Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) wrote to Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently, asking him to reconsider the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. The policy “makes absolutely no sense and undermines the fight against terrorism,” Wyden said in a statement. As ABC reported, Wyden’s office “noted that dozens of service members with critically needed skills like Arabic proficiency have been discharged for being gay and that enforcing the policy costs hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.”
This week, the Pentagon responded with an odd argument.
A public debate over allowing gays to serve in the military hurts the U.S. War on Terror, a top Pentagon official has asserted.
“The Global War on Terrorism is far-reaching and unrelenting,” wrote David S. C. Chu, Defense Undersecretary for Personnel and Readiness, in a recent letter. “A national debate on changing” the Pentagon’s ban on openly gay service members would bring “divisiveness and turbulence across our country,” which “will compound the burden of the war.”
Well, I was curious what they’d come up with in defense of the status quo, but is this really the best they’ve got?
A national debate would bring “divisiveness and turbulence across our country”? Here’s a thought: there’s already a national debate that’s bringing “divisiveness and turbulence across our country.” It’s about the war itself.
The Pentagon’s argument seems to be about unity over discord. That’s certainly a worthy goal, but in this case, the message is wholly unpersuasive: we should avoid controversial debates because they’re controversial. Everyone should just go along and get along. Maybe someday, after the undefined war on terror is over, we can consider some of these pesky questions.
What nonsense. Besides, if the Pentagon is serious about avoiding “divisiveness,” one presumes officials would want to go with the majority opinion. And what might that be? Americans in general are comfortable with gays in the military, as are military personnel.
Last December, Zogby Interactive polled servicemembers who had served in Iraq or Afghanistan on their views on homosexuality. Seventy-three percent of those polled were comfortable around gays and lesbians, 55 percent said the “presence of gays or lesbians in their unit is well known by others,” and 21 percent of those in combat units knew for sure that someone in their unit is gay. A 2004 poll found a majority of junior enlisted servicemembers believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military, up from 16 percent in 1992. “There has been a seismic shift among the military and the public in favor of welcoming gay patriots in our armed forces,” said C. Dixon Osburn, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN).
For the first time, the student body of Uniformed Services University (USU) elected an openly gay student council president. Last summer, “a West Point graduate received a prestigious academic award for his thesis opposing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ the ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual service members.” Anecdotal evidence also points to a changing attitude within the military ranks. “Last year I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and marines,” Shalikashvili wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed. “These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers.” Alva said of his experience, “I have tons and tons of friends that were in the military at the time who knew I was gay because I confided in them. Everybody had the same reaction: ‘What’s the big deal?'” “Being on the front lines and serving with the people who even actually knew that I was gay, you know, that was never a factor,” Alva said. “We were there to do a job.” Twenty-four countries allow open service by gays and lesbians, including nine nations that “have fought alongside American troops in Operation Iraqi Freedom.” A University of California, Berkeley study of these foreign militaries, “suggests that lifting bans on homosexual personnel does not threaten unit cohesion or undermine military effectiveness.”
“Divisiveness and turbulence across our country”? Please.