Don't ask Don't Tell

[Duchess Jack]

Would it be okay if the soldiers said that they would not feel comfortable fighting beside a Catholic or Jew or Irishman? Would we ban Catholics, Jews or Irishman from serving openly? To what lengths should we go to support somebody's hatred?

Edited December 9, 2010 by Duchess Jack

[Duchess Jack]

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/07/131857684/ho...round-the-world

 

How Gay Soldiers Serve Openly Around The World

December 7, 2010

 

 

The Pentagon on Nov. 30 released its long-awaited study on "don't ask, don't tell," which showed little risk in allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the military. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says repealing the policy would not produce the "wrenching, dramatic change that many have feared and predicted."

 

The change is not unprecedented. In February, historian Nathaniel Frank authored a comprehensive study of five U.S. allies that have successfully lifted bans or other restrictions on gays openly serving in the military — Britain, Israel, Canada, South Africa and Australia.

"In many of those countries, debate before the policy changes was highly pitched," Frank wrote in his study, titled "Gays in Foreign Militaries 2010: A Global Primer." "Many people both inside and outside the military predicted major disruptions. ... Research has uniformly shown that transitions to policies of equal treatment without regard to sexual orientation have been highly successful and have had no negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness."

 

In a conversation about his findings with Fresh Air host Terry Gross, Frank explains that the United States is the only country in the world with a procedure like don't ask, don't tell:

 

"There's nothing that's been codified in any other part of the world that actually said, 'We will allow gays to serve if they pretend that they're not gay,' " he says. "Most of the countries in Western Europe now allow gays to serve, including the United Kingdom, our closest ally and probably the best analogy for the U.S., [as well as] France, Italy [and] Spain."

 

Case Study: Great Britain

In Great Britain, gay service members were banned from the military throughout the 20th century. But in the early 1990s, a court case challenging the ban made its way through the British court system and lost — so the ban remained. But after that case, the British High Court warned the military that although it could continue to enforce the ban, the policy was unlikely to survive a challenge in the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

"The military [then] ordered a relaxation of enforcement," says Frank. "So in many, many cases the actual end of a gay ban is preceded by a court case and a relaxation of enforcement. And when that [british] case wound its way up to and through the European Court of Human Rights in 1999, that court struck it down. Just four months later, the military lifted the ban and accepted the court case."

Frank says the quick change in England shows that concerns over implementing a repeal are unwarranted.

 

"This isn't like racial integration in that you're moving massive amounts of personnel around," he says. "All it really means is that you stop kicking out gay people: that you let them serve. There's already gay people, in other words, in these militaries. It's about whether you allow it, whether you acknowledge it and whether you allow gay and lesbian people to be honest. In Britain, they simply issued regulations saying this is now allowed. There was a minimal amount of training. There were sessions with leaders to make it absolutely clear that they would have buy-in. There were certainly steps taken. But there isn't an enormous amount that needs to be done or that has been done in these other countries beyond ceasing to fire people and making clear that gay people will be allowed and be respected."

 

Case Study: Israel

In Israel, military service is compulsory for men and women. And for many years, the Israel Defense Forces limited service by openly gay members of the military by requiring service members to undergo psychiatric evaluations, which would often trigger a discharge. Gay people were also banned from top secret positions in the military.

 

In 1983, the ban on gays in top secret positions was relaxed. In the early 1990s, after Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said, "I don't see any reason to discriminate against homosexuals," a review committee in parliament recommended dropping the ban.

 

As Frank notes, there are real differences between the United States and Israel. Because Israel is so small in area, many service members go home at the end of their workday. And men and women openly serve together.

 

"Some of these differences have been used by people to say this case is not instructive," says Frank. "But the fears were exactly the same. The opposition to letting gays serve was the same. The language of mental instability and unsuitability and concerns about intimacy were all very much the same."

 

The new Israeli policy says "there is no limit on the induction of homosexuals to the army, and their induction is according to the criteria that apply to all candidates to the army."

 

Frank says all five countries he studied — Britain, Israel, Canada, South Africa and Australia — had major concerns about the potential effect on military effectiveness and recruitment patterns before their bans were dropped. But all five countries quickly implemented changes. And, Frank says, they experienced no wide-scale problems after the bans were repealed.

 

"So many different sources have conducted research since the early 1990s — before, during and after transitions," says Frank. "There simply is no evidence showing problems, and there's overwhelming evidence showing that these transitions are a non-event and they can occur."

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Interview Highlights

 

 

"In parts of Asia and Africa, there are often no policies at all, either because homosexuality is not spoken about or because there are civilian laws against it and there you can assume it's not allowed."

 

On gay service members within NATO organizations

"Within NATO, there are about 35 countries that appear to let gays and lesbians serve. It just depends on whether you're looking for an outright policy allowing it or the lack of a policy banning it. There are at least 25 countries that researchers confirmed allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. And that number goes to 35 if you go to countries that don't have a ban."

 

On the concern that the ban shouldn't be lifted while the U.S. is at war

"If you actually look at what the Air Force chief said, in terms of this political moment, he said he would like to delay repeal for another year or so, but he does think the legislation should move forward so that the military has control over that.

 

"But again, when you look at the evidence, the research, what the courts have said, and now what the military has said, it becomes harder and harder in court to defend the existing policy. It becomes harder and harder to say, 'This policy has a rational basis' when all of the research, including the military's own research and many of its top leaders, are saying this policy is compromising our effectiveness, our integrity and our talent pool. Even the courts' tradition of deferring to the military [is] thrown into question."

Edited December 9, 2010 by Duchess Jack

[detlef]

Of course, the amazing thing is that it doesn't seem like we're even protecting the hatred of those serving because the pentagon has just said that it did a poll and found a majority of soldiers don't care. So, we're basically protecting the soldiers from something they don't really care about.

[redrumjuice]

Yeah, exactly what we need. There is a reason liberals don't serve in the United States Military, it's because they are COWARDS.

[SEC=UGA]

I think this thread is offensive.

[caddyman]

I think this thread is offensive.

nope it is ghey!

[Duchess Jack]

Yeah, exactly what we need. There is a reason liberals don't serve in the United States Military, it's because they are COWARDS.

How does that apply here? If you're not the type to beat a gay with a bat, you're a coward? Just trying to work through your logic here. Probably an exercize in futility

Edited December 9, 2010 by Duchess Jack

[caddyman]

Would it be okay if the soldiers said that they would not feel comfortable fighting beside a Catholic or Jew or Irishman? Would we ban Catholics, Jews or Irishman from serving openly? To what lengths should we go to support somebody's hatred?

Yes, this is a great comparison. Actually it is silly. Just as the whole issue is silly. Let them say they are ghey.

[evil_gop_liars]

Just trying to work through your logic here. Probably an exercize in futility

 

 

Gays = liberals

Liberals = cowards

Therefore no gays are in the military.

 

 

Do I win?

[redrumjuice]

the pentagon has just said that it did a poll and found a majority of soldiers don't care.

 

Yeah, I am sure how that's how it went down.

 

The poll had a 28% response rate, so only 1 in 4 even answered the poll.

 

Of those, "Nearly 60 percent of those in Marine Corps and Army combat units, such as infantry and special operations, said in the survey they thought repealing the law would hurt their units' ability to fight."

 

We are like no other country in the universe, we are special, AND EXCEPTIONAL in spite of your attempts to change us into Sweden.

 

Of course there are gays currently serving. Good for them. Stay in the damn closet and do your job. Your private life is none of my DAMN BUSINESS!

 

Of of my good friends is gay, and he served 4 years in the Navy. Imagine that, DADT was in place and we're all still here.

[Duchess Jack]

Of course there are gays currently serving. Good for them. Stay in the damn closet and do your job. Your private life is none of my DAMN BUSINESS!

So should everybody have to keep their private life secret or be kicked out? Why just the gays? Again - how far are we going to go to protect the hatred of others? Do you think that there have been soldiers in the past who said the same thing about blacks?

[redrumjuice]

So should everybody have to keep their private life secret or be kicked out?

 

Yes. You are military property. You don't have any rights.

 

The sooner you learn a few things about the military, the better. Til then, you should probably not try and participate.

[SEC=UGA]

So should everybody have to keep their private life secret or be kicked out? Why just the gays? Again - how far are we going to go to protect the hatred of others? Do you think that there have been soldiers in the past who said the same thing about blacks?

 

The blacks couldn't keep their blackness on the down-low, kinda different. But I understand your point.

 

My only issue with openly gay people serving is when it is in regard to the Marines with their open barracks format and for the sailors on ships with tight quarters. Beyond that, have fun, boys!!

[Duchess Jack]

The blacks couldn't keep their blackness on the down-low, kinda different. But I understand your point.

 

My only issue with openly gay people serving is when it is in regard to the Marines with their open barracks format and for the sailors on ships with tight quarters. Beyond that, have fun, boys!!

Its a fair distinction, I guess, but gays are no more sexual preditors than straight people are (and you'd figure at the very least a male could fight a gay guy off more often than a female could fight a straight guy off). And the army has rules and punishments against fraternizing.

 

Most importantly though - I imagine that the soldiers that were full of hate back in WWI about blacks serving with them thought they had legit reasons too and those reasons turn out to be nonsense.

 

eta: with blackness not being able to be hidden - let's instead talk about religion. Religion can be hidden. Should soldiers have to hide it? And with what H8 said about keeping private life private. Should straight guys not be alloud to talk about their interest in and conquests with women. Should they not be able to talk about their wives, girlfriends or kids?

Edited December 9, 2010 by Duchess Jack

[Jimmy Neutron]

The few active soldiers I've talked to about this prefer to keep it as it is...

 

From what I understand, the openly gay/effeminate types have it pretty rough in the military.

[Azazello1313]

I am all for ghey rights when it comes to marriage and such. I defer to the military experts when it comes to gheys in the military, and it seems like they always come back saying it's bad for morale, it shouldn't be changed, etc.

[bushwacked]

You may end up with a hole in your abdomen, sucking Afghan dirt into your lungs as you breathe your last breaths, but at least you will die knowing that the homosexuals in your unit will have to continue to lie about their identities for the sake of unit cohesion and Jebus.

[untateve]

How does that apply here? If you're not the type to beat a gay with a bat, you're a coward? Just trying to work through your logic here. Probably an exercize in futility

 

When you argue with schtick, you are wasting your time.

[untateve]

I am all for ghey rights when it comes to marriage and such. I defer to the military experts when it comes to gheys in the military, and it seems like they always come back saying it's bad for morale, it shouldn't be changed, etc.

 

The same military leaders who didn't want the blacks or the women in the military?

[cliaz]

Of course, the amazing thing is that it doesn't seem like we're even protecting the hatred of those serving because the pentagon has just said that it did a poll and found a majority of soldiers don't care. So, we're basically protecting the soldiers from something they don't really care about.

 

My experience is that it depends on which group of soldiers you talk to. To someone like me (Intelligence) we could have cared less. To Special Forces, 1st cavalry, infantry, it does.

 

 

So should everybody have to keep their private life secret or be kicked out? Why just the gays? Again - how far are we going to go to protect the hatred of others? Do you think that there have been soldiers in the past who said the same thing about blacks?

 

Sh*t, TimC, I need help answering this one. The Yankee in me says "yes" but the Southerner in me say, "Grab yer pickup truck and torches cuz we is going to bring back the good 'ol times"

 

 

Yes. You are military property. You don't have any rights.

The sooner you learn a few things about the military, the better. Til then, you should probably not try and participate.

 

True deal here. In April of 1993 I participated in an all day field and track event while stations in SC. I suffered horrendous sun poisoning and developed blisters and my skin on my nose cracked and ooze puss (horny yet?). I 'officially' didn't get written up but I had to go before my company commander with my 1st Sgt to explain how I allowed military property to become so damaged.

[detlef]

My experience is that it depends on which group of soldiers you talk to. To someone like me (Intelligence) we could have cared less. To Special Forces, 1st cavalry, infantry, it does.

not for nothing, but this is from the news story about the pentagon poll:

 

"We have a gay guy. He's big, he's mean and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay," the report quotes a member of the special operations force as saying.

[detlef]

The blacks couldn't keep their blackness on the down-low, kinda different. But I understand your point.

 

My only issue with openly gay people serving is when it is in regard to the Marines with their open barracks format and for the sailors on ships with tight quarters. Beyond that, have fun, boys!!

Don't ask Don't tell doesn't prevent poor straight soldiers from getting raped by mean angry gheys. It's just that the mean angry gheys can't tell them they're ghey while they're raping them. It's sort of a fine line situation.

[cliaz]

not for nothing, but this is from the news story about the pentagon poll:

 

Oh i'm sure it's different now. I was just going on my personal experience from when I was in. People who came in to the Army right as Clinton won the election were called Clinton Commandos. That name stuck with you no matter where you went simply because of your rank telling everyone how long you were in. I was attached to a couple special forces units and they were all homophobes.

 

18 years later, it's a different world and different military. I don't care if gheys serve in the military. A bullet doesn't know a person's sexuality. But I must say, having lesbians making out in a foxhole next to me is hot, hot, hot

[Azazello1313]

The same military leaders who didn't want the blacks or the women in the military?

 

as I see it, the goal of the military is to be the most effective fighting force possible, not to be at the vanguard when it comes to spreading civil rights. if at one time, its leaders were convinced that letting women fight alongside men would reduce the military's effectiveness, and I have no basis to challenge that assertion, then I think they would have been right to exclude women from fighting on the front lines. even with race or religion, though that area is murkier in my mind. if the army is full of bigots, and integration will somehow make them tangibly less effective, then segregate. thanklfully, that is not the case any more, but it may have been 70 years ago. again, the goal of the military is to be the most effective fighting force. period. in practice, that may mean following the rest of society rather than leading when it comes to tolerance and integration type issues. I think that is a price worth paying.

 

I am all for gay marriage, I just think it is best to give the military experts some say over this particular issue.

[untateve]

as I see it, the goal of the military is to be the most effective fighting force possible, not to be at the vanguard when it comes to spreading civil rights. if at one time, its leaders were convinced that letting women fight alongside men would reduce the military's effectiveness, and I have no basis to challenge that assertion, then I think they would have been right to exclude women from fighting on the front lines. even with race or religion, though that area is murkier in my mind. if the army is full of bigots, and integration will somehow make them tangibly less effective, then segregate. thanklfully, that is not the case any more, but it may have been 70 years ago. again, the goal of the military is to be the most effective fighting force. period. in practice, that may mean following the rest of society rather than leading when it comes to tolerance and integration type issues. I think that is a price worth paying.

 

I am all for gay marriage, I just think it is best to give the military experts some say over this particular issue.

 

I guess I disagree. I think that the trampling of one's rights supersedes any potential disharmony in the military. (of course, I doubt that there would be much, if any noticeable, disharmony)