Ask not (and tell not) what you can do for your country...

In a move sure to piss off gay activists (who are already seething over the passage of Prop 8 with heavy black support), Barack Obama has decided to delay the implementation of his campaign promise to jettison the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy:

President-elect Barack Obama will not move for months, and perhaps not until 2010, to ask Congress to end the military's decades-old ban on open homosexuals in the ranks, two people who have advised the Obama transition team on this issue say.

Repealing the ban was an Obama campaign promise. However, Mr. Obama first wants to confer with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his new political appointees at the Pentagon to reach a consensus and then present legislation to Congress, the advisers said.

Obviously, Obama remembers how much trouble this caused Bill Clinton in the very first year of his administration:
The incoming administration is well aware of how President Clinton botched the same issue 15 years ago. Shortly after taking office in 1993, the president ordered the Pentagon to rescind the regulation that excluded gays.

On Capitol Hill, Republicans, and some leading Democrats, including then-Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn of Georgia, objected. Retired military officers and a number of pro-military conservative activist groups joined the fight.

Nunn of course is a friend and advisor of Barack Obama.

I think gays should be allowed to serve in the military and over the years I have known a number who did. Most were closeted, but not all. Few people like to talk about it, but as a practical matter (and because of the stereotypes in which many people believe), the situation is not the same for gay men as it is for lesbians. The former have a much tougher time, because homosexuality among men is seen as a threat to manhood, and the military is seen as being about manhood. Lesbianism, OTOH, is not a threat to manhood, and if anything, butch lesbians are seen as even preferable to feminine women in a military setting. These are not rules and they'd never be countenanced in terms of official policy, but they are simply observations based on realities as I have seen them over the years.

I am well aware of how sensitive this issue can be, and I realize it is not easily settled with edicts and directives. Many young men (especially those who did not grow up knowing gays) have a strong aversion to any hint of homosexuality in an all male setting, and they become extremely uncomfortable when it arises. In the military, this is exacerbated, and this means that inevitably, gay men who want to serve openly have a tough time and an uphill battle. The military is not about handholding and group sessions dedicated to eradicating "climates of homophobia"; it is about bonding in such a way as to become efficient at killing the enemy. It is the antithesis of political correctness. Barack Obama obviously understands this, and he does not want to look foolish or reckless.

It is not easy to generalize about groups of people who share little in common, but the gay men I have known who served included one gay who ended up as a drill sergeant in the Marine Corps. He was so crazy before he entered the Corps that I doubt it ever occurred to anyone that he was gay. A scary sort of person, and not the type anyone would "ask." At the opposite end of the spectrum of "obviousness" I knew a man who was such a queen that when he told me he was enlisting in the Navy, I suppressed a laugh, then gently asked him whether the fact that he was so obviously gay might become an issue. He said he assumed they knew, but this was the post-draft, post-Vietnam, mid 1970s, and even though homosexuality was verboten, things were lax because they had a tough time getting recruits, so while the policy might not have been "Don't Ask Don't Tell," there was probably a lot of looking the other way. (To not notice that this guy was gay, you'd have to be blind and deaf, though.) About a year in, he grew so bored with life in the Navy that he wanted out, so he decided to make his homosexuality an issue by announcing it. His commanding officer took him aside and told him that he was real obvious and they knew all along, and that they thought he was using his homosexuality to get out in a dishonest manner. They were pissed off at having wasted valuable training on him but had no choice other than to give him a discharge. I'll never forget it, because I didn't think a guy like that could ever make it through basic training, yet he did. I'm not quite sure why no one cared, but I suspect that in the field they placed him in (geeky electronic stuff I didn't understand), no one cared.

An incident which I witnessed in a martial arts school in San Francisco years ago might shed some light on the complexities involved in these interactions. There was a grand master, and his second in charge was a black belt who was gay, but unless you had finely attuned "gaydar," you wouldn't know it. I had known him from years before, so I knew and couldn't have cared less as I was there for physical fitness purposes (not that learning ways to disarm people and break arms and snap necks wasn't fun, but you learn these things so you won't need to do them). However, there were working class San Francisco guys there who definitely did not know, including a young black man who was an Army sergeant, and a Hispanic guy in the Navy. What I will never forget is the afternoon that an obviously gay San Francisco couple came in to inquire about training and prices. The black belt instructor told us all to practice forms while he showed them around, and the reaction of the two military guys was one of immediate outrage. The black sergeant announced to everyone, "Man, if they join, I'm outa here! I'm not changing my clothes in front of them!" The Hispanic man agreed, and grimaced. Then, when the instructor returned, the black guy asked him pointedly whether the couple had signed up. They hadn't, and he expressed great relief, while still muttering outrage. In what I considered supreme irony at the time, while the black guy wasn't looking, the instructor gave me a knowing look while rolling his eyes. Had the poor man any idea that his instructor was gay, I don't know what he would have done.

Doubtless activists like Andrew Sullivan would say that ths black belt missed his real teaching moment there, and that he should have confronted the man's homophobia.

Would that have really solved the problem?

I'm not so sure it would have. I don't think there are magical "one size fits all" solutions to these problems.

But that does not stop activists from activizing, and there are activists on both sides. Returning to Barack Obama and "Don't Ask Don't Tell," anti-gay actvist Robert Knight sees a coming "Pearl Harbor moment":

"Homosexual activists are overconfident because they have not yet seen a counterforce emerge as occurred in 1993," said Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Media Institute at the Media Research Center, an organization that seeks to balance perceived liberal bias in mainstream news coverage.

"But as the threat grows stronger, we will see groups forming and the resistance building," he said. "Americans go about their business and are not activists until they have a Pearl Harbor moment. That has yet to happen, but it will."

I'm not quite sure what he means by that. If the United States is attacked again, we may need every last recruit possible.

OTOH, he might see allowing openly gay service members as the equivalent of a Pearl Harbor attack on the United States.

Are gays really that dangerous?

Not all of the answers are clear, but I'm thinking that maybe it would be better to harness such power.

MORE: Glenn Reynolds thinks this may bode poorly for a repeal of the Defense Of Marriage Act, and he links Brian Doherty (who criticizes Obama's unwillingness to be bold), and Gay Patriot, who asks,

Just HOW many issues does the Hypocrite Rights Campaign and their fellow gay comrades have to lose before they are just laughed at and completely ignored??
Well, they're Democratic toadies, which means that being ignored is their purpose.

posted by Eric on 11.21.08 at 01:02 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/7690






Comments

As a straight person, I think it could have been a teaching moment, but it isn't an obvious one. Some subtle questions could have been asked, and if they answered one way, then sure, set them on the right path. But if they went the other, then it would have certainly been a "too much too quickly" situation.

Phelps   ·  November 21, 2008 01:56 PM

The problem is that this is looked at as a civil rights issue, and one of fairness, and nothing to do with what is best or required for a military to do what it does.

Morale, close quarters, bonding of soldiers, etc., are just as important a set of issues.

The military needs to reserve the right to eject anyone, for any reason.

Military service is not a right.

The same issues exist in adding women to the military, in the same quarters as men.

Mrs. du Toit   ·  November 21, 2008 03:42 PM

The problem with the "military effectiveness" arguement against allowing gays is that there is no support for it in actual experience.

tim maguire   ·  November 21, 2008 04:31 PM

During my time on active duty, early to mid 80s, I knew quite a few”semi closeted” people. Two of my Team Sergeants were roommates and had been for years, I was pulled aside when I joined the team and told they are a couple and if I found myself unable to work with them to speak up now, or never bring it up. These people were much more valuable to the team than I was at that time and nobody was going to risk them getting thrown out for a punk like I was. Every one up to the Coronel knew they were gay and no one cared, they were one of ours and that was that. Mark’s (the senior of them) greatest fear was to be a poster child for some activist’s agenda. He always said” I am an American, a Soldier, Black, Baptist and Gay, in that order”. “DADT was fine by him as his sexuality was his business and no one else’s”. I guess I have always looked to his answers as the basis for my own beliefs. I do not care what you screw as long as it is not a child and you should be able to serve, I also do not believe you have to be out to the world unless you want to.

Piper   ·  November 21, 2008 04:38 PM

Clarification, these men are my friends and while I got out, they stayed in and were in during the Clinton era. Both retired shortly after 9/11 after 30+ years in

Piper   ·  November 21, 2008 04:41 PM

There is a way to handle this that could work over time:

All gay units. Or at least units where every one knows there will be a lot of gays in the unit. And hetros who don't want to be in the unit can decline. No early outs for gayness.

My bet is that they would be one of the very best units in the force. The Tuskegee Airmen paved the way for blacks in the military by compiling an outstanding record.

M. Simon   ·  November 21, 2008 05:11 PM

In my wild youth, about 25 or so pounds ago, I on a few occasions had same-sex "relations" with active duty military. So it would be massively hypocritical for me to do anything but oppose DADT with every fiber of my body. My respect for the homosexual soldier is even greater than the ordinary soldier -- and, yes, I prefer the clinical term "homosexual" to the adjective "gay," which connotes a lifestyle these guys aren't living -- because a homosexual soldier is someone who so loves his country and is so motivated to serve her that he is willing to do despite being told that his kind are not welcome.

The right policy is no sex on military premises and no sex on base or off base between people of different places within the chain of command. Hetero or homo doesn't matter. Obama can end homosexual discharges (no pun intended, believe me please) without formally ending DADT. I hope he quietly takes that initial step on Day One.

Rhodium Heart   ·  November 21, 2008 07:11 PM

Listen, Eric. I lived in the Castro District for 5 years in the 90s - right AT 18th and Castro (great apartment)... You can't find a conservative who is more sympathetic (or who could give less of a shit) if there were gays in the military.

The problem with gay folks in the military is the same thing with being a guy in a fraternity: If you take ANY behavior too far, it gets way, way too ridiculous, quickly. But. Frat guys - or the vast majority of them anyways - eventually get over the fact that they can screw girls as often as they want. Whether through shame, or peer pressure, or whatever, most of them turn the dial back from 11.

Many gay guys, however, never get over the idea that they can have sex whenever they want. And, with too large a minority of gay people, there's no such thing as *too* ridiculous. You simply can't convince them to restrain themselves. Couple that with the fact that criticizing gays is totally forbidden for PC reasons and you've got a recipe for disaster.

As a straight guy who happened to live in the Castro, there was simply no way to "check" or stop the uber-over-the-top gay jackass who decided to make a show of how "gay" he was.

It's not a matter of whether you're gay or straight. It's a matter of whether you can agree to moderate your ridiculous anti-social behavior, or not.

I couldn't give a hoot whether someone is gay and in the military. But until gay people start respecting the idea that straight people have a reasonable expectation that gay folks grow up and act like adults with jobs to do, instead of people who define themselves by which orifice they insert their peckers into, I'm not going to be able to convince myself to care.

Again, I don't care if someone is gay. But, puhleeze, if I can tell someone is gay then I know damn well that a gay person can tell I'm straight. And I have EVERY reasonable expectation they leave me alone about it.

bah-humbug   ·  November 21, 2008 08:18 PM

Oh what contortions Andrew Sullivan must be going through! Not only did he support Clinton first time around based partly on ending discrimination against gays in the military, only to be sold out completely & with an added kick in the ass of Bill signing the Defense of Marriage Act, but NOW to have Obama back treadle on the same issues?

As to serving in the military as a gay man, I can only speak for myself. I didn't flaunt it, but I didn't exactly hide it either.
USAF, trained Lowry AFB 1968 - Weapons & Munitions, assigned Clark in the Philippines, Udorn in Thailand, etc. honorable discharge 1972.
If you did your job & butched it up a little, you were OK.
(And yes, my "specialty" required a top security clearance, but I didn't know Bill Ayres so no problem.)

Frank W.   ·  November 21, 2008 11:23 PM

My two cents:

DADT is antiquated and should be removed. I can think of no valid team building/morale purpose behind it. While serving as a company commander, I had a young automatic rifleman come out to his leadership, who immediately informed me. We took what steps we could to protect the information, on the off chance that there would be retribution against him from his teammates - I know we were unsuccessful in keeping our secret, but there was no retribution. What there was, was support and a closing of ranks behind their buddy. I counseled him for hours to see if he could live with his sexual orientation and still serve - he was a damn good soldier and had the potential to be a good leader one day. I selfishly didn't want to lose what he brought to my team. Unfortunately I lost that struggle with him and was forced to separate him from the service. That young man was a good soldier, a fine and moral person and a combat veteran.
In my opinion, DADT is a relic from a peacetime army and is no longer useful in any way. Men who fight together, men who know that the homosexual man in their team will have their back in combat, they don't see gay - they see a battle buddy who will keep them safe.

Chris   ·  November 22, 2008 10:39 AM

It always irks me to read or hear somebody refer to DADT, as you did, as "the military's" policy. It is Bill Clinton's policy, and the policy of Congress. The military, strange to say, is following public law in this regard. But the military has something of a quirk about that sort of thing.

So credit, or blame, where it is due. You support DADT, or oppose it, don't be a Code Pinkish moron and harrass recruiters. Write your Congresscritter.

Steve Skubinna   ·  November 22, 2008 02:53 PM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)



November 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits