The future of 'don't ask, don't tell'

By James-Denton Wyllie, Sentinel editorOctober 22, 2009

Sentinel Editorial

"I will end 'don't ask, don't tell.'"

With these words Saturday at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, President Barack Obama pledged change for the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which states gay or lesbian members of the armed forces can be discharged from military service if they openly proclaim their sexuality.

The president's remarks come against a backdrop of renewed scrutiny over the rights of homosexuals in the military, and by extension, the United States.

Should gays and lesbians be able to serve openly in the military'

This is a question each person will have to answer in his or her own mind. To be sure, there will be different factors for different people. Religion, region, culture and personal relationships can all play a part as people weigh in on the issue of DADT.

Personally, I have made my decision. I think the military should repeal 'don't ask, don't tell.'

It is worthwhile to mention this sort of scrutiny is not unfamiliar for the armed forces. Historically, the military has always had a place at the forefront of American civil rights movements. Ethnically, African, Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander Americans have all served with honor, from the Revolutionary War to current operations. Women have been a vital part of the armed forces since 1775. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, atheists and observers of various other belief systems serve freely and openly in today's armed forces.

President Harry S. Truman's executive order 9981, issued July 26, 1948, officially desegregated the military, and predated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The order stated, "It is essential that there be maintained in the armed services of the United States the highest standards of democracy, with equality of treatment and opportunity for all those who serve in our country's defense."

I believe this order lays the groundwork for full equality for gay and lesbian servicemembers. Nowhere does the order prohibit gays or lesbians from having public lives while in military service.

If homosexuality wasn't expressly forbidden for servicemembers in 1948, why should it be now' Certainly, there were gay and lesbian Americans in 1948. Common sense would dictate that some of these men and women served throughout the military.

For the record, Public Law 103-160/Title10 U.S. Code 654, otherwise known as DADT, states, "The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

Supporters of the ban use this statement to justify the need for DADT. The implied claim is heterosexual personnel would be unable to perform to the best of their abilities if they were forced to serve alongside someone who was openly homosexual. It would appear this view is held by a segment of military leadership. Nearly 1,050 military officers, including 47 four-star leaders from the Flag & General Officers for the Military (FGOM) group, signed a letter March 31, delivered to the president, which stated that homosexuality was incompatible with military service.

"Our past experience as military leaders leads us to be greatly concerned about the impact of repeal [of the law] on morale, discipline, unit cohesion, and overall military readiness," the FGOM stated in its letter. "We believe that imposing this burden on our men and women in uniform would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all levels, [and] have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force."

Gen. Peter Pace, a retired four-star general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President George W. Bush, told the "Chicago Tribune" newspaper in 2007, "I believe homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we (the military) should not condone immoral acts."

I disagree with this premise. As a veteran, I believe the men and women serving in today's military are professional enough to serve alongside each other regardless of sexuality. Men and women have served side-by-side for centuries. Differing races have fought, bled and died together since the Revolutionary War. The god fearing and the godless have stood together in battle since our nation's inception.

I do not believe that a professional Soldier would be unable to fire his rifle, plot a course on a map or complete any of a variety of challenges because the Soldier next to him is gay. In fact, a December 2006 Zogby International poll found that 63 percent of military servicemembers had a positive or neutral response to gays and lesbians serving openly. A recent ABC/Washington poll found that 75 percent of Americans nationwide said gays and lesbians should serve openly.

The military is an adaptable force, and this begins with the men and women in it.

Supporters of DADT also point out that the military's DADT policy is public knowledge and service in the armed forces is voluntary. Supporters claim homosexuals who choose to enlist and take an oath to, "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice," should be prepared to accept the consequences if their sexual orientation comes to light.

Sunday, on news program "Meet the Press," former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers said, "Gays can serve in the military; they just can't serve openly. And they do. And there's lots of them. And we're the beneficiary of all that."

While serving in the military is voluntary, I think the opportunity to serve as a part of something greater and better should not be limited due to one's sexual orientation. I believe the military benefits when its members have equal status.

"We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve the country," said Obama during his speech. "We should be celebrating their willingness to step forward and show such courage ... especially when we are fighting two wars."

Critics of DADT make the argument that the military cannot afford to lose trained personnel at such a vital time in our nation's defensive efforts.

I believe this to be true.

According to statistics released by the Pentagon, since 1994, the military has discharged more than 13,500 servicemembers under DADT at a cost to taxpayers of more than $400 million. That's a loss of approximately $30,000 per servicemember. Each discharged servicemembers means a set of skills and strengths that the military could have put to use in the nation's defense is now gone. Approximately 800 of the 13,500 discharged had skills deemed to be "mission critical."

Some of these 13,500 include:

Aca,!AcAir Force Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, who is being discharged from service after an Air Force investigative board found that his homosexuality "harmed unit morale, good order and discipline." Fehrenbach was hand-picked to protect the airspace over Washington, D.C., after the Pentagon attack Sept. 11, 2001; flew combat missions in Afghanistan and Iraq; and served for 18 years as an F-15E pilot.

Aca,!Ac Army 1st Lt. Dan Choi, who was discharged from military service after revealing he was gay during an appearance on news punditry program the "Rachel Maddow Show" earlier this year. Choi is a West Point graduate, a veteran of conflicts in Iraq and an Arabic language specialist.

Aca,!Ac Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class Joseph Rocha, who was discharged after admitting he was gay during a Navy investigation into allegations of physical and sexual abuse of Rocha by fellow Sailors in his Military Working Dog unit in Naval Support Activity-Bahrain. Documents released by the Navy report that Rocha was hog-tied, fed dog food and tossed into a dog kennel full of feces. Commanders openly questioned his sexuality and forced him to simulate oral sex on other men.

"I joined the military because my country beckoned me," Choi said at a march for gay rights in Washington, D.C., Sunday. "But when we are telling the truth about our love, our country slaps us in the face and orders us don't ask and orders us don't tell."

I cannot see the lasting negative effects openly gay personnel would have on the armed forces. I do not see every military servicemember becoming morally corrupt. I do not see a loss in professionalism. I do not see servicemembers losing their sense of right and wrong. I do not see America's military becoming weaker, broken.

What I do see is a better force. I see a military that is fully representative of the nation it is sworn to protect. I see an end to brave men and women being treated as second-class citizens. I see the forging of America's military into an even stronger, united force.

America is founded on freedom. We have freedom from tyranny, freedom from intolerance and freedom from inequality. This concept of freedom is worth protecting, and worth dying for. It is the fabric of what is the best of us. To volunteer to defend this freedom is one of the noblest actions a person can undertake, and one our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen are tasked with. It exemplifys the greatest qualities of America. It is an honor that should be available for all Americans.

"My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will look back and see a time when we put a stop against discrimination ... whether in the office or the battlefield," said Obama.

The coming months will show if the end of DADT is truly at hand. I hope it is. If DADT is repealed, America's military men and women will once again have the chance to teach a lesson it has taught our nation before.

In America, everyone is created equal.