Opinion
'Don't ask, don't tell' hypocritical
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Emily Friedman:
- Tenure at paper teaches, changes (May 10, 2007)
- Straight or gay, hire either way (May 3, 2007)
- Tragedy provides opportunity to re-evaluate nation's violent culture (April 19, 2007)
- Anti-abortion methods go too far (March 29, 2007)
- 'Don't ask, don't tell' hypocritical (March 15, 2007)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
There's nothing like an inflammatory remark by a high-ranking official to spark some controversy, right? Following Marine Gen. Peter Pace's remarks on homosexuals serving in the military, it seems as such. According to the Chicago Tribune, Gen. Pace — who is chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and also the highest ranking military official in the country — told the paper's editorial board that he believes "homosexual acts 'are immoral,' akin to a member of the armed forces conducting an adulterous affair with the spouse of another service member" and that "the Pentagon should not 'condone' immoral behavior by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly." Despite Gen. Pace's latest backpedaling — he has not apologized for his comments but instead expressed "regret" that he allowed his personal opinions to undermine the military's policy — debate has been sparked as to whether it's time to say goodbye to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays in the military. The policy was developed in 1994 under the Clinton administration. It outlines rules for how to deal with gays in the military. For example, homosexuals are permitted to serve under the conditions that they cannot be open about their sexual orientation or engage in sexual activity — even behind closed doors. Ranking officers in the military cannot ask about their sexual orientation. Gen. Pace's remarks do not clash with these rules, but rather with the reason the policy was instituted in the first place. Whereas his beliefs about homosexuality call into question the morality of homosexuality, the intent of the policy was to promote unity and some tolerance in the armed forces. Gen. Pace even admitted in a press release from the U.S. Department of Defense that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy does not "make a judgment about the morality of individual acts." Regardless, members of Congress and advocacy groups are rightfully using Gen. Pace's slip-up as an opportunity to encourage a discussion as to whether, more than a decade later, this policy is still a good idea. Are Gen. Pace's anti-gay sentiments really representative of the majority opinion in the military? In America? And is now really the best time for the United States to be picky about whom they allow to enlist? While gauging the public's opinion on gay rights may just be impossible, it is safe to say that tolerance for homosexuality is much greater now that it was in the early '90s. A more tangible way to look at this controversy, though, is to examine how many troops the United States has had to dismiss because of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. According to The Associated Press, 10,000 troops — 50 of whom were coveted Arabic specialists — have been discharged since the policy was signed into law, and in a time when enlisting in the armed forces is lacking in popularity, these numbers are substantial signs of how detrimental this policy may be. An even more shocking set of numbers, provided by the Pentagon and reported by The Washington Post March 7, proved that the number of homosexuals discharged from the military in 2006 was significantly lower than in previous years. The report leads many to believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have made the need for troops too great to discharge so many soldiers based on their sexual orientation. In other words, when you need troops as badly as we do right now, who cares if they are gay or straight? If this is the case, then why have the "don't ask, don't tell" policy at all? It isn't fair for the U.S. military officials to look the other way in terms of their feelings on homosexuality when it's convenient for them — during wars where thousands of troops are dying — and then discharge gays when they are not needed as cannon fodder. In fact, Rep. Martin T. Meehan, D-Mass., is calling for legislation to remove the policy for just these reasons. He told The Washington Post, "We are turning away good troops to enforce a costly policy of discrimination." Troops are troops, and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is limiting the pool from which to obtain troops for reasons that have nothing to do with how well they fight or how well they represent our country. We can only hope that inflammatory remarks made by people like Gen. Pace will lead people to rethink how irrelevant sexual orientation is when it comes to war. Emily Friedman (efriedman@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in journalism and legal studies.
11 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
720 CLARK Court: 3 bedroom house + den. You can easily fit 4 people people in this awesome house! $1750 Call 257-7368.
1318 RANDALL Court: Huge five bedroom house located near Camp Randall. $2500/mo. Call 257-7368.
it would kill military readiness. NO, not because I think gays are a bad impact on the military, but many commanders are ON RECORD saying they'd quit if this was removed. I know, DADT is discriminatory, but the alternative is worse.
1. Remember, this policy is MANDATED by CONGRESS, not self-imposed by the military.
2. Interesting article, right up until you used the term "cannon fodder," which implies the U.S. military as hordes of morons. You lost me...buh-bye!
It's stupid not to let gays into the military!
***
Homosexuality among males in the militaries and warriors of ancient Greek city-states were documented by many historians throughout the ages. ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_militaries_of_ancient_Greece
There is lots of evidence in pagan Irish literature for a very robust tradition of homosexual activity among young warriors
Plenty more:
just google ancient homosexual warriors
Emily, let me clarify something for you. In all the wars since the Korean War, minorities were disproportionately sent to fight on the front lines. They usually were placed in high-risk occupations in the military. Now just because you see a lot of gays getting booted out of the military doesn't necessarily mean gays are just lining up at the recruiting stations to sign up.
Actually, most gays simply don't care to enlist. Most of the people who enlist are these poor white trash, working class losers who couldn't make it in the private sector. John Kerry was right! The military has long since been the dumping ground for society's grossest underachievers. Who wants to put up with degenerates like that every day?!
So as a gay man, I honestly don't see the point in any gay person laying down his or her life for this country. After all, gays are treated like second class citizens. It just doesn't make sense to fight for a country that's been fighting you all along.
I agree with 10:06. Who wants to spend two years in the Army with a bunch of redneck heteros in close quarters. A bunch of loser breeder boys who change their underwear once a month regardless and brag how they're going to get "some o' that thar Arab pussy." God, what ignorant bigots. But then, that's straights for ya. Always raping and murdering. I live for the days when you heteros blow each other away and we will inherit the Earth. Maybe we will finally have a gay president. That would be neat!
10:06am, you ungrateful SOB. You should be grateful that there are brave men and women who gave their lives so that scum like you have the freedom to say what you say and do what you do. My grandfather killed Germans to keep you out of the death camps. You think you're a second class citizen? You are damn lucky you live in a country where you can be a citizen at all. I don't have a problem with gays or minorites, but I do have a problem with traitors and anyone who speaks ill of my beloved country and its military.
Unfortunately, this are article is yet another example of the pathetically naíve understanding of reality some students have, especially when it comes to the realistic consequences of enforcing their extremist liberal ideologies.
Emily, please do more research before you launch into a gay-activist criticism of the US military policy. Or just think about what you are saying for a second. The "don't ask don't tell" policy is by definition NOT discriminatory. Homosexuals may not be permitted to be open about their sexual orientation or engage in sexual activity, but neither are heterosexuals.
"The state which separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools"
Thucydides
To 10:06:
You sound bitter. Something tells me you were rejected by the military for being gay. Whether they're underachievers or not, they're defending this country's freedom. If they weren't defending YOUR freedom to be gay, you would probably be killed like gays in 3rd world countries are. Respect your country's soldiers, and if you refuse, then get out of the United States.
Also, are you telling me gays can't be underachievers? There's nothing about being gay that correlates to having an increased work ethic, being rich, or not being "white trash, working class losers." I have nothing against gays, but I'm sure the percentage of gays that are "degenerates" is just as high as the percentage of heterosexuals that are.
"I live for the days when you heteros blow each other away and we will inherit the Earth."
Ahhh, the "End of Days" the fundies are all talking about. One last generation to swirl down the toilet in debauchery.
PS. Only an idiot would want to live on the nuke-wintered radioactive cinder that the Eerth will be after the "blow away" phase is over.
As a recently retired member of the military I have served with gays; to this I don't object to as long as they didn't make a issue about their "gayness". On duty no one has a right to any kind of sexual orientation; it's a workplace, remember? Don't Ask, Don't Tell works as long as everyone remembers that there is an important job to be done, and the mission comes first. Supporters of the removal to the DADT policy are always reminding us that we have lost 10,000 troops since 1994 to the enforcement of that policy. I would suggest that a fair number of those 10,000 were not gays or lesbians, but simply wanted out of the service. What easier way than to announce that you are gay or lesbian. You are processed out at light speed to the civilian world...poof...no more upcoming deployment to some third world trouble spot and virtually no impact on your civilian future. It would be interesting to know how many times that tactic has been used by straight people to get out of the service.