thedrifter
10-04-07, 09:22 AM
Gays in the Military Debate -- Deja Vu 1993?
by Robert Maginnis (more by this author)
Posted 10/04/2007 ET
Updated 10/04/2007 ET
Last week, Marine General Peter Pace, the outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, restated his support for the military’s homosexual ban, a view shared by all Republican presidential candidates. Democratic Senator Tom Harkin (Iowa) said Pace’s “immoral” label for homosexuality was “hurtful” and “demoralizing,” a position embraced by Democratic presidential candidates. Is it déjà vu 1993?
In 1992, presidential candidate Bill Clinton pledged to lift the ban but he ran into a firestorm of opposition when he took office. After a contentious six month national debate, Congress sent Clinton a strict exclusion statute (10 USC § 654) which he signed. However, the Pentagon drew-up contrary implementing regulations known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT). The law excludes homosexuals from the military but the Clinton-era regulations say soldiers need not declare their sexual orientation and the military can’t ask about it.
Once again, a political fight is brewing over the ban on gays serving openly. Leading Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton describes her husband’s DADT compromise as a “transition policy” that is no longer “the best way … to proceed.” She argues that the military should regulate behavior, not orientation. Apparently the senator fails to understand that those with a homosexual orientation tend to behave consistent with it, which is a problem for the military. Clinton’s fellow Democratic presidential candidates share her DADT view.
Republicans contend that the current policy is working. Rudolph Giuliani, the presidential front runner, argues that “at a time of war, you don’t make fundamental changes like this.” His peers support that position.
The policy question should be: Does the homosexual ban satisfy military necessity? The 1993 Congress thought it did and, so far, six appellate courts have agreed. The would-be candidates of both parties should explain how their homosexual policy position will sustain combat effectiveness, which requires both unit cohesion and readiness.
The 1993 ban is premised on the fact that there is no constitutional right to serve. Thus, Congress may decide who should or should not serve. For 231 years, the US military has discriminated among potential recruits based on a variety of characteristics and behaviors, with the intent of forming the best possible force. That’s why, according to the General Accountability Office, the Pentagon discharged 59,098 service personnel for drug offenses, 26,513 for weight standards and 9,501 for homosexuality between 1993 and 2004.
Under American civilian law, few employers can fire someone for being overweight. In civilian life, no one would lump drug use, obesity and homosexuality in the same category. But in the military, they are all factors that affect the bottom line: unit cohesion and combat effectiveness. So they have to be dealt with in similar ways.
Military service requires a unique blend of skills, ethics, culture, and bonding to ensure an effective fighting force. Soldiers must be constantly available for worldwide deployment to a combat environment. There is often no escape from this structured environment for weeks and sometimes months on end. Active service places demands and constraints upon its soldiers, not the least of which are bathing and sleeping in close quarters.
The uniqueness of military life knows few bounds. It begins on the first day of boot camp and continues until the soldier is discharged. Their conduct is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice at all times -- on and off base and on and off duty.
Combat effectiveness grows in this unique medium by building ready and cohesive units. These units are built and sustained through constant and close associations over long periods. Unquestioned trust and confidence are essential to them. They are sustained on a diet of fairness and absence of favoritism.
Cohesion is the indispensable glue that holds units together. It’s the single most important factor in a unit’s ability to succeed on the battlefield. In 1993, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell told Congress:
To win wars, we create cohesive teams of warriors who will bond so tightly that they are prepared to go into battle and give their lives if necessary for the accomplishment of the mission. … We cannot allow anything to happen which would disrupt that feeling of cohesion within the force.
Sexual tensions and sex-based favoritism in intimate settings destroy cohesion, whether they involve opposite- or same-sex attraction. If we respect women’s need for privacy from men, then we ought to respect the same need on the part of heterosexuals with regard to homosexuals. Protecting privacy in a military with open homosexuality would necessitate recognizing essentially four sexes and would severely disrupt units.
The military has successfully put soldiers from very diverse backgrounds into long term close quarters situations. Behavior, especially sexual behavior that deviates from the norm, undercuts the cohesion of the group. Therefore, most military professionals consider such behavior detrimental to the development and maintenance of cohesive units.
The other component of combat effectiveness is readiness, medical and personnel. In 1993, the Army’s surgeon general conceded that the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy. A Navy study has found that HIV infections within the force have declined since passage of the 1993 ban. This has likely saved the taxpayer medical costs. It is significant that HIV positive service members, although retained in the military, may not be deployed overseas or on ships.
Recruitment of a quality volunteer force is a readiness challenge especially in wartime. Open homosexuality in the ranks will negatively impact the propensity for many young people to enlist due to the influence of parents, teachers and pastors. Americans most likely to serve voluntarily tend to be conservative and religious, the demographic least likely to embrace homosexuality.
Retention of the serving force could also be affected by lifting the ban. Military personnel tend to be conservative and self-identify with one of 104 faith groups that share General Pace’s view that homosexual behavior is “counter to God’s law.”
However unequal and discriminatory the military’s homosexual ban may seem, it is necessary to protect the services’ combat effectiveness which is the product of unit cohesion and readiness.
In the end, the burden of proof that lifting the ban would do no harm rests with those who would change the policy. So far, the Democrat presidential candidates and the radical homosexual community have offered no credible proof to that effect.
Mr. Maginnis is a retired Army lieutenant colonel
Ellie
by Robert Maginnis (more by this author)
Posted 10/04/2007 ET
Updated 10/04/2007 ET
Last week, Marine General Peter Pace, the outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, restated his support for the military’s homosexual ban, a view shared by all Republican presidential candidates. Democratic Senator Tom Harkin (Iowa) said Pace’s “immoral” label for homosexuality was “hurtful” and “demoralizing,” a position embraced by Democratic presidential candidates. Is it déjà vu 1993?
In 1992, presidential candidate Bill Clinton pledged to lift the ban but he ran into a firestorm of opposition when he took office. After a contentious six month national debate, Congress sent Clinton a strict exclusion statute (10 USC § 654) which he signed. However, the Pentagon drew-up contrary implementing regulations known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT). The law excludes homosexuals from the military but the Clinton-era regulations say soldiers need not declare their sexual orientation and the military can’t ask about it.
Once again, a political fight is brewing over the ban on gays serving openly. Leading Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton describes her husband’s DADT compromise as a “transition policy” that is no longer “the best way … to proceed.” She argues that the military should regulate behavior, not orientation. Apparently the senator fails to understand that those with a homosexual orientation tend to behave consistent with it, which is a problem for the military. Clinton’s fellow Democratic presidential candidates share her DADT view.
Republicans contend that the current policy is working. Rudolph Giuliani, the presidential front runner, argues that “at a time of war, you don’t make fundamental changes like this.” His peers support that position.
The policy question should be: Does the homosexual ban satisfy military necessity? The 1993 Congress thought it did and, so far, six appellate courts have agreed. The would-be candidates of both parties should explain how their homosexual policy position will sustain combat effectiveness, which requires both unit cohesion and readiness.
The 1993 ban is premised on the fact that there is no constitutional right to serve. Thus, Congress may decide who should or should not serve. For 231 years, the US military has discriminated among potential recruits based on a variety of characteristics and behaviors, with the intent of forming the best possible force. That’s why, according to the General Accountability Office, the Pentagon discharged 59,098 service personnel for drug offenses, 26,513 for weight standards and 9,501 for homosexuality between 1993 and 2004.
Under American civilian law, few employers can fire someone for being overweight. In civilian life, no one would lump drug use, obesity and homosexuality in the same category. But in the military, they are all factors that affect the bottom line: unit cohesion and combat effectiveness. So they have to be dealt with in similar ways.
Military service requires a unique blend of skills, ethics, culture, and bonding to ensure an effective fighting force. Soldiers must be constantly available for worldwide deployment to a combat environment. There is often no escape from this structured environment for weeks and sometimes months on end. Active service places demands and constraints upon its soldiers, not the least of which are bathing and sleeping in close quarters.
The uniqueness of military life knows few bounds. It begins on the first day of boot camp and continues until the soldier is discharged. Their conduct is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice at all times -- on and off base and on and off duty.
Combat effectiveness grows in this unique medium by building ready and cohesive units. These units are built and sustained through constant and close associations over long periods. Unquestioned trust and confidence are essential to them. They are sustained on a diet of fairness and absence of favoritism.
Cohesion is the indispensable glue that holds units together. It’s the single most important factor in a unit’s ability to succeed on the battlefield. In 1993, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell told Congress:
To win wars, we create cohesive teams of warriors who will bond so tightly that they are prepared to go into battle and give their lives if necessary for the accomplishment of the mission. … We cannot allow anything to happen which would disrupt that feeling of cohesion within the force.
Sexual tensions and sex-based favoritism in intimate settings destroy cohesion, whether they involve opposite- or same-sex attraction. If we respect women’s need for privacy from men, then we ought to respect the same need on the part of heterosexuals with regard to homosexuals. Protecting privacy in a military with open homosexuality would necessitate recognizing essentially four sexes and would severely disrupt units.
The military has successfully put soldiers from very diverse backgrounds into long term close quarters situations. Behavior, especially sexual behavior that deviates from the norm, undercuts the cohesion of the group. Therefore, most military professionals consider such behavior detrimental to the development and maintenance of cohesive units.
The other component of combat effectiveness is readiness, medical and personnel. In 1993, the Army’s surgeon general conceded that the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy. A Navy study has found that HIV infections within the force have declined since passage of the 1993 ban. This has likely saved the taxpayer medical costs. It is significant that HIV positive service members, although retained in the military, may not be deployed overseas or on ships.
Recruitment of a quality volunteer force is a readiness challenge especially in wartime. Open homosexuality in the ranks will negatively impact the propensity for many young people to enlist due to the influence of parents, teachers and pastors. Americans most likely to serve voluntarily tend to be conservative and religious, the demographic least likely to embrace homosexuality.
Retention of the serving force could also be affected by lifting the ban. Military personnel tend to be conservative and self-identify with one of 104 faith groups that share General Pace’s view that homosexual behavior is “counter to God’s law.”
However unequal and discriminatory the military’s homosexual ban may seem, it is necessary to protect the services’ combat effectiveness which is the product of unit cohesion and readiness.
In the end, the burden of proof that lifting the ban would do no harm rests with those who would change the policy. So far, the Democrat presidential candidates and the radical homosexual community have offered no credible proof to that effect.
Mr. Maginnis is a retired Army lieutenant colonel
Ellie