For the last seventeen years, the United States military has enforced a policy known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which allows gay citizens to serve in the military, as long as they keep their sexual orientation a secret. Should they reveal their sexual orientation, however, gay soldiers risk being discharged from the military for violating the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Recently, some have questioned the fairness of such a policy, and there have been growing calls for gays to be allowed to serve openly and without consequence.
Mackubin Thomas Owens, however, argues in an editorial titled "The Case Against Gays in the Military" that the military's policy should not change, and contends that "the reason for excluding open homosexuals from the military has nothing to do with equal rights or freedom of expression," and that the primary consideration is one of "military effectiveness."
Read Owen's editorial and state your opinion on this debate: Do you think the United States should repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? Or do you agree with Owen's that, far from being a homophobic policy, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is the best way to ensure camaraderie and fraternity among our soldiers?
Because the Wall Street Journal requires registration to read archived content, I will post a copy of the editorial at the end of this post. Here is a link to the original editorial as well:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703389004575033601528093416.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Your response, whether you respond to this or the first option, must be at least 150 words in length and is due by March 4th.
"The Case Against Gays in the Military"
By MACKUBIN THOMAS OWENS
As expected, President Obama pledged during his State of the Union address to "work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are." This law—often mistakenly referred to as "don't ask, don't tell"—was passed in 1993 by a veto-proof margin in a Democratic controlled Congress.
The law codified regulations in effect before President Bill Clinton's inauguration, making the historical prohibition against military service for homosexuals a matter of statute. As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates observed in June of last year, "What we have is a law, not a policy or regulation. And as I discovered when I got into it, it is a very prescriptive law. It doesn't leave a lot to the imagination or a lot of flexibility."
The congressional findings supporting the 1993 law (section 654 of title 10, United States Code) reflect the common-sense observation that military organizations exist to win wars. To maximize the chances of battlefield success, military organizations must overcome the paralyzing effects of fear on the individual soldier and what the famous Prussian war theorist Carl von Clausewitz called "friction" and the "fog of uncertainty."
This they do by means of an ethos that stresses discipline, morale, good order and unit cohesion. Anything that threatens the nonsexual bonding that lies at the heart of unit cohesion adversely affects morale, disciple and good order, generating friction and undermining this ethos. Congress at the time and many today, including members of the military and members of Congress from both parties, believe that service by open homosexuals poses such a threat.
There are many foolish reasons to exclude homosexuals from serving in the armed services. One is simple antihomosexual bigotry. But as the late Charles Moskos, the noted military sociologist, observed during the Clinton years, this does not mean that we should ignore the good ones. And the most important is expressed in the 1993 law: that open homosexuality is incompatible with military service because it undermines the military ethos upon which success in war ultimately depends.
Winning the nation's wars is the military's functional imperative. Indeed, it is the only reason for a liberal society to maintain a military organization. War is terror. War is confusion. War is characterized by chance, uncertainty and friction. The military's ethos constitutes an evolutionary response to these factors—an attempt to minimize their impact.
Accordingly, the military stresses such martial virtues as courage, both physical and moral, a sense of honor and duty, discipline, a professional code of conduct, and loyalty. It places a premium on such factors as unit cohesion and morale. The glue of the military ethos is what the Greeks called philia—friendship, comradeship or brotherly love. Philia, the bond among disparate individuals who have nothing in common but facing death and misery together, is the source of the unit cohesion that most research has shown to be critical to battlefield success.
Philia depends on fairness and the absence of favoritism. Favoritism and double standards are deadly to philia and its associated phenomena—cohesion, morale and discipline—are absolutely critical to the success of a military organization.
The presence of open homosexuals in the close confines of ships or military units opens the possibility that eros—which unlike philia is sexual, and therefore individual and exclusive—will be unleashed into the environment. Eros manifests itself as sexual competition, protectiveness and favoritism, all of which undermine the nonsexual bonding essential to unit cohesion, good order, discipline and morale.
As Sen. James Webb (D., Va.), who was awarded the Navy Cross for valor as a Marine officer in Vietnam, wrote in the Weekly Standard in 1997, "There is no greater or more natural bias than that of an individual toward a beloved. And few emotions are more powerful, or more distracting, than those surrounding the pursuit of, competition for, or the breaking off of amorous relationships."
The destructive impact of such relationships on unit cohesion can be denied only by ideologues. Does a superior order his or her beloved into danger? If he or she demonstrates favoritism, what is the consequence for unit morale and discipline? What happens when jealousy rears its head? These are questions of life and death, and they help to explain why open homosexuality and homosexual behavior traditionally have been considered incompatible with military service.
Although it is popular to equate opposition to permitting homosexuals to serve openly in the military today with opposition to racial integration of the services six decades ago, the similarities between the two cases are superficial.
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Colin Powell, who no doubt knows something about racial discrimination, made the proper distinction in a reply to former Rep. Pat Schroeder during testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in 1992 when she argued that point. "Skin color is a benign nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument," he said.
The reason for excluding open homosexuals from the military has nothing to do with equal rights or freedom of expression. Indeed, there is no constitutional right to serve in the military. The primary consideration must be military effectiveness. Congress should keep the ban in place. It certainly should not change the law when the United States is engaged in two wars.
-Mr. Owens is the editor of Orbis, the quarterly journal of the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He is a Marine infantry veteran of Vietnam.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
I was well aware of the "don't ask don't tell" policy, but I had no idea there was an actual law that prohibited homosexuals from being a part of the military. Not only was I surprised, but I was also more than a little miffed. While I understand why being openly gay in the military, especially homosexual males, could pose many problems, I don't believe there should be such an obviously homophobic law in our nations books. Do I think the military should ask about your sexuality? No. I view discussing your sexuality with the military the same as public displays of affection. I don't care whether you are a homosexual couple or a heterosexual couple, I still don't want to see you making out in the middle of the mall. It's gross, no one wants to see you snogging, and that's why you have a house. Seriously. So why can't the military have the same outlook?
I find it highly offensive as a human being that there is an actual law prohibiting homosexuals from entering the military. Who are they to say a homosexual has less pride, is less of a patriot, less of an AMERICAN, and should be denied the ability to serve our country? It shouldn't matter what gender a person likes, it should be about their willingness to serve. In the article the author states:
"The destructive impact of such relationships on unit cohesion can be denied only by ideologues. Does a superior order his or her beloved into danger? If he or she demonstrates favoritism, what is the consequence for unit morale and discipline? What happens when jealousy rears its head? These are questions of life and death, and they help to explain why open homosexuality and homosexual behavior traditionally have been considered incompatible with military service."
Why wouldn't this be an argument to keep women out of the military? Men are generally more naturally protective of women, whether they are in the service or not. There are rules and regulations prohibiting fraternization and relationships between a man an a woman. If a couple is found out, they can be court marshaled, discharged, and even sent to prison. Why wouldn't the same standards apply for homosexual couples as heterosexual couples?
I think the US should stop hiding behind laws to deal with it's homophobia. We as Americans need to step up and realize that it doesn't matter what color your skin is, whether you are a man or a woman, or if you are homosexual or heterosexual. We are all capable of the same feelings, thoughts, and actions. No one should be denied the opportunity to serve his or her country if they have the desire to do so.
I agree with Ownes, Don’t Ask, Don't Tell" is the best way to ensure camaraderie and fraternity among our soldiers. Taking into account his position on what the military is for and how it accomplishes its duties is of the upmost importants. The reading states that one of the easiest ways to bring a since of doubt among soldiers is to bring emotions into the game. If soldiers began to openly discuss there sexual relationships with other soldiers it is evident that disagreements would arise, and like anything else everyone has a possession on this matter. Don’t ask don’t tell allows for a constant understanding within the military. For instance favoritism is a natural reaction among human beings allowing for favoritism amongst soldiers would immediately rear itself on the battle field, and would begin to underpin the cohesiveness among soldiers that the military strives for. Even though we might be at a time when volunteering is low, a well oiled machine works better than ten machines not oiled.
Bkline
Growing up in a family that had little military background, I had no clue about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. After reading Owens article, I do not agree with his point of view. People have changed since 1993, homosexuals are more common. I understand how it would be awkward for homosexual males to be in the military and talk about it, but I do not think the government should ask sexual orientation. If an individual wants to talk about their sexual preferences, they should be able to. It’s part of freedom of speech, isn't it? I do think gays could take it too far by hitting on others of the same gender. This is when there should be a rule set. Nobody wants to see a girl and a guy all over each other in public, this kind of thing shouldn’t happen in the military either, whether it is a girl and a guy or two males. I think since the world has come a long way since 1993, the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is out of date and should be updated.
Kayla King
The debate about homosexuals serving in the military is a very complex issue. It shouldn’t hamper someone from being able to serve in the military. The problem seems to be if it raises any concerns about the ability of a squad to be unified at all times and not break down the camaraderie of the unit. The United States don’t let heterosexuals bed together in the same barracks, nor do they let them shower together. I think the argument could be made that since homosexuals are attracted to the same gender; then, it stands to reason that we should look on how the housing and other activities would have to be arranged to keep the fraternization out of the service the same way the service has set up for heterosexual relationships.
The article talks about favoritism and jealousy. This is one of the reasons the fraternization rules and guidelines were set up in the first place. This is represented in the article when the author states, “Does a superior order his or her beloved into danger?” I don’t think the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” law is homophobic but implemented to allow homosexuals to serve and keep the safety of the rest of the squad in mind. Sometimes the things we have aren’t the best, they are just the best we have at the current time.
First of all, I did not know that there was a “don't ask, don't tell” law for the military about homosexuality. While at first glance I see this as unfair because it does not offer the same opportunity to all people without judgment, I do agree with some of the reasons they gave for the law being in place. While I am not sure if they are genuine about their intentions in making the law, the reasons they provided make sense because the sexual orientation differences could get in the way of the closeness of the group. Homosexuality is a big issue in our society today and was even less accepted seventeen years ago when the law was made so it is possible that the law was made because of personal bigotry against homosexuals. Even so, since a large part of the military would be heterosexual males, if the law was not in place; It is very possible that this could create distance between those members of the group that were different. This would conflict since military members work in close contact with each other and for long periods of time when deployed. They are supposed work as a unit but I believe that this would cause somewhat of a divide. Even though this law may not be ideal to many because it does not allow people to express their true selves, it does not restrict them from being in the military. It is not as if they are stopping them from joining, they just want them to keep their personal way of life to themselves so that they may unite the group.
-Laura Sowell
I definitely agree with previous blogger Kirstie VanFleet. She makes a good point to say why we would have a law against homosexuals when both men and women are in the military. I understand this law if we still lived without women’s rights. If the military has a concern of gays falling in love with each other and showing favoritism, why would they not have the same problem with men and women? I think the “don’t ask don’t tell” concept is smart and should continue to be used; however, a law banning homosexuals is wrong and sexist. The law should protect our privacy from having to disclose our sexuality rather than the fear of breaking the law because you love America but you are gay. I hope that congress can really get the chance to re-evaluate this law and hopefully can open there eyes and realize we are living in 2010, gays are open, proud, and all around us!
Chelsea Byrne
I also did not know about the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy until reading this post. I feel that if the military men that are gay can perform their military duties just as well as if they were straight, then it doesn’t really matter. I agree with the statement about the similarities between women being in the military also. Women can serve in the military and perform jobs just as well as men, so why would someone’s sexual orientation be an issue at all? If they can protect our country just as well as the next guy, then what is the big deal? I feel that perhaps as a society we are not ready to accept this idea of homosexuality as a whole- not just in the military. But the issue of the military, because it is talked about so much, is one that we can point our concern towards.
Melissa Gramlich
Due to the functionality within the military, I believe the “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy should stay in effect. I realize that homosexuals are constantly fighting for equal rights and that is no different than any other minority of the population. While I believe equal rights are deserved by any group, whether ethnicity or sexuality, the question that comes into consideration in this situation is the potential to affect the functionality within the military network. If the decision to allow open sexuality within the armed forces is going to affect how efficient and cooperative the military will run, then obviously there should be some reconsiderations considering the importance of the armed forces and their fraternityesque line of work. Accordingly, homophobia is a very real thing and many people experience it. With that in mind, and the masculine/macho theme of the military I think maintaining the “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy is a good idea.
-Taylor Friesenhahn
Before reading this article, I did not know that “don’t ask, don’t tell” was an actual law. I thought it was more of a standard for homosexuals in the military. After reading this article though, I agree with Mr. Owens. I completely understand why it could be potentially harmful for a homosexual to openly serve in the military. Like Owens said, the military places an emphasis on unit cohesion and morale. Having a homosexual in a unit might make the other men within the unit feel uncomfortable. They might have a harder time concentrating on what they are there to do. They might become more worried with the homosexual person in the unit and not do their job properly. I understand that this does seem like discrimination, but it happens everyday. Sometimes you will want discrimination to ensure things are done the right way. I think this is a perfectly legal type of discrimination. The government isn’t saying that they don’t want homosexuals in the military; they just don’t want their personal lives and problems being brought into it. They military needs to remain strong and free of emotions like that.
-- Haley Walker
I don’t understand why we are discriminating against homosexual citizens who are offering to put their life on the line for our country in the first place. Owens states in the article, “military organizations exist to win wars”. Exactly, we want to win wars, so why deny anyone who is willing to risk their life, the right to fight in a war. If they are worried about two homosexuals falling in love while at war, shouldn’t they also be worried about heterosexuals falling in love as well? If they are afraid that other men and women might feel uncomfortable around homosexual citizens, what about other things that make people different besides sexual orientation: such as religious or ethnic background. If we are going to discriminate against sexual orientation then we might as well discriminate against everything else so that no one “poses such a threat”, quoting Owens. Yes, there is no constitutional right to serve in the military but at least someone is willing to in the first place.
-Laura Haydon
After reading the editorial, despite my preconceived ideas, I feel as though the approach he took for his argument was one that is well thought out. Nonetheless, I don’t agree with it. Prior to the assignment I was familiar with the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy. I understand the concept of “morale” and “the bonds of brotherhood” that would be at risk; however, I feel that is it overdone. If homosexuality truly affected brotherhood, then there would not be gay men or women in fraternities and sororities. More often than not it is something that makes the brotherhood stronger. The others included in the group will stand by their brother despite their difference. One might refute that it takes time to bond and if gays are openly allowed into the service then right off the bat everyone will know they are gay. However, I would like to point out that this would go off the idea that every gay man or woman fits the stereotype of flamboyant. Obviously it takes a certain personality to commit to such a structured and authoritative group. Thus, it would not be a case where there was an elephant in the room. I feel as though if there truly was a bond of brotherhood, the fellow comrades would respect each other the same.
t. wellborn
Owens has several valid and interesting points as to why open homosexuality could harm military camaraderie. “Nonsexual bonding is essential to unit cohesion, good order, discipline, and morale,” Owens states.
This is true, then why not ban all sexual relationships, and do away with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”? Rather than throwing out patriotic men and women for sexual preference. The military prohibits fraternization and relationships between men and women.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates didn’t say whether he was for or against homosexuality, but makes it seem a change is needed: “What we have here is a law, not a policy or regulation… it doesn’t leave a lot to the imagination or a lot of flexibility.”
A law discriminating against a group of people for being homosexual, and denying them the choice to serve their country is unjust. A rule or regulation pertaining to all relationships that could possibly cause harm during military service is just.
~Holly Dilliplane~
Due to the fact that I grew up in a military family, I have been aware of the “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy from a very young age and I agree with it. Our soldiers at war do not need any distractions because distractions are dangerous. The “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy is a way to still allow those who want to serve their country to fight as long as they do not get their personal lives involved. Despite whether or not it is right, homosexuality is still a controversial subject and would be a distraction to our troops while at war. I believe that the “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy should remain in effect because it both allows everyone who wants to serve the chance while still protecting our troops from diversions and controversy.
Elizabeth Hopper
I had no idea that there was a law against gays revealing their sexuality in the military. I think that someone’s sexuality is their own business and if they want to tell others they can if not than so be it. What happen to freedom of speech? And equality? I don’t know what they are afraid of if someone reveals if they are gay or not. Do they think its going to rub off on them? But I can see where the article is coming from. For someone people it makes them uncomfortable when someone reveals to them that they are gay. This could cause them to not be able to stay focused on what they are doing when they are at war. So all in all I think that it should be that persons own right to reveal if they are gay or not. But in the military it would be a different issue.
Tori Manning
Although I do not think that gays should not be able to serve in the military just because of their sexual orientation, I do agree with Owens and believe that “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” is the best way to have an effective military operation. If gays were allowed to serve openly, a lot of problems would most likely arise among the soldiers. If we plan on winning a war, the government needs to do everything possible to make sure that all of our soldiers are working as a team, and keeping your sexual orientation a secret would most likely be the best way for gays to get along with the rest of the soldiers. I do not think that this law has anything to do with gays’ rights; it is just a way to make sure that the United States can have an effective military operation to win the war.
-Kendra Meadors
I agree with Owens to an extent. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is the most effective way to keep people on the same page. There is still an immense amount of hatred toward people who are openly gay and the bond that is mad while in boot camp and training would not be as strong between people who are homophobic and people who are homosexual or for those who feel that it is wrong because of personal or religious views. Our military is supposed to ask as one. Knowing that people have extremely strong feelings against homosexuality and then pushing the topic by allowing conversation about it can and will only tear people away from each other and the strong bond that is necessary, will never be as it needs to be. Although, I do not believe it is right for people to be turned away from the military because they are openly homosexual. It is a personal choice. I believe the solution, “don’t ask, don’t tell” should really be more of “don’t talk about sex.” Then, I believe there wouldn’t be as much controversy. Knowing American’s though, sex is a hot topic that everyone wants to talk about.
-Ariel Anglin
I do agree with Owen’s point that open homosexuality would be a distraction for the soldiers. I have never served, and I am basing my statement from the quotes of soldiers who have recently served. Just to make it clear, most relationships are not allowed in the military. However, all relationships that adversely effect “good order and discipline” are forbidden. Dating within one’s platoon, pay grades above their own, or an enlistee to an officer are all forbidden because of the many detrimental effects Owens mentioned. Also, rumors are not allowed in the military, because they cause miscommunications, misunderstandings, and often, inaccurate information. Having said that, if homosexual soldiers came in and announced their sexuality, they would cause themselves to be hazed. They would still be in the minority and unaccepted by most soldiers. I think they can still make terrific soldiers, and should treat the opportunity to serve as all soldiers should, just that. It is an opportunity to serve one’s country, not find a date.
I feel that the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is out of date and should be repealed. If this was really about military effectiveness I would understand it, but I feel there are more underlying reasons for restricting open homosexuals from being a part of the military. First of all, the homophobic idea that all of these openly homosexual men would be coming on to other soldiers and disrupting the “effectiveness” is absurd. If an openly homosexual person enlists in the military, I believe he or she would be taking their job seriously just like any heterosexual person. I do not think they are putting their life at risk in order to find themselves a partner. I understand how it could be awkward or uncomfortable for a homophobic heterosexual male to be moving into combat with a gay man by his side, but seriously it is something they would have to move past and just focus on the task at hand. It upsets me that this is an actual law, and I cannot imagine if I was in that position of wanting to serve in the armed forces and was restricted based on sexuality alone.
Alison Hoffmann
I can completely understand why the "don't ask don't tell" law would be a touchy subject. The law is definately seems to have some importance, but only because I see it as a way to give every soldier a equal standing in any activities. To avoid the hassel of trying to match soldiers who aren't bias, which in itself is hard to do. If you were to put all homosexuals in to one unit, that would just seperate and segregate what's suppose to be one cohesive unit. While I am oppose to the unwritten rule that open homosexuals can't join. It's probably best that each soldier be more focused on the task at hand than their partners sexuality. So I would agree with Owens on this editorial.
-Xavier Scaife
The military is a little different than civilian life. A soldier is someone who gives them self to serve their country. Because being a soldier can entail the difference between life and death , sometimes a more conservative approach is the wisest strategy. This would be a “don’t-fix-it-if-it’s-not-broke” situation. However, Owen’s statement about, “Eros manifests itself as sexual competition, protectiveness and favoritism, all of which undermine the nonsexual bonding essential to unit cohesion, good order, discipline and morale,” seems to be a poor reason to exclude open homosexuals. Somehow straight soldiers are able to keep their private life and military life separate. If a straight soldier is allowed to talk about their private life without disrupting unit cohesion, so should any equally qualified, trained, and willing soldier. Also, regulations about relationships inside a unit could apply to all soldiers and could keep philia from developing into the much feared eros.
Jacob Clemmons
Post a Comment