Posted on 07/07/2008 8:16:52 PM PDT by markomalley
Congress should repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law because the presence of gays in the military is unlikely to undermine the ability to fight and win, according to a new study released by a California-based research center.
The study was conducted by four retired military officers, including the three-star Air Force lieutenant general who in early 1993 was tasked with implementing President Clinton's policy that the military stop questioning recruits on their sexual orientation.
"Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion," the officers states.
To support its contention, the panel points to the British and Israeli militaries, where it says gay people serve openly without hurting the effectiveness of combat operations.
Undermining unit cohesion was a determining factor when Congress passed the 1993 law, intended to keep the military from asking recruits their sexual orientation. In turn, service members can't say they are gay or bisexual, engage in homosexual activity or marry a member of the same sex.
Supporters of the ban contend there is still no empirical evidence that allowing gays to serve openly won't hurt combat effectiveness.
"The issue is trust and confidence" among members of a unit, said Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, who retired in 1993 after working on the issue for the Army. When some people with a different sexual orientation are "in a close combat environment, it results in a lack of trust," he said.
The study was sponsored by the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara, which said it picked the panel members to portray a bipartisan representation of the different service branches.
According to its Web site, the Palm Center "is committed to keeping researchers, journalists and the general public informed of the latest developments in the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy debate." Palm himself was "a staunch supporter of civil rights in the gay community," the site says.
Two of the officers on the panel have endorsed Democratic candidates since leaving the military - Army Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, who supports Barack Obama, and Marine Corps Gen. Hugh Aitken, who backed Clinton in 1996.
Air Force Lt. Gen. Robert Minter Alexander, a Republican, was assigned in 1993 to a high-level panel established by the Defense Department to examine the issue of gays in the military. At one point, he signed an order that prohibited the military from asking a recruit's sexual orientation.
Alexander said at the time he was simply trying to carry out the president's orders and not take a position. But he now believes the law should be repealed because it assumes the existence of gays in the military is disruptive to units even though cultural attitudes are changing.
Further, the Defense Department and not Congress should be in charge of regulating sexual misconduct within the military, he said.
"Who else can better judge whether it's a threat to good order and discipline?" Alexander asked.
Navy Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan said he had no opinion on the issue when he joined the panel, having never confronted it in his 35-year military career. A self-described Republican who opposes the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war, Shanahan said he was struck by the loss of personal integrity required by individuals to carry out "don't ask, don't tell."
"Everyone was living a big lie - the homosexuals were trying to hide their sexual orientation and the commanders were looking the other way because they didn't want to disrupt operations by trying to enforce the law," he said.
Unfortunately, that's NOT the way it's going to be spun.
(The funny part about it is that the logistics of housing homosexual and heterosexual enlisted personnel would be unmanageable and un-affordable...no matter what your opinion of gays is...all I can say is that I sure am glad that I'm retired and won't have to deal with this mess)
The problem here is generals are far removed from the possible AIDS tainted blood that flys on the battlefield and infects straight patriots.
My dissertation advisor, generally a man of the left, nonetheless liked to discomfit folks advocating allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military by asking “would you want to serve on a submarine with one?”
The awkward silence that usually followed adequately made the point of why allowing open homosexuals to serve in the military would be a problem for morale and unit cohesion.
Such relationships will impact decision making as emotions come into play with command decisions.
Such activity will not be lost on other members of the team, squad, platoon, company, etc. and will effect unit cohesion.
20 retired Army SGT here that call this so called study bs.
They never bother to ask the troops who have to live with each other, shower together...ect!!!
NO STRAIGHT SOLDIER wants a GAY roommate its as simple as that.
the military is not a social club...it has one purpose:
TO GO PLACES AND BLOW THINGS UP AND KILL THE ENEMY...PERIOD!
“Rule One...”
20 YEAR retired Army SGT here that call this so called study bs.
They never bother to ask the troops who have to live with each other, shower together...ect!!!
NO STRAIGHT SOLDIER wants a GAY roommate its as simple as that.
the military is not a social club...it has one purpose:
TO GO PLACES AND BLOW THINGS UP AND KILL THE ENEMY...PERIOD!
Well then, perhaps they should just let active service members have a vote and then be done with it?
It may not be a legit study, but I work with college students — so people of military age — and they are exceedingly unfazed by people’s sexual orientation, so I would tend to agree with the results of the study.
But as you said, that’s a heterosexual issue as well - having a romantic assignation within the squad will effect moral whether it’s guy-girl or guy-guy. So where does that put us? No women in the military either?
Its going to be a different camaraderie than the one I knew.
Gays in the military brings up a new meaning for “rear guard”
I have no problem with that
I think women in combat positions in the military is a bad idea.
I suppose it depends on how you define "cohesion"...
Impossible? No. Possibilities are not the issue. The issue is the odds...
I do not believe they should be in combat, either in the field, or on board ships that sail into harms way.
This is just the thin edge of the wedge. These so-called studies want to convince everyone things won’t change day one - but no one considers what will happen when they start having gay baracks, gay Army marriages, gay pride celebrations, gay days, etc... as part of the “new” Army.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.