� S T A R S A N D S T R I P E S � PAGE 13
OPINION
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
BY KATHLEEN PARKER
WASHINGTON
R
epealing "don't ask, don't tell"
may be the right thing to do, but
there's only one reason to do it:
military effectiveness.
Yet, repeatedly, we hear the argument
that disallowing gays and lesbians to be
"openly gay" in the military is a denial of
their civil rights. This argument isn't only
mistaken, it is misplaced. Approaching
DADT as a civil rights issue is appealing
and convenient, but it's really not quite
that. Or rather, it isn't only that.
The military may be a microcosm of so-
ciety in some ways, but it most definitely
is not a democracy. Individuals don't have
the usual rights that we honor in civilian
society and, in fact, forfeit their freedoms
when they wear the uniform.
If you want to test your free speech
rights, try criticizing your commanding
officer.
This issue is so fraught with emotion and
personal conflict that it's difficult to sum-
mon the necessary dispassion. It feels silly
and patronizing to say that gays and lesbi-
ans are equal to the task of serving in the
military, because it is so obvious and true.
Moreover, gays and lesbians already
have served honorably and valiantly, so
what, one might ask, is the big deal? Why
make people pretend they're not who they
are?
Then again, is that really the most rele-
vant question? Given the nature of the mili-
tary, the more pressing concern is whether
changing the current policy will enhance
-- or at least not undermine -- military
performance.
In combat, as all who have served will
tell you, unit cohesion is crucial. Whether
serving as "openly gay," the definition and
ramifications of which remain unclear,
will affect that cohesion is the great X-fac-
tor -- the thing that can't be measured or
fully understood in advance. The enlight-
ened views of a few urban dwellers for
whom "unit cohesion" is an abstraction are
not necessarily useful to the debate.
Does the fact that society as a whole has
become more accepting of gays mean that
the military environment will be equally
welcoming? Or will we see special training
camps for guys who just can't get with the
program?
I posit these questions with open heart
and mind. As a civilian without military
experience, I accept my limitations in
making such judgments, but would urge
those contemplating a new policy to check
that their motivations are moored to mili-
tary rather than civilian imperatives.
There's no question that attitudes toward
gays have relaxed in the 16 years since
DADT was passed. A new generation of
Americans has been raised to respect and
accept gays and lesbians without preju-
dice. Views also have softened among older
Americans, including Defense Secretary
Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman
Adm. Mike Mullen, who favor repealing
DADT.
Even my Marine vet brother, who sur-
vived Khe Sanh in 1968, insisted for years
that gays would have been a huge problem
in Vietnam. Today he says: "Gay schmay.
If he has the guts to go through the things
I did, then good for him. ... No doubt we
all served with gay guys and never knew
it. Gays aren't stupid and they darn sure
know who is friendly and who isn't. I say
leave it to the troops and forget about it."
The operative words in his mellower as-
sessment may be "never knew it," which
remain central to arguments in favor of
keeping DADT intact. To what extent, if
any, does "knowing" affect cohesion and
what, exactly, does "knowing" entail? The
truth is, we don't know and a policy change
would constitute an experiment.
Among sober arguments favoring repeal
of the current law is the particular idiocy of
banning or removing someone who is oth-
erwise useful to the military only because
of sexual orientation. The several Arabic-
speaking gays who were scrubbed when the
military was sorely lacking in communica-
tions personnel in Iraq come to mind.
Equally absurd is the notion that gays
cannotabidebythesamerulesagainstfrat-
ernizationasheterosexuals.There'ssimply
no evidence that gays are less able to con-
trol their libidos than are heterosexuals.
More questions remain than can be
posed, much less answered, in this space,
and Gates may need every minute of the 11
months he has requested to study the issue.
Whatever one's personal opinion, the guid-
ing principle should be only what is best for
military effectiveness.
"Be all that you can be" was a nice re-
cruiting slogan, but the military really is
not about you. And the right to serve be-
longs to no one.
Kathleen Parker is a member of
Washington Post Writers Group.
BY NATHANIEL FRANK
O
n Feb. 2, the Defense
Department unveiled its
"don't ask, don't tell" re-
form plan. The strategy
is simple: slow progress toward
ending a policy, and repealing a
law, that doesn't work.
The idea is to modify enforce-
ment of "don't ask, don't tell" by,
among other measures, disal-
lowing certain third-party "out-
ings" from being used against
gay troops. New rules may also
require that a two-star officer
approve any discharge. Depend-
ing on how they're applied, these
changes could mean the begin-
ning of officially tolerated service
by known gays and lesbians. In
some cases, gay troops could be
honestwiththeirpeers,whocould
not rat them out to a commander.
But a failed policy will still be
in place; 66,000 gay, lesbian and
bisexual troops will continue
to serve in fear of needless dis-
charge, and the U.S. could still
be forced to fire soldiers, sailors,
airmen and Marines it can ill af-
ford to lose.
The strategy for dealing with
that reality? A year of further
study. The problem is, the issue
has been studied for half a centu-
ry. "Further study" is nothing but
a delaying tactic. It only gives po-
litical obstructionists and moral
opponents of equality for gays the
chance to sow doubt and fear in
an effort to derail reform.
According to poll data, most
Americans agree that "don't ask,
don't tell" is unjust and should
end. But many people don't grasp
that the 17-year-old policy is not
just unfair, it is a colossal failure
that harms military "cohesion
and readiness," the very thing
it is supposed to protect. The in-
sistence by opponents of reform,
such as John McCain, that the
policy is a "success," that it is
"working well," reflects a pro-
found detachment from the situ-
ation on the ground.
For starters, two-thirds of mili-
tary members already know or
suspectthattherearegaysintheir
units, so the policy has failed to
achieve even its most basic goal:
to protect morale and cohesion
by shielding straight troops from
knowledge of gay troops.
Thepolicyhasalsofailedtopre-
serve desperately needed skilled
personnel. Since the law's incep-
tion, roughly 13,500 gay, lesbian
and bisexual servicemembers
have been discharged. Accord-
ing to the Government Account-
ability Office, nearly 800 of them
had "critical skills," including
more than 60 Arabic speakers. In
the meantime, the military has
granted an increasing number of
"moral waivers" to ex-convicts
and drug abusers to fill slots in a
force stretched thin by two wars.
According to the military's
own studies, the policy (not the
presence of gays) is undermining
trust and integrity in the force by
mandating dishonesty, a point re-
iterated Feb. 2 by Adm. Michael
Mullen, chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, and by my own re-
search, in which I spoke with hun-
dreds of gay and straight troops
who confirmed that finding. ...
The Pentagon's hesitant roll to-
ward repeal makes sense only if a
case can be made that, as bad as
"don't ask, don't tell" is, the path
out of it is best trod slowly. Is this
the case?
Research on institutional
change, including our own mili-
tary's experience with racial in-
tegration, answers this question
clearly. The two most important
factors in a transition like this are
decisive leadership and a single
code of conduct for all person-
nel. A major study by the Rand
Corp. in 1993 found that openly
gay service could work well, but
it would be important for the se-
nior military leadership to throw
their weight behind it. The study
said that a successful new policy
must be "decided upon and imple-
mented as quickly as possible" to
avoid anxiety and uncertainty in
the field. Finally, it said that "fast
and pervasive change will signal
commitment to the (new) poli-
cy," while "incremental changes
would likely be viewed as experi-
mental" and weaken compliance.
Rand'sresearchhasbeenborne
out in foreign militaries that have
lifted their bans. ...
In the face of such research
and experience, why is the mili-
tary -- and the Obama adminis-
tration -- trying to move slowly?
Certainly political considerations
and the moral opposition of many
in the military community play a
role, along with the slow grind of
legislative realities. But the presi-
dent has the authority to invoke
his "stop-loss" power to bring
discharges to a halt overnight,
and it would be better for national
security and individual troops if
he would use it.
It is heartening to see move-
ment toward ending the policy.
If the Defense Department's
changes are adopted, they must
be implemented decisively to en-
sure success. Better yet, it should
move decisively to end the policy
once and for all.
Nathaniel Frank is the author of
"Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban
Undermines the Military and Weakens
America" and is a senior research
fellow at the Palm Center at UC Santa
Barbara. He wrote this column for the
Los Angeles Times.
Prickly City BY SCOTT STANTIS
Swift end to `don't ask, don't tell' is best
Recognize the military isn't like society at large

Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 10Page 11Page 12Page 13Page 14Page 15Page 16Page 17Page 18Page 19Page 20Page 21Page 22Page 23Page 24Page 25Page 26Page 27Page 28Page 29Page 30Page 31Page 32 Produced by PageSuite