Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Expires

The military policy known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", instituted under President Clinton, quietly ended on the first minute of Tuesday morning. It was overdue and it will stand to President Obama's credit.

DADT was Clinton's way of weaseling out of a promise. He had pledged to end the ban on homosexuals in the military by means of executive order, but under fierce opposition he lost his nerve. Under DADT the military was not supposed to initiate investigations of alleged homosexual activity on the part of service members. That was the "don't ask" part. However, service members who announced their homosexuality or openly admitted to homosexual conduct could be discharged. That was the "don't tell" part.

DADT was a reform of sorts, but it never made much sense as policy (as opposed to politics). If there was a good reason to exclude homosexuals from military service, then why not work to exclude them? If not, then why require them to hide?

I have yet to hear a good reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to serve in the American military. The most common argument is that openly homosexual soldiers, sailors, etc., would disrupt unit cohesion. This is based on the reasonable premise that a lot of heterosexual service members will feel uncomfortable with the presence of gay comrades. The reasonable and, I think, dispositive reply is that they will have to get over it.

The U.S. military is the muscle of the Republic, a Republic that is politically, racially, religiously, ethnically, and sexually diverse. There are any number of reasons why one soldier might feel uncomfortable with the man or woman standing attention next to him. I have not served in the military but I am guessing that it requires putting up with a lot of discomfort.

One of my favorite WWII jokes goes like this.

A young man in a trench on some Pacific island is unsure whether he can actually kill someone. His sergeant says: "sure you can. Just yell "Tojo is a son of a bitch. When a Jap jumps up to reply, you shoot him."

So the marine does what he is told and yells out "Tojo is a son of a bitch!" He aims his rifle and waits. Up from the opposite trench a Japanese soldier pops up and yells "FDR is son of bitch!" The young man does nothing for a second and then sits back down.

"What the Hell is the matter?" his sergeant asks. "I ain't shootin' him," the poor fellow replies. "He might be the only other Republican on the island."

That more or less tells the story. What should count for military service are loyalty and the ability to discharge one's duties. That is what service members must look for from each other.

Comments

[Bill Fleming]

Amen, KB. Good essay.

You could as easily have framed Clinton as someone who advanced the cause pragmatically, given public sentiment on the issue in those times. You could have observed that like so many things in law and politics, the issue was not yet "ripe." And you could have drawn some contemporary parallels to illustrate your point, thus encouraging your audience to meditate on where they want to take our country ethically on similarly ripening issues in the future.

But I realize that you are both partisan and busy.

And so, once again, good post.

You got it almost exactly right.

B+

[JohnAGJ]

Good post and funny WWII joke. I hadn't heard that one before. :)

[Bob Ellis]

If you have yet to hear a good reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to serve in the American military, then you haven't had your eyes, ears or mind open, because those reasons are legion, and they have been discussed exhaustively at Dakota Voice.

I like how you said that our military personnel who have a strong moral compass "will have to get over it." Soldiers who understand morality, safety, and practicality will just "have to get over" those encumberances.

Moral people will have to bend to the desires of the immoral. Just try to imagine for a few minutes how long a society will last (let alone remain great) when it develops a standard practice where the moral must bend to the desires of the immoral to keep them from feeling bad about their behavior.

You've at least put the issue into very clear terms.

[harlan]

Why can't they have gay people in the army? Personally, I think they are just afraid of a thousand guys with M16s going, "Who'd you call a faggot?"

~John Stewart

[Billl Fleming]

So Ellis, as usual, comes on, wags his finger, runs his mouth, and storms off in a huff without ever saying anything. So tedious.

[Donald Pay]

No one can go to Dakota Voice and not think it's a parody. "Bend Over Bob" Ellis writes this hilarious line about gays in the military: "Moral people will have to bend to the desires of the immoral." Bend Over Bob is South Dakota's Steve Colbert.

[Billl Fleming]

Brokeback Bob. Because sometimes a man IS a mountin'.

[Dave]

Something KB and I agree on.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bob: the obvious problem here is over "the moral". As Thomas Aquinas pointed out, some moral principles are evident to reason alone. "Thou shalt not steal" is an example. Some more principles are evident only in the light of revelation. "Remember the Sabbath" is an example. In a republic, only the former can be the basis of law.