My Two Cents On DADT

By Semperpapa

In the 2011 defense authorization bill has a provision that would repeal the Clinton-era Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy regarding homosexuals serving openly in the Military.

This issue has been beaten to death for some time, now, since Obama used the promise to repeal the policy during his 2008 campaign and has failed to achieve it. As a matter of fact, when a federal judge in Riverside, California, ordered that the policy be banned, Obama even had the order stayed.

So, it looks like Obama is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I have purposely steered away from this controversy, mostly because as a civilian, I did not feel to be knowledgeable enough to take an educated stance.

That said, it does not mean that I do not have an opinion on the subject, but my opinion is somewhat biased by my utmost interest, which is the safety and success of our Military.

What I mean by it is that while many of the civilians on both side of the issue are driven by personal and/or political agenda, my position is dictated by the potential repercussions that the repealing the policy could reflect on our troops.

First and foremost, we must understand that with the current conditions in place, there surely is a good percentage of homosexuals serving our country. It is also an obvious certainty that the vast majority of them has and still is serving our Nation in the most honorable way.

Deduction from my last statement is that a particular sexual orientation is not, at any level, detrimental to the quality of service that specific uniformed Americans are performing for the safety and security of our Nation.

Following the common sense train, I am of the opinion that the policy should be left alone, for several reasons.

First. We are in the mix of two wars against an enemy that is absolutely determined to kill our very socio-political and cultural structure. The only line of defense we have to combat such foe outside our borders is our Military and, at this time, the potential for such a social change could be extremely detrimental to the safety of our troops and their mission.

Secondly, our troops in Iraq and especially Afghanistan, are already prevented, by paralyzing ROE, to fight the enemy with one hand behind their back. One way to maximize their ability to survive their tours in theater is to rely completely upon their brothers and sisters in arm.

I am not insinuating that repealing the policy would deteriorate the bond that troops in combat have developed after so much time spent training and especially as their lives depends on each other. But there may be cases where someone’s beliefs, as fringe as they might be, could deteriorate the feeling of trust and mutual support that is so essential in the environment.

Third. There is a reason why men and women do not share living arrangements, on a normal basis, while serving in the Military. It is because the close proximity of living conditions can cause relationships to develop and deterioration of unit efficiency. Would the repeal of DADT require the Services to create accommodations for homosexuals? And how would that work?

Women are excluded from serving in combat units, as the living conditions of those units are usually the least “comfortable” and privacy is much reduced. Would homosexuals be prevented from serving in combat too? I can already see the law suits going. Moreover, that would prevent some great warriors to be in the job they are best at.

The Military is not the type of organization where social experiments should be conducted. The very nature of the work they are required to do demands that complete trust exists. Anything less would be dangerous for the unit.

So the defense appropriation bill was pushed out as Harry Reid could not master the 60 votes necessary to overcome filibuster. The vote in the Senate was 57 to 40.

Joe Lieberman is going to introduce a separate bill with Susan Collins. They want the policy to be repealed.

What pushed me to chime into this subject was the report that supposedly the Pentagon has provided stating that the majority of the troops would have no objections to the reversal of the policy.

Meantime, the leadership of the branches just testified that the repeal of the policy at this time would be a bad idea.

What I find outrageous is the statement of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, who stated that those opposed to the open service of homosexuals in the Armed Forces should look for another line of work. I find such statement insulting and confrontational.

Ultimately, the majority of those who stomp the dirt of Iraq and Afghanistan, instead of the cool, sanitized corridors of the Pentagon, the majority of those who are more interested in getting home to their families than to make a political move for advancement, are just of the opinion that it is better if certain personal aspects of someone’s life remain unknown.

From some of the material I read, it appears that probably the majority of those currently serving in the Military who are homosexuals, would probably, regardless of the policy in place, keep that detail of their lives away from their comrades, for the simple reason that their main desire is to serve their country.

Unless they have a political agenda. Leave the Military alone and allow them to do what they are trained to do without using them as guinea pigs for some fringe political action organization.

Just my thoughts!