What does it tell you about the New York Times op-ed page that they would publish a lengthy attack
on the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell by a former air force chief of staff,
which contains one obvious falsehood and another obvious omission?
The op-ed (by retired general Merrill A. McPeak) rehashes the
old argument that permitting gay Americans to serve openly in the armed forces
would undermine unit cohesion. He falsely claims that "advocates for gays in the service have by and
large avoided a discussion of unit cohesion." This assertion is simply untrue; in fact, advocates for repealing DADT have addressed this
issue repeatedly, as a thirty-second Google search would reveal. Indeed, a prize-winning article in the
DoD's own Joint Forces Quarterly
argued last year that "[T]he stated premise of the law -- to protect unit cohesion and
combat effectiveness -- is not supported by any scientific studies." (For more on this issue, go here.)
So much for the false information purveyed in this article. The glaring omission in McPeak's op-ed
was his failure to discuss any of the countries where gays do serve openly,
such as Israel, Australia, Canada, or Great Britain.
Have these states-all close U.S. allies and regarded as effective
military performers-suffered a catastrophic decline in "unit cohesion?" The answer is no. As the JFQ article cited above notes:
"In a survey of over 100 experts from Australia, Canada,
Israel, and the United Kingdom, it was found that all agreed the
decision to lift the ban on homosexuals had no impact on military
performance, readiness, cohesion, or ability to recruit or retain, nor did it increase the HIV rate among troops."
In short, McPeak doesn't know what he's talking about. And
though the experience of modern militaries where gay people serve
openly would seem to be
germane to any discussion of this issue here in the United States, the Times' editors do not appear to have
queried him about it.
I'm not surprised that a retired Air Force general has outdated
and poorly-informed views on sexuality. Nor am I bothered that the Times gave him
space to express them on their op-ed page, because it should be a platform for public debate and present a wide range of
views. What I don't understand is
why the Times' editors would let him
make obviously bogus or misleading claims, without any perceptible attempt to
verify them beforehand? Or maybe
all those budget cuts have eliminated the fact-checkers?
Here is a thought experiment you might want to consider:
Suppose you were not Professor Walt, but Private Walt,
assigned to an infantry squad where
your squad leader and platoon leader were both openly gay.
They had each made comments
that you thought might be exploring a relation with you,
but were not so specific that you could definitively substantiate that.
Subsequently you received assignments that you viewed as
either more hazardous or more onerous than
those the other men in your squad received.
You suspected that this was retaliation
for your refusal of their possible advances,
but of course you couldn't prove that.
What would that do to your motivation level,
and your willingness to do
the arduous and dangerous tasks typically assigned to infantrymen?
Perhaps you read the comic strip "Beetle Bailey."
(Although I doubt a Harvard professor would ever have such ordinary tastes.)
What if Sgt. Snorkle were gay, and Beetle straight.
Would that put a different perspective on things,
not to mention Beetle's attitude?
Yes, I understand that is literally a cartoon, and exaggerates things,
but at least there is a hint of reality behind it.
Your attitude is typical of the Cambridge liberal,
whose understanding of the world outside his cloistered precincts
is nil.
As to the opinion of those supposed "experts"
on the effect of gays on the military in other countries,
how many "experts" have you seen giving
obviously biased, if not totally inaccurate, advice
on the matters of foreign policy on which you have
legitimate reasons to consider yourself an expert?
You make a Big assumption about homosexuals, that they are unable to take no for an answer and move on. Generally homosexuals do not pursue straight folks, just as straight folk generally don't pursue homosexuals. It has been factually proven that openly gay soldiers can do the job as any one else, to imply otherwise is to deem them inferior.
In fact DADT hurts more than helps, do you have any idea how many effective personnel with experience in linguistics and other short handed fields have been discharged for simply being gay? To many, these people could be saving the lives of their comrades and aiding in the war effort by doing their jobs and instead they are sent home for no other reason than being gay.
It doesn't matter who you love at home, what matters if how much you love your country and obviously if you are ready to kill, bleed, and die on the front line you love your country enough to earn my respect.
Are you willing to put your homophobia before the well being of our fighting men and women and the security of our country?
You state that females are "constantly" harassed so please provide statistics to back up your assertion. I was a platoon leader in Iraq or a mixed gender platoon that saw combat, ie not stuck sitting in the green zone eating BK for our tour. I was also the EO Officer for the company. We had zero incidents of sexual harassment. As a former enlisted member I can also tell you that most males in the service are extra sensitive to the issue since they realize even the perception of sexual harassment could be a career ender.
As far as the author comparing us to all these other countries I say there is not comparison. Our military, and not try to take anything away from our allies, is more effective. We just went through a period in Afghanistan where NATO was criticized for poor performance and as a result had to deploy 30k additional US forces. So save the comparisons because there are none, and asks the troops in uniform. Besides, they are the ones that are serving in uniform not some ivy league professor.
This could just as easily happen today with a closeted platoon or squad leader who made unsubstantiated advances and used his bully pulpit to vindictively boss you around. Perhaps you have read about Congressman Massa and how he behaved in the Navy?
You could then expand this thought experiment to imagine any vindictive platoon or squad leader who inappropriately uses his or her power -- honestly, the tropes are endless. He or she could be racist, sexist, extremely religious, and he or she could take his or her wrath out on anyone who doesn't reflect the same urges and passions that he or she does.
Regardless, simply pointing out the fact that someone COULD misuse power and position doesn't mean you create a rule wherein certain individuals are permanently BARRED from power and position. There is no reason to believe that an openly gay platoon or squad leader would do such a thing; you can not reasonably make that inference, you just can't.
FP had an article last month about gays in the Israeli army: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/03/theyre_here_theyre_queer_its_no_big_deal
But I take it you probably read that. Well if so, and you can still hold such reservations like the ones you expressed above, perhaps the problem with the military isn't homosexuals; maybe it's homophobia. But I won't ask, so don't tell.
I don't know enough to have any worthwhile opinion on the substantive issue here. But I found it worth a chuckle to see this comment by Walt coming so quickly on the heels of another of his dissing the value of quantitative academic studies.
After all what's he doing here but not only saying that we should embrace X because "experts" of other militaries have concluded (via "studies" no doubt) that X is true there, but then also he denounces the alternative Y (don't ask don't tell) because "scientific studies" don't support it.
Seems to me time to point to a statement made in that earlier post so endorsed by him. I.e., to always remember "that very few squad leaders in the 10th Mountain Division have ever taken a course in statistics yet probably know more about the conduct and realities of war than I do."
Other militaries aren't ours in terms of recent experiences, not to mention in their makeup. What about asking our guys on the ground their feelings? Not that same should necessarily control, but ....
Luckily, FP magazine has already done that. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2008/02/19/the_us_military_index_filling_the_ranks
"Only 7 percent say they support the use of criminal, health, and other waivers to increase recruiting [which is currently being done]. In contrast, more than 20 percent say they support allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly as a means to increase the recruiting pool."
First, I recommend that everyone actually read General McPeak's Opt-Ed—his thoughts were quite dated and just not factual in many instances. Put away your political beliefs for a moment. Clearly, he's out of touch! What’s more, he came to conclusions without showing a clear road map to his professional beliefs on the DADT policy. Well, in a way, he did—but his thoughts were from the same playbook used during the creation of the policy. Have we not progressed, at all? I think we have, and from my personal and professional experiences, and research our new generations have a more accepting mindset on this topic!
Second, I've served in all types of Army units. Currently, I am serving with an all-male team that lives and works with Iraqis near the Iraq-Iran border. Additionally, as a leader in the Army, I will surely have to deal with the task to smooth-the-progress of implementing the lift of DADT, if approved. I am up for the challenge and I applauded our civilian leadership for making steps to afford the treatment of dignity and respect to all. In general, I try very hard not to let my personal beliefs guide my professional decisions. Fair is Fair! Specifically, what does two consenting adults’ sex life matters to me? It doesn't! Sure there will be challenges if we lift the DADT policy; as a military, we’ve met and conquered tougher challenges. We’ll get through this challenge as well! As long as, the armed services can still conduct its mission … Lesbians and Homosexuals should be allowed to serve for the simple yielding of equality.
I am a humbled soldier and I find my service to our nation to be noble. But asking service members to lie, and to live a lie, doesn’t resemble nobility in my eyes.
Lastly, I value everyone's opinion; however, I am sorry to say that General McPeak doesn't have a real clue to how things have changed, since he retired in 1994.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
(7)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE