Military to Gays: You Can Still Die for Us
Jason Kuznicki on Sep 15th 2005
Jim Henley links to a report by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military finding that it is indeed written U.S. military policy to send gay and lesbian soldiers into combat–even where, in peacetime, these same soldiers would have been discharged. And that policy is even available now in pdf (with more coverage here).
This is a big deal because it contradicts the military’s claim that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is to be implemented uniformly whether or not the country is at war. It also contradicts the claim that the policy exists for the sake of unit cohesion. Henley writes,
Recall that the respectable case against allowing out homosexuals to serve in the military is that it will undermine unit cohesion in the stress of battle. Keeping gays and straights apart in hostilities is what the policy is supposed to be for. If the problem isn’t enough to keep gays out of the wartime Army, it’s certainly not enough to keep them out of the peacetime Army…Has the 1999 exception policy been ignored at the behest of the current Republican administration, or was it created originally at the behest of the Democratic one then in power? Is it business as usual or has the rate of discharges dropped because of the war? I dunno.
It appears that discharges under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” have dropped during each year of the War on Terrorism, for a combined drop of forty-seven percent.
Now, I know, I could easily see some people objecting to my take on the issue: Would I not complain about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” if the numbers had gone up instead? And shouldn’t I be happy about a decline?
The answers are yes and no–I would complain about the policy no matter what, because it is wrong in principle, whether it destroys many careers or only a few. Merely because the policy has resulted in somewhat fewer wrecked careers (and in a way that compromises its entire supposed justification) does not mean that it’s now become a good or even a workable idea. Given that the armed forces of Britain and Israel (no military slouches, these!) have allowed openly gay personnel to serve for years without significant incident, it’s long past time that we reconsider “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Israel’s inclusive policy belies the objection that the strong religious beliefs of some soliders make it impossible for them to serve with gays or lesbians. And–wow–Britain even recruits new soldiers at gay pride events, which could be just the thing we need in these times of missed recruitment goals.
Update: That last link should work now. Do check it out.
Filed in The Barracks, The Boudoir
[...] whether DADT discharges have gone up or down during the last four years. Posted by Jim Henley @ 10:49 pm, Filed under:Main [...]
I really love the argument we always hear that allowing openly gay soldiers into our military will give the impression to other countries that our amry is full of pansies, and thus it would undermine us.
Excuse me, but why does it actually matter if people assume our army is nothing more than “girlie men”? Does that somehow change the fact that our military is one of, if not the most, powerful forces on the planet? Let them think we’re wimps. Let them show up laughing to the field of battle. We’ll do what we always do, and they won’t be laughing long.
It’s just absurd that arguments like “It will undermine us abroad” can be taken seriously. Especially considering what you brought up about England and Israel.
You know, the Sacred Band of Thebes wasn’t exactly bad at the whole unit cohension thing. Sure, they mostly wound up dead, but only because they held the field–at odds of 300 against 32,000–after all the the regular troops had scampered for the hills.
Homosexuals in the military present more of logistical challenge then anything else. Just like women did when they started serving on Navy ships. The ships were originally populated by all men and all the living quarters male. In order to make room for the women living quarters had to be designed into them or spaces originally occupied by males had to be redisignated as female. This was done to ensure that sexual misconduct did not occur. Now if you have an openly homosexual person where do you put them? How do you garuntee there won’t be any sexual misconduct? Would you put a hetorosexual male in a room occupied by females and tell them to close there eyes everytime one changed clothes? Or would you place a homosexual male in a room full of females and hope he was telling the truth when he said he was a homosexual? Where do you put people who claim to be bisexual?
Where do we put them?
I’m sorry, but I don’t see how the “logistical challenge” should be that much of a consideration. In my brief time in the military, I knew several bisexual and homosexual men across the services (including marines). None of them was all that interested in engaging in “misconduct” with a roommate, particularly with a roommate who was straight.
There is NO GUARANTEE against sexual misconduct. NONE. Even among straight men, there is occasionally “misconduct” of a sexual nature. But I guess boys can be boys, as long as they are straight boys, no? While women and men did not share quarters in one barracks I’m thinking of, I can testify first-hand to some “sexual misconduct” between men and women that was very definitely against the rules. Nobody got caught, though, because the people involved were discreet. Being openly gay in the military does not mean being openly seductive in the military. These men and women have a job to do, and they do it as well as anyone. if they want to have sex with a willing partner, they will find a way just like their straight counterparts do. And usually, it’s a private matter–it doesn’t usually happen in the common areas.
For heaven’s sake, we all grew up in a lockerroom culture! We’ve all seen dicks. I happen to think that straight men are not slaves to their crotches and can actually control themselves if exposed to breasts in a non-sexual context. The same is true for homosexuals: The sight of a penis is not going to send someone into a fit of lust. To assume so is to buy into a tired stereotype about the predatory homosexual. It’s not about where you sleep. It’s about with whom you prefer to sleep when you’re in love, eh? Come on, it’s simple: generally, no one wants to fool around with someone who doesn’t want him/her, eh? Hardly any fun that way.
Gay and lesbian servicemembers are not asking for special places to throw their duffles aboard ship. They are not asking for segregation (which, it appears from Sean’s comments, is the solution to the gays-in-the-military “problem”). They are asking for the same opportunity and privilege afforded heterosexuals: to serve their country, and in return to lay claim to the presumption of full citizenship that usually accompanies honorable service in the military. What’s the problem? It certainly is NOT “space.”
Of course, extrapolate and the “logistics” argument becomes an economic argument: it costs too much to accommodate “Them.” That’s one of those lame arguments that makes my eyes roll uncontrollably if I’m tired, made by men who unwittingly conceive of masculinity as so fragile it would break under the weight of a feather boa. When the United States cannot “afford” to treat its citizens fairly and equitably, and with respect…well, that’s when we won’t need a military. We’ll already be defeated. And disgraced.
In addition to the British and Israelly army, most european countries don’t really seem to have a problem. The Dutch army has allowed Homosexuals in its ranks since the 1970’s and are even actively working on tackling possible homophobia…
More on the subject of military culture and homosexuality in Europe here
[...] Last month Kevin Drum and I, among others, wrote about the discovery of a 1999 FORSCOM regulation authorizing the deployment of service members who “confess” homosexuality to combat zones. It wasn’t obvious what to make of the regulation at the time. On the one hand, we had figures showing that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” discharges peaked in 2001 and have dropped since the military moved to a war footing. On the other hand, we had plenty of examples of service members being kicked out of the military for homosexuality, even from war zones. So it was an open question whether the 1999 policy had actually been implemented. [...]