Who Is Going To Kill "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?"

The limping Clinton era compromise of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is soon to die.  There can be little doubt about that even considering the attempts at life support being made by several prominent Republicans such as John McCain.  The only question is which hand will hold the fatal dagger: The federal courts or Congress?

The strongest single argument which can be made supporting congressional action is that such would allow the military command structure to control and define the process of integrating openly homosexual personnel.  Absent a congressional authorization in the form of formally repealing the old policy, it is highly probable that the federal courts in the fullness of time will do so with results which might be far more injurious to combat readiness, combat efficiency, and unit cohesion.

The ground truth underlying all the verbiage both pro and con regarding both the birth and death of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is simply that non-heterosexual personnel have been present in all the military services, even the Marines, which are the most opposed to the fact.  Indeed, one motivation for service--and combat heroism--as reported by gay servicemembers is demonstrating to oneself that homosexuality is not incompatible with the masculine virtues.  One might see this as a statement by the individual to himself that being gay does not make him any less of a man.

All senior military commanders have been aware that homosexuals have served under their command--a point made by Admiral Mullen to the Senate panel today.  Down the food chain, way down where guys live and die, there have been few grunts not aware that there are gays there too.

In the abstract it is easy for a guy, particularly one who is in his late teens or early twenties, to feel uncertain about the reliability of a fellow troopie who is different.  This uncertainty is particularly strong and pervasive when the deep back brain matter of sexuality is involved.  Given that in combat every man is dependent upon his peers all the time, the matter of full, unquestioning trust is central in importance, in unit cohesion, in combat efficiency, even in a man's willingness to take seemingly irrational risks on behalf of the other guys in his squad, platoon, company.

Every grunt learns that he can--or cannot--trust the men around him.  Experience shows clearly and rapidly who can be counted upon to do the right thing when the feces and fan interact.  It also shows who cannot be relied upon.  Adjustments in behavior are made accordingly.

It turns out that the issue of sexual orientation is totally absent when push comes to bloody shove in combat.  There is not, never has been, and probably never will be any direct linkage between sexual orientation and behavior under fire.  Gays are just as likely as straights to do the right thing--or to fail the test.

The network of mutual trust which develops in contact may not survive transition back to the rear area.  In Vietnam, for example, Black and Caucasian troops might have fought together with all the features and virtues of the combat bred "band of brothers," but, back at base the men tended to self-segregate by race with only a few salt-and-pepper friendships.

The race problems of Vietnam were far more extensive than given credit either at the time or in post-conflict histories.  The reason for the extensive tension, even hostility, between Whites and Blacks provides the necessary lesson for today's military leadership at all levels but, most importantly, the level of the squad, the platoon, the company, and their equivalents in the naval and air forces.

Leadership, particularly that of the example based sort, is key for providing the maximal mutual understanding and tolerance outside of combat.  Since most of any servicemember's military career is spent outside the unique and highly demanding arena of combat, the role of leadership cannot be overstated and must not be underestimated.  While combat will take care of itself, real and focused leadership is necessary for rapid and effective full integration of personnel of differing sexual orientations.

With the proper leadership, there is no realistic reason to get overly concerned about showers or bunking.  To some extent these matters will be addressed informally by mechanisms of self-segregation, or tact and even unspoken "understandings," or winks and nudges.  This sort of self-generating, self-organizing approach to apprehensions, fears of "otherness," may not be ideal but will occur nonetheless.  The possible negative effects can be reduced significantly by effective and example filled leadership.

It is important for those who oppose congressional repeal of the current policy to understand that the potential  negative effects of ending the current approach will be reduced greatly if Congress rather than the courts is seen as responsible for an alteration which is far from universally approved within the several services.  A congressional action is inherently more legitimate in the eyes of those affected.  While a judicial decree will be obeyed, no one is so naive as to believe that there is not a wide spectrum of obedient responses to external dictates.

So far the process of ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been handled in a methodical way which gives all hands the feeling that he or she has been heard, doubts considered, opposition given a respectful hearing.  All hands can and should feel that each is a stakeholder in the outcome.  While some of the dissidents will oppose the open service of non-heterosexuals even to the point of voluntary separation, most will see the new program as having sufficient merit to be accepted even if emotionally disturbing to some degree.

Senator McCain and others how are in principled opposition to necessary change must come to understand that the public perception of homosexuals and their rights as well as obligations has altered greatly in the past couple of decades.  Bluntly but accurately, We the People no longer universally see non-heterosexuals as a moral threat, a dangerous soul, and will sapping enemy within.

There are those who still see homosexuality as anathema, as a sin against the deity and nature, but, while those views deserve expression, they no longer represent the social consensus.  The negative views are seriously age serrated with younger Americans much less inclined to view gays and lesbians in dark hues.  And, it must be noted, wars are fought by the younger generation.

It is unseemly to say the least that a person must pretend to be something he or she is not in order to serve in any American military force.  It is unconscionable to insist on game playing when the ultimate stakes at hazard in war is a person's most important possession--life.  It undercuts the values and norms by which the US has defined itself to measure a person's value and dignity by the irrelevant factor of sexual orientation.

The Geek has been splattered by the blood of Asians, Blacks, and Whites as well as straights and gays.  He never noticed any difference in the color or the splotches--nor in the suffering and courage of those whose blood was shed.