Allies to America: Gays Do Not Destroy Military Readiness

Many things about America stir wonderment in global friends and foes alike: a spirit of ingenuity, a belief in opportunity, and a commitment to freedom are all American hallmarks that modern nations emulate.

But according to a May 19 CNN article, America's military allies are struck by the disconnect between those virtues and the fear that if the U.S. fully integrates its armed forces by setting aside a 17-year-old ban on service by open gays and lesbians military morale and combat readiness will suffer.

America's allies know from first-hand experience that dire warnings of mass chaos in the ranks and sexual predation are only so much vapor--because those same allies have long since integrated their own fighting forces, with no adverse effects.

"We know the U.S. as a country that favors the individual rights, freedom, giving the people the opportunity to flourish in their life," the Royal Dutch Navy's Col. Kees Matthijssen observed. "From that perspective it's still very strange the U.S. is still having a kind of ban on openly having gays and lesbians in the military."

Col. Matthijssen was part of a gathering of military officials from around the world who came to the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institute to share their views on how repeal of the anti-gay policy, known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT), might affect America's military--or, more to the point, not affect it. The institute hosted military guests from Australia, Britain, Canada, Israel, and the Netherlands--all nations that have set aside their own bans on service by openly gay and lesbian troops.

"I did not see one case at any level when homosexuals did not get along with other soldiers," Maj. Gen. Walter Semianiw of Canada said, adding that military service for sexual minorities "is not an issue for our country."

Some of the anecdotes shared by the visitors verged on the humorous, though they made a point. Said British Royal Navy Lt. Cmdr. Craig Jones (retired), "There were concerns in the late '90s of gay men walking across the gangplank in feather boas and high heels." Sound preposterous? It was: "That just did not happen," said Jones, who went on to note that by setting aside its anti-gay ban, the British Royal Navy was able to hold on to talented personnel who happened to be gay.

That outcome was a far cry from fears that allowing openly gay people to serve in uniform would decimate the ranks, driving straight personnel out of the service and turning off young heterosexual recruits--warnings that are being issued in America today by anti-gay voices who want the ban to be kept in place. Virtually no one left the British military when their ban was ended and gays could serve openly, and neither morale nor discipline disintegrated.

Jones also said that setting aside the ban allowed the British military to draw on a whole new pool of recruits--young people who refuse to lie about who they are and tarnish their personal integrity in the name of serving their country honorably. Moreover, military retention is helped by adding openly gay people to the ranks: gays are less likely to have children and therefore less likely to leave their military careers due to family issues.

Some anti-gay proponents of the American ban say that allowing gays to serve openly would weaken or undercut the military; one high-ranking American official, Gen. John Sheehan, claimed that gays in uniform among the Dutch ranks enabled a 1995 massacre in Bosnia to take place because the Dutch military presence in Srebrenica was watered down by gay troops.

That claim sparked angry denunciations and led to an apology from Sheehan. Matthijssen recalled Sheehan's claims, however, CNN reported, and said, "I was in Srebrenica myself, I was a company commander, I was there. I had a full professional company. The homosexual, sexuality that [Sheehan] suggested would have affected that unit, that is absolutely not the case." The officer went on to note, "There was good cohesion within the unit, the unit was effective. But the unit was put in a place--based on political decisions within the U.N., within the international community--with too [few] troops, too few means, not the mandate to really fight and overwhelm." Added Matthijssen, "That's what really happened."

Signs of Change

America's own top-level military leaders have called for a re-examination of the ban, with Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates announcing earlier this year that the policy would be subjected to a year-long review process to determine whether, and how, it should be retired.

But advocates of setting the ban aside viewed that plan as likely to lead to more stalling, perhaps for years on end. GLBT groups are ratcheting up the pressure on President Obama to follow through on statements he had made about repealing the ban this year.

The former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean, is among the voices encouraging Obama to move forward with the repeal. In an open letter that was circulated by California GLBT equality group Courage Campaign, Dean reminded the president of his promises.

"When you delivered your State of the Union address in January, you eloquently spoke the following words to Congress and the nation: 'We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it... This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It's the right thing to do,' " Dean quoted the president's own words.

"At the time, we seemed to be making progress," noted Dean. "You committed to finally end the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy once and for all, this year. Then in February, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told a congressional hearing that 'we have received our orders from the Commander-in- Chief and we are moving out accordingly.' Both announcements were heartening.

"However, as you know, Secretary Gates sent a letter to House Armed Services Chair Ike Skelton on April 30 which appears to indefinitely delay the possibility of moving forward with the repeal of DADT until the Pentagon completes a review of the policy," Dean added. "In his response, Aubrey Sarvis, Executive Director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said: 'As a result of the Commander in Chief's decision to defer to Secretary Gates' wishes and timeline, gay service members will continue to be treated as second class citizens, and any sense of fairness may well have been delayed for yet another year, perhaps for another decade.' "

Continued Dean, "I share the concerns of Mr. Sarvis. And so do millions of Americans, as reflected in a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll showing 75% support allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. Americans clearly understand that if someone is brave enough to take a bullet for the USA, then they should have the same equal rights guaranteed to every American under the law--whether they are serving in the military, or when they come home.

"While I understand the need to research how repealing DADT will affect members of the military, the law can still be repealed with an implementation timeline this year," Dean went on. "The time to end 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is now. I urge you to take immediate action to insure that Congress includes the repeal of DADT--with an implementation timeline--in the Defense Authorization bill currently under consideration."

In response to Skelton's letter--which some had speculated might have been written as a provocation to weaken Congressional support for repeal of DADT--Gates wrote back that Congress should hold off on any action until a yearlong review process is complete, warning that to rush a repeal through "would send a very damaging message to our men and women in uniform that in essence their views, concerns, and perspectives do not matter."

Subsequent to the fracas that developed after Gates replied to Skelton's letter, Sen. Carl Levin, the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, wrote to Gates, asking for clarification of the year-long review's purpose, reported The Hill on May 7. "The review effort," replied Gates, "is charged with assessing the impact of repealing 10 USC 654 and developing a plan to implement such a repeal in the most informed and effective manner possible." The Hill noted that in the House of Representatives, veteran and sponsor of House legislation to repeal DADT Rep. Patrick Murphy has said that he will continue to promote his bill in Congress.

In the meantime, anti-DADT protesters, including gay and lesbian veterans who have been discharged for their sexuality, have begun to resort to acts of civil disobedience in order to press for the ban's repeal.

Though the 1993 compromise measure allows gay and lesbian troops to serve as long as they do not disclose their true sexual orientation, some have been discharged after being reported or outed by third parties. Female servicemembers who are not gay have also reportedly been reported under DADT by male colleagues as punishment for declining sexual advances. One adjustment by Gates is to tighten the policy with regard to third parties making claims of homosexuality on the part of servicemembers. A March 25 Associated Press story reported on the revised guidelines, and called the change a "stopgap measure" while the yearlong review of the policy is underway.

Meantime, as American society grows more accepting of gays and lesbians, those attitudes seep into the ranks of the nation's fighting forces. Still, top military officials say that they don't want to issue an order from the top ending the ban without giving the country's men and women in uniform a voice on the issue.