Personally, I am way beyond over the present and former military brass who justify DADT by whining about unit cohesion blah, blah, blah while reputable researchers basically say that these excuses for maintaining DADT are a crock of shit. The latest example of this simpering defense of DADT comes from former Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill McPeak (at left)whose arguments in a New York Times op-ed sound in many ways like those of former Congressman Ed Schrock - a retired Navy captain - who even went so far as in public statement supporting DADT to worry about gays checking out straight sailors in the showers. Something Schrock likely knew all about himself - his cover was blown (forgive the pun) when a guy I had dated a once or twice responded to Schrock's Mega Phone ad, met him and told me about the episode - including what he called Schrock's outrageous false advertising about his age and physical shape. I relayed this information to Mike Rogers and the rest is history (as is Schrock's political career). But I digress. Frankly, McPeak is spouting the same old blather and his obsession with the issue - he left his position 16 years ago - makes me wonder what's behind his op-ed. Particularly in light of problems the Air Force has had with Christianists proselytizing within the ranks of the Air Force and at the Air Force Academy. Fortunately, The Palm Center has replied to McPeak's in a scathing response. Here are some highlights:
*
The way to have an enlightened public conversation is to offer reasoned claims based on evidence and research, and to characterize and evaluate opposing arguments honestly. Gen. McPeak fails this test in his op-ed.
*
Gen. McPeak says an enlightened discussion should begin by asking, “What are the armed forces for?” The military exists to defend the nation, specifically by preparing for, and fighting, our wars. The U.S., however, is not just a piece of turf but a way of life that prizes equal citizenship under the law. A truly enlightened debate involves broadly weighing the costs and benefits of depriving one group of citizens the opportunity to serve their country; it should not involve issuing vague assertions designed simply to preserve the status quo.
*
There are at least twenty studies from the last fifty years, many written by the military’s own researchers, which find that gay and lesbian troops do not harm cohesion. As an article published by the office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff concludes, “there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly.”
*
[R]esearch shows that the ban itself undermines cohesion and readiness. A bipartisan study group of Flag and General Officers which took a year to assess all of the evidence on “don’t ask, don’t tell” found that commanders in Iraq are ignoring the policy and choosing to keep their teams together rather than firing loyal gay troops. A recent Military Times poll confirms that many commanders know of gays and lesbians serving in their units, but choose not to discharge them, suggesting that these leaders believe that known gays help rather than hurt the force.
*
Under the guise of protecting unit cohesion, defenders of the gay exclusion rule would have us believe that they are simply looking out for the nation’s defense. What they are actually doing is using government policy to express moral animus. The reason to be disappointed by Gen. Merrill McPeak and others sharing his strategy is that their views have little to do with unit cohesion, and everything to do with an effort to encode prejudice into law and make the public believe that there is a national security rationale for doing so. That is a dangerous precedent.
*
The way to have an enlightened public conversation is to offer reasoned claims based on evidence and research, and to characterize and evaluate opposing arguments honestly. Gen. McPeak fails this test in his op-ed.
*
Gen. McPeak says an enlightened discussion should begin by asking, “What are the armed forces for?” The military exists to defend the nation, specifically by preparing for, and fighting, our wars. The U.S., however, is not just a piece of turf but a way of life that prizes equal citizenship under the law. A truly enlightened debate involves broadly weighing the costs and benefits of depriving one group of citizens the opportunity to serve their country; it should not involve issuing vague assertions designed simply to preserve the status quo.
*
There are at least twenty studies from the last fifty years, many written by the military’s own researchers, which find that gay and lesbian troops do not harm cohesion. As an article published by the office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff concludes, “there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly.”
*
[R]esearch shows that the ban itself undermines cohesion and readiness. A bipartisan study group of Flag and General Officers which took a year to assess all of the evidence on “don’t ask, don’t tell” found that commanders in Iraq are ignoring the policy and choosing to keep their teams together rather than firing loyal gay troops. A recent Military Times poll confirms that many commanders know of gays and lesbians serving in their units, but choose not to discharge them, suggesting that these leaders believe that known gays help rather than hurt the force.
*
Under the guise of protecting unit cohesion, defenders of the gay exclusion rule would have us believe that they are simply looking out for the nation’s defense. What they are actually doing is using government policy to express moral animus. The reason to be disappointed by Gen. Merrill McPeak and others sharing his strategy is that their views have little to do with unit cohesion, and everything to do with an effort to encode prejudice into law and make the public believe that there is a national security rationale for doing so. That is a dangerous precedent.
*
McPeak needs to set his religious based bigotry aside and let facts, not religious belief, dictate a speedy end to DADT.
No comments:
Post a Comment