Generals, admirals push back against ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

At Wednesday’s debate for Republican presidential hopefuls, several candidates said they’d turn to military leaders when it comes to allowing gays to serve in the armed forces. Mitt Romney said, “I’m going to listen to the people who run the military.” John McCain said he would rely on “designated leaders with the responsibility of the safety of the men and women under their command and their security and protect them as best they can.”

As it turns out, there are 28 generals and admirals who have some helpful advice for these candidates.

Marking the 14th anniversary of legislation that allowed gay men and lesbians to serve in the military but only if they kept their orientation secret, 28 retired generals and admirals plan to release a letter on Friday urging Congress to repeal the law.

“We respectfully urge Congress to repeal the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy,” the letter says. “Those of us signing this letter have dedicated our lives to defending the rights of our citizens to believe whatever they wish.”

The retired officers offer data showing that 65,000 gay men and lesbians now serve in the American armed forces and that there are more than one million gay veterans.

“They have served our nation honorably,” the letter states.

McCain said he would want to “begin” with the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the issue. Coincidentally, Gen. John Shalikashvili, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when the policy was adopted in the early 1990s, is now helping lead opposition to the policy.

“I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces,” Shalikashvili wrote. “Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.”

As for the Republicans’ argument that it would undermine military cohesion, there’s evidence to the contrary.

The data also indicate that military attitudes about homosexuality have shifted. In the early 1990’s, many senior officers argued that U.S. troops could not form bonds of trust with gays and lesbians, according to Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center, who has written widely on the subject. According to the new Zogby data, however, nearly three in four troops (73%) say they are personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians.

All of this will be front and center this weekend, by the way, on the National Mall.

Activities planned on Friday to mark the anniversary of the legislation are to center on a rally on the Mall in tribute to the service members discharged under the policy. Sponsors of the rally include organizations like the Human Rights Campaign, Servicemembers United, Log Cabin Republicans, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and Liberty Education.

I’d just add, as a side note, that every Democratic presidential candidate has announced their opposition to DADT, while every Republican candidate has announced their support for it.

Stay tuned.

“…every Democratic presidential candidate has announced their opposition to DADT, while every Republican candidate has announced their support for it.”

That’s funny… Fourteen years ago, Democrats were for it, while Republicans were against it.

  • Well, I guess I’d wonder why anyone would want to serve in a military that’s embroiled in illegal wars, even gays.

    But, notwithstanding the knowledge that the invasion of Iraq was unlawful, as would an attack on Iran be unlawful, it’s ridiculous to prohibit gays and lesbians from serving in the armed forces of America if they wish to volunteer and can meet the qualifications.

    The shadow of racism that prohibited African Americans from serving in the Armed Forces at the beginning of WW II is long, and it’s the same ugly shape as the current-day prejudice against gays in the military. Even the same excuses are made. The same excuses were made for women serving in the military, too.

    As much as proclaimed “straight” Republicans fool around with gay prostitutes and reporters, you’d think they’d see their own hypocritical party stance (a wide one?) on this issue, though maybe they’re of the belief that the only reason they mess around is because gays exist, but they certainly aren’t gay. Keep ’em out of the.military so America’s “finest” won’t be tempted to fall into perdition?

  • I wonder if respect for service by gays in the present war will end up being the tipping point that leads to much broader acceptance of gays in American society generally. I’m thinking of the analogy with how blacks’ service in WWII helped to touch off integration and made the idea of racial equality more or less acceptable (if not universal) in mainstream America (except in the deep South, which had to wait another generation or two). Saying that someone put their life on the line for their country is kind of a trump card in a civil rights debate – there’s simply no response that doesn’t sound petty, ungrateful, narrow-minded. Well, here’s hoping it works out like this anyway.

  • What everyone misses in this debate is the reason most politicians are against it. While some of it (okay, a lot of it) is bigotry, the big problem is that once gays are allowed to serve openly, they will demand equal benefits. That means health care coverage for domestic partners, which means increased costs to the American taxpayer. Pols don’t want to deal with it. DADT means never having to know you have dependents.

  • Shalikashvili wrote. “Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.”

    While it’s welcome news that gays may finally be accepted and recognized for service to the country, it’s sad to note that, for some, it comes as a “we have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to fuel our misguided wars” moment. Here again, the military is now accepting more recruits with criminal records and sketchy health history too, so homosexuality is remains equated with substandard qualities. Still, it’s progress, by inches.

  • Jim G’s comment is historically and factually inaccurate. Makes me wonder if he’s trolling.

    “Don’t ask, don’t tell” didn’t appear as a policy until after the election when conservative Dem. Sen. Sam Nunn from Georgia decided to vent his spleen because he wasn’t going to get the Secretary of State position in the new Clinton administration. In retaliation, he proposed to cut off at the knees Bill Clinton’s campaign promise to issue an executive order reversing the “no gays/lesbians” military policy by proposing a bill that would have turned the ban at that time into law. As I recall, Nunn was the Senate Armed Services chair and could have gotten it passed easily and speedily. Flawed as DADT is, it was a compromise executive order to get around the all-or-nothing debate of whether gays and lesbians are or are not allowed in the military. DADT was not debated in the 1992 presidential race.

    The 1992 race saw a debate of whether gays and lesbians should be allowed at all in the military and whether the ban (which only existed since WWII) should be overturned. Bill Clinton promised during his 1992 campaign that the first executive order he would sign when in office would be to overturn the ban and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly (they’ve always served).

    If Republicans opposed DADT, it was because they opposed letting gays and lesbians serve at all in the military. And no Republican supported overturning the ban in the 1992 race.

    Jim G, your comment is so misleading that I consider it a lie.

  • But…but….aren’t Republicans the ones who supposedly have such a “wide stance” on the issues of homosexuality in general? Aren’t they so in favor of it that they spend endless hours in public places promoting these very practices with members of the general public?

    I dunno, I get so confused about this sometimes. It’s almost like they say different things at different times, doesn’t it? Probably just a technical glitch, I’m sure.

  • “[…]the big problem is that once gays are allowed to serve openly, they will demand equal benefits. That means health care coverage for domestic partners, which means increased costs to the American taxpayer.”

    Ah, so that’s why the Bush administration has been cutting veterans benefits. Very far-sighted of them.

  • Oh I must exhume the brilliant, brilliant Bill Hicks (R.I.P.), who nailed this issue 14 years ago, and nobody’s done it better since:

    “I dunno how you feel about this, but gays want to be in the military.

    Here’s how I feel about it:

    Anyone…

    DUMB ENOUGH!

    to want to be in the military…

    should be allowed in.”

  • Comments are closed.