Alan Simpson was a three-term Republican senator from a reliably “red” state. He’s also an Army vet who voted for “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But as Simpson explained in a powerful op-ed on the policy today, “[M]uch has changed since 1993.”
In less than 1,000 words, Simpson makes the case for ending discrimination as effectively as anyone I’ve ever seen. He puts the case in a straightforward, common-sense way: “[T]he real question is whether allowing homosexuals to serve openly would enhance or degrade our readiness.” Even if we put questions aside about discrimination, morality, and equality, this question seems to be the key. If gays in the military makes us safer, then it’s a good idea.
Simpson begins by noting that American servicemembers and civilians believe the ban should be lifted, but also notes international standards.
24 nations, including 12 in Operation Enduring Freedom and nine in Operation Iraqi Freedom, permit open service. Despite controversy surrounding the policy change, it has had no negative impact on morale, cohesion, readiness or recruitment. Our allies did not display such acceptance back when we voted on “don’t ask, don’t tell,” but we should consider their common-sense example.
I dare a supporter of DADT to explain to me why foreign militaries are strong enough to allow gays to serve openly, but the United States military, the finest in the history of the world, is too weak.
History is on Simpson’s side, too.
The Urban Institute estimates that 65,000 gays are serving and that there are 1 million gay veterans. These gay vets include Capt. Cholene Espinoza, a former U-2 pilot who logged more than 200 combat hours over Iraq, and Marine Staff Sgt. Eric Alva, who lost his right leg to an Iraqi land mine. Since 2005, more than 800 personnel have been discharged from “critical fields” — jobs considered essential but difficult in terms of training or retraining, such as linguists, medical personnel and combat engineers. Aside from allowing us to recruit and retain more personnel, permitting gays to serve openly would enhance the quality of the armed forces.
In World War II, a British mathematician named Alan Turing led the effort to crack the Nazis’ communication code. He mastered the complex German enciphering machine, helping to save the world, and his work laid the basis for modern computer science. Does it matter that Turing was gay? This week, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said that homosexuality is “immoral” and that the ban on open service should therefore not be changed. Would Pace call Turing “immoral”?
Well, probably, but he’s wrong.
What made Simpson come around on this issue? “Since 1993, I have had the rich satisfaction of knowing and working with many openly gay and lesbian Americans, and I have come to realize that “gay” is an artificial category when it comes to measuring a man or woman’s on-the-job performance or commitment to shared goals,” he explained. “It says little about the person.”
Kevin Drum added, “People who are afraid of gays are usually people who have never met a gay person (or think they haven’t, anyway). Conversely, people who have quickly learn that there’s nothing to be afraid of. If there’s a better reason than that for allowing gays to serve in the military, I can’t think of one.”
Neither can I.