To put America's “don’t ask, don’t tell” law into perspective, consider this: Among the almost 13,000 people driven from the military since 1993 because they are gay, lesbian or bisexual, there were dozens — perhaps hundreds — who possess language skills desperately needed in our nation’s fight against terrorism at home and abroad.
In 2005, the Government Accountability Office released a report showing that the men and women discharged in the first 10 years of “don’t ask, don’t tell” included 757 in occupations defined as critical, such as voice interceptor and translator. Of those, 322 were trained in what the military categorized “an important foreign language.” Fifty-four of them were skilled in Arabic.
The percentage may seem small — until you ponder what the absence of just one skilled translator at a critical moment can mean to the safety of our troops or to the safety of Americans here at home.
As Marine Cpl. William Woodall, who works with translators in Afghanistan, told The Associated Press this summer, “Intelligence can save ... lives and give us the advantage in the battlefield.”
The number of linguists discharged because of their sexual orientation has grown since the GAO’s 2005 report. Among the latest dismissals was Lt. Daniel Choi, a West Point graduate and Iraq veteran who was forced out of the Army National Guard this spring after he publicly acknowledged he is gay.
Choi is fluent in Arabic, one of many languages the military needs in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. To overcome a shortage of linguists, the armed forces have turned to private contractors to recruit civilian translators, often with disastrous results. “Some translators are in their 60s and 70s and in poor physical condition — and some don’t even speak the right language,” the AP reported. Yet Choi was deemed unfit for service.
At a time when America cannot afford to squander expertise or valor, it does both daily — booting sailors, soldiers, Marines and airmen solely because of sexual orientation.
It appears that the majority of dismissals involved enlisted personnel. In the first 10 years, the GAO found that roughly half of the individuals separated from the military under “don’t ask, don’t tell” were discharged within the first 2½ years of service. The losses since 1993 also have included officers like Choi, including some whose discharge was triggered when they spoke out against the law.
In addition to the drain of talent, the dismissals cost taxpayers. The GAO report estimated the military spends more than $30 million a year training replacements for individuals discharged under “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
A later study, by a commission that included former Defense Secretary William J. Perry, said the cost of implementing and enforcing the policy was at least $368 million over its first 10 years.
An estimated 65,000 gay, lesbian or bisexuals remain in the military, ever mindful of their fate if they acknowledge their sexual orientation. And an incalculable number of young men and women has voluntarily left or avoided service because of the policy.
Last week, Joint Forces Quarterly — a journal for the Joint Chiefs of Staff — published an attention-getting piece by Air Force Col. Om Prakash, who works in the office of the Defense secretary.
Col. Prakash calls for an end to the ban on homosexuals in the military.
Among the reasons he cites is that “don’t ask, don’t tell” undermines a core military value — integrity.
The colonel quotes Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan: “Everyone was living a big lie — the homosexuals were trying to hide their sexual orientation, and the commanders were looking the other way because they didn’t want to disrupt operations by trying to enforce the law.”
Last Sunday, The Pilot’s Kate Wiltrout profiled three gay members of the military about the lengths to which they must go to serve America and preserve their careers. One young woman, who works on a Norfolk-based ship, asked a question that cuts to the heart of the policy’s flaw: “What’s worse? Having a terrorist attack? Or having a homo stop it?”
Many Americans — and many veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars — already have answered that question.
Sixteen years ago, President Clinton’s initial proposal to allow gays, lesbians and bisexuals to serve openly in the military generated a vitriolic debate, one that resulted in the controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell” compromise.
Under the compromise, the military is forbidden to inquire about a person’s sexual orientation, and service members face discharge if they disclose they are gay. Much has changed since then — notably public attitudes.
A Gallup Poll this summer indicated that 69 percent of Americans now favor allowing openly homosexual individuals to serve in the armed forces. Strikingly, substantial support was found among conservatives (58 percent), weekly churchgoers (60 percent) and Republicans (58 percent) — three groups that strongly opposed the idea in 1993.
In addition, almost three-quarters of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan said they’re comfortable serving with gay and lesbian colleagues, according to a 2006 Zogby poll. Paul Rieckhoff, a former Army platoon leader who is head of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, says there’s been a generational shift in attitudes. “The average 18-year-old has been around gay people, has seen gay people in popular culture, and they’re not this bogeyman in the same way they were” in the past, he said.
A matter of this significance can’t be settled by opinion polls, of course. The fate of the ban should be based on the informed opinions of commanders and members of the armed forces, and on the basis of what is right.
Numerous leaders — including Gen. John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former Defense Secretary William Cohen — have called for repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” and a related statute that forbids homosexuals from serving.
More than 1,000 retired flag and general officers, meanwhile, argue that lifting the ban would disrupt unit cohesion. Their concerns warrant a full airing, and they should explain further why they feel the military’s existing rules against fraternization would not be sufficient to maintain discipline and unit cohesion.
President Obama has said he would sign a bill lifting the restrictions. But, so far, he and Congress have been reluctant to address the subject. A bill is pending in the House, but no counterpart has been introduced in the Senate.
Certainly, the nation faces many challenges at the moment. But a thorough review of “don’t ask, don’t tell” — and a fresh accounting of the real and perceived effects on our armed forces — is unavoidable. In its silence, America has too much to lose.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
I don't think...
homosexuality is a choice, I think folks are born that way, or not. It's that simple. Like many other issues, this is one that's time has come. In other words, change the policy..
Many, if not all, of the nations that have Islam as their prominent religion do not 'allow' homosexuality, even those so-called 'moderate' ones do not. In some of those cultures, people are subject to being put to death by the govt just for being gay. I can't think of a more fitting payback than to send gay men and women over there to do combat with these bass-ackwards barbarians. Imagine the propaganda victory if a gay soldier receives awards for killing a bunch of them in a combat mission! I say let them serve, and marry for that matter. The military will adapt, they are the absolute best there is at doing that!
All joined illegally
Whether you agree with DADT or not, the bottom line is each one of these service men and women who joined the military knew the policy on homosexuality (i.e. it is not permitted). They joined, got caught, and now some are complaining about a policy that has been in place for centuries. I don't blame the military for discharging individuals for homosexuality...it's in the UCMJ and has been for a long time. If the military decides to change the UCMJ, so be it, but stop complaining about a law already in place. Just because you don't like it doesn't give you the right to break it. I don't like stopping at a stop sign when no one is coming, but I do anyway...because it's the law.
the rights of a U.S. citizen
It is not social engineering to allow a U.S. citizen who wants to serve in the military (and who is not medically incapable) to do so without fear of discrimination.
As a U.S. citizen I have the same rights as any other U.S. citizen. I only want equal treatment under the law.
Who has the right to say that gays and bisexuals cannot serve in the military just because they are different? Does the U.S. government tell Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, Muslims that they cannot be in the military because the majority are Christian?
We no longer allow whites to tell blacks, Hispanics, Asians that they cannot serve or that they can serve but only in segregated units or only as inferiors.
It is past time to allow gays and bisexuals to serve openly, honestly, and equally.
Sorry to those who want an elite military that only reflects their socio-economic cultural biases. The military protects us all and it has to reflect society as a whole.
DADT is wrong
Other NATO militaries allow gays and bisexuals to open and honestly serve. The Israeli military allows gays and bisexuals to open and honestly serve.
Gays and bisexuals have always served in the military throughout history.
Discrimination against gays and bisexuals is wrong. There is no justification for it.
DADT is corrosive. It encourages lying and deception. It is a double standard that encourages double dealing.
This discrimination is not about morality. If anyone is concerned about the morality of sexual orientation, then he or she must first address a larger question of morality. First of all, it is immoral to kill period -- if you believe in the 10 Commandments then you should abide by "thou shall not kill" period. If so, then the military is immoral. Its whole purpose is to kill.
Second, the Bible is full of judgments about sexual practices in that it condemns any practice that does not lead to propagation of the species. Remember masturbation is a sin.
The Moral Question
Of all the arguments that I have heard for or against gays serving openly in the military the one issue I have never heard discussed is the moral implications of the matter. Do we, as a nation, want to tacitly condone unmoral behavior? Which really brings us to the ground zero of the question: that is - is homosexuality unmoral? Where do we find the answer to that question? What is truth? Do we leave it up to each person to determine what is moral or unmoral (moral relativism)? Our nation was founded on Judeo/Christian principles; do we use that as our standard? How do we as a society decide to countermand 6000 years of acceptable moral human behavior?
These are the questions I would like to hear intelligent people discuss devoid of emotion.
evolution of mankind
for thousands of years slavery was acceptable, the Bible contains instruction on who to enslave and how to treat your slaves
society and mankind has evolved over the last couple of hundred years to view slavery as immmoral, even though the Bible and Judeo/Christian principles had seen slavery as acceptable and moral
As we continue to evolve and progress as a society homosexuality will come to be viewed as moral and acceptable when homosexuals conduct themselves in those ways, take long term partners in monogamous relationships
re: The Moral Question
From a purely practical standpoint, morality is culturally dictated and homosexuality is no longer considered immoral, nor is cohabitation, nor is unwed motherhood, nor is fornication. Morality changes like the weather from one era to the next and from one culture to the next. Like it or not, the Americas and Europe have accepted homosexuality, and anyone who doesn't like is in for a big disappointment. What we older folks think is irrelevant in the working world today, including the military. Get over it and move on. GenX has arrived and they are 95% of who are in the military today, and this is the best educated and highest skilled military we have ever had.
Which way do you want it?
Today's Front Page lead article describes the inexcusable crime against a male soldier sexually assaulted by another (more) senior male soldier; obviously a homosexual crime. Your editorial page then says we need to revamp the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Any reasonable person would see one leads to the other. If you want to allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military, then don't expect heinous crimes like this not to happen. As for the argument there are skills that would be lost, that's just a rationalization for a bad policy: as in business and other walks of life, none of us (unfortunately) are irreplaceable (nature abhors a vacuum); by freeing up those positions, others would fill them who would have the required qualifications, and serve honorably without the stigma of trying to hide their chosen way of life.
Want the problem solved
The problem of sexual assault, sexual misconduct, whether it is male/male, male/female, female/male, or female/female needs to be solved. Sexual misconduct has no place in the professional armed forces, period.
The current double standard of DADT contributes to situations such as the one detailed in the article.
If gay service members are not required to be closeted by DADT, they can be honest about who they are and can socialize when off duty/off base in ways that allow them the ability to meet others like themselves.
DADT leads to dishonest behaviors, unprofessional actions, squandered resources and ruined lives.
They Used to Say...
The military used to say that women could not work alongside men. The military used to say that blacks could not work alongside whites. The military is continuing to say that homosexuals cannot work alongside heterosexuals. Cultural evolution has proven all of this to be false, both inside the military and in the civilian world. There is no rational reason for the military to uphold Don't Ask Don't Tell because there is positive proof that this policy is just another anachronistic myth. Once the military moves beyond Don't Ask Don't Tell, they need to start looking at another archaic and counterproductive policy: that people with minor physical impairments cannot serve.
In its silence, America has too much to lose.
The far left Op Ed board prints another one sided view. When more than 1,000 retired flag and general officers oppose this radical move we should listen. When states like VA and CA outlaw gay marriage by popular vote, the military is not the place to try social engineering.
Gays deserve the same rights
This is a very difficult topic indeed. I served 20 years in the Navy and left in 1996. At that time I felt that it was the right decision to make on the grounds that it was none of my business what anyone's sexual orientation is. However, it has come to my attention that there is overwhelming evidence that being heterosexual or homosexual is a hard wired trait into the person from birth. If that is so, then we are asking some to deny who they are if they are to serve in the Military. On the basis of this information I believe that gays should be able to be open about who they are and have all the rights and privileges of heterosexuals whether in the militiary or in the civilian world. This view will be very unpopular with many of my former comrads but it is the right thing to do.
Be Careful of What You Wish For.
We now have males and females in the Military. It is a no brainer that they do not share bath and sleeping quarters. Now, let me ask you this: If we eliminate the don't ask don't tell, and openly gay folks are bedding and showering with the non gay folks, wouldn't one suppose that this would make the non gay folks a little uneasy? It would be the same as if we stuck the guys and gals together and told them to "get used to it". Having been in the military myself I can see how this would open a VERY LARGE CAN OF WORMS. On the other hand, would we have to build separate facilities for each group? Male Gay, Female Gay, Male Hetro, Female Hetro, and Bi?