"Don't Ask, But Feel Free to Tell" Forces Are Gathering
By Nathan Nelson Posted in Policy — Comments (15) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Yesterday, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked to give his opinion of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, which requires gays and lesbians to keep our sexual orientation to ourselves if we want to be in the military. His opinion? The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy should remain intact because homosexual behavior is "immoral," and he does "not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is okay to be immoral in any way." The Left is already calling for General Pace to apologize to the many gays and lesbians who currently serve in the military under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. But I don't think he should do it.
Read on...
Let me be clear on where I stand. I favor the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. For me, it has nothing to do with morality, because as a gay man I don't think there's anything immoral about two people of the same gender loving each other and expressing that love, sexually or otherwise. I favor the policy for two reasons: 1) it protects gays and lesbians from persecution by their fellow members of the military who may not agree with their lifestyle; and 2) it protects everyone in the military, gay and straight, from the discomfort associated with the hot button issue of homosexuality. There is a time and place for debate about issues relating to homosexuality, but the military isn't the place and the beginning of a long war on terrorism isn't the time. Let's keep our culture wars in civilian society and let the military fight the real war on terrorism, shall we?
With that said, I do disagree with General Pace. I don't think the government has any business legislating morality, and I don't think the basis for a continuation of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy should be morality. Rather, the basis for continuing Don't Ask, Don't Tell should be practical. How practical is it to cause a serious disruption in the military at a time when we're fighting the war on terrorism on two fronts, with potential for another front to present itself at any time? This is not the time to begin social experimentation with the military. That's the case that conservatives should be making in favor of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Not only would it be wrong for us to make this about morality, but it would also be a losing battle. We need to stick with the practical argument for Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and we need to make this about the military and the war on terrorism - not about anybody's moral beliefs.
Even though I disagree with General Pace, I don't think he should apologize. He was asked to give his opinion on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and he gave it. Many people may not like his opinion, but that's too bad. Just like everybody else in this great, free society, he has the right to have his opinion and express it. There are many people who share his opinion, and the sooner that we as gays and lesbians deal with that reality instead of trying to censor the majority opinion, the better off we'll be. We have the right to strongly disagree with General Pace and to voice that disagreement, but we don't have the right to silence him just because we don't like what he's saying. We also don't have the right to try to ruin a good general's career just because we don't like his moral opinions. This kind of ideological censorship needs to come to an end; we should debate General Pace and others who believe as he does, not seek to quash the debate entirely. If we silence the debate, we lose. Debate is the only way we're going to convince others of our views, and without convincing them we will remain in the minority.
To conclude, let me say a word about all the "gay brouhaha" that has been going on lately. Have you noticed? First, the Left went apoplectic over Ann Coulter's use of the word "f****t" at CPAC and tried to make it look as though all conservatives hate gays and lesbians, even though Coulter's use of the slur was not even technically aimed at gays and lesbians but at our politically correct culture and a straight presidential candidate. Then, the Left outed Marine Corporal Matt Sanchez's past in the gay porn industry and tried to portray conservatives as hypocrites because of it, and at least one gay rights organization - the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force - seized on the Sanchez controversy to further their agenda to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Now, the Left and their media allies are making a huge fuss over General Pace's personal beliefs about the morality of homosexuality in relation to the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Don't you get the feeling that this is leading somewhere, that all of this sudden focus on homosexuality isn't just a coincidence but is part of a bigger picture?
Oh, you better believe it's leading somewhere. The forces are gathering for the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Repealing the policy has been on the back burner since the 110th Congress convened, and it's pretty obvious that the congressional leadership must be about ready to move it to the front burner and have instructed their interest groups and media friends to act accordingly. That's what all of this "gay brouhaha" is all about. They are already campaigning early and often to make conservatives look like horrible bigots who want to legislate their own bigotry, and to say that many of us may even be self-loathing gays ourselves who want to drag gays and lesbians into our own self-hatred. That's what all these controversies have been about. It's not just about making us look bad, although it certainly is about that. It's about making us look bad for a purpose, and the purpose - mark my words - is the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. It's coming to a Congress near you.
A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams
are just some dead white guy's legislation of morality.
Kyoto Now! (Because only pollution from the US hurts the planet)
The libertarian in me says that legislating morality is wrong. Laws against murder, theft, etc., are laws based on human beings' natural and inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (AKA property). Laws that are based on one religion's precepts or one large group's moral beliefs are invalid because laws should be based upon concrete rights, not the whim of the majority.
With all of that said, although we may disagree in approach and reasoning, we agree that Don't Ask, Don't Tell shouldn't be repealed and we agree that the social revolution that liberals would like to hastily hoist upon Americans isn't a good idea. So I think we have a lot more we agree about than disagree about.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me
That part stuck out at me.
It's just too vague a statement, and there's no need to use it for a specific issue.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
it doesn't matter to me which team you play on.
If Gays and Lesbians are willing to serve and fight for America and all she stands for, while we all work out this whole "choice or born that way" question, I will honor them as I would any American Service member. Whom they sleep with is not my concern. That they serve and risk all is what makes a patriot.
Gays and Lesbians stand to lose as much as anyone if the fight is lost.
Don't ask,Don't tell....Don't care,'cause it Don't matter.
If you want to fight for America,you're on THE team.
"You never need a firearm,until you need it BADLY!"
Generally most Americans, including this one, don't care what people do behind closed doors. In the military, however, there are fewer closed doors.
But the crucial point is not to make changes in time of war.
--
See the Academy
But the crucial point is not to make changes in time of war.
It's not a very good point, IMO. It's like being on a sailboat in stormy seas, "Oh oh, better not turn the wheel in this critical time".
Really - if we're engaged in the most critical struggle of our time, shouldn't we be prepared to evaluate and make any change necessary to increase our chances of prevailing? Dismissing change for no other reason than timing is a pretty limiting philosophy.
If there are good reasons to change a policy - e.g. greater military effectiveness - then you have to be a lot more specific about why increasing our chances of winning the war right now is actually a bad idea. If there are bad reasons to change a policy then argue on the merit of the bad reasons, not groundless appeals that "now isn't the time" - debilitating changes will be debilitating regardless of when they're made.
The problem with your argument is that there's absolutely no evidence that repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell and integrating openly gay and lesbian service members into the military will help us win the war on terrorism. And yes, the burden of proof is on those who want to change the policy. For those of us who don't want to change the policy, we can point to the fact that service members live in close quarters with one another and that living in such close quarters with openly gay and lesbian service members is likely to, at the very least, make straight service members uncomfortable. At its worst, it could disrupt the cohesiveness of military units and it could even endanger the safety, the very lives, of both straight and especially gay service members.
All of this while we're fighting a war that is nothing less than a war for our very civilization. If we lose this war, we can look forward to Shari'a that will demand the execution of any and all gays and lesbians, along with anyone else who dares to refuse to bow down, face Mecca, praise the Muslim god, and submit to tyrannical Shari'a. If these are the stakes, is now really the time to tamper with the social conditions in the military if we're unsure beyond the shadow of a doubt what effect it will have? I say again: we must leave our culture war to civilian society, and let the military fight the real war on terrorism. When we prevail, there will be time enough later to debate openly gay and lesbian integration. Now is not the time.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me
Which is that rejecting a change in military policy on the basis that we're in a war so now is just not a good time is by no means a reasonable way to analyze the change/no-change decision.
I don't believe I advocated whether changing or not changing is the correct course of action and therefore presented no evidence. If anything, I was suggesting that people taking one position or the other ought to present their evidence instead of simply not making a decision due to "now isn't a good time".
You made an effort above, but I don't think you gave much beyond speculation... in that respect how is your viewpoint anymore backed up by "evidence" than, for example, the position this retired general takes:
John Shalikashvili, the retired Army general who was Joint Chiefs chairman when the policy was adopted, said in January that he has changed his mind on the issue since meeting with gay servicemen.
"These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers," Shalikashvili wrote in a newspaper opinion piece.
So you think one thing, and the retired general thinks another. I appreciate hearing both viewpoints but neither really have much "evidence" to back them, do they? I guess I'd like to see one side argue that the additional capacity and expertise enabled by a policy change that allows persons to enter military service regardless of sexual orientation as long as they meet all other qualification would be appreciable and that we'd gain a meausrable manpower increase in areas important to the current wars we are engaged in, while the other side argues that either there would be no such meaurable increase in manpower/expertise or that any increase would actually be offset by measurable disruption caused by heterosexual troops knowing which of their peers are homosexual. I think both sides could bring actual numeric data to bear, and I think they could cite actual studies that might show the likelyhood or lack thereof of offsetting disruption. Otherwise the argument remains in the realm of, "I speculate that XYZ will happen". Which I'm more than happy to listen to, but you agree with me that we need evidence on which to base the decision.
The idea that we can't adjust policy "if we're unsure beyond the shadow of a doubt what effect it will have" doesn't fly with me. I don't see that we very often make military decisions using that standard of judgement, and I don't think that we ought to either, or else we might never make any decision at all. A preponderance of evidence and belief that we are doing the right thing to secure American superiority has been sufficient in the past and would suffice for me on this matter as well.
I agree with what you're saying and I do think gays and lesbians should be able to serve in the military, but I don't think Don't Ask, Don't Tell should be repealed - and especially not now. I agree with Socrates that the crucial point here is that we can't make this kind of drastic change while we're at war, and since this is just the beginning of what promises to be a long war on terrorism, maybe longer than the Cold War, that means any kind of repeal needs to be on the back burner for a long time.
With that said, I'm not sure it should ever be repealed. Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell could cause serious problems between straight and gay service members, and it could even endanger gay and lesbian soldiers. Honestly, I don't see what the problem is with keeping quiet about one's personal life, especially if not keeping quiet about it could diminish your capability to do your job and even endanger your safety. As a gay man, I'm not generally one to feel that gays and lesbians should stay in the closet. But the military is very different from civilian society and it ought to be treated differently.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me
I served as a Navy man for 6 years. I was proud to do so, and, if they had given me an officer program or a pipeline to do a JAG program, I would still be in the service.
Personally, I have no qualms about who sleeps with whom. But, there are two things:
1.) There are still people who are so homophobic as to want to ostracize them, harm them, etc. While there is no place for this in society or in the military, there has to be a recognition that the military is a different structure from civilian society. In civilian society, the homophobe would be the one who is ostracized. The military, however, is a war machine which, in order to do their job of defending the nation, needs to function as one cohesive unit. Especially in a time of war, allowing open homosexuals to serve could undermine unit cohesiveness, and that is something which we cannot take a chance on at this current time. Maybe in the future, once we are back on a peacetime footing, but until then, you don't tinker with something unless it's broken.
2.) Servicemembers are not allowed to have sexual relations with one another, regardless of one's sex. There are people who do marry military members, such as my wife and I. However, we met, dated, and married in a shore command. There are already problems with this in the military today, where members of a deployed unit are found to be having relations, and that is already detracting from readiness, as the members are punished and at least one is transferred to a new command. It's the problem of fraternization. Allowing homosexuals to openly serve could do the same thing.
I agree that we should look into it at some point. But, while we are on a war footing, we should keep the structure as is, and tinker with it once we return to a peacetime environment.
Fides non in bonus intentions , tamen in bonus factum
For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.
to encourage servicemembers to lie? Because no matter how much you want to cast it as "keeping quiet," questions about someone's personal life always come up. I'd prefer that the military direct its members to learn how to deal with gays, but if that is too difficult for the delicate sensibilities of some heterosexual members, then it should exclude gays from service. A military policy that tells people to lie is flat out wrong.
I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. Simply not talking about one's personal life, even when asked, is not lying. One can change the subject, say something general about one's partner without disclosing gender, etc. As someone who has had to be in the closet in the past, believe me when I say that there are many ways to refrain from disclosing one's sexual orientation without lying about anything.
As for members of the military having to learn how to deal with gays, I wish that the ones who can't could deal with sexual orientation better. But trying to make them deal with it while we're at war isn't a good idea. It will cause problems that we just can't afford right now. When we're back to peacetime - which could be a long time from now, given the nature and scope of this war - then maybe the military should start trying to integrate openly gay and lesbian service members. Until then, war has to take priority, and we need to keep our culture war in civilian society while our military fights the real war on terrorism. If they lose this war, our culture war will be moot because our culture will be destroyed and replaced with Shari'a.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me
Except for this:
I don't think the government has any business legislating morality, and I don't think the basis for a continuation of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy should be morality.
If the government cannot legislate morality, then it cannot legislate.
I have elsewhere given a more complete treatment of legislating morality.
--
See the Academy