Contemplating The U.S. Navel

Me, Chicago, Hollywood and The Federal Government

Rebecca Sarwate

Rebecca Sarwate
Location
Chicago, Illinois, USA
Birthday
December 31
Title
Head Writer
Company
Hearthware, Inc.
Bio
I am about as liberal as they come, and please don't expect to change me, though I do sometimes sneak up on you with a surprise (pro-death penalty, for instance). Although now gainfully employed as a full-time web writer and social media strategist, I keep my toes in the pool as a freelance theater critic, blogger and board member of the Illinois Woman's Press Association. To read my work on this page is to find vignettes about Chicago, Hollywood, my own turbulent life, and of course, my number one passion: local and national politics.

MY RECENT POSTS

Rebecca Sarwate's Links

Salon.com
Editor’s Pick
NOVEMBER 30, 2010 4:15PM

How DADT Makes America Less Safe

Rate: 19 Flag

DADT_1
  

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As a matter of fact, the outdated debate surrounding this issue of basic human respect is what's becoming a danger to our national security.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.

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Yup. Couldn't agree more.
The counter-intelligence argument is very important a la Manning, because with the policy, the person is compronised, and can be turned by the leverage, or even just go over because they fear being turned.
The whole argument is absurd in light of the fact that the toughest soldiers that ever lived practiced open homosexuality. Before the battle of Thermopylae the Spartans did each other’s hair.
While we all 'know' the repeal of DADT is a good idea and a long time coming, the effort to repeal needed the buttress of the survey to overcome the inevitable claims by the opposition that it will destroy the military.

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)
And one of the most infuriating things to me (though I should be used to it by now) is how pols like McCain, who supported repeal once upon a time "if the commanders agree" are not against it. Oh, and the traveler has a really good point - at least now they can't say "but the rank and file are against it!"
Does seem way over blown. Rather like the fears around Gay Marriage. MA has had that for quite some time now, and the numbers are not alarming, locusts have not befallen us. About 3 to 5% of all licenses issues are to gay couples, and the divorce rates fall in line to boot. 3% to 5% is on the low range of the typical estimates there and no big deal. ... DADT seems a similar thing.
I absolutely. And I have friends who were in the military who said that other soldiers' sexual orientation made no difference to them.
If someone wants to be "open" in the military it is fine with me. This does not mean there would be rampant sex on a base because it is unlawful to engage in sex anywhere but Married Housing. The real issue of homosexuality in the military is probably not with the men. When someone mentions Gay, "paratrooper" doesn't come to mind however, the women may very constitute a far higher percentage of Gays than the men largely, just as with police officers, the military attracts lesbians.
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.
Can't Obama just make it so? Make IT SO!!!
I never understood the argument about precluding soldiers from serving, based on their sexual proclivities or preferences. As far as I'm concerned, if you're fighting in the armed forces, you can do whatever you want in terms of sex and bawdiness, provided its consensual.

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...
Yes but the Spartans were also pederasts. They believed that the love of an older, accomplished aristocrat for an adolescent was essential to his formation as a free citizen. Pederasty and military training were intimately connected.

The unfortunate thing is that the military will survive. That we have not evolved all that much.
This is all about protecting the "honor" of certain straight young men who serve. And I mean that in the same Antebellum sort of way that people used to talk about protecting the "honor" (virginity) of young women. A friend of mine, a good hack post-Freudian deconstructionist, once suggested, in the context of the DADT debate, that alongside anal-retentive and anal-expulsive, that we should add a new fundamental Freudian category: the anal-vulnerable. This describes straight young men who feel threatened in the presence of an out gay male, as if they might be humped in the night if one is sleeping in the next pup tent. Or, God forbid, their own! I think my friend was right, there really is such a psychological type. And every time this policy gets close to being repealed, the generals and politicians who get a boost from this group, go and stir them up. All hail, the anal vulnerables! Once again. (Sigh)
Rated.
Congrats on the EP! You not only wrote a great, concise post, but brought this issue forward for all OS readers! I'm with you on this subject - and one of my concerns is that this all has been a great distraction in the national discourse; so much is going on that is never covered (the wars, for instance) because talking heads are too busy arguing about DADT, the economy, TSA and nude photos, etc. etc. Rated.
Your point about common sense is a good one, but it looks like no amount of money or discussion can encourage it. It's far past the time for all of us to have equal civil rights.
There is an awful amount of blathering about the 'right' things to think.
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
I'm not a big believer in the things I read in the press. This did annoy me when I read it as does any republican story but I won't believe it's gospel till I hear it from the horses mouth