Putting ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ to the test

About 13 years ago, Rep. Marty Meehan (D-Mass.) not only supported the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, he also helped write it. He’s since come around.

In 2005, Meehan championed the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would repeal the policy based on the belief that the ban undermines national security at a time when the military is struggling to recruit soldiers. As Meehan said in May 2005, “In a time of war, it’s outrageous that the military continues to discharge thousands of experienced, courageous, dedicated service members, with many of the critical skills that are needed in the war on terror, for reasons that have nothing to do with their conduct in uniform.”

Meehan’s bill, oddly enough, garnered 122 co-sponsors, including three Republicans. Of course, in a Republican-led House, the measure couldn’t get so much as a hearing, better yet a floor vote. Of course, it’s not a Republican-led House anymore.

Two leading House Democrats said yesterday that they intend to reverse the 13-year-old “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays and lesbians in the military when Congress comes under Democratic control in January.

Representative Martin T. Meehan, a Lowell Democrat, said he plans to hold congressional hearings early next year of the House Armed Services Subcommittee, which he is likely to chair, on a bill that would allow homosexuals to serve in the armed forces.

“We will have hearings, and then we can have an honest dialogue with members of Congress,” Meehan said.

“I believe, and have always believed, that once people see the facts, it will become clear that this is a policy that actually hurts national security and hurts the military.”

I don’t think that’s true — ardent backers of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy know the facts but don’t care — but I’m actually looking forward to the debate anyway.

It’s inevitable that the right will somehow whine about gays being … what’s the word … too “icky” for military service, but Meehan is doing this the right way — by emphasizing military readiness. The armed forces need qualified, well-trained volunteers in a time of war, and right now, we’re kicking those qualified, well-trained volunteers out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Moreover, it’s costing taxpayers a fortune and, for that matter, many of the discharged service members held critical jobs in the military, including troops in fields such as military intelligence, battleground medicine, and linguistics.

It offers Congress, and the public, a choice: who wants to put a nonsensical culture war above national security?

Obviously, this won’t be easy. A full repeal would struggle to get a majority in the House, would probably face a filibuster in the Senate, and would no doubt draw a White House veto. Still, it’s about incremental progress.

Even those who strongly support ending “don’t ask, don’t tell” acknowledge they probably don’t have the votes to change the policy, but hearings would be a first and important step toward educating Congress and the public, said Steve Ralls, a spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a nonprofit group that is working to end the policy.

“There’s a lot of work to be done, a lot of education to be done,” Ralls said.

I’d like to think the education would be easy. Ask a typical American, “The U.S. military recruited and trained a linguistic specialist who can translate intercepted terrorist messages, possibly about attacks on American soil. Do you a) want that linguist on the job, possibly saving American lives; or b) want that linguist to be kicked out of the military forever because he or she is gay?”

As I see it, it’s only a matter of time before this absurd and indefensible policy is thrown on the trash heap of bad ideas.

Of course if Bill Clinton had had some semblance of courage this problem would have been solved the same way Harry Truman solved the “problem” of blacks in the military; by signing an executive order and telling the whining crybabies in uniform to suck the hell up and get with the program. Instead, we’ve had “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Get Kicked out of the Military,” which has been a crock.

One thing Congress needs to do is make sure this policy has teeth in it, and be prepared to kick out higher-ups who don’t agree.

  • Either somebody is asking or somebody is telling since we’re discharging all those soldiers. I suspect that it is a case of Telling On and Guessing That.

  • What? They want to remove the best get-out-of-Iraq-free card that the military has? I have known several people, some with long-standing girlfriends, who managed to leave the service by claiming that they were bi-sexual… Would we really want to remove that capability?

  • I suspect that it is a case of Telling On and Guessing That.

    True, a person could decimate an entire unit with a little well placed gossip, which further displays the stupidity of DADT. But I’d like to think some of these dismissals are an FU from a fed up soldier. Imagine sitting through the 2004 elections (Republican Platform: If the terrorists don’t git us the homsektuals will!”) and then getting orders to deploy to Iraq… And what if an entire unit outs itself to avoid deployment? I don’t think the comb test would work here so will the commander stick his finger in his ears and chant “I can’t heeeear yoooooou?”
    360 degree stupid.

    Oh well, the fun begins when various military types try to argue that yes. we desperately need soldiers, only not those soldiers as they sweat like bigots caught in the trap of their own stupidity.

  • And where, then, would the gay guys shower? I presume in the female showers, where they presumably wouldn’t be preying on the females, being only interested in other males… (oh, nevermind. If you instituted a rule like this, then roughly 100% of males in the military would identify themselves as gay…)

  • And where, then, would the gay guys shower? I presume in the female showers, where they presumably wouldn’t be preying on the females

    ah yes – ignorant bigotry reveals it’s ugly little head. Tell us, Castor – what other things do you “presume” about gay people?

  • I have known several people, some with long-standing girlfriends, who managed to leave the service by claiming that they were bi-sexual… Would we really want to remove that capability?

    Hmmm … since you put it that way … YES!

    By the way, I hope every one of your acquaintances left the service with a less than honorable discharge. I don’t know which sickens me more — the fact they reneged on the service commitment because it was personally inconvenient or the fact they used institutional bigotry to their advantage.

  • DeepDarkDiamond- it’s called a joke. lighten up a bit. If you add in the second line, like I wrote it, if anything, it’s a dig at the straight guys who would be moonlighting as gays just to check out girls.
    Y’know, I was in the Army Band, for crying out loud- and there were certainly a few alternative lifestyle people there. Funny thing, everyone basically knew who was homosexual, and nobody gave a rat’s ass one way or another. None of them were kicked out of the Army or harassed. They just quietly lived their lives.
    And, actually, I am quite in favor of allowing people to serve openly. After all, we always had the wags (wives and girlfriends) in attendance at concerts and such. But the others couldn’t bring their significant others to see them in action. Doesn’t seem quite fair.

  • brainiac- no, they all left honorably. And, so long as we have a ‘volunteer’ Army, I fully support that. After all, the basic premise of being a volunteer means that you can volunteer to quit. So they did what they had to do to get out. Why should they be blamed for that?

    Instead, if there is a problem with this, fix the system.

  • And, so long as we have a ‘volunteer’ Army, I fully support that. After all, the basic premise of being a volunteer means that you can volunteer to quit.

    Sorry, no, it doesn’t work like a normal charitable organization. You enlist for a multi-year stint, get training, a small salary and benefits like college aid. In return, the U.S, gets to ship you wherever it wants and tells you whom to shoot and when. Read the fine print, it’s in there.

    After all, the basic premise of being a volunteer means that you can volunteer to quit. So they did what they had to do to get out.

    No they chose the route that offered the least personal risk to themselves. They could have gone AWOL. Or refused orders. Or filed for conscientious objector status. Any of those were more admirable than playing to bigotry.

  • I hope this isn’t going to be in the first 100 hours. There are a lot of things wrong with this policy and the sooner it’s gone the better, but it can’t really be the most important thing the Democrats have to deal with.

    I got the joke Castor. It was just tasteless 😉

  • This is an issue of policy catching up with reality. My take on this issue is that the people setting the policy– higher ups who haven’t been in the trenches themselves for a few decades– think that things are still like they are when they were young soldiers. In the 70s this never would have worked, but now? No one cares. Not to mention dicussing this issue during wartime is far different than discussing it during peacetime.

    My best friend has 3 brothers in the military– 2 are Marines, one is an Army Ranger, all have had 3+ tours in Iraq each. All 3 have said that there are gay people in the military, that people don’t care, they aren’t even harassed or bothered in the way that people might assume. None of these guys are super gay-friendly themselves (they’re not homophobes or bashers but I don’t think they have any gay friends) but they say that no one sees gay soldiers any differently than other gay soldiers. They think the policy is dumb because qualified people shouldn’t be kicked out, that they’re all expected to behave a certain way and not engage in sexual behavior with female soldiers, that this would be no different.

    That being said, I’m not sure this issue should make the first 100 Days Agenda– soon after, but it seems divisive and ripe for the Dems to take a bashing, as well as glbt people in general.

  • Any way you could get those brave men and women who are victims of DADT, and have them stage a rally on the Capitol steps where they can confront face-to-face those Congressmembers who support DADT?

    Maybe ask up front why someone’s sexual orientatino makes them too much of a security threat to serve in the military?

    And also what the Pentagon is doig to replace those slots that were made vacant by this policy?

    Nothing more fun to watch than a politician uncomfortably squirming.

    Also, just from my military experience, those in uniform who are the most ardent supporters of DADT are usually pinheaded mouth-breathers who think way too much of their own masculinity and sexual prowness. And couldn’t get laid in a Mexican whorehouse with a fist full of 100s.

  • so, then, brainiac, just one question. Have you ever served in the military?

    I hardly see how that has anything to do with the discussion. But I’m sure you have a point.

    So the answer is no, Castor Troy. Unlike you I did not serve my country by playing the tuba in the Army Band.

  • What Lance said. Didn’t we learn anything from Clinton’s time?

    If Dems go after a divisive issue like this right away, then that becomes the big issue. We have FAR more serious challenges that need to be addressed, ones which already have overwhelming levels of support. For example, CLIMATE CHANGE. Huge percentages of people want action on this, and if we don’t get busy now, everyone (gay and otherwise) will be really, really hosed.

    Hey Dems: Do NOT waste our honeymoon on the gay-military issue again. There is plenty of time for that after you nuke Diebold and pass Climate Change / Energy legislation.

  • Then, brainiac, don’t question the service or choices of those people who did choose to serve. Maybe, at some point, some of them felt that they couldn’t make their own beliefs concur with the views of the Army. And, maybe, they decided to leave in a quiet manner however they could.

    My point is, basically, that impuning someone merely on an empirical basis, without any personal experience to truly understand the situation, is a position lacking in, well, something. Unless you have been through the process yourself, and had to make those choices, you won’t really understand.

    Don’t get me wrong. It’s not that I am condemning you or anything. Just like you have had your experiences which I probably have never had (and thus can’t fully understand your point of view), you have the same in opposite.

    Oh, and for the snark about being in the Army Band? We deploy, just like everyone else. In my time, I was in Kosovo, just like many other Soldiers out there. I never had the chance to go to Iraq (I was out a long time before it came around), but my old unit was there, right in the thick of things. We don’t just play music there.

  • The big problem here is, once we admit that gays are fit to serve in the military, then we will have to give them the respect and honor that is due to any other veteran. What’s more, we’ll have to acknowledge their right to marry and raise a family with the person of their choice.

    Basically, gays will become “people”.

  • Wow GP! did you really say that?!?!
    Yes, it is a big problem if you don’t think homosexuals are people.

  • Comments are closed.