Looking the other way on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

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. “60 Minutes” is scheduled to have a report tonight on gays in the wartime military, and the apparent trend to occasionally disregard “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” in the face of recruiting difficulties, retention challenges, and a severely overstretched fighting force. In one instance, CBS’s Lesley Stahl spoke with a gay solider who not only disclosed his sexuality to his superior officers, but “even offered graphic proof.” He was neither discharged nor reprimanded, DADT be damned.

[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.”

It’s apparently part of a trend. Gay soldiers discharged under the DADT policy have dropped from 1,200 a year in 2001 to less than half of that now.

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 opposes the policy.

Bill Clinton’s premature attempt to lift the prohibition against gays serving openly in the military was a bad mistake. Early in his presidency he actually thought he controlled the Pentagon, but quickly learned otherwise. DADT has to be abolished by the military itself, or by a president with military experience. Colin Powell could have done it. Wesley Clark could do it, but whomever it is would probably have to seen as a Rethug, or at least a hawk. Hillary won’t do it no matter what she says. Guiliani might. Romney definitely won’t. Huckabee won’t. The miasma that is our culture war still clouds the shouting match. Increasingly, however, commanders short on competent personnel will need to keep good people even those who are gay. Sexuality is going to be soft pedaled. And it’s about time.

  • Our brave men in the services shouldn’t have to worry out their “rear flank” when they are fighting in the trenches.

    Combat has enough stresses without forcing our young men to be constantly looking over their shoulder to be sure their “back door” is covered.

  • alex said:

    Our brave men in the services shouldn’t have to worry out their “rear flank” when they are fighting in the trenches.

    Women in the service have to worry about their “rear flank” all the time. Get over it.

  • I agree with the logic of, “Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell”. The problem is with gay-bashers (& racist) always jonesing for free-fire-zones…If a message goes out that is respected, to dial-it-back-a-notch, they will. But still, you’re dealing with primitive animal drives associated with domination/reproduction.

  • Yep, according to the ReThugs, other countries (including almost every one in the “Coalition of the Willing”) are able to survive gays who serve openly in their military but the feeble scaredy cats of the U.S. military services have to be protected from anything different or they’ll cry.

    Gee. Who is it that supports the troops again?

    I also assume that U.S. soldiers have fought alongside/been quartered with soldiers from non-retarded countries so pretending they can’t serve alongside gays and lesbians becomes even more of a farce, until we reach the point where officers in the U.S. military have to stick their fingers and their ears and chant “La la la! I can’t heaaaar yooooo!” when a service member comes out to them.

    And we’re expecting these same guys to pull off a win in Iraq?

    Bwahaha!

  • 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.

    I think the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy represents a war-crime-like acceptance of risk to our personnel and to American lives when we know the gays could be improving the war effort.

    It’s like Bush and Condi are soldiers in WWII who know that their allies firing the mortars are unwittingly hitting civilian villages, but don’t tell them.

    Guess who the murderer is? It’s you, for not telling the mortar-firers what’s going on, so they can redirect the mortar fire, or learn how to fire a mortar better- not the soldier who has to try to defend French villages or whatever from the advancing Nazis with nothing but a mortar, that on his own (without any intelligence) he can only aim in particular directions, not at particular targets.

    Thanks a lot, Bush and Condi!

  • “Combat has enough stresses without forcing our young men to be constantly looking over their shoulder to be sure their “back door” is covered.”

    Show me an example where a gay soldier forced a straight soldier to have sex with them.

    You can’t, because it never happened, and will never happen.

    On the other hand, I can show you examples of where male soldiers raped female soldiers. But I guess that’s just water under the bridge.

  • Bill Clinton’s premature attempt to lift the prohibition against gays serving openly in the military was a bad mistake.

    Like most of the GOP attacks on Clinton, Gays In The Military was simply a matter of making use of a convenient club. Interestingly, like many GOP attacks, it worked well in the short term but caused long-term damage to the Republicans as they now have a well-earned rep as homophobes which drives away younger voters.

  • To clarify my earlier comments: Clinton tried to deliver on a campaign promise that he would end anti-gay discrimination in the military, and I have always respected the attempt. It was a mistake of timing because he did it so early in his presidency. To be sure there would always be opposition, but, had he waited until he had a team in place, and layed some groundwork, the outcome might have been different. By shooting from the hip, as he did, he enabled the knuckle-draggers.

    I think it’s hilarious when big, macho ‘straight’ guys are worried that a gay guy is going to force them to have sex. When is this country going to grow up.

  • 2Manchu at #7:

    Apparently you’ve missed the news surrounding the arrest, plea, and sentencing of a Catholic priest turned navy chaplain who committed forcible sodomy against male cadets and possibly infected them with HIV.

    http://www.newser.com/story/13392.html

    http://catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=11191

    This is the only example of gay rape in the military that I’ve ever heard of. Though I wouldn’t call it a product of DADT or a result of having gays in the military so much as yet another in a long line of failings of the Catholic church (and the Archdiocese for Military Services) to police its own.

    As a gay veteran, I say the policy is bad law. It violates the spirit of the Equal Opportunity law the military supposedly endorses, it’s divisive, it’s isolating, it’s unnecessary, and needs to be revoked. Imagine, a bunch of grown men being so insecure in their own manhood that they need to “cover their rear flank” in a war zone. According to the latest news, it’s the female employees of KBR who need to worry about that. The troops are too busy keeping each other alive. No one cared who I slept with as a soldier, so long as it wasn’t a member of my chain of command.

  • Comments are closed.