GAY NEWS
Article in Military Journal Critiques DADT; Does It Signal Change?
By L. K. Regan
Published Oct 01, 2009
Published Oct 01, 2009
A premier military journal this week published an article examining and critiquing the military's policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT), which bans gay men and women from serving in the Armed Forces. Now, critics of the Obama administration's wavering on the controversial ban are wondering whether this is the first sign of a change in attitude. Is DADT finally on the chopping block?
The final 2009 issue of Joint Forces Quarterly contains an in-depth article by Colonel Om Prakash entitled "The Efficacy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell." It lays out a devastating assessment of DADT. Beginning with the origins of and early arguments for the policy in the Clinton administration, Prakash goes on to demonstrate that the empirical evidence in support of DADT has never surfaced.
Colonel Prakash Makes His Case
Prakash lays out the origins of DADT in Bill Clinton's campaign promise to end the ban on gays in the military, and the fierce opposition in Congress and the armed forces. He summarizes the fears that led to DADT, categorizing these as health risks, lifestyle risks, and threats to "unit cohesion." But, Prakash argues, the first two categories quickly fell away, given that STDs and promiscuity are factors of the human condition rather than sexual orientation. Unit cohesion remained as the only argument that actually made it into the law.
And yet unit cohesion has proven incredibly problematic, as Prakash points out. Summarizing the research on social cohesion, he concludes that being gay should not be a necessary impediment to a unit's ability to operate. He goes on to investigate the question of whether sexual orientation is a choice, and refers to the military's practice of protecting all immutable characteristics against discrimination. In some of his most persuasive writing in the article, he summarizes the bizarre disconnect with which service personnel are asked to live, by which they are to obey a code of honor and simultaneously lie about who they are (since one can be gay in the military as long as no one knows). This is, clearly, troubling to gay personnel: "The law also forces unusual personal compromises wholly inconsistent with a core military value—integrity," Prakash says. But it also worries their commanders who, as Prakash writes, are placed "in a position where they are expected to know everything about their troops except this one aspect." All of this, the Colonel argues, undermines exactly the unity cohesion DADT was intended to protect.
Finally, and most tellingly, Prakash lays out a clear vision for a world after DADT, arguing that the armed forces will quickly adapt to the new order and accept its implications, particularly given that many of them already know gay personnel in their units and have no problem with them. The future, he effectively argues, is now.
Anything New?
Of course, these are arguments that all of us familiar with DADT have heard (and made) many times before. So why is this article anything special? Partly because of the context in which it appears. Joint Forces Quarterly is a highly influential military journal, one directed at an audience within the armed forces. The article's author, Colonel Prakash, is detailed to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the article was the winning entry in a writing contest sponsored by the Defense Secretary. Furthermore, the article was reviewed before publication by the office of Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. All of these connections to the executive branch have led to widespread speculation that the Pentagon, acting on the will of the president, is beginning to clear the way and lay out the intellectual and factual arguments for overturning DADT.
If that speculation is correct, it would go a long way toward repairing a rift between President Obama and the gay community over a host of issues from DADT to court cases defending the Defense of Marriage Act. However, while the President can establish a degree of urgency around DADT (or not), the policy is in fact law, and as such requires congressional action to overturn it. In short, while an article in a military journal helps to normalize the atmosphere around DADT, if you want to see the policy ended soon, the best thing to do is still to call your member of congress.
The final 2009 issue of Joint Forces Quarterly contains an in-depth article by Colonel Om Prakash entitled "The Efficacy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell." It lays out a devastating assessment of DADT. Beginning with the origins of and early arguments for the policy in the Clinton administration, Prakash goes on to demonstrate that the empirical evidence in support of DADT has never surfaced.
Colonel Prakash Makes His Case
Prakash lays out the origins of DADT in Bill Clinton's campaign promise to end the ban on gays in the military, and the fierce opposition in Congress and the armed forces. He summarizes the fears that led to DADT, categorizing these as health risks, lifestyle risks, and threats to "unit cohesion." But, Prakash argues, the first two categories quickly fell away, given that STDs and promiscuity are factors of the human condition rather than sexual orientation. Unit cohesion remained as the only argument that actually made it into the law.
And yet unit cohesion has proven incredibly problematic, as Prakash points out. Summarizing the research on social cohesion, he concludes that being gay should not be a necessary impediment to a unit's ability to operate. He goes on to investigate the question of whether sexual orientation is a choice, and refers to the military's practice of protecting all immutable characteristics against discrimination. In some of his most persuasive writing in the article, he summarizes the bizarre disconnect with which service personnel are asked to live, by which they are to obey a code of honor and simultaneously lie about who they are (since one can be gay in the military as long as no one knows). This is, clearly, troubling to gay personnel: "The law also forces unusual personal compromises wholly inconsistent with a core military value—integrity," Prakash says. But it also worries their commanders who, as Prakash writes, are placed "in a position where they are expected to know everything about their troops except this one aspect." All of this, the Colonel argues, undermines exactly the unity cohesion DADT was intended to protect.
Finally, and most tellingly, Prakash lays out a clear vision for a world after DADT, arguing that the armed forces will quickly adapt to the new order and accept its implications, particularly given that many of them already know gay personnel in their units and have no problem with them. The future, he effectively argues, is now.
Anything New?
Of course, these are arguments that all of us familiar with DADT have heard (and made) many times before. So why is this article anything special? Partly because of the context in which it appears. Joint Forces Quarterly is a highly influential military journal, one directed at an audience within the armed forces. The article's author, Colonel Prakash, is detailed to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the article was the winning entry in a writing contest sponsored by the Defense Secretary. Furthermore, the article was reviewed before publication by the office of Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. All of these connections to the executive branch have led to widespread speculation that the Pentagon, acting on the will of the president, is beginning to clear the way and lay out the intellectual and factual arguments for overturning DADT.
If that speculation is correct, it would go a long way toward repairing a rift between President Obama and the gay community over a host of issues from DADT to court cases defending the Defense of Marriage Act. However, while the President can establish a degree of urgency around DADT (or not), the policy is in fact law, and as such requires congressional action to overturn it. In short, while an article in a military journal helps to normalize the atmosphere around DADT, if you want to see the policy ended soon, the best thing to do is still to call your member of congress.
CookieMonster_13 wrote:
I'm also in the USAF and this DADT shit needs to end. I'm tired of living like a spy or criminal, looking over my shoulder or keeping tabs on who knows me well enough or not. It de-humanizes us as second class citizens. This has to end soon.
Oct 21 3:09 AM
CookieMonster_13 wrote:
I'm also in the USAF and this DADT shit has got to go. I'm tired of living like I'm a spy or being anal on who knows personally or not. I can't even fucking have simple conversations of dating or whatnot with anyone that's on base. It's a bitch. This policy has to end soon.
Oct 21 3:06 AM
FckLee07 wrote:
I am a member of the United States Air Force... and i am sooooo glad to see that this much needed change is finally coming... the thing that bothers me the most about DADT is that when a person joins the military they make lifelong friends and people that they are supposed to be honest with... and with DADT i am not able to be honest and open with these friends of mine out of the fear that one of them may not be a true friend of mine and they could possibly turn me in on the grounds that i told them that i am gay... but out of the people that i have told that i work with i have had outstanding support and the backing that i need for when DADT doesnt exist any more and i do come out to the people that i work with... and that will truly be one of the most happy days of my life!!!
Oct 19 9:40 PM
TrimNurseDude wrote:
Both of my parent's were in the US Navy in high positions of authority until they retired after serving for over two decades each, and both were conservative to a certain degree. And while they had strong words to say about some aspects of the military and what it should really be like, their views on gays serving boiled down to this:
- They don't care about a soldier's orientation, as long as he or she knows how to fire a gun
- They don't care about a soldier's orientation, as long as he or she knows the chain of command
- They don't care about a soldier's orientation, as long as he or she serves with honor, integrity, and full devotion to their country
And finally: THEY ARE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SO THEY DESERVE THE RIGHT TO FIGHT FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN
Oct 08 8:28 PM
srqhottie wrote:
The military, and even conservatives, should not be seen as a monolith with regard to this policy. As far back as the 1950's, my grandfather (air force) among others were lobbying against the homosexual ban that existed at the time, on grounds of fairness and efficiency. (My grandfather, at the time not particularly interested in gay rights, put forth as his main argument the fact that in times of conscription (ie WWII and the Korean war) huge numbers of men suddenly came out as gay. Why should they evade conscription in this manner? was his main argument.
Oct 07 8:51 PM
Epiphany1882 wrote:
*snoopy dance* :D :D Glad to see a heterosexual, high-ranking member of the military publish this in a widespread and respected military journal. :D
Oct 03 4:05 AM