It’s Time to Dump DADT

There is a chance that the Lame Duck Congress will repeal the Don't Ask Don't Tell law, thus allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the American military. I confess two reservations. One is this gives Obama, Reid, and Pelosi a significant victory. That is a purely partisan reaction, hence the confession. Let yea who are prepared to cast the first stone first inspect the content of your own character.

The other is that I don't like major policy decisions being made in this way: hurry up and pass the damn thing while there are still enough Democrats to make it happen. That is clearly an undemocratic maneuver, as the people have spoken regarding the makeup of Congress. But I know too much, I confess, to think that such maneuvers aren't part of politics in a Republic. Laws and sausage.

I turn then to the last resort of political deliberation: considering the wisdom of the policy. I am not much moved by the fact that the big brass has come out in favor of repealing DADT. The American military is, let us count our blessings, firmly under the control of the civilian government. If Congress wants women integrated into the armed forces, the military will go along. If the President wants the Joint Chiefs to endorse repeal, endorse they will.

I am not more impressed by the Pentagon study that found a low risk of disruption if gay and lesbian persons are allowed to serve "openly" in the military. Again, I suspect that the Pentagon knew what the answer was going to be before they spent nine months answering it. Besides, the Democrats in Congress were prepared to push the repeal well before the study was completed. Why should anyone else take the study more seriously?

What does move me is that I have listened to a lot of debates between proponents and opponents of repeal and the latter always seem at a loss for a good argument. The only significant argument I hear against repeal focuses on "unit cohesion". If I understand this right, the fear is that enlisted homosexuals will never be fully accepted by their fellow men and women at arms. Thus the unit with an openly gay member will never be the happy band of brothers imagined by Shakespeare's Henry Five, let alone the band of brothers and sisters imagined by Congress.

This strikes me as a very bad argument. There are all kinds of reasons why one solider might be disinclined to trust another. He's Irish, or a Democrat. She's a privileged White girl, or a Red Sox fan. It is one of the jobs of soldiers, sailors, marines, etc., to judge their fellows by their competence and loyalty and nothing else. We expect our armed forces to do their job in harm's way, which means in the face of a kind of fear that us civilians can scarcely imagine. Compared to that, nervousness about a fellow warrior's sexual orientation seems like pretty small potatoes.

The men and women who serve in our armed forces must be mentally and physically prepared for the job. They must be scrupulously loyal to the Republic and to the chain of command. If they are otherwise law-abiding, that is enough.

The controversy serves only as a proxy for larger cultural tensions. It is a distraction. It's time to get rid of DADT.

Comments

[uwr]

I agree that DADT should be repealed, but I think that two of your comments don't make sense.
1. So, you don't want Obama, Reid, and Pelosi to have a victory? How about the American people - shouldn't we have a victory?
2. How is it undemocratic for more than 50% of the senators to pass the bill? What is undemocratic is for 41% of the senators to be able to block the bill.
3. A lame duck Congress has every right to act. It's in the Constitution. In 1998, a lame duck Congress impeached the president.

[Mike Cooper]

How about another argument, this one from Colin Powell in 1993:

"Skin color [and ethnicity are] benign, non-behavioral characteristic[s]. Sexual orientation, [by contrast], is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument."

Remembering the sexual feelings one has in the late teens and early 20s, it is impossible to believe that allowing open homosexuality will not affect our military forces. It is difficult to believe that that affect will be positive. If you remember from that age, those feelings profoundly affect behavior, often in a negative way. Why add this powerful and potentially negative dynamic to our armed forces? No one is making a serious argument that the repeal of DADT will significantly improve the performance of our military. Serious arguments are made that it will do the opposite. Why take the chance when there is no upside, unless.....

The real reason for the repeal of DADT is to further legitimatize homosexuality to the public at large. This is undeniable. The push for repeal is not coming from the military but from the same group that brought us abortion of demand
and Obama Care.

[William]

KB,

I think you make a number of good observations but, perhaps the most salient is this: "the controversy serves only as a proxy for larger cultural tensions. It is a distraction."

It is that very reason, that its just being pushed onto the military NOT to strengthen our military but to further a political agenda, that disturbs me.

As a veteran, my overriding concern is what is best for our troops, not what's best politically. Military units are called upon to operate in extremely difficult and intimate circumstances. Unfortunately, if one is in a unit where members are engaging in sexual activity of ANY kind, the unit will suffer the damage, perhaps with deadly results.

This raises the question, will "openly gay" troops pose an increased risk that unit members will engage in improper conduct. Is the political victory worth the "distraction" it may cause?

[KB]

uwr: if this were about a victory for the American people, then it could wait until next year. Obviously the Democrats believe they have less chance once the people's choices take their seats. To pass this in a lame duck session is to act in contempt of the voter's will as expressed in the recent election. There is nothing illegal or constitutional about this. The Senate is undemocratic. It might have political consequences.

Mike Cooper's comment illustrates my point. Trying to show what is wrong with homosexuals serving in the military, he tells us that sexuality is important and people have strong feelings about it. People have strong feelings about a lot of things, Mike. Sometimes they damn well have to get over them.

William: like civilians, soldiers have to behave according to a set of rules. I don't see why "openly" homosexual servicemen and women pose any new problem.

[William]

KB,

The results of violating rules in the military may result in more serious consequences than they do in the civilian sector. I have faith that our service members will accept whatever the result of this vote will be. That said, my service was during the "Nam Era" and when morale suffers, so do our troops. Any "couples" in either heterosexual or homosexual relationships must not be allowed to serve together in units where favoritism may damage operations.

[A.I.]

So as I type DADT is being debated on the Senate floor after achieving cloture with the votes of 5 Republican senators. The final vote to overturn DADT is scheduled for 3 pm today.

You should be ecstatic KB. Policy you have long favored is being passed in congress rather than imposed by the courts. Yet, you still have misgivings because its being done in the lame-duck session in a body still controlled by Democrats. What, were you going to wait for Republicans to take the lead in enacting progressive human rights legislation?

And what's up with the Achilles statue? Some how I doubt it was meant to symbolize Republican weakness on human rights issues.

[Bill Fleming]

It's a done deal. Good.

[caheidelberger]

"It's time..." -- didn't you steal that line from the Heidepriem campaign? Or was it Thune's? ;-)

The Dems were elected to control Congress for two years. Those two years aren't done yet. If I were the Dems, I would press to pass every good piece of legislation I could before losing that advantage... just as the Republicans would in the same situation.

[KB]

Cory: and I'll complain about it. Just as you would. The Democrats had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate earlier in the game. Why not do it then? I am not suggesting that they have done anything illegal or unconstitutional. I just think it would have been better for them and for the government in general if they doing this at the eleventh hour. It might well be good for Republicans, though. That part is okay with me.

[William]

Cory,

I think Dr B makes the key observation here: "The Democrats had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate earlier in the game. Why not do it then?"

In the past two years there are a LOT of people that have become both "politically observant" and "politically active". Most of these people are disgusted with "politics as usual" in both parties but feel the Democratic Party is a "lost cause" and are attempting to "salvage" the Republicans despite the fact they don't trust most of them, either.

Perhaps, some of it's the natural trend of older voters being more consistent and reliable voters but I think it's even more that the "boomer voters" have realized that America "as we've known it" is at risk, economically, politically and culturally. I've traveled a bit this past year, and the observation I've made is "Boomers" ARE the Tea Party and they're not the selfish "Cut Taxes but leave my Benefits Alone" stereotype the Left throws out as a strawman, but they're REALLY concerned about their kids and their grandkids being stuck with the bad policies and programs we need to eliminate or reform.

I have NEVER met anyone at a "Tea Party" meeting or rally that doesn't understand that it won't take sacrifices NOW to cut spending and government programs to restore our country to solvency AND freedom.

Despite dramatic changes during our lifetimes, most people really thought our politicians, our "representatives", were responsible adults that were truly concerned about "trying to do right" even if we disagreed with them. The public "at large" had faith in our institutions, even if they disagreed with policy or individual politicians.

If nothing else, this past Congressional session has displayed such an enormous contempt for the voters, the Constitution, and the political process in general that they've managed to arouse a level of distrust in our political process that is unprecedented.

[Bill Fleming]

I won't be surprised if the rules on filibuster and cloture get changed at the beginning of the next Senate. To be critical of the Dem senate without acknowledging the recent extreme abuse of the Senate rules by the GOP would be the height of... well... never mind. I'm sure no one here would even think of stooping to such overt mountebankery. Am I correct?

[A.I.]

I think I smell the foul odor of revisionist history taking root. Why didn't congress act sooner--when they had a so-called filibuster-proof majority? Gosh, could it be because someone decided we first had to complete a study of the effects of repeal on the military including a survey of the troops. And would that have included cranky old coots like John McCain who, after the results were in, still opposed repeal.

Democrats delayed a vote in no small part because Republicans "asked" them to. To their credit, a few Republicans then broke ranks with their obstructionist brethren after the study was completed and showed what everyone supporting repeal already knew.

[Bill Fleming]

A.I. Good point.
Dems assumed the good faith of their GOP counterparts.
Fool us once, shame on you... twice, shame on us.

[Jimi]

Repeal DADT for what? It changes nothing! The homosexuals in the United States need to get a hold of their emotions. Why is this important? It's not....get a grip!

[KB]

Bill: By 'abuse' of the rules I assume you mean use of the rules in such a way that you don't like. A.I.: Harry Reid made it clear that he was going to push for a repeal of DADT well before the results of the study became known. The study was just a way to put off what the Democrats didn't have the courage to do earlier. Desperation forced their hand at this point. Fine. As I argue above, I think the policy was ripe for repeal. The idea that the Democrats are one hair more scrupulous than the Republicans is nonsense.

[KB]

Bill: By 'abuse' of the rules I assume you mean use of the rules in such a way that you don't like. A.I.: Harry Reid made it clear that he was going to push for a repeal of DADT well before the results of the study became known. The study was just a way to put off what the Democrats didn't have the courage to do earlier. Desperation forced their hand at this point. Fine. As I argue above, I think the policy was ripe for repeal. The idea that the Democrats are one hair more scrupulous than the Republicans is nonsense.

[A.I.]

Bill: You may be right or maybe the D's assumed nothing and decided to add one more argument for repeal to their arsenal. In any case, Roget's Thesaurus may soon list "good faith" as an antonym for Republican--at least as applied to current leadership in both houses.

KB: Did you just say Republicans are unscrupulous, albeit in equal measure with Democrats. You might just have the basis for a new cable series: "Jaundiced Eye for the Uncynical Guy".

[KB]

A.I.: Yes, I said that. Any unjaundiced eye can see it.