A dissenting view on DADT
Ever since Adm. Michael Mullen told Congress that in his personal view, gays and lesbians should be allowed to openly serve, it’s been hard to find a vocal dissenting view. The chairman’s voice is a powerful one indeed. The highest-ranking and loudest critic has been Marine Corps Commandant James. T. Conway, who told Congress late last month that he supports the current law, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
But at the same time, it’s been hard to find a vocal supporter. The services chiefs offered a lukewarm endorsement, saying they are awaiting the findings a Pentagon-commissioned study on the issue, which is scheduled to finish by Dec. 1.
I came across this editorialin today’s New York Times by Merrill A. McPeak, the Air Force chief of staff during the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell debate. He explained why he is against the repeal of the law. There are several points in the piece, some more compelling than others. The one I found most interesting was that any change demands strong support from the service chiefs. And so far that hasn’t happened.
How much must the chiefs support the change for the law to change? Conway and Gen. George Casey, the chief of Staff of the Army will be out of their jobs in a year or less. Conway’s term is up by fall; Casey’s in April 2011. That is, the change, if it happens, will likely occur after they leave. How much should their successor’s feelings on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell be a part of the nomination process, particularly if Congress supports changing the law? And what does it mean for a potential repeal if the Marine Corp commandant and the service chiefs are not vocally supportive? I would welcome your thoughts.
Motion passed; I too concur that there are enough rules and regulations already in place to deal with any situations in the military that may arise from the elimination of DADT.
There were when I was in three decades ago; I doubt that they have less today given both the ability of politicians and their increasing willingness to interfere in areas far beyond their area of expertise.
Posted by: ibsteve2u | March 17, 2010 at 12:19 PM
Ralph,
My thoughts exactly about enough rules already being in place. What needs to be changed? If it's illegal for a superior officer to sexaully harass an enlisted soldier, does gender matter?
And since gays have apparently been serving in military forces since time immemorial (look at all that homoerotic literature by British soldiers during WWI for a recent example), why will acknowledging that they are there destablize the entire armed forces of the US?
Posted by: Judith | March 09, 2010 at 08:57 PM
McPeak adds nothing new to the discussion. I've been glad to see him generally supporting the Democrats in recent years, but ever since he tried to dress up USAF officers like naval officers it's been hard to take him too seriously. Re. what My2cents said above, there are more than enough rules and regulations in place dealing with abuse and harassment within the military, and no new ones are necessary to ensure the preservation of discipline and good order. I also think that the ingrained prejudices of older people (like Gen. McPeak) are wholly out of touch with attitudes toward gays among young people today. Repealing DADT will be no big deal among the rank & file.
Posted by: Ralph H. | March 08, 2010 at 03:10 PM
These are thoughtful comments indeed. Thank you for sharing them. They remind of all the questions we must ask during this debate.
Posted by: Nancy Youssef | March 08, 2010 at 10:23 AM
The big problem with the repeal is that they do not have all the rules, regulations, and laws in place to handle problems that arise after the repeal. And many of the laws and guidance will have to produced by the civilian authorities, especially Congress, who have been trying to avoid taking any responsibility in this area. Anyone who thinks this is only a decision matter for the service chiefs has not thought through all the ramifications.
Without a complete set of rules, regulations, and laws in place you may find a desperate young soldier, with access to firearms and explosives, being essentially told his/her superiors that they can offer no resolution, support, or protection in a situation. Now that is a recipe for disaster.
Posted by: My2cents | March 08, 2010 at 05:46 AM
While his commentary was well written, it still wasn't very convincing, and essentially rehashed the same old arguments for the ban without addressing the rebuttals. My sense is that the repeal is gaining momentum, and I don't see the service chiefs being able (or all that inclined) to stop it, beyond some lukewarm criticism. That said, it shouldn't be a large part of the nomination process.
Posted by: Chance | March 06, 2010 at 09:06 AM