The Right Thing to Do

Monday, February 8, 2010
I think I'm in love. But in a completely platonic, I-wish-I-had-served-under-you-because-you-rock-the-house and I'm-completely-devoted-to-my-Smart-Man kind of way.

I'm speaking, of course, of Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In testimony to the Senate Armed Forces Committee on February 2nd, Admiral Mullen made the following statement:
Mr. Chairman, speaking for myself and myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do. No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, personally, it comes down to integrity -- theirs as individuals and ours as an institution. I also believe that the great young men and women of our military can and would accommodate such a change. I never underestimate their ability to adapt.
Hurray! The highest ranking officer in the Armed Forces makes a definitive statement about the morality and integrity of a policy that has hurt not only the gays and lesbians who have been affected by it, but the Armed Forces as a whole. Admiral Mullen makes the obvious statement (and one I've made myself, and heard other military members make) that he has been serving with homosexuals his whole career. The presence of gay and lesbian service members is the worst kept secret in the military.

Of course, the fact that the CJCS and the SecDef both believe this policy is on the way out does not prevent those who are still frightened of teh Gay from running around naked with their hair on fire. Our old friend Elaine Donnelly is making the rounds of the talk shows, attempting to foment fear and loathing. Ms. Donnelly (who still isn't a veteran but continues to use "we" when discussing issues the military has to manage), considers Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates' comments "embarrassing." When pressed by the host of NPR's Tell Me More to defend the hypocrisy inherent in excluding gays and lesbians, she danced around the issue with all kinds of logical fallacies. She denied that there are similarities between desegregation and DADT, implying the position is "the weakest argument going," although she couldn't convincingly articulate why the correlation didn't work. In other words, she hasn't changed much since her testimony in front of the House Committee of July of last year.

However, in spite of Ms. Donnelly's obvious homophobia, she does bring up some points that need to be addressed. Sexuality is a fundamental part of our humanity, and making living arrangements for both straight and gay service members might be challenging. Challenging, but not insurmountable, and along with Admiral Mullen, I have confidence the men and women of the military will accommodate the change.

She's also right in saying that there are members of the Armed Forces who will leave the service if this policy changes. Just as there were racists who left the Armed Forces when Truman signed Executive Order 9981 desegregating the Armed Forces in 1948, there will be homophobes who will leave if DADT is repealed. This both matters and doesn't. The military is a very conservative organization, and if significant numbers of people leave due to homophobia, it may negatively affect force readiness as a practical matter. This matters, as we currently have two wars going on, and we need every experienced soldier, sailor, airman and Marine. These members should be encouraged to stay, although it is certainly their right to leave the service if the core values of the organization no longer match their own and their commitment is over.

This type of sea change is never accomplished without resistance and pain. Forcing people to accept the "new normal" will be a long, painful process, and there's no doubt that the Armed Forces will lose some of their institutional memory before it's over. The same happened during desegregation, and when women assumed a more substantial role, and yet we managed to survive and thrive.

The bottom line here is what Admiral Mullen expressed: Forcing citizens of this country to hide who they are in order to serve others is not the position of an organization who aspires to the core principles of Honor, Courage and Commitment. The men and women who want to serve without compromising their identity should be allowed, as a matter of law, to do so without fear. It's the right thing to do.

13 comments:

Phiala said...

I sent this to Mr. Stonekettle, but you might also be interested.

Janiece said...

Thanks, Phiala. That was very interesting, and Mr. Brin makes some very good points, most especially his commentary about the stupidity of the current Republican regime. My main issue with Bush and Palin wasn't that our politics were opposed - I can respect and converse with the loyal opposition. It's that they were stupid, the unforgivable sin.

It also amuses me when people are surprised at the level of education in our Armed Forces. The military places huge value on education (at all ranks), and is willing to pay for the best.

Non sequitur: I thought Kiln People was an awesome book, BTW.

Stacey said...

I can't wait for DADT to go away. The only people who don't know who in the military is gay is the general public. For the record, I couldn't give a sh** who they want to be with. They are defending my right to care or not care and deserve my respect. I was married to a submariner for long enough to have figured for myself who was gay and I wasn't spending 24/7 X 3 mos with them; beleive me, it's no secret. DOWN WITH DADT!

Nathan said...

Go to the Center for Military Readiness' website and you'll find that they describe themselves as a "non-partisan" organization. Then, go look at who is on their board of directors (linked on their sidebar). I can't say that none of them have any kind of leftist credentials, but the CVs of most of them certainly establish them as rightwing.

I guess the Teabaggers and the Birthers are technically non-partisan too.

The Mechanicky Gal said...

I didn't want to know what my straight men and women were doing, let alone anyone else. Simply isn't my business. I just wanted people to come to work ready to go!

Janiece said...

Nathan, I noticed that too. She makes a huge point of her "think tank's" position being purely secular, and yet her previous public commentary (and the vociferous way in which she defends her position) indicates there's a bit more to the story.

I hear ya', Mechanicky Gal. As my Hot Mom used to say, "Don't tell me how to screw, pray or vote, and we'll get along just fine."

vince said...

During the Civil War, there were a large number of desertions when black regiments came into existence. The north still won, and as a whole, black regiments acquitted themselves very well.

I remember when it was argued that you couldn't have women in the Navy because of the difficulty of having separate living quarters on ships and subs.

The same arguments made by the anti-gay forces have been made by others against blacks and women in the past. They were bullshit then; they are bullshit now.

nzforme said...

I heard someone (can't remember who, actually) say that implementing the elimination of DADT would require separate bathrooms.

Huh?

Could you please explain to me how peeing next to a gay man who doesn't SAY that he's gay is cool, but peeing next to an OPENLY gay man is something that we shouldn't force straight servicemen to do.

'Cause I seriously need some help wrapping my brain around it. I mean, as long as the military has a ban on unwanted sexual advances of ANY kind (which it should), I'm not really seeing where there any issues of practical implementation other than putting out a memo saying, "It's ok to ask and tell now."

Nathan said...

nzfomre,

Your problem is that you're trying to apply logic to this. If you're peeing at one urinal and the guy at the next urinal isn't allowed to tell, everything's cool. What the non-logic applying public envisions is the guy at the next urinal announcing, "Dude! I am SO gay for you." (Note that under either scenario, he's not allowed to turn and face you because, well, then he'd be peeing on your shoes. Not cool!

Janiece said...

Nathan, I'm SO gay for you.

What?

nzforme said...

Nathan,

So, it's ok if the guy at the next urinal says, "Dude, if I wasn't straight, I would be so gay for you"??

Nathan said...

See? Now you're paying attention.

WendyB_09 said...

Well...as the parts are the same if you're gay or straight, what's the problem??? I mean gee whiz, ya've seen one ya've seen 'em all!