I have often thought that the proponents of Don't Ask, Don't Tell do not seem to realize that their position is basically an insult to the U.S. Military in general and every enlisted person in particular. According to the DADT proponents, the members of the military are so unprofessional and so unsettled as to their own sexuality that they just cannot handle serving with someone who is openly gay. It seems not all that many years ago, the same story line was disseminated by racists who did not want black Americans integrated into the military. Or more recently, the male chauvinists who supposedly would lose it if women were allowed to serve in roles other than nurses and secretarial positions. It is a farce, of course, that our members of the military are such flighty and delicate individuals that the presence of a gay will just throw them over the edge. The Chicago Tribune has an editorial that basically makes this case. Republicans in Congress would do well to read it and stop listening to Christianist loons like Elaine Donnelly who nearly wets her panties thinking about gays. Here are some highlights: *
Gays have always been there and always will be. What difference would it make if they could be open about their identity? Probably not much.
*
One poll found that most service personnel know or think that a member of their unit is gay, and most of these say the knowledge doesn't affect cohesion. For that matter, Gen. John Shalikashvili, former head of the Joint Chiefs, points out that the ban on gays was suspended "without problems" during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
*
The service chiefs who want to keep the "don't ask" policy seem to think foreign militaries' experience has no relevance to our military. In recent decades, more than two dozen countries have decided to admit gays, including Israel and Britain, and the problems that critics feared have not materialized. No one has explained why the U.S. military is incapable of handling a challenge that so many others have met.
*
[P]ostponing a change until the nation is at peace could mean a delay of many years. And wartime seems a particularly bad moment to sacrifice the training and dedication of so many service members who happen to be gay.
*
Decades ago, many people in the U.S. military didn't welcome integrating blacks or women into their ranks. Today, it's hard for young people to wonder why all the fuss. Someday, long after "don't ask, don't tell" is history, posterity will wonder the same thing.
Gays have always been there and always will be. What difference would it make if they could be open about their identity? Probably not much.
*
One poll found that most service personnel know or think that a member of their unit is gay, and most of these say the knowledge doesn't affect cohesion. For that matter, Gen. John Shalikashvili, former head of the Joint Chiefs, points out that the ban on gays was suspended "without problems" during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
*
The service chiefs who want to keep the "don't ask" policy seem to think foreign militaries' experience has no relevance to our military. In recent decades, more than two dozen countries have decided to admit gays, including Israel and Britain, and the problems that critics feared have not materialized. No one has explained why the U.S. military is incapable of handling a challenge that so many others have met.
*
[P]ostponing a change until the nation is at peace could mean a delay of many years. And wartime seems a particularly bad moment to sacrifice the training and dedication of so many service members who happen to be gay.
*
Decades ago, many people in the U.S. military didn't welcome integrating blacks or women into their ranks. Today, it's hard for young people to wonder why all the fuss. Someday, long after "don't ask, don't tell" is history, posterity will wonder the same thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment