Gays in the Military: Let the Evidence Speak

Back in April frigid Christianist ice queen Elaine Donnelly put together a group of elderly/reactionary former military officers that signed on to a poisonous op-ed that supported keeping Don't Ask, Don't Tell ("DADT") in place. Now, former Joint Chief's of Staff Chairman, General John M. Shalikashvili, has penned his own op-ed column that blasts the April anti-gay screed and challenges the U.S. military to learn from the experiences of our allies that have successfully integrated openly gay service members into their armed forces without incident. I do not understand why Americans refuse to learn from the experiences of others - particularly when we have U.S. troops serving side by side in a number of theaters with foreign troops that include openly gay service members. As I have said in numerous previous posts, in this area we have probably many thousands of gays military members on active duty with NO negative impact on morale. Here are highlights from Shalikashvili's column in the Washington Post:

*

News that the president would change the policy had inspired a group of retired flag officers to argue on this page this spring that service by openly gay individuals would harm morale, discipline, cohesion, recruitment and retention in the U.S. military. . . .

*

According to the generals and admirals, allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly would make parents less willing to allow their sons and daughters to enlist. The argument assumes that anti-gay sentiment is so fierce and widespread that moving to a policy of equal treatment would drive away thousands and could ultimately "break the All-Volunteer Force." Not only is there no evidence to support these conclusions, but research shows conclusively that openly gay service members would not undermine military readiness.

*

Tradition is a critical military value, and the armed forces have a long-standing tradition of banning gay men and lesbians. Equally important military traditions, however, are learning and adapting -- and my colleagues made claims as if no new knowledge has been acquired over past decades, during which time Israel and Britain joined more than 20 other nations to allow openly gay individuals to serve without overall problems. In Britain and Canada, polls had indicated that thousands would resign if gays were allowed to serve, but when the bans were lifted, almost no one left.

*

But it is not just foreign militaries that show service by openly gay individuals works. The U.S. military itself has had successful experiences. Enforcement of the ban was suspended without problems during the Persian Gulf War, and there were no reports of angry departures. A majority of U.S. service members say they know or believe that someone in their unit is gay, according to a 2006 Zogby International poll, and most of those who know of openly gay peers report no detriment to morale or cohesion.

*

While the proper timing of repealing "don't ask, don't tell" remains uncertain, it is evident to me that a policy change is inevitable. More than three-quarters of the public favors the change. Polls show that even a majority of Republicans support allowing openly gay people to serve. Within the military, the climate has changed dramatically since 1993.

*

Under current policy, we have lost more than 13,000 of those people, such as the Arabic language speaker featured in the new film "Ask Not." In addition, researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles have found that nearly 4,000 people leave voluntarily each year because of the ban, and that more than 40,000 recruits might join if the ban is ended.

*

[I]t will be important for the conversation about gays and lesbians in the military to be informed by data, not speculation or emotion. That people on all sides of the issue feel strongly about it is more reason, not less, to let the evidence do the talking.

*

We are way past the time when the religious based basis behind DADT needs to be thrown on the dung heap of history. The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of - and from religion - yet DADT is in the final analysis based solely on religious based bigotry.