
This morning as I booted up the computer, I took my typical perusal of the Yahoo headlines, and came across this feature from the Associated Press:
Pentagon Study: Gays Could Serve with No Harm
Ladies and gentlemen, we have just wasted 10 months and untold millions of taxpayer dollars "investigating" good common sense. While badly needed unemployment insurance extensions are in the process of being hijacked AGAIN by Republicans lobbying for the retention of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, we have no problem dithering and wasting scant resources "researching" an issue which almost every other democratic society has resolved by now. In short: if you are fighting two long, costly and unpopular wars, with brave soldiers who have been on three, four and five tours with little rest, you need all the enlisted men you can get and it shouldn't matter who they're shagging when the lights are off.
But will the release of this study finally be enough to silence the pandering savants in Washington, such as Senator John "Shill" McCain, who has appeared on every Sunday talk show and it's brother arguing that a lift of the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell restrictions could be "dangerous?" The former Maverick has repeatedly called pressure to promote equality within the armed forces "politically motivated." Yet how is forcing well-trained and patriotic men and women underground on the basis of pleasing homophobic voters any less so?
As a matter of fact, the outdated debate surrounding this issue of basic human respect is what's becoming a danger to our national security.
Multiple sources, including The Wall Street Journal, are reporting that Army Private First Class Bradley Manning, who may have jeopardized a number of international relationships with his document dump to WikiLeaks, is a gay soldier "frustrated" over the treatment of homosexuals by the U.S. military. Now I don't mean to suggest that this was his sole reason for releasing the documents, but it doesn't seem that DADT and an open culture of harassing closeted gays helped make us safer in this situation. By all accounts, until his recent break with military code, Manning was a young and brilliant soldier, exactly the kind of man of which recruiters dream.
Or how about former Army infantry officer, Lt. Dan Choi, an openly gay solider who served two distinguished years in Iraq combat operations before being transferred to the New York National Guard? America can no longer avail itself of Choi's loyal services, because after coming out on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show, the Lieutenant was summarily discharged. In response, Choi penned an open letter to President Barack Obama and Congress where he queried not only the morality, but the wisdom of the policy, "a slap in the face to me. It is a slap in the face to my soldiers, peers and leaders who have demonstrated that an infantry unit can be professional enough to accept diversity, to accept capable leaders, to accept skilled soldiers."
How are we safer by releasing sharp, intelligent and passionate people because of some archaic, uninformed and backward looking trepidation that gay sex will overtake our army bases and combat zones? It's ludicrous, and I have news for fear mongers like McCain and the Fox News crew: they're queer and they're already here. Manning and Choi are nowhere near the first or only Friends of Dorothy to don combat fatigues.
Although military recruitment numbers are climbing, owing in large degree to a terrifically anemic job market, we as a nation simply can't afford to let a policy that seemed ill-advised even in 1993 stop our armed forces from functioning at their highest capability. And to that, we don't need divisiveness or discrimination. We have enough problems on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's like cutting off our nose to spite our face.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a travesty. I was disappointed with Bill Clinton's cave to the right wing to pass it, even as a 15 year-old high school student. Now a 32 year-old woman, I am disappointed in President Obama's heavy footed failure to show it the door. Mr. President, listen to the Pentagon, listen to your conscience, listen to the pragmatic good sense you seem to cherish so much.


Salon.com
Comments
This was not a CYA as much as disabling an argument that could hinder the effort. Additionally, it takes away the argument that the soldiers weren't asked how they felt.
This survey was a tactical move that saved time and effort.
Lew
(24 years as an active duty soldier)
I have heard the Pentagon wants Congress to repeal DADT before the Courts find it unconstitutional which is almost certain. At any rate, the military will survive.
That said, the heterosexist worldview perpetuated by bigots at the Pentagon and the Xtian Right is not realistic. Military history shows us that homosexuality is, in no way, a handicap or a detriment when it comes to the performance of one's military mission.
The Spartans, the greatest soldiers of all time, encouraged homosexual relations among their soldiers, so as to solidify and mold esprit d' corps.
Alexander the Great was blatantly bisexual, Frederick the Great was gay (Voltaire wrote about this, and any reading of his life story, shows this to be true, and Lawrence of Arabia was, as well.
The homosexuality and/or bisexuality of the abovementioned in no way mitigated their patriotism, nationalism or militarism. In fact, it may actually have exacerbated such traits, as they tried very, very hard to "fit in" and be accepted by a heterosexist majority culture.
As such, the military, by accepting open homosexual soldiers into their ranks, may very well find the bravest, most resolute and determined soldiers among them. They are Americans first, soldiers second. Their sexuality does not and should not define them. It should also not preclude them from service.
We should be honored that so many brave men and women wish to serve our country, particularly now, when it seems that we have lost our way...
The unfortunate thing is that the military will survive. That we have not evolved all that much.
Rated.
^R^++++
In the real world, when making something new happen, it is important to prepare the way.
Even if you don't think that the actual grunts should have those prejudices, they do - and the worst way to enact something new, which might offend 50% of those being affected, is to treat their feelings as if they don't matter. That just engenders resistance.
You may not agree with that 50%, they may indeed be 'wrong' in the ultimate scheme of things. But the most effective way to engender cooperation is to listen to them, show them that they are not in the majority and then demonstrate that their fears are groundless.
This is not much to do for them when you consider what they are doing for you.
Lew