The realist case against "don't ask, don't tell"

Posted By Stephen M. Walt Thursday, May 14, 2009 - 9:18 PM Share

The Clinton administration's policy of "don't ask, don't tell" is back in the news, mostly because the Obama administration is dragging its feet about abandoning it. One indirect consequence of the decision not to reverse the policy immediately was the forced resignation of Daniel Choi, a West Point graduate, Iraq veteran, and Arabic translator who came out on national television. Having violated the "don't tell" part, Choi was informed that he would have to resign from his National Guard unit. Not surprisingly, Obama's vacillation and the Choi incident have a number of gay rights advocates up in arms.

I can understand the short-term politics (read: timidity) behind Obama's decision (i.e., he doesn't want to annoy the armed services when he's got two wars to wage, especially when both are going badly). But from a realist perspective, not allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the armed forces is a bad policy. Realism sees world politics as a competitive realm, where states face real enemies and where military power is an important element of state’s overall capabilities. In a competitive environment, you want the very best people working (and fighting) for you, and you wouldn’t want to do anything that limited your access to talented, patriotic, and highly motivated personnel. And it's not as though the U.S. army has got a surplus of trained Arabic speakers these days.

In the past, plenty of organizations (and some countries) hurt themselves by excluding talented people on the basis of this sort of prejudice. Ivy League schools used to have quotas on Jews and other minorities, which meant that both their faculties and their student bodies were weaker than they would have been otherwise. That was good news for universities that didn’t have these restrictions (like MIT, the University of Chicago, or CCNY), because they were able to recruit on the basis of merit and frequently outdid their hidebound rivals. Major league baseball teams excluded blacks until Branch Rickey was smart and courageous enough to hire Jackie Robinson, and team owners who didn't follow suit were soon stuck with less talented athletes. Would any serious NBA club try to mount an all-white squad today? But by the same logic, would any general manager exclude white players if it meant passing up on a Larry Bird, Steve Nash, or Manu Ginobili? Would Google or Apple be better off if they refused to hire a talented programmer because she happened to be black, or gay, or Catholic, or Mormon, or Republican? Not only would it be illegal, it would be stupid.

The point is that in any competitive endeavor, you want to be able to recruit and employ the most talented and highly motivated people you can find, and you don't want to limit the talent pool from which you can draw unless there is something about them (such as a physical disability) that makes them obviously unfit for military service. By not allowing gay Americans to serve openly, we are imposing an artificial limit on the number of loyal Americans that our military can draw upon to fill its ranks. Some gay Americans would undoubtedly not be very good soldiers or sailors, but the same is true of plenty of straight people too. Many others undoubtedly would serve with distinction, however, and we know that because many already have, like Dan Choi.

For realists who appreciate the international politics is a rough business, therefore, the only possible argument against allowing gays to serve openly in the armed services is to claim that this policy would have a detrimental effect on actual military performance. The problem with this line of argument is that there is no good evidence to support that claim, and considerable evidence against it. For an excellent examination of the issue, see Elizabeth Kier's "Homosexuals in the American Military: Open Integration and Combat Effectiveness," from the Fall 1998 issue of International Security. Or check out a series of recent reports from the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, which offer survey evidence from the U.S. military and comparative studies of foreign armies (including Britain and Israel), where gay people serve openly, bravely, and effectively.

If international politics were easy and essentially harmonious, then one could in theory maintain prejudicial policies like "don't ask, don't tell" without worrying about the strategic consequences. It might be objectionable on grounds of fairness but it wouldn’t be undermining our security. But in a world that is as dangerous as we are often told, we want to make it easy and attractive for the ablest people to serve. Some of those men and women are going to be gay, and we are making ourselves weaker by excluding them.

The argument I'm sketching here has broader implications about the evolving nature of the nation-state, I think, and I'll elaborate on them in a subsequent post.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

EXPLORE:CULTURE, MILITARY, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
 

DAVE123

4:22 AM ET

May 15, 2009

I agree with Walt's point

I agree with Walt's point about gays in the millitary, but his definition of realism is interesting

Apply this definition to the way Walt treats Israel.

Realism sees world politics as a competitive realm, where states face real enemies

For Walt, Israel has no real enemies except it's own politicians. Hamas is just a group that needs to be given a chance to moderate by being allowed to govern. Iran just saber rattles and develops nuclear weapons for defence and Hezbollah is a pragmatic part of the Lebanese government.

and where military power is an important element of state’s overall capabilities.

Walt,however, wants Israel to destroy it's nuclear weapons and trust Iran not to develop any.

I guess when it comes to Israel Walt thinks fantasy is better than reality.

 

ANON_ANON

4:32 AM ET

May 15, 2009

Liberal and Realist

Professor Walt:

Everything you wrote makes sense, and I agree with the real of DADT. I do wonder, though, whether you're using your perspective on international politics to support your position on domestic politics. Perhaps put differently, are there any realists who have the same international worldview who *oppose* the repeal of DADT?

Thanks
A former student

 

GRAND SEN-OR

10:23 AM ET

May 15, 2009

international politics to

international politics to support your position on domestic politics

Professor is just after saving the State, listen what he says;->

Some of those men and women are going to be gay, and we are making ourselves weaker by excluding them.

What about Amish Professor?!
You don't mind them being excluded, because they won't join the Army and they don't pay much tax anyway, do you?!;->>

we want to make it easy and attractive for the ablest people to serve (the State)

For the Professor, citizens are servants of the State. The laws and regulations of the State must be composed one consideration in mind - How can they be kept servants busy to serve the State. Because without servants and their taxes the State is in trouble. Therefore Professor has to advise his best to save the State. For Professor a good gay or non-gay is he/she who pays his/her tax and readily and obediently be in the service of the State wherever and whenever the State needs and orders them. It looks like there is no moral constraint on the laws of the secularist State. One can even say that the State is against Amish just because they resist to be in service of the State, nothing else. Same for the Women's Right, the main concern of the State to "protect" those rights has nothing to do with any moral ground, it is just to make the women better servants to the State.
I can hear Professor saying;-> "What is wrog with that?"
because he still cannot see that there is something seriously wrong with State. He can't see that State is a Monopoly, therefore it has a very fragile and costly structure to end up in wrong hands. Professor also cannot admit that servants' (call them citizens' for political reasons) control of the decisions of the Monopoly is just an illusion created by the State to save the State. Professor is a perfectly obedient servant of the State, you can be proud of him for that. When I read his postings I can't deny myself the fact that the State is doing a good job to cut such perfect servants and as long as the State has such servants she can go on gaily till the end of her term. But with no chance of giving an offspring before she dies - sad but realist case, why would you expect more than that from a Gay State;->>

Grand Sen~or.

 

FARACK

2:13 PM ET

May 15, 2009

Van_Speijk, you just

Van_Speijk, you just articulated one of the most anti-Semitic and racist statements I have ever seen on this site. Congratulations. Now please consider keeping your unenlightened opinions to yourself.

 

GRAND SEN-OR

8:28 PM ET

May 16, 2009

No!, he expressed another

No!, he expressed another reality within the State structure. But some people can't bear reality for they are now so used to save the State to whatever it costs.

Grand Sen~or.

 

AUGUST WEST

8:35 PM ET

May 15, 2009

Fantasy?

Dave123:

Was the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1947-48 a fantasy? Was the Zionist massacre of 100+ at Dier Yassin a fantasy? Is Israel's theft of Palestinian land in the West Bank a fantasy? Is Israel's stranglehold on Gaza a fantasy? Is Israel's confiscation of Palestinian taxes a fantasy? Are the Palestinians dying at Israeli checkpoints a fantasy? Are the Jews-only roads through the West Bank a fantasy? Are the 1 million cluster bombs Israel dropped on southern Lebanon when a truce was imminent a fantasy? Is Israel's collective punishment of Palestinians for crimes of individual Palestinians a fantasy? Are the claims of South African Jews who say they know apartheid from first-hand experience that Israel is an apartheid state a fantasy?

It's clear that when it comes to Israel, dave123 is living a fantasy.

 

VAN _SPEIJK

9:48 PM ET

May 15, 2009

In case you're wondering, I

In case you're wondering, I can back everything I said up with reliable, academic sources. Drop me an e-mail if you doubt it (username minus the space, g-mail)

I noticed you didn't bother to even attempt a refutation of what I said. You must think we're debating in the U.S. media or some other place where name-calling is acceptable behavior for adults and a substitute for arguments. Still, I symphatize with your position. Once I too would have responded in a similar way. But then I educated myself. You could do the same, you know.

Professor Walt: I would have thought a man of your character, and with your experience in debating taboo subjects, would have let my post stay on. Too bad.

 

GRAND SEN-OR

11:45 PM ET

May 16, 2009

Professor,I've read Van

Professor,
I've read Van Speijk's message, I don't understand why you deleted it. Is it because it was really undermining the State Monopoly? Are you after reality or desperately seeking ways to save the State such as by chopping messages;->>

Grand Sen~or.

 

DAVE123

9:52 PM ET

May 15, 2009

August West, nice rant, but

August West, nice rant, but it has nothing to do with how Israel would apply Walt's realist strategy.

 

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

Read More