The Clinton policy regarding gays in the military has suddenly become yet another silly distraction from much more important issues.
In his State of the Union speech, President Obama obviously massaged some political allies by mentioning repealing the policy, and both
SecDef Robert Gates and the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Admiral Mullen were quick to endorse the idea of repealing DADT.
Neither endorsement actually carries much weight as far as I'm concerned, because both of these gentlemen serve at President Obama's pleasure and do what they're told, or they 'resign'. All presidential appointees and cabinet members normally supply the White house with an undated letter of resignation as a job requirement, and the Obama White House is no different than past administrations when it comes to this time honored tradition. And as any career military man or woman will tell you, a lot of promotions and assignments, especially in the upper echelons have more than a little of a political component,with some members of the higher ranks having a reputation as 'political generals.'
What the Department of Defense has essentially done is to mouth some politically correct pieties and form a working group to do a review study the issue over at least a year's time. This allows Obama to tell homosexual activists that he's 'doing something' and mollify their anger with him for a while.
The arguments for repealing DADT on the Left basically resolve around the ideas of discrimination and 'self-esteem', or as Admiral Mullen put it, "I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."
The very true fact that many homosexuals have served in the military with honor is invariably brought up. So is a comparison with the racial integration of the armed forces under Eisenhower.The latter argument is ridiculous on its face and frankly racist, because skin color does not in itself involve behavioral differences, and the last time I checked, gays weren't segregated in our society in the least unless it was a case of self-selection in neighborhoods like the Castro in San Francisco.
The real arguments are pretty much about 'rights' and self-esteem and not with the military's primary mission - to protect the country and kill our enemies as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Not being a democracy, anything that subtracts from that primary mission has to be weighed pretty carefully.
DADT was a policy that was implemented during the Clinton Administration to recognize that, yes, homosexuals are going to serve in our military and there's a need to recognize it without jeopardizing the whole idea of a volunteer military. In short, it amounts to changing an unofficial policy to an official policy that what happens off duty stays off duty,and the two shouldn't mix.That should apply to heterosexuals as well, especially given today's co-ed army.
A military unit develops a certain esprit and feeling of brotherhood common to groups of humans who've faced extraordinary challenges together. Imagine what's going to happen if you add eros into the mix.
If Sergeant X is Corporal Y's lover, does anyone think that Sergeant X is going to order Corporal Y to a dangerous hot spot in combat, as opposed to Corporal Z whom he's not sleeping with? Or conversely, what if Sergeant X and Corporal Y have a bust up and Corporal Y suddenly starts drawing the more dangerous assignments? Or what if Sergeant X
wants to sleep with Corporal Y and Corporal Y isn't keen on the idea? What if Sergeant X uses his authority to take revenge on Y? How would you prove any of this? And what effect is it going to have on unit morale, discipline and cohesiveness?
Another factor to consider since we have an all volunteer army is enlistment and retention - how many new soldiers join up and how many re-enlist.
Most Leftists don't actually spend much human time in the Latino or black community. If they did, they'd know that homosexuals, especially male homosexuals are not exactly looked upon with favor there - especially among the Church going community.Ditto for Evangelicals of all ethnic backgrounds, who make up a significant portion of our volunteer military.
What the Obama Administration is pushing amounts to these groups going beyond mere toleration of open homosexuality to approval and encouragement.
Picture yourself as an Evangelical Army lieutenant living with your wife and small children on base in military housing. Imagine that the homosexual military and their civilian partners living on on base decide to have a gay pride parade, and your colonel gives you an order that he expects all officers to participate regardless of their personal views on the matter.
Imagine yourself as a squad leader or CPO having problems within your unit because the various romantic back and forths are interfering with your unit carrying out its orders. Does anyone believe that anyone bringing something like that to the attention of a superior in the current PC atmosphere is not going to be told to drop it and to just live with the situation?
Guess how many of the people from the major population groups that tend to enlist are going to have second thoughts? Guess how many more serving soldiers are going to decide that, on second thought, re-enlistment isn't for them?
What will likely happen is that after a nice long review, there will be a report on certain changes that need to be made (tightening the requirements for third party outings is one positive benefit that could come out of this)but Congress will ultimately pass on repealing DADT.
Nancy Pelosi has already signaled that this isn't going to get to Congress until after the Midterm elections, which means the Democrats are punting on this one, since Congress will likely be significantly more Republican after November.
Meanwhile Prez Zero can tell his gay supporters that he tried, he really did, but those nasty Republicans killed DADT - in spite of the fact that there will probably be a number of Democrats who will vote with the GOP on this one.
It says a lot about the president that he would go out of his way to play partisan politics with a minor issue like this at a time when our troops are facing a major struggle in Afghanistan, still trying to keep Iraq together and facing security challenges from Islamist fascism all over the globe.
Given how Islam feels about homosexuals, that's a war effort I would hope most gays would support fully, even if it means a certain amount of discretion about their love life.
DADT makes sense for both homosexuals and heterosexuals,because 'self esteem' based on your choice of partner has nothing to do with the military's main mission.
Don't ask, don't tell, don't worry.
