Continental promo
||  News  ||
 
July 08, 2008

Study: Gay Troops Unlikely to Hurt a Unit's Ability to Fight

Congress should repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law because the presence of gays in the military is unlikely to undermine the ability to fight and win, according to a new study released by a California-based research center.

The study was conducted by four retired military officers, including the three-star Air Force lieutenant general who in early 1993 was tasked with implementing President Clinton's policy that the military stop questioning recruits on their sexual orientation.

"Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline, or cohesion," the officers stated.

To support its contention, the panel points to the British and Israeli militaries, where it says gay people serve openly without hurting the effectiveness of combat operations.

Undermining unit cohesion was a determining factor when Congress passed the 1993 law, intended to keep the military from asking recruits their sexual orientation. In turn, service members can't say they are gay or bisexual, engage in homosexual activity, or marry a member of the same sex.

Supporters of the ban contend there is still no empirical evidence that allowing gays to serve openly won't hurt combat effectiveness.

"The issue is trust and confidence" among members of a unit, said Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, who retired in 1993 after working on the issue for the Army. When some people with a different sexual orientation are "in a close combat environment, it results in a lack of trust," he said.

The study was sponsored by the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara, which said it picked the panel members to give a bipartisan representation of the different service branches. According to its website, the Palm Center "is committed to keeping researchers, journalists, and the general public informed of the latest developments in the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy debate."

Two of the officers on the panel have endorsed Democratic candidates since leaving the military -- Army lieutenant general Robert Gard, who supports Barack Obama, and Marine Corps general Hugh Aitken, who backed Clinton in 1996.

Air Force lieutenant general Robert Minter Alexander, a Republican, was assigned in 1993 to a high-level panel established by the Defense Department to examine the issue of gays in the military. At one point, he signed an order that prohibited the military from asking a recruit's sexual orientation.

Alexander said at the time he was simply trying to carry out the president's orders and not take a position. But he now believes the law should be repealed because it assumes the existence of gays in the military is disruptive to units even though cultural attitudes are changing.

Further, the Defense Department and not Congress should be in charge of regulating sexual misconduct within the military, he said.

"Who else can better judge whether it's a threat to good order and discipline?" Alexander asked.

Navy vice admiral Jack Shanahan said he had no opinion on the issue when he joined the panel, having never confronted it in his 35-year military career. A self-described Republican who opposes the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war, Shanahan said he was struck by the loss of personal integrity required by individuals to carry out "don't ask, don't tell."

"Everyone was living a big lie - the homosexuals were trying to hide their sexual orientation and the commanders were looking the other way because they didn't want to disrupt operations by trying to enforce the law," he said. (Anne Flaherty, AP) 

Keywords:  DADT 

Reader Comments

These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.

  • Name: tj
    Date posted: 2008-07-08 8:52 PM
    Hometown: wyoming

    Comment:

    ... and The Advocate should cite with this Christopher Rice's Coastal Disturbances column "Band of Lovers" (The Advocate 14Aug2007), on the unreal "gay bomb" plans of scientists at the USAF's Wright Laboratory in Dayton OH, which never became reality!


  • Name: tj
    Date posted: 2008-07-08 8:47 PM
    Hometown: wyoming

    Comment:

    Hey Bob, just amazing, huh? Guess we just have to keep showing up to see what rad demands that military teamwork and mission accomplishment will think of "next"! I guess never mind all the decades of good commands and teams making it work, or Ike Eisenhower scrapping his plans to witchhunt gays when his longtime executive secretary said he'd have to start with her. Nothing like knowing gays in the family to change one's junior-high perspective and fears.


  • Name: Roger Burr
    Date posted: 2008-07-08 12:49 PM
    Hometown: Marble Hill, MO

    Comment:

    HELLO..... If all our allies, including Israel which is probably as close to a theocracy as you can get, are having no problem with LGBT people serving openly; what the HELL is wrong with us? It will take a Democrat in the White House to put an end to this nonsense, just as it took a Democrat, Harry Truman, to integrate the military allowing African-Americans to serve with whites.


  • Name: Bob Smullen
    Date posted: 2008-07-08 7:48 AM
    Hometown: Hackensack

    Comment:

    Gay soldiers don't hurt unit morale? What's next? Are they going to tell us that allowing Blacks to serve side by side with Whites is okay?


Back to top

Submit a comment for this story:

*Type your comment here (Required, 1000 characters max. HTML formatting and hyperlinks are NOT permitted.):

Characters Left

*Name (Required): 

*Hometown (Required): 

*E-mail address: (Required, but will not be displayed)

Is this comment for publication? 
Yes   No

Daytime phone number: (Required for print publication only and will not be displayed)

Please enter the words you see in the box, in order and separated by a space. Doing so helps prevent automated programs from abusing this service.

  

If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above. 

All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.

See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.

Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.

Error:Server capacity reached.
Error:Server capacity reached.
Error:Server capacity reached. Subscribe to the digital edition. Subscribe to the print edition.
Error:Server capacity reached.