Surefire controversy!

Let's talk Don't Ask, Don't Tell a bit.  I have served in all-male light infantry and motorized line infantry units, co-ed training units, and co-ed staff units.  I went to the Military Academy, which is a co-ed institution with approximately 17% of the student body being female.  My experience is wide enough that I have a fairly good idea of what goes on in the Army and can therefore comment on some impacts of the policy popularly known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT).  

First, let's posit a few things.  

1. Any policy affecting or regulating the military ought to be crafted with the explicit aim of enhancing the capability of the armed forces.  I hope this is apparent.  If you disagree with me on this, then stop reading and go do something else. 

2. Military capability is a function of the total equipment, personnel, and leadership/organizational activity of the military.  It means the ability to deliver the right force to the right target in the right place at the right time.  

3. There are trade-offs inherent in every policy.  To make an analogy, a pawn may move two spaces forward, which is an advance, but the trade-off is that it loses control of the squares it has passed.  

Ok, great.  Now we are on the same page.  So let's address some points about DADT.  

The first is a pretty big one that most people seem to miss.  DADT does NOT PREVENT gays from serving in the military. 

Let me say that again because it is an important point.

DADT does NOT PREVENT gays from serving in the military. 

What it prevents is gays from OPENLY serving in the military.  What does that mean?  That means engaging openly in gay behavior.  The line is a little ambiguous, but public displays of affection such as kissing, or getting caught in flagrante are sufficient to open an investigation into the behavior.  

But nothing in the policy prevents gay servicemembers from serving, provided they do not publish their orientation to the world to see.  And that's the rub.  There could be a couple of infantrymen, gay as can be, serving in a line unit, and, for example, living in their own off-post house, doing whatever they wanted to do.  And there's nothing the Army could do about it.  All that would be required is that they not make out in the barracks in front of their soldiers.  

So, you say, the policy is still discriminatory.  Well, yes, yes it is.  But let's go back to our propositions:  Looking at #1, would repealing DADT enhance military capability?  I don't think so, and here's why. 

1) Gays are already allowed to serve in the military; those who want to can, and therefore the military is not losing a valuable source of manpower.  The best (and only, as far as I am concerned) arguments for allowing blacks, women, and etc into the army and integrated units concern the usage of the whole population of the US in military endeavors.  

Fairness, taking into account peoples' desire to serve, etc., should have nothing to do with whether they are allowed to serve.  To make the point:  If a paraplegic wants to serve in the infantry, do we let him?  If he is a superior strategic genius, then maybe he should be made a general.  However, he is incapable of doing common Infantry tasks.  Women (~50% of the population) and minorities (~30% of the population) give valuable contributions to the military, and so the integration effort was well-aimed and well-implemented, despite the negative effects that we do see in co-ed units from a high-percentage male population interacting with a low-percentage female population, especially given the framework of the rank system.  There is no such argument for repealing DADT, because gays (2-3% of the population) are already allowed in the military.  Repealing DADT would be an exercise in enhancing gay self-esteem, not military readiness.  Consequently, the negative effects that we can anticipate--to unit readiness and morale-- are NOT outweighed by the benefits.   

Because it would not be a beneficial policy, I am forced to conclude that the campaign to repeal DADT is not based so much on "gay rights" as it is on "I'm Gay, Look At Me!" In short, it is about the individual's freedom to do what you want.  Freedom is great-- I am a huge fan of it.  And I am leaving the military so I can do what I want.  There are tradeoffs (see my #3 above) to every decision.  The military demands some degree of conformity.  If you can't handle it, don't join-- you know what you're getting into when you sign up.  However, DADT-repeal proponents would rather force an institution to change for a few individuals' lifestyle preferences than recognize that what they are doing is not in the best interest of the military.  

We then have a branch.  Would DADT repeal be detrimental to the military?  I don't know for sure.  I can say that with the coming confluence of gay marriage and military benefits, I would bet a month's paycheck that with those policies in place, most of my all-male infantry platoon would have gotten "married" to be allowed to use off-post housing and get BAH.  I can't say that my platoon would be significantly degraded by this, but I think getting my soldiers in formation in the morning would be a lot more difficult, and I would see a lot more legal problems coming out of Animal-House style quarters.  I could be wrong, but that's where I would see things going.

I would also guess that living quarters for military service members in general would be dramatically reconfigured.  There would no longer be ANY justification for segregating housing by sex.

Read that again, and think about it.  It's absolutely correct.  What is the justification for segregating housing by sex now?  Privacy?  Sexual harassment cases?  When DADT goes, housing segregation by sex will (logically, but the army doesn't always follow logic) go too.  As a result, service-members will have to have each of their own rooms.  This is great for the servicemembers and I am all in favor of it generally, but not for the cause celebre of some individuals. 

You will notice that I haven't addressed the morale., etc,. of the people in the units.  That is intentional.  My platoons could probably be assessed as homophobic, but I am not sure how much of that was peer-pressure induced and how much of it was genuinely being bothered by gays.  I don't think integrating gays into the units themselves would be a problem unless you had gay romances going on.  That is a problem in male-female integrated units as well, and can have a significant detrimental effect on unit readiness.  It goes to a lot of fraternization issues.  If those could be avoided (which I don't think is entirely realistic) then there wouldn't be a big problem. 

However, let me make a point here:  forcing people to change their beliefs for the sake of forcing them to change is egotistical and wrong.  If there is an injustice going on, fine.  But to label a group of people ("the military") as being mentally deficient and requiring them to adjust to accommodate a relative few individuals is not the best use of the military's already poorly-managed time and energy.  There are already copious opportunities (mandates) for quarterly and yearly training on suicide, sexual harassment, equal opportunity, and so forth.  I got more time in EO classes in my training at Fort Riley than I did training on IVs or calling MEDEVAC.  Just sayin'.

Although to be fair I suppose I am at more risk of an EO complaint here on staff than I am of getting blown up.  But if I'd gone to Afghanistan, then I'd have a real point.  

Are we willing to accept the upheaval that repealing DADT will cause?  I personally don't think there's a point to it.  We should go with my marriage policy, and DADT in place.

Feedback is welcome, as are additional facts or commentary.