Continuing to look the other way on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Following up on an item from a month ago, when it comes to kicking Americans out of the military because they’re gay, the occasional defense — offered by conservatives who know the policy is absurd — is that the Pentagon is merely following the law. If Congress wants able-bodied, patriotic, American volunteers to join the Armed Forces, regardless of sexual orientation, lawmakers should change the policy. If not, the Defense Department doesn’t have a lot of choice.

Except, that’s wrong. Gay soldiers discharged under the DADT policy have dropped from over 1,200 a year in 2001 to less than half of that now. The far-right Washington Times has a report today suggesting that’s probably not a coincidence.

The U.S. military says it is enforcing the ban on open homosexuals in the ranks, as it has for decades, in the face of statistics that show a sharp drop in the number of discharged homosexuals as wars in Afghanistan and Iraq continue.

Homosexual rights advocates cite the plunge as evidence that the military is losing interest in enforcement and lets openly homosexual men and women serve because commanders need every able-bodied troop.

“Truth be told, I don’t think the Pentagon is a big fan of the law anymore,” said Steve Ralls, spokesman for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which is pushing for the ban’s demise.

Asked to explain the sharp drop in discharges, Pentagon spokesperson Eileen Lainez said “we can’t speculate as to why the number of discharges has declined.”

Well, I suppose I can understand why the Pentagon “can’t speculate,” but the rest of us can speculate all we want.

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network’s Ralls pointed to the decline as “clear evidence that traditionally during a time of war lesbian and gay discharges decline…. Commanders recognize the value of having good quality service members on the job regardless of what their sexual orientation may be.”

Conservatives argued the drop in discharges is more likely due to fewer gays trying to volunteer for military service, but there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence to bolster Ralls’ contention.

[Army Sgt. Darren Manzella], a medic who served in Iraq for a year, currently serves as medical liaison for the 1st Cavalry Division stationed in Kuwait, where he says he is “out” to his entire chain of command, including a three-star general. After leaving Iraq, he started receiving anonymous emails warning him about his openness that suggested he was being watched, so he went to his commander to head off an investigation he felt was coming. “I didn’t know how else to do it,” he tells Stahl, acknowledging that he initiated an investigation of himself by violating the policy. “I felt more comfortable being the one to say, ‘This is what is real,'” Manzella says.

He then says his commander reported him, as he was obliged to do, and then “I had to go see my battalion commander, who read me my rights,” he says. He turned over pictures of him and his boyfriend, including video of a passionate kiss, to aid the investigation. But to his surprise, “I was told to go back to work. There was no evidence of homosexuality,” says Manzella. “‘You’re not gay,'” he says his superiors told him. This response confused him and, he says, the closest a superior officer came to addressing his sexuality was to say “I don’t care if you’re gay or not.”

A few months ago, John McCain said gay people in the military represent an “intolerable risk” to morale, cohesion, and discipline. When push comes to shove, the military apparently disagrees.

Stahl spoke with several gay former military members who say they were also out openly in their units, known to be gay by as many as a hundred other service members. “They don’t care….these are our peers…the ‘Will and Grace’ generation,” says Brian Fricke, referring to the popular television program featuring a gay character. Fricke was a Marine Corps avionics technician who served in Iraq. “They grew up with it in the media….They see gay people as people…Americans,” says Fricke. “They don’t see gay people as people with a disability….”

These gay former service members say they did not re-enlist because they oppose the don’t ask, don’t tell policy, which they say shows the military’s leadership is out of step with American society and its allies. Gays serve openly in the British military and in those of the other 14 NATO countries.

For the record, every Republican presidential candidate supports keeping DADT in place. Every Democratic presidential candidate, including all of the ones who’ve already dropped out, opposes the policy.

Well, of course, they’re being kept in the military. This corrupt regime needs all the live bodies it can get to serve in Iraq. So what if they’re gay….

  • At their “debate” in Nevada the Dems were asked if they suppored the law that penalizes colleges and universities heavily for not having ROTC or for not making facilities available to military recruiters. What a softball question. Of course they do, they quickly said, and then quickly changed the subject to the poor treatment veterans are getting at the hands of Bushco.

    The unspoken subtext of course was DADT. Colleges and universites have non-discrimination policies, and by having ROTC and recruiters gay and lesbian students are immediately relegated to second-class status, which violates the non-discrimination policies. That was the point of the law in the first place: to stigmatize gay and lesbian students by making it clear they couldn’t participate in anything military if they out and proud.

    So the candidates might all be against DADT, but the so-called Solomon amendment is as ugly as ever because it extends the reach of DADT into the student population. One might have hoped that the candidates would have addressed this injustice. But they didn’t.

  • Randy Shilts wrote about this in 1995 in Conduct Unbecoming. When the military needs people, suddenly it is ok to be gay. When there is a glut of volunteers, let the witchhunts begin. Nothing new in what is going on now.

  • Among all his other gifts to us, we owe “Hypocrite Bill” Clinton for the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

    He promised all during his first campaign that integrating gays into the military would his very first Executive Order, claiming affinity with Truman’s having ordered racial integration.

    Instead, he bent over for Sam Nunn and the military establishment, coming up with DADT.

    Reminiscent of Reid-Pelosi this last year, Clinton simply gave us all the finger and “moved on”.

  • the Dems were asked if they suppored the law that penalizes colleges and universities heavily for not having ROTC or for not making facilities available to military recruiters. What a softball question. Of course they do, they quickly said

    Proving that all three are more pragmatic than progressive, and none can truly be counted on for a Profile in Courage moment. Yet another (unfortunate) way they are all more alike than different.

  • “For the record, every Republican presidential candidate supports keeping DADT in place. Every Democratic presidential candidate, including all of the ones who’ve already dropped out, opposes the policy.”

    well, duh!

  • My friend’s nephew is just completing Marine boot camp. He has a congenital condition that makes his bones fragile and he’s now a MARINE! Another friend’s son, after serving years back and being rejected then for re-enlistment, is now on his way to Iraq, suddenly accepted again. Needless to say, anyone of any physical ability, with any criminal background or service history is eligible to be Bush cannon fodder now. Don’t ask, don’t tell (literally), now goes for every recruit.

  • Picking up on what Martin said: We’ve already heard about people being asked to return their signing bonuses when they’re wounded and can’t be sent back to the field, BushCo is playing silly buggers with the definition of PTSD so fewer vets are eligible for treatment and of course there’s bullshit like WRMC. All in the name of the Almighty $$.

    I worry that when this stinking nightmare is finally over the P-gon will suddenly decide that glb’s in the military are the worst thing eva, go through the files of Iraq/Afghanistan vets and people like Manzella will find themselves with a DD and no benefits.

    The only question is: If a soldier is out to his higher command and they don’t do anything, can they get in trouble?

  • The only question is: If a soldier is out to his higher command and they don’t do anything, can they get in trouble? -The Answer is Orange

    Technically, yes.

    Would their higher ups get charged with anything?

    Of course not, they have careers to worry about. So the JAG will just go after those lower in rank.

  • 2Manchu #10:

    The JAG actually represents the Commanding Officer of the unit in legal matters, and is the prosecuting attorney when any service member is charged with a UCMJ offense. Lower ranking troops cannot rely on the JAG for legal advice or representation. If it’s in the CO’s best interest to prosecute his career officers for looking the other way, you bet your ass he’ll do it. If not, he’ll have the JAG go after the GLB troop to save his own bacon. I’ve seen so many enlisted troops unknowingly go to the JAG for legal advice on any number of issues, only to wind up being prosecuted by the command. Any soldier under investigation under DADT needs to get an SLDN defense attorney immediately. Don’t trust the JAG, don’t trust the Chaplain, trust your own private defense attorney.

  • Keori,

    I have to admit that my comment didn’t sound right after I submitted it.

    Everything I know about the UCMJ is basically limited to what they taught me at the Primary Leadership Development Course. Which means anything above an Article 15 is beyond me.

    Thanks for the clarification.

  • Comments are closed.