What Effect will Openly Serving Gays Have on our Armed Forces?

 Martin D. Toomey

What Effect will Openly Gay Soldiers Serving Have on our Armed Forces?

Having spent time in the military and combat, I find this question particularly compelling. With the hotly contested “Don’t ask, don’t tell” law, it looks as if gays will soon openly serve in the U.S. Armed Forces. ,“The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by then-President Bill Clinton who campaigned on the promise to allow all citizens to serve in the military regardless of sexual orientation“, ("Don't ask, don't tell." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia). I have known several gay servicemen in my career, and it has been my opinion that they were just as capable as the straight guy fighting next to them. However, I do believe a significant portion of the military does not share my view on this. My fear is that this will cause tension in the ranks, and a distraction from the mission resulting in unnecessary deaths of soldiers that could be avoided.

Winning the nation's wars is the military's functional imperative. Indeed, it is the only reason for a liberal society to maintain a military organization. War is terror. War is confusion. War is characterized by chance, uncertainty and friction. The military's ethos constitutes an evolutionary response to these factors—an attempt to minimize their impact.
Accordingly, the military stresses such martial virtues as courage, both physical and moral, a sense of honor and duty, discipline, a professional code of conduct, and loyalty. It places a premium on such factors as unit cohesion and morale. The glue of the military ethos is what the Greeks called philia— friendship, comradeship or brotherly love. Philia, the bond among disparate individuals who have nothing in common but facing death and misery together, is the source of the unit cohesion that most research has shown to be critical to battlefield success.
Philia depends on fairness and the absence of favoritism. Favoritism and double standards are deadly to philia and its associated phenomena— cohesion, morale and discipline—are absolutely critical to the success of a military organization.
The presence of open homosexuals in the close confines of ships or military units opens the possibility that eros—which unlike philia is sexual, and therefore individual and exclusive—will be unleashed into the environment. Eros manifests itself as sexual competition, protectiveness and favoritism, all of which undermine the nonsexual bonding essential to unit cohesion, good order, discipline and morale. (Mackubin, Thomas Owens).

In researching this info, I found several polls of currently serving service men and women, and to my surprise the polls seemed to reflect that most would have no issue with serving alongside gays. “ Some 70% of troops surveyed said the effects of repealing the ban would be positive, mixed or nonexistent, the paper said, citing a Pentagon report,” (qtd. in End to US military gay ban “would not harm war effort”. Editorial BBC News USA).

Also very interesting was that the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has had openly serving gays since 1993. I have trained with the IDF on several occasions, and found them to be a very professional, well trained, and cohesive force, showing no apparent disunity over gays serving. It was such a non-issue that I never even heard that they had openly gay service members! The IDF has also had women serving in combat arms positions since about the same time, and the women I trained with were more than capable, making up for less brawn with higher intellect, and seemed to enhance the team cohesion of their unit. “The right to be openly gay has been acknowledged in the Israeli military since 1993, and there is little evidence that policy has caused any problems,“ (Gladstein, Linda).

The other problem I see is if Congress dallies on this issue and it goes to the courts. Whether or not Congress votes to overturn Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in the next few weeks, this is an issue that will impact members of our community for years to come. As the Pentagon has strongly warned, if repeal is not enacted through Congress, the debate will move to the courts. A court decision to repeal could result in an overnight policy change that may not allow for thoughtful and adequate preparation by military leadership. I strongly believe that commanders should determine the tempo on military policy. Not the courts. Even though it seems as if the majority of the military would support this change, there are those that would probably resort to violence on this issue, since it is such a deeply personal matter.

Wikipedia has this information:

Gay personnel were often the target of various types of harassment by their comrades, intended to compel them to resign or confess to investigators. An infamous version of this harassment was called a blanket party; at night several service members would restrain their victim in their bunk with a blanket or sheet, and then beat the victim. At times beatings of gay personnel were severe and occasionally even fatal, as in the case of Allen R. Schindler, Jr.. In defense of his DADT policy, President Clinton cited U.S. Navy Radioman Third Class Schindler, brutally murdered by shipmate Terry M. Helvey (with the aid of

an accomplice), leaving a "nearly-unrecognizable corpse". DADT has officially prohibited such behavior, but harassment continues. ("Don't ask, don't tell." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia).

Many people opposed to this have an opinion stemming from religious views, which are not to be taken lightly. Consider how many wars and outright murder that has been perpetrated over the years from a difference in religious opinion. Changing a person’s mind regarding anything not concerning religious doctrine is possible if the facts are presented and a strong argument made. However, changing someone’s opinion of something in their religious doctrine is incredibly difficult because then it becomes a matter of faith, handed down from God, and therefore inviolable.

During her march 2008 speech, Sally Kern, Oklahoma state representative, said that "The homosexual agenda is just destroying this nation, and homosexuality poses a bigger threat to the United States than terrorism. According to God's word, that is not the right kind of lifestyle. Studies show no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than a few decades," (Michels, Scott).

From a recent speech by Secretary Gates:

In summary, a strong majority of those who answered the survey – more than two thirds – do not object to gays and lesbians serving openly in uniform. The findings suggest that for large segments of the military repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, though potentially disruptive in the short term, would not be the wrenching, traumatic change that many have feared and predicted. The data also shows that within the combat arms specialties and units there is a higher level of discontent – of discomfort and resistance to changing the current policy. Those findings – and the potential implications for America’s fighting forces – remain a source of concern to the service chiefs, and to me. (As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, The Pentagon, Tuesday, November 30, 2010).

Additional problems I foresee are rewriting existing regulations for transfer of

benefits upon death of service members, housing, relationships within the ranks, separations, and discharges. Just the amount of paperwork required to enact this much change in a government document will be astounding, as the government likes to have at least triplicates of everything!

What I find very interesting is that the U.S. seems to be the last bastion of anti-gay sentiment in the world, even our historically conservative allies the British have had openly serving gay service members since 2000.

When Britain was forced to drop its ban on homosexuals serving in the armed forces in 2000 following a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, some military chiefs warned the decision would not only lead to discord and harassment, but could even damage the nation's war-fighting capabilities.
In fact, the biggest news about the change was that it resulted in no news. Academic studies published in peer-reviewed journals found that allowing openly gay troops to serve in the U.K. had no negative impact on cohesion, readiness, recruiting, morale, retention or any other measure of effectiveness.

In 2005, the Royal Navy placed an ad in a leading gay publication, The Pink Paper, selling the benefits of a life on the open seas. And that same year, uniformed members of the Army and Royal Air Force took part in the first ever Gay Pride March in the city of Manchester, where they also manned a recruitment stall, (Bates, Theunis).

In conclusion, it’s obvious that the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law will soon be gone, and this will present a myriad of problems with difficult solutions. Most notably of these is the integration of openly gay service members into the Armed Forces with a minimum of discord and potential violence. No one has yet to come forward and dictate exactly how this will be done, but it is obvious that this can be done, as many countries have already done this, and all we must do is adapt their methods to our own peculiarly American ways. All of the information I have read from those who support the ban on gays, seem to have more opinion and little supporting data, and operate on the thesis that something is mentally wrong with a gay person. Therefore they pose a risk to national security, or are morally reprehensible for their actions. Their opinion comes from religious or moral convictions and because of that will be very difficult to change.

　

　

Works Cited

Bates, Theunis. British Army Actively Recruits Gay Soldiers. AOL News. 2 February 2010. Web. 5 December 2010

"Don't ask, don't tell." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 10 Nov. 2010. Web. 14 November 2010

End to US military gay ban would not harm war effort

. Editorial BBC News USA and Canada, 11 November 2010. Web. 14 November 2010

Gates, Robert, U.S. Secretary of Defense. “Statement on ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell’ Report”. U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs). Web. November 30, 2010. 5 December 2010 http://www.defense.gov/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID=1524

Gladstein, Linda. In Israeli Army, Gays Are 'No Big Deal. Editorial. AOL News 2 November, 2010. Web. 14 November 2010

Gates, Robert, U.S. Secretary of Defense. “Statement on ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell’ Report”. U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs). Web. November 30, 2010. 5 December 2010

Mackubin, Thomas Owens. The Case Against Gays in the Military. Wall Street Journal. 3 February 2010. Web. 5 December 2010
Michels, Scott. Politician’s Anti-Gay Speech Sparks Outrage. ABC News. 14 March 2008. Web. 5 December 2010