Mon 19 Oct 2009
Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Letter to President Obama
The article in Joint Force Quarterly by Col. Om Prakash, referred to by Sen. Udall above, is available here.
(Demo Post): A recent comment on Mark Udall ’72′s letter to the President created some discussion on the so-called “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy WRT: the US military. I’m moving this discussion here, first as a test example, second to separate the discussion off from others. –93kwt
(edits by Ronit, including embedding of Udall’s letter and Prakash article) Print • Email
| « Mid-Fall Athletics Round-up | Fay Vincent ’60 on Umping » |
48 Responses to “[test][discussion] Mark Udall ’72 & Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”
Leave a Reply
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post
If a comment you submitted does not show up, please email us at eph at ephblog dot com. Please note that commenters are required to use a valid email address when submitting comments.
jeffz says:
Udall on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen.-mark-udall/dont-ask-dont-tell-needs_b_323107.html
Of course he’s right … kind of a no-brainer there.
PTC says:
It will not be so simple to lift the ban on open homosexuality in our military. I am for lifting the ban, after a lot of consideration- but it is most certainly a very complex issue with valid arguments for a continuation of DADT.
Most likely Obama waits until his second term on this one. Even then, people will be forced to grapple with the sexuality issues that will arise when the order comes down to allow open gay and lesbian service. A lot of time spent living same sex in very confined spaces without any privacy is what is required to serve in our military.
Also, the issue of trans gender… not easy at all. Will require major thought, time and money to execute an open policy.
jeffz says:
People were forced to grapple with the issues that arose when racial segregation ended in the military as well. They seemed to have managed OK.
PTC says:
Jeff- LGBT brings with it a very different set of complexities and issues… because it involves sexuality. The military has always struggled with sexual integration… women on ships, women in combat units. By design, men and women are segregated in different berthing and restroom facilities on naval vessels and military posts. The consideration for women serving onboard submarines is now just taking place, and women are still banned from many Combat jobs. Racial and sexual integration are not the same animal.
There are some pretty significant logistical considerations… there will need to be education and policy that takes place. That will take millions of hours in training, and cost money.
Not that it is not doable, but it will raise a new set of circumstances for military members and a different set of issues for the chain of command.
JG says:
Um, the ban is wrong. That it’s hard to correct the many years of discrimination is not an argument, it’s an excuse – a whiny one at that.
PTC says:
JG- While I can sympathize with the inclination to make this a simple issue about civil rights, and also understand that if I was for the ban, I would be standing alongside some of the screamers and zealots- the truth is, nothing about mixing open sexuality or sexual tension within the ranks is simple when it comes to the military way of life. It would have to be managed in some way, and I am not sure that there is a simple way to do it.
Not sure on where others are in terms of mixing females in with all combat units… but I see this as a very similar issue, with a lot of bias and prejudice attached to both, of course. With the caveat that gay men are already serving in all male only combat units, of course. Women, do not have an option at all.
JG says:
As you said, those gays and lesbians are already there which, to a point actually makes the “integration” process easier, not more difficult. I guess I may be naive but with all of the other restrictions already on behavior what major shift is required? Openly gay soldiers aren’t all of the sudden going to starting hitting on the straight ones any more than the straight guys will turn gay or something.
kthomas says:
How are women housed and treated in the Israeli military?
hwc says:
There are no excuses. The Democratic Party has super-majorities in the House and the Senate. They control the White House. Explicit commitments and promises were made.
Voting “present” doesn’t cut it. Period. End of story.
Of course, this all comes as no surprise. Two of the President’s backers — Colin Powell and Sam Nunn — are longstanding homophobes who gave speeches about what would happen in the showers and blocked gays in the military 15 years ago when they were Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee respectively. The President had noted homophobe Donnie McClurkin campaigning for him. So, it is little wonder that the Democrats have governed with anti-gay policies.
Ronit says:
by Chan Lowe ’75
PTC says:
kt- The Israeli military is a home defense force and the American military is an expeditionary force. Not sure where you are headed with the comparison… but the two forces are so vastly different in mission and structure that I don’t think we would get much from it.
No other force really compares to the United States… especially if one compares Navies.
Ronit says:
@PTC:
And this has what, exactly, to do with the integration of gays and lesbians?
PTC says:
hwc- My guess is that he dems take this on during the second term. Right now, politically, there are other issues that the administration wants to focus on. It’s political. No doubt about that.
PTC says:
hwc- My guess is that he dems take this on during the second term. Right now, politically, there are other issues that the administration wants to focus on. It’s political. No doubt about that.
Where are we on the issue of trans gender in the ranks… since we are having this discussion about a civil rights issue?
PTC says:
Ronit- The question ken had was about women.. who are historically barred from combat roles, just as they are in the American Military… also the issue of close quarters. But they can get drafted…
kthomas says:
@Ronit: “and … exactly does this have to do with…”
I hope PTC will take up the distinction in more depth.
My reach was to suggest we might learn something– at least garner and experience ideas– from integrated forces.
PTC counters with a qualitative difference that he is better positioned to judge than I.
IN the end, gender theory is divided on this one (as it is on many things). Generally, gender theory seeks to explore the ways in which gender matters (pun avoided). The general argument for integration is that gender does not matter.
As with race theory, you can’t have it both ways.
rory says:
PTC–but the reason why the IDF tries to avoid women in combat units is critical…they fear for sexually based assault by the enemy, no fear of problems of integration with the boys in the military or ability to keep up. unless you’re accusing the IDF of lying, which i doubt you are.
second, you write about “open sexuality”. There are anti-fraternization policies in the military, no? So make a “no sex with anyone” policy regardless of sexuality and that’s a non-dscriminatory means of allowing gay people to serve and be open.
homophobia is no worse than racism was in the 1940s in the military, i’d bet. we integrated then, we can integrate now. it’s embarrassing that the military is opposed and that the democrats haven’t forced them to suck it up and follow civilian command. i hope they do once the health care debate is resolved. I’m guessing they’re waiting till after 2010 to protect freshman dems. And, by guess I mean hope that’s all it is.
rory says:
ken–it is perfectly possible to believe that gender currently matters, but that it should not preclude it from not mattering in the future after policy/laws/opinions change.
PTC says:
Ken- there is not a single modern western military that does not segregate forces (at some level) based on sex. My feeling is, we should lift the ban… but that those who suggest that this is a simple “absolute” moral issue based solely on bigotry and that the USA has a “not commonly practiced standard” are missing part of the picture here.
Where are we on trans sexual and trans gender? Where are we on complete integration of women in every role- if we are playing by the rules of the workplace commonly accepted by modern American society (rules that do not apply 100% to our armed forces), and this is “absolute”… then these issues should also be equally troubling.
Where are we with the draft… in terms of female draftees in combat roles?
kthomas says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military
==================================================
&@rory:
If the title were “Gender Matters” and not “Race Matters,” the argument inside the volume would be that gender matters, gender matters inexorably, gender matters — structures life — down to a level that cannot be escaped; thus the very idea of gender equality– at least in the way expressed by “it might not in the future”– is a misunderstanding and a false pursuit.
Ditto Race– along the lines of this argument.
PTC says:
Rory- They are most certainly- partly lying. Sexual assault by their enemy on a man is also very possible. Not sure why they have the policy… most likely for similar reasons we do… which are very complex and have more to do with western societal norms… than the reason given.
And… we often fight enemies equally brutal and even more brutal than those in the IDF, yet we allow women to fly aircraft miles behind enemy territory, where the threat of capture is greater than it is for any other community. These arguments are not so simple.
Ronit says:
Added the Udall letter and the article in Joint Force Quarterly by Col. Om Prakash to the post. I recommend reading both in full. The Prakash article is brilliant.
kthomas says:
If you flip that, then the position of women and gays in the US military both reflects and enforces or defines normative guidelines. So if you change that position (pun intended), you either ‘risk’ changing societal norms, or you come into conflict with normative behavior (which may well have other cultural reasons and consequences).
Ronit says:
Concluding section the Prakash article:
Ronit says:
@kthomas: I find the question of whether or not “gender matters” to be irrelevant here; the issues is whether or not having homosexual servicemembers serve openly (instead of in a closeted manner as they do now) will be better or worse for the military’s combat effectiveness. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence for a systematic negative effect from other NATO countries.
kthomas says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service
PTC says:
Ken- I doubt lifting the DADT policy for gays and lesbians would be as problematic as lifting restrictions for women.
I am curious where others fall out on the issue of trans gender and trans sexual?
PTC says:
transexual and transgender? Anyone?
kthomas says:
@Ronit: “… irrelevant …”
Perhaps. “I think” we should be aware of the strands of argument.
PTC writes:
I think that says a lot, at least, about where “gender” falls here.
And now that I’ve made the .8km trek home… walking… through air that is arctic in origin but not so cold (yet)…
Parent '12 says:
@Ronit:
More to the point, Ronit-
That’s brilliant, embedding the letter with the little technical extras.
(as a total aside, the Record feed in the right column is great, too.)
frank uible says:
When it comes to the military, shouldn’t all other considerations except for budgetary ones be absolutely subordinated to national defense?
Ronit says:
@frank uible: I believe you’re right. There are no national defense considerations that justify excluding openly gay Americans from service.
PTC says:
Frank and Ronit are both wrong.
Morality/ ethics/ upholding the standards of our Constitution are the most important consideration of our military- far superior to national defense. One does not take an oath to defend the nation- one takes an oath to defend our Constitution or the idealism of it.
PTC says:
Personally, I think we should move to lift all of these restrictions… but I am not so naive to believe that these are easily settled “matter of morality” issues on a number of levels within the society… or that sex and complete sexual integration would have “no impact on combat effectiveness”.
Sex and sexuality issues are not easily dealt with when it comes to the confines and unique venue of military service.
Rome was not built in a day. There are a number of ways to take on such bans… I am not sure that “direct assault” is the most productive method in this case.
How can lifting DADT be done with minimum impact to the service… without forcing the military into a public morality fight and pushing members to draw lines based on the confused issues of sexual practicality, sexual traditions and moral belief.
frank uible says:
PTC: You like oaths – I like to be safe even if it means engaging in “dirty pool”. You wouldn’t have fared well in a prize fight with Sandy Saddler.
PTC says:
frank- Poor analogy, boxing and war.
frank uible says:
If it pleases you, you can fight your mortal enemies on a Marquis of Queensbury basis – I’ll have my champions fight mine on my behalf by gouging, head butting, foot stepping and hitting low and on the break, all the while attempting to appear ethical and moral politically for the benefit of the squeamish.
PTC says:
also- A military without good ethics and constitutional belief would mean that you and others would be playing the game exactly how you were told, if the military let you live.
I’ll stand by my statement that morality trumps national defense and safety. Strong patriotic belief in a democratic civil system is the most important factor of military service. We are willing to lose wars for ethical reasons. That cannot be overstated.
frank uible says:
Then let’s dissolve the military and throw its resources more efficiently into a grand group for the discussion of things philosophical.
Dick Swart says:
@PTC:
” We are willing to lose wars for ethical reasons. That cannot be overstated.”
Please give examples and ethical issues involved.
Ronit says:
@PTC: What is the connection of your statement that “morality trumps national defense and safety” to DADT?
kthomas says:
We seem to be running full steam ahead at a number of false dichotomies here…
PTC says:
kt- Well.. my point exactly.
My feeling is that Obama should look at some kind of executive order that softens or essentially blocks enforcement of DADT. I am pretty sure he could come up with something. He has a lot of power to effect policy… one of the foolish things that Clinton did was create a law through congress… which takes it out of the hands of military commanders in many ways. To change DADT, you have to change a law. 60 votes in the Senate, hearings… damn clown show.
At any rate- Obama could change the climate through commanders intent…
Ronit- just a background discussion on military climate. Winning wars has never been the primary focus of our armed forces. Not really. It is about following orders and attempting to win within the guidlines of moral construct.
PTC says:
Dick- Every war and conflict we have lost in the modern age has been lost in part because of moral considerations- Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia…
frank uible says:
If the goddam pusillanimous politicians would stop misusing the military primarily as a political instrument rather than properly using it primarily as the last line of national defense, then we wouldn’t find ourselves in positions that result in the “losing” of wars for moral considerations – and, of course, the lives of the sons of a lot of American mothers would be spared, not to mention the avoidance of great expenditure of treasure.
Dick Swart says:
PTC,
But arguably, we may not have been on quite the right side of the moral considerations
PTC says:
dick- Sure, that is a legitimate argument. But we lost some of these conflicts because we realized that, and made a moral decision to end it.
More importantly, moral arguments that the objectives were not/ are not worth the price in lost lives, and also, attempts to spare local populations and stay out of fights for moral reasons… I am not claiming we are a completely just and moral nation. What I am claiming is we do use morality in our line of reasoning in warfare. We are using it right now in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Even the decision to drop the Atom bomb, was a moral decision.
Think what the world would have been like, if one of the axis powers had gotten the Atomic bomb first. The American military is normally guided by moral principles ahead of military objectives.
Ken Thomas '93 says:
On that note– though Germany’s possibility of developing an atomic bomb was probably very low– a quick tip of the hat to Werner Heisenberg, and all those who risked and lost their lives, to raid the heavy water facility in Finland and close that horrible possibility forever.