Why ask troops about ‘don’t ask’? The military isn’t a democracy
Several gay activists are furious about the Pentagon’s decision to ask the troops to weigh in on the issue of ending “Don’t Ask,” sending out 400,000 surveys asking everything from “Do you currently serve with a male or female service member you believe to be homosexual?” and “Have you been assigned to share bath facilities with an open bay shower that is also used by a service member you believed to be homosexual?”
This morning in a roundtable with journalists, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich) added his own concerns about the survey, saying, “I can understand the resentment in the gay community.” Levin pointed out, as many gay activists have, that the survey is unprecedented.
Harry Truman didn’t poll the military when he decided to integrate the Armed Forces in 1948. Nor was there a survey when the Pentagon put women on battle ships in 1978. The Navy recently made a decision to allow women in the close quarters of submarines — again without surveying the male submariners.
“It would be really, really, really unacceptable for people in the military to believe it’s a democracy,” Levin said, adding, “I have my doubts about the content of the survey.”
The senator, who mostly briefed journalists about his recent trip to Afghanistan and Pakistan, made clear that he hasn’t read the survey yet. He also said that surveys of military personnel could be useful if they are only used to implement a policy already determined by civilian and military leaders.
But according to Time’s Mark Thompson, others have their doubts:
When Harry Truman wanted to integrate blacks into the U.S. military in 1948, he simply ordered it done. When the Navy wanted women on ships beginning in 1978, it commanded its admirals to do so. When the Clinton Pentagon decided women should become fighter pilots, it issued orders telling the military to make it happen. For generations, the military mind-set has been, If we want you to have an opinion, we’ll issue you one. So why is the Pentagon asking troops how they’ll feel if forced to serve alongside openly gay comrades?
“This is a very dangerous precedent,” says Lawrence Korb, who ran the Pentagon’s personnel office during the Reagan Administration. “It gives the troops the feeling that they have a veto over what the top people want.” Not everyone agrees. “What matters is the morale of the force in the field,” says Ralph Peters, a retired Army officer and military scholar. “The survey is an honest attempt to suss out what the effects on morale might be.” (See a brief history of gays in the military.)
But even a top officer acknowledges some unease. “We’ve never done this,” Admiral Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, said in February after Pentagon leaders endorsed ending “Don’t ask, don’t tell” and said they would survey the troops about it. “We’ve never assessed the force because it is not our practice to go within our military and poll our force to determine if they like the laws of the land or not,” he told an activist from the University of California’s Palm Center, which monitors the issue. “I mean, that gets you into [a] very difficult regime.”
Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, says the poll is simply a political tool designed to ease a decision that would be better made quickly. Instead, it’s part of a prolonged process that polarizes those involved and hurts both national security and gays. “If we were asking questions about any other identity group — Would your wife mind living on post next to a Chinese family?, Would you take orders from a Baptist officer?, Would you mind serving alongside an African American? — these kinds of questions make those groups second-class citizens,” he says.
Still, gay service members should ignore the advice of activists who have advised them to refuse to fill out the survey in protest. That’s not a good tactic. There voices need to be heard.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
211 comments Add your comment
JB
July 13th, 2010
1:36 pm
I’m 100 % with you Richard………I will vote Republican, I will not vote incumbent
Scout
July 13th, 2010
1:36 pm
Tucker @ 1:21
Let me try to explain this to you in terms that even you can understand ……………
1) Like you, I have no doubt he is a U.S. citizen (due to his mother).
Because we want to know if our president lied to us before we vote in the next election.
2) No Supreme Court would ever rule otherwise anyway.
3) The point to me has always been “is” (and I don’t know for sure yet) he lying about his birth location.
4) “If so” …….. why would he do that?
5) Because (prejudiced or not) many people would not have voted for him in a close election if the knew he had been born in Kenya.
6) “If” he was not born in Hawaii the American people still derserve to know.
7) Why?
It’s just that simple and in my opinion the boat will really start rocking before the next election.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
July 13th, 2010
1:40 pm
Dear Gale @ 1:33, I wish your post were true. Among my son’s duties are “investigation of unwanted sexual advances” and, of course, worse. Sex is different from race.
Keep up the good fight!
July 13th, 2010
1:41 pm
Silver looks good Granny…but you may want to consider Marge Simpson blue too!! After moving all weekend, I can assure you there is never a way to age gracefully.
Rut
July 13th, 2010
1:41 pm
Keep up: “…billions in taxpayer’s subsidies to Big Oil..”
Please provide evidence of such subsidies. Otherwise you are just making *^@# up to support what is an inherently invalid argument.
Anyone with a brain knows Obama and his supporters are all about forced wealth redistribution. Its obvious. But at some point, there will be pushback. Major pushback.
The founding fathers and the first pilgrims built this country out of wilderness and nothingness. They developed its core principles, its basic foundation, from whence the mightiest and strongest nation the world has ever known came into existence. Those same principles can be used to do it again, if need be.
Bill
July 13th, 2010
1:42 pm
Why don’t women have to register for the draft Cynthia?
Ragnar Danneskjöld
July 13th, 2010
1:47 pm
Dear Gale @ 1:28, just read your note. At risk of suggesting what you already know, not everyone who is discharged for “homosexuality” is actually homosexual – the homosexual discharge has superseded Heller’s Catch-22, as the easy way out.
Keep up the good fight!
July 13th, 2010
1:47 pm
Rut….“The founding fathers and the first pilgrims built this country out of wilderness and nothingness. Ignorance is a continued virtue for you…..Nothingness. Hmmm…as the natives who came to the first Thanksgiving and who showed the Europeans how to farm about nothingness. Only the white man can discover a populated land and claim they “discovered” it.
MiltonMan
July 13th, 2010
1:49 pm
So many experts about the military on this board. First off, the Army uniform is no longer called camos/BDUs. They are now called ACUs/ASUs (Class A/B). If you need to reference the uniform make sure you know what you are talking about before making yourself look like a fool.
GMC47
July 13th, 2010
1:49 pm
Gale you wrote “The military code fairly well prohibits sexual behavior in uniform, from what I’ve read.”
Just recently the military attempted to send all female soldiers that were expecting a child to be discharged. While in uniform there is a code of conduct that must be upheld. The civil rights of americans apply in the civil sector and certain government jobs obvioulsy. But what is the big deal, all individuals are trained prior to serving in our armed forces. Are they uncertain of their training methods?
Keep up the good fight!
July 13th, 2010
1:50 pm
Please excuse the cut and paste. The total savings from these proposed subsidy eliminations–$45 billion over the next 10 years. Here are the tax expenditures that the Obama administration has targeted for elimination.
1. Intangible drilling costs. Firms engaged in the exploration and development of oil or gas properties may expense (deduct in the year paid or incurred) certain types of drilling expenditures from their taxes. These costs include wages, fuel, repairs, hauling, and supplies related to and necessary for drilling and preparing wells for the production of oil and gas. Other companies incurring similar types of costs must recover this cost over the life of the investment. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $7.839 billion over 10 years.
2. Deduction for tertiary injectants. Tertiary, or enhanced oil recovery, methods increase the amount of oil that a company can extract from a well by an additional 5 percent to 15 percent according to some research. This tax expenditure subsidizes the costs of tertiary injectants—the fluids, gases, and other chemicals that are pumped into oil and gas reservoirs as part of this process. The subsidy essentially gives companies government money for acting in ways that will enhance their profits. It allows companies to expense the costs of tertiary injectants, even though such costs should be recovered over time. Companies can alternatively choose to deduct these costs as an intangible drilling cost.The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $67 million over 10 years.
3. Percentage depletion allowance. Percentage depletion allows an independent oil company to deduct from its taxes about 15 percent from the revenue generated from a well, even if that amount exceeds the well’s total value. This means that oil companies take a deduction as long as a well is producing oil, without regard to how much, or whether, the well is still declining in value. Companies in other industries are only allowed to deduct an amount that represents the decline in their investment’s value that year. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy to produce budget savings of about $10 billion over 10 years.
4. Passive investments. The government generally only allows investors to deduct a limited amount of losses from “passive activities” such as renting land in order to prevent tax shelters. Yet oil and gas properties are exempt from this rule. This gives oil and gas companies a competitive edge over other types of energy companies. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $180 million over 10 years.
5. Domestic manufacturing tax deduction. Companies that manufacture, produce, or extract oil and gas or any primary derivative receive a manufacturing subsidy provided that the product was made in the United States. But since removing this subsidy does not affect the production of oil, the subsidy does not significantly affect business decisions and eliminating the subsidy would not affect consumer prices. The subsidy is essentially a throwaway for oil companies. The tax expenditure is provided through a deduction for 9 percent of income, subject to a limit of 50 percent of the wages paid that are allocable to domestic production during the taxable year. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $17.3 billion over 10 years.
6. Geological and geophysical expenditures. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created this tax subsidy, which allows companies to deduct the costs associated with searching for oil, recovering the costs over a two-year period. The administration expects that scaling back the amortization period to seven years would produce budget savings of about $1.1 billion over 10 years.
7. Foreign tax credit. This credit is intended to prevent the double taxation of income that is taxed abroad but also subject to tax in the United States. Yet companies, particularly oil companies, have managed to exploit this subsidy even when they don’t pay income taxes abroad. In total, adjusting the rule would prevent companies from avoiding about $8.5 billion in taxes over a 10-year period.
8. Enhanced oil recovery credit. Companies receive a 15 percent income tax credit for the costs of recovering domestic oil when they use “enhanced oil recovery” methods to extract oil that is too viscous to be extracted by conventional primary and secondary water-flooding techniques. The EOR credit is nonrefundable and is allowed if the average wellhead price of crude oil (using West Texas Intermediate as the reference) in the year before the credit is claimed is below the statutorily established threshold price of $28 (as adjusted for inflation since 1990) in the year the credit is claimed. Oil prices in fiscal year 2006 were too high for companies to receive this subsidy, but the subsidy remains in existence. Its elimination is not expected to produce budget savings.
9. Marginal well production. This provision provides a subsidy for oil and gas produced from certain types of oil and gas wells. These wells include those that produce heavy oil and those with an average production within a statutorily specified range. Oil prices were too high for companies to receive this subsidy in fiscal year 2006, but the subsidy remains in existence. Its elimination is not expected to produce budget savings.
neo-Carlinist
July 13th, 2010
1:50 pm
Ragnar, heterosexual integration and DADT are kind of apples and oranges. the anti-gay/pro DADT arguement is based on speculation, whereas the anti-gender integration argument has some data behind it (Tailhook, Lyndie England, etc.). seems to me, it is the red-blooded, hetero troops who cannot keep their weapons holstered. the majority of ex-military types who post usually refer to a comrade who “we knew was gay” and that’s the end of the story. I live “in town” and I see gay neighbors all the time; at the store, the gym, backyard cookouts, etc., and I have never once been “hit on”. I used to occassionally grab a drink with female and gay friends at “gay” bars, and never once did a gay customer try to “turn” me. as I said, this whole “it’s bad for morale” thing is rooted in baseless fears and unproved theories. read the screed in last month’s Atlantic abour the gay Special Forces soldiers. when it comes to the mission, those guys don’t wear ANYTHING on their sleeves, and as the author noted.
stranger in a strange land
July 13th, 2010
1:55 pm
Ragnar @ 1142 – there you go again – gettin’ all logical on us and stuff
Keppler
July 13th, 2010
1:56 pm
Do any of the over 100 question ask gay soldiers how they feel about serving openly with straight colleagues? My guess is that the answer is no because the survey is predicated on the notion of gay soldiers as invaders. If I was gay and in the military and suddenly face with being open about my sexuality, I’d be wondering which of my noble colleagues was going to kill me. I’d be very nervous.
Rut
July 13th, 2010
1:59 pm
Nice try, Keep Up. LOL
Europeans knew how to build ships that could navigate across the deep ocean for many months, yet had no idea how to plant corn? Bizarre
Tell us oh wise one, where would the land that is now the USA be if the white man had never arrived? Would the natives have turned into in an Avatar-like paradise where man and beast lived in peaceful harmony (awwww)? Would there be a Boeing, an IBM, a Ford, a Microsoft, a Caterpillar, an Intel, AT&T, J&J, etc? Tell us all, what wonderful, history and world changing innovations the natives would have now developed for the rest of humanity to enjoy?
GMC47
July 13th, 2010
2:00 pm
Keppler this is a reality. Thanks for this response.
Scout
July 13th, 2010
2:02 pm
Bill :
Because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled they are exempt.
JKL2
July 13th, 2010
2:02 pm
keep-
I provide my own health insurance. Obama took my money to provide yours. God hasn’t taken anything from me.
I’ll stick with God. You can keep hoping people like me protect you from yourself since you don’t have common sense or ability to do it on your own.
stranger in a strange land
July 13th, 2010
2:03 pm
ragnar @ 106 – dang – you did it again (still trying to catch up). I believe the limit is 3 logical posts /day. Careful – you’ll use them all up
Urban Republican
July 13th, 2010
2:21 pm
Ms. Tucker:
Why do liberals like yourself who have not served nor understand military culture insist on advocating for protective rights for gays in the military?
Equating protective rights for homosexuals with racial integration in the military is not the same. One cannot change her skin color but sexual acts are behavioral and can change at anytime.
I enlisted in the Army Reserves to help pay for college expenses because I knew my family would not be able to support me financially through college. I was from a small town and a virgin at the time. To be frank, it would have been petrifing to know that the individual showering next to me in an open bay shower was a lesbian and possibly checking out my goods. Having to think about someone’s sexual proclivities while going through basic training would have been too distracting.
For leadership to ask the opinion of those serving in the military by way of a survey lets one know that military culture is not the same as civilian culture and a change in military lifestyle is a big deal.
If homosexuality is a protective class then why shouldn’t the right to be a virgin or live a celibant lifestyle while serving in the military be protected as well?
Scout
July 13th, 2010
2:23 pm
This is all so unnecessary and counterproductive to military discipline.
We should just stick to the tried and true “Don’t Ass, Don’t Tail” policy.
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
JCamp
July 13th, 2010
2:24 pm
Why should the gay community tell our troops how to live? I am a female veteran and I did not feel safe sharing a shower with lesbians. It happens and it’s not right. It made me feel violated every time I took a shower. How would the gay community like it if they were forced to take showers with the opposite sex? Made to feel like a piece of meat?????
JCamp
July 13th, 2010
2:25 pm
My rights were violated in the service, but since I’m heterosexual, no one cares.
quod erat demonstrandum
July 13th, 2010
2:25 pm
andygrd, Yes, I completely understand regarding the military and trusting your fellow battle buddy or whatever it is called now.
Gays have been a part of the military for a long period of time and everything has been going just fine. Everyone kept their private stuff private. No one pried unless it was blatant – for anyone.
Back in the old Corps, you were accepted until you screwed up. I guess the gays were better equipped to handle themselves back then.
ButtHead
July 13th, 2010
2:28 pm
I am wondering if we are a democracy or even a democratic republic, either one tries to take care of the majority of the people, I think. Then why do we have all this talk about gays, are they a majority? If 5% is, then they are, and one more thing I really do not care what you do in your bed room so STOP telling me. Why is it that gays want to make sure you know they are gay? Where is the heterosexual day parade?
mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!
July 13th, 2010
2:30 pm
How about, don’t ask, WE KNOW.
quod erat demonstrandum
July 13th, 2010
2:31 pm
Just my opinion, but if gays are allowed to openly server, without behavioral conditions, then I would say, let us integrate the genders totally. Anyone remember the movie Starship Troopers?
Keep up the good fight!
July 13th, 2010
2:31 pm
Rut….maybe the natives would have their lands, not have died from small pox and STD’s and not be relegated to reservations… but the mentality is that Europeans did it better is again ignorance and ignores history.
A Practical Thinker
July 13th, 2010
2:37 pm
Women in submarines now!?! With no walk-in closets? That’s absurd!
stranger in a strange land
July 13th, 2010
2:41 pm
Rut / Keep up good fight – read Guns, Germs, Steel by Jared Diamond. Interesting theory as to why Europeans were able to invade/colonize over here rather than the other way around
Busy Body
July 13th, 2010
2:45 pm
It is no one else’s business.
Big D
July 13th, 2010
2:48 pm
Don’t any of you realize this is divide and conquer. Has anyone taken any notice of how many divisive elements of our society have been brought to the surface in the last 18 months.
We need to realize we are being played using all of our inherent fears.
We can fix this, but we need to take the mask off the magician.
neo-Carlinist
July 13th, 2010
2:48 pm
Ragnar, my reference to the 8th Gay Brigade was an acknowledgement of your sense of humor. I think you might want to read the 2:21 post by Urban Republican. if ANY member of the military (gay or straight) enlists simply to “pay for college” and would be “petrified” by the prospect of somebody “looking at my goods” in a shower (as if being leered at, or subject to cat-calls from heterosexual male soliders is OK), and the oddest of all; being “distracted” during basic training for “having to think about someone’s sexual proclivities” – well, I don’t know what to say. I never served, but is it the mission of “basic training” to “train” recruits to think about the sexuality of others? as stated, it seems to me the “straight” soldiers are the ones with the issues. I have never heard a gay soldier express such nonsense.
lovelyliz
July 13th, 2010
2:51 pm
If you have ever gone through boot camp and served in the ,military, you have showered with a homosexual. Just because they didn’t come on to you, doesn’t mean they weren’t gay.
Steve
July 13th, 2010
2:53 pm
Military members are most affected by repealing DADT. However, unlike most interest groups they are not allowed to lobby and demonstrate while serving on active duty. As such, I think it is fair and useful to survey them to conduct this internal survey. If nothing else, the Dept of Defense may realize the extent to which it must educate and where necessary, accomodate, so as not to impact the morale and readiness of our all-volunteer force.
neo-Carlinist
July 13th, 2010
2:55 pm
q.e.d, like Avatar, I “remember” Starship Troopers was a movie. BUT, if you want life to immitate art, remember, Neal Patrick Harris, who is an openly gay actor, was an intelligence officer with Starship Command, and he was instrumental in defeating “the bugs” – and I think it is safe to say that given his ESP, he could tell if a trooper was gay just by looking at him/her.
I showered with JCamp
July 13th, 2010
2:56 pm
Honey, I wasn’t looking. You’re the only one who thinks you’re a hottie.
gale
July 13th, 2010
2:59 pm
Big D, exactly. If we would simply do this instead of forever talking about it, it would become a non-issue and we would all get on with serious business.
We all lose
July 13th, 2010
3:02 pm
If you haven’t served, it’s easy to believe that the military isn’t a democracy, so we should just force them accept a sweeping social agenda and keep their mouths shut. The fact of the matter is, we are voting American citizens and we have opinions too. So strong are our convictions that we actually do something about it. I served off a combat ship with 4,000 men during war. We had 23 men in one month removed from the ship and flown back to the U.S., because they were caught in the act of having relations. Nobody is allowed to have relations in a combat zone. What this meant was that during a time of war, 23 positions were immediately vacated. This would have been the case whether they were having relations or doing crack. Imagine if 23 of your coworkers were removed tomorrow, because they knowingly, willfully broke rules. In this economy, those jobs are easily filled and over time, you’ll learn to work with the new people. But when a military unit, particularly a combat unit loses a member for any reason, it changes the cohesion of the unit. Then there is the implication of inter-unit relationships. They typically don’t work with men and women in non-combat roles. They cause much jealousy, in-fighting and heartbreak. (All the discipline in the world can’t prevent biology, so 19-year-olds do hook up.) The stakes aren’t simply, “The new guy got a better cube,” they are life and death. So yes—the folks on the front line should absolutely have a say in how you try to mold their world.
Richard
July 13th, 2010
3:08 pm
Urban Republican,
“Equating protective rights for homosexuals with racial integration in the military is not the same. One cannot change her skin color but sexual acts are behavioral and can change at anytime.”
You sure about that? I think Michael Jackson would disagree with you.
Rut
July 13th, 2010
3:09 pm
“…but the mentality is that Europeans did it better is again ignorance and ignores history.”
Always with the ignorance canard. How does recognizing the massively superior technological advances of western civilization “ignore history”? One might surmise you and your kind are the ones ignoring history — and current events.
Why is it the world over there isnt a single native/tribe like culture that has done anything except perpetuate the misery of its people? Haiti? Zimbabwe? Sudan? They are not the exceptions, they are the RULE.
Facts are facts. Look around the WORLD. By choosing to ignore what is plainly evident while screaming ignorance about others is, IMO, a form of insanity.
Kamchak
July 13th, 2010
3:28 pm
Don’t any of you realize this is divide and conquer. Has anyone taken any notice of how many divisive elements of our society have been brought to the surface in the last 18 months.
News flash, sport—talk-radio has been divisive for the past thirty years.
You’re reallllllllllllly late to the party with that observation.
Big D
July 13th, 2010
3:28 pm
Gale, I’m a Vet and I have Gay fiends and family, so I have seen both sides of the issue and to be honest ( I must have grown up in a innocent age)I had no idea what “queer” was when I got drafted. I heard the term and was completely lost on the meaning. Having been completely ignorant when I went into basic and lived through two tours after being enlightened I see no reason to keep this an issue. We have bigger fish to fry.
Big D
July 13th, 2010
3:32 pm
Kam,
do you always have to be intellectually impudent ???
A Practical Thinker
July 13th, 2010
3:33 pm
A new open policy for gays will sure breath some life into those drab camo uniforms. Not to mention the decorating schemes around the base.
Rafe Hollister
July 13th, 2010
3:37 pm
Sin-thee: I agree that the survey was loopy also. Barry had already decided to end DADT, so why do the survey. His message to the troops is suck it up and be happy, just like he tells the majority of us that do not want Obamacare, Cap and Tax, or financial “reform”. His claims to be a consensus builder and transparent have been proven to be just that false claims.
I agree with Ragnar, we need separate units to begin with. Let the Pink Shoe Navy and the Glorious 8th Army prove themselves in combat before they are integrated into our existing units. I’m afraid we are going to suffer a reduction in combat fitness when our elite fighting men begin fighting among themselves over privacy issues and stupid jokes.
SouthGeorgiaDawg
July 13th, 2010
3:38 pm
When I read this article, the first thing that came to my mind was “why should we care what Cynthia Tucker thinks about DADT? She’s not relevant.”
Wait…that’s the first thing that comes to my mind when I read anything by her.
I know Cynthia…it’s a wierd concept for you dems. You’re not used to asking people what they think about a law you are going to impose on them. It’s not like the democrats are running a democracy or anything.
Maybe if you asked “why” they are asking the troops what they think, then you’d find your answer. Pssst….it’s because most of the military don’t want to end DADT because they know it will cause problems… But why would you or Obama care about that? Its not like either one of you would ever have the courage to put on a uniform.
ctucker
July 13th, 2010
3:39 pm
SouthGeorgiaDawg, As the headline states, the military isn’t a democracy.
Some People are stupid
July 13th, 2010
3:40 pm
we need separate units to begin with. Let the Pink Shoe Navy and the Glorious 8th Army prove themselves in combat before they are integrated into our existing units
That sounds a lot like seperate but equal
Dave2
July 13th, 2010
3:42 pm
andygrd – As another retired military officer, I couldn’t agree more with your post. It is my hope that the military will use the results of this survey to implement the DADT policy. It can be done, but there are human relations issues that must be dealt with in the process; hopefully, this survey will provide a basis to do that.