeal.

First, from a legal perspective, as far as I know, we’re not allowed to discriminate based upon sexual orientation anywhere else. Employers aren’t allowed to use sexual orientation in their hiring/firing decisions. There’s also the matter of the court’s ruling that the military must repeal the policy, citing the Constitution. I don’t want to spend too much time on legalities here, though.

The common counter is that the military is different, and it sure is a unique work environment, but its differences actually make it more conducive to a change in policy like this. Opponents of repealing the policy right now claim it would be a burdensome additional distraction on the military while it’s engaged in war. I’d argue that there’s no better time to implement such a change than during war because the individuals are focused so intensely on the enemy that this policy change would be a minimal distraction. By contrast, if we tried to repeal this policy during peacetime, it would likely be much more disruptive because there’s more idle time for it to become a distraction. Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, agrees. He’s quoted as saying, “War does not stifle change; it demands it. It does not make it harder; it facilitates it.”

If there’s one thing I’ve learned in my dealings and talks with military personnel (past, present, and future), it’s that they are extremely mission-oriented and professional, so much so that they wouldn’t let something like sexual orientation interfere with unit cohesion. Many of them think of the person in the foxhole next to them as a brother/sister-in arms first and foremost, with no regard for stuff like race, gender, or sexual orientation. They just care about having that person’s back and whether that person will have their back.

This level of professionalism applies not only to how the straight people in the military would react, but also the homosexuals. It’s not as though there’s going to be a flamboyant coming-out party. Indeed, the overwhelming majority will probably still keep their sexual orientation to themselves. The Pentagon’s report showed that only 15% of those who identified (anonymously) as homosexual would have their sexual orientation known to everyone in their unit. Even if they’re open about it, homosexuals are generally very respectful of personal boundaries in my experience. If, hypothetically, one started hitting on someone, all that person has to do is say, “Thanks, but I’m straight,” or something to that effect and the message is usually clearly understood. No doubt, this would all be part of training that every person in the military would go through to minimize the impact should DADT be repealed.

Unit cohesion is often cited as a source of worry for opponents of repeal. I’m not too concerned about this, to be honest. All manner of non-military units function just fine with openly homosexual members, ranging from fire and police departments to sports teams to any sort of work crew (construction, design, accounting, legal, etc.). Why would the military be any different?

Opponents of repeal also claim that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would diminish the toughness of our military. They believe the military should resemble our enemy’s worst nightmare, and I agree. But, the current enemy is radical Islam, which is well known for its hatred and fear of homosexuals (non-radical Islam is often tolerant of homosexuality). I’d think homosexuals with guns would be one of their worst nightmares.

Opponents also worry about the repeal hurting recruitment. I don’t think it’ll have a big impact. Homosexuals already serve in the military and they always have, even if we don’t know who is and who isn’t among them. America has become more tolerant of homosexuality as time goes on. We’ve discharged ~13,000 people under DADT, and if we’ve got such a shortage that we’re allowing active gang members to serve, why not allow open homosexuals? Active gang members worry me much more than open homosexuals.

They have a lot to do, but I’m hopeful Congress will repeal DADT during this lame-duck session. I think the GOP is stalling until the new Congress since the Pentagon report didn’t confirm their position.