|
|
|
Jewish World Review Dec. 8, 2010/ 1 Teves, 5771 A Lethal Military, Inclusive or Not By Arnold Ahlert
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
Despite the fact our military remains engaged in two wars in the Middle East, the focus of our military establishment has been centered around whether or not to repeal the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding homosexuals serving in the military. DADT was established in 1993 when president Bill Clinton asked Defense Secretary Les Aspin to formulate a policy to address "the real, practical problems that would be involved" in ending discrimination based on sexual orientation. After much debate President Clinton and Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA), chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, reached a compromise and DADT became the law of the land. Despite this compromise, the issue remains unresolved in the minds of many Americans. Should DADT be repealed?
Let's begin with historical context. In both the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, black Americans were initially barred from service. In both wars, the policy was eventually reversed for practical reasons. During the American Revolution, the British offered American slaves freedom if they fought on the British side. During the Civil War, the Union forces faced a serious troop shortage. In both instances, black troops were segregated from their white counterparts.
This segregation continued up to, and partially through, WWll when, once again, a manpower shortage dictated the need for accepting blacks into military service. During the war, the Navy began experimenting with integration, largely due to the fact that maintaining separate combat-ready units was deemed to be unnecessarily expensive. Yet such integration was "unofficial." In 1948, President Harry Truman issued Executive Order 9981, in which he "declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin."
The order was hardly a panacea. One month before it was issued, a Gallup poll indicated that 63% of Americans endorsed segregation in the military. A 1949 survey of white Army personnel showed equally resistance: 32% completely opposed racial integration per se, and 61% opposed integration if it meant that both races would share sleeping quarters and mess halls. On the other hand, 68% were willing to work together if separate sleeping and eating arrangements could be maintained.
During the Korean War the Army, again due to personnel shortages, became integrated. A study made during that time concluded that "racial integration had not impaired task performance or unit effectiveness, that cooperation in integrated units was equal or superior to that of all-White units, and that serving with Blacks appeared to make White soldiers more accepting of integration." By the end of that conflict the Defense Department eliminated segregated units and living quarters. Since the 1960s, several Defense Dept. programs and policies have been implemented to address lingering problems related to race, most notably the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) established by the Secretary of Defense in 1971.
With respect to the history of gays in the military, there was no official policy. Yet sodomy was considered a criminal offense during Revolutionary times and the military continually engaged in removing suspected homosexuals from military units. During WWll, the military took a different approach. Psychological screening became part of the induction process and, at that time, homosexuality was still considered a mental disorder (the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association declassified it in 1973 and 1975, respectively).
Once again, reality intruded and personnel shortages allowed many gay and lesbians to enlist and serve. After the war, however, and continuing throughout the '50s and '60s, gays were once again barred from serving the country. Throughout the '70s, challenging the policy in court was largely unsuccessful, despite the burgeoning civil rights movement taking place in many other aspects of American life. Then in 1981 the Dept. of Defense formulated a policy in which homosexuality was considered "incompatible" with military service. This resulted in the discharge of almost 17,000 men and women during that decade, according to the Government Accounting Office (GAO).
That policy provided much of the impetus for the enactment of DADT in 1993. Since then, challenges to the it have had an inconsistent track record with respect to lower court rulings, but higher courts have upheld it.
This past September, US District Court Judge Virginia Phillips ruled in California that DADT was un-Constitutional, claiming the ban violates the first and fifth Amendment rights of homosexuals. She issued an injunction barring enforcement of the policy. The case had been brought to the court in 2004 by Log Cabin Republicans, a 19,000 member constituency of the Republican party. In October, a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the ruling--at the request of the Obama administration who, though in favor of repeal, argued that such an abrupt change "risks causing significant immediate harm to the military and its efforts to be prepared to implement an orderly repeal of the statute." Despite this, Defense Department spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said the Pentagon has advised recruiting stations that they can accept openly gay applicants provided they qualify under normal recruiting guidelines. However, recruiters are not allowed to inquire about someone's sexual orientation.
The American public? A Pew Research poll released November 29th indicates that 58% of those surveyed favored the repeal of DADT and allowing gays to serve openly in the military. And in a study released this week by the Pentagon, two-thirds of our overall forces "predicted little impact on the military's ability to fight if gays were allowed to serve openly."
Yet troops performing combat duties were still resistant. Nearly 60% of those in the Army and Marine combat units said they thought repealing the law would "hurt their units' ability to fight on the battlefield." Opponents of the repeal, led by former veteran Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), along with military service chiefs, argue that making such a substantial policy change is a bad idea in the middle of two wars. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the study indicated a need for "an abundance of care and preparation" before changing policy, but that the concerns of combat troops "do not present an insurmountable barrier to successful repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell."'
In a related vein, it should be noted that on October 21st, the Navy announced that women will begin serving on submarines in December, 2011. Twenty-four graduates of U.S. Naval Academy, ROTC programs and Officer Candidate School will rotate service on four different submarines. Three women, all officers, out of a crew of 154, will serve aboard each sub at any one time. The submarine force is the last of the Navy's forces to allow women to serve, as they have been part of noncombat surface ship crews since 1973, and combat surface ships since 1993.
Is ending DADT a good move? As with women on submarines, there has been considerable pressure put on the armed forces to make our military more "diverse" and more "representative of America as a whole." Yet is such social engineering is beneficial--or even relevant--with respect to producing the finest fighting forces in the world?
That and nothing else ought to be the foremost consideration for any military policy-making.
Yet as we learned from the Fort Hood incident, such is hardly the case. After Army Major Nidal Hasan killed 13 and wounded 32 of his fellow soldiers at that base, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said that "(o)ur diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."
Memo to Gen. Casey: there is no greater tragedy than the loss of American soldiers. And putting our soldiers in unnecessary danger and/or losing an entire war--for political correctness sake--is beyond irresponsible. Here's hoping a far more forthright discussion of DADT--with plenty of input from military experts--takes place prior to any change in policy.
We owe nothing less to those Americans willing to put their lives on the line for our nation.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Comment on JWR Contributor Arnold Ahlert's column, by clicking here.
© 2010, Arnold Ahlert |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||||||
