In the last few weeks, we have witnessed quite a spectacle concerning the question of whether homosexuals may be permitted to serve openly in the military.
Although the Obama administration supports a congressional repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" law, which would remove any prohibitions for gays to serve without hiding their sexual orientation, there wasn't any real movement on the issue.
It was, nevertheless, an entertaining Kabuki dance as our military leaders began to position themselves on either side or even straddling the political fault line, which now represents the intent of the commander in chief.
U.S. Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has come out firmly in support of repealing "don't ask, don't tell," stating that it is his personal view that "allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do."
Mullen's boss, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was more circumspect and appeared to come firmly down on both sides of the issue. He expressed his full support for U.S. President Barack Obama's call in the State of the Union address to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law this year by creating a Defense Department advisory panel and initiating a study to examine the impact of repeal on such factors as unit cohesion and discipline, partner benefits, military housing, fraternization, conduct and others. The report is expected to be released after the 2010 congressional elections.
U.S. Army Secretary John McHugh, a former Republican congressman, backtracked from a statement made a day earlier, stating that he wouldn't discharge a service member who told him privately that he or she is gay. No doubt one of the gazillion lawyers now advising the Pentagon or Gates himself reminded the Honorable Secretary that his original statement violated the current law.
According to reports, Marine Corps Gen. James Conway is the only member of the joint chiefs known to oppose changing the law. Both Air Force Gen. Norton Schwartz and Army Gen. George Casey equivocated calling for more studies on the impact of repealing "don't ask, don't tell."
The most curious news item on the topic concerned Lt. Gen. Benjamin Mixon who is commander of all Army forces in the Pacific. In a letter written to Stars and Stripes, he expressed outright opposition to repealing the law and encouraged other service members who felt similarly to communicate their views.
Everyone knows that being a flag officer these days is more about politics than soldiering. So either Mixon is close to retirement, or will be, having stuck a pencil in his own eye. Regardless, he displayed a degree of courage and independent thinking rarely seen at higher levels of the military.
Politics aside, it may be useful to attempt an objective analysis of this issue. I hasten to add, however, that I am a heterosexual and I wouldn't pretend that I fully understand other forms of sexual orientation.
For obvious reasons, it is not known exactly how many gays serve in the military. Studies reported by The Washington Post estimated that gays and bisexuals represent about 2 percent of the total force or roughly 65,000 personnel. Of these 13,000 are on active duty while the remainder serve in the Reserves or National Guard.
It is interesting to note that, between the introduction of the "don't ask, don't tell" law in 1993 and the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the number of military discharges for sexual orientation doubled. After 2001, military discharges due to violation of "don't ask, don't tell" has decreased to about one-third of the peak number reached in 2001.
Either the number of gays joining the military has decreased sharply or the force as a whole is turning a blind eye to the law.
Are gays capable of performing professionally in their military occupations? Absolutely.
It is also true that military life is fundamentally different from civilian life and there is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
It lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces, pursuant to the powers conferred by Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States.
The crux of the current dilemma resides in subparagraph 15 of statute 654 "Policy Concerning Homosexuals in the Armed Forces," which states, "The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."
So, who are these "homosexuals" in the military? Are they the scantily-leather-clad men in a San Francisco parade? Are they Log Cabin Republicans? Is there something inherent and uncontrollable in homosexuality that would a priori prevent them from carrying out their duty without disrupting good order and conduct? Or are they the troops, who in most cases merely go about doing their jobs and remain unnoticed and no different from any other troopers?
Are there not already sufficient safeguards within the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, especially those involving sexual harassment, to ensure that behavior which presents an "unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion" would be weeded out?
Despite my mild sarcasm, I would tend to fall into the positions taken by Gates, Schwartz and Casey and taking into account the concerns expressed by Conway. Yes, the impact of changing the law should be studied and be based on hard facts. I would, however, take it one step further and experiment.
Although I don't believe that they are direct analogies, the military's experience with the Tuskegee Airmen and the 442nd Regimental Combat Team dispelled any doubts about the capabilities of African-Americans or Japanese-Americans in World War II, as well as their professionalism and dedication to duty.
The success of the Tuskegee Airmen (and the Red Ball Express) predated and likely helped pave the way for the desegregation of the military by President Harry Truman's executive order. Surely we can afford to offer the same opportunity again and prevent the potential isolation and denigration of individuals willing to sacrifice their own lives for others and for the defense of our freedom.
Probably the most absurd "don't ask, don't tell" case I've heard is that of Air Force Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, who allegedly was "outed" by a false accusation against which he was obliged to defend himself. Fehrenbach is a F-15 pilot, a decorated war veteran and someone who tried to play according to the "don't ask, don't tell" rules. After 18 years of service in the Air Force, two years before official retirement, he was discharged.
I am not a pilot, but if I was I would say to Fehrenbach, if you need a wing man, call me. I will fly with you.
(Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D., is a colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve and a veteran of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Army or government.)
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)
Share This Article With Planet Earth
