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
Scout
July 13th, 2010
5:53 pm
Headline: “N.J. top court rules police must explain DWI test laws in native language”
Brilliant ……. all of you cops better brush up on your Chinese !
Jon
July 13th, 2010
6:02 pm
@ kevinbgoode – I can tell you have not served in the military – or least a combat unit. I agree the United States Military sexually active: On Post / Base / Ship and off Post / Base / Ship for that matter. The point is simple, do I want to spend 6 months or longer in War Time ‘concerned’ if the guy next to me is more interested in another male – or me than the mission at hand. Same could be said about a female.I am not willing to ‘risk’ the readiness of the Military to express social issues such as GAYS serving in the military. There are several ways to support the troops without serving. It is no different than the Military excluding me from flight school due to my vision or lack thereof. It is a condition (medical or otherwise) someone deemed unfit to fly planes. But if left up to the far left – you guys would find a way to suggest It is unfair
neo-Carlinist
July 13th, 2010
6:07 pm
Urban Republican, then the modern Army (DoD) is a government jobs program for Americans who “who want to get ahead”? Please refer me to the part in the Constitution (here’s a hint – the military is mentioned in Section 8, but don’t waste your time, you won’t find any reference to “..life, liberty and the pursuit of wealth…” Nope, sister, the military is required for “common defence”. Now I know it has become a de facto mercenary army, which according to fellow vet Andrew Bacevich, is (mis)used to “project power and influence” overseas, but as a Republican, I am sure you would agree that if you wanted a college education, you should have been born into a family with the assets and…err, wealth to educate yourself, and I hope you didn’t receive your taxpayer funded (”G.I. Bill” ) at a taxpayer funded (Neal Boortz term); “government school” like say, Georgia Tech, Georgia State, the University of Georgia, or Georgia Southern. I hope you graduated from Emory, or Agnes Scott, or Ogelthorpe. Every socialism-hating, capitalist-loving, flag-saluting, American knows, the free market is the way to go. Your hypocrisy is palpable (and while I am at it, if you are a Christian, or practice any faith besides Wicca, let me know if your “church” pays taxes, or if your cash contributions to said church are tax deductible?
Jon
July 13th, 2010
6:07 pm
@Scott – as a former policer officer – this is easy. SJFOSJFLOVJSVOJVOSVEJOV SOE – then place the handcuffs on them….lol At least the breathalyzer is in english — Guilty Guilty Guilty
neo-Carlinist
July 13th, 2010
6:13 pm
“native language?” I grew up in NJ. do you think they meant Algonquian (the language of the Delaware/Lenape tribes of NJ, according to my Boy Scout training in the 1970’s)? Let’s ask Rut. I am sure Rut knows what the “native” language was in NJ, before the Dutch and Germans arrived.
kevinbgoode
July 13th, 2010
6:47 pm
To Jon: What’s the big risk, Jon? Hasn’t the military allowed heterosexual men the privilege of putting posters of women in their lockers, painting pictures of women on tanks and planes, etc? Aren’t you projecting just a bit here about what you imagine the thoughts and behaviors of gay servicemembers will be based on the behavior of straight men – who have been the only group in America allowed to ever openly express their sexuality?
Clue – what military regulations suggest that any servicemember is supposed to be “concerned” about the sexual/relationship orientation of ANYONE, nor would encourage such thoughts? Are you worried that a group of gay soldiers might paint Mr. Universe on their plane and that would ruin the unit cohesion for all you guys putting Miss Universe on one?
I know plenty of people who have served this country, Jon – and they don’t think there’s one problem at all with anyone except the shrinking number of homophobes and/or the evangelical bullies who have a problem with everyone for one reason or another. If you don’t think allowing gangbangers into the armed forces doesn’t create a unit cohesion problem and represent a “social experiment”, then why would you care about the gays serving their country? Sheesh.
kevinbgoode
July 13th, 2010
6:49 pm
To Jon: In short – if you can’t spend six months in a war zone paying attention to doing your job instead of imagining the sexual/relationship thoughts of fellow soldiers, then guess who is the real threat to unit cohesion?
Jon
July 14th, 2010
7:34 am
@kevinbgoode, I served in the Military as 95B – Military Police. I witness firsthand the impact of gays serving in the military on many levels. Apart from being open or in the closet, being ask or having someone else report you – it all add up as one big distraction. More times than not, it led to investigation of assault and crimes against person. I agree with exploring and surveying the troops on this topic. I am a bigger fan of following good decision making and using a process to make decisions with clearly defined elements and steps. It is not about – you agreeing or I disagreeing with Gays serving. Nor is it about the culture of the Military – past, present, or in the future. I tend to rise above all of this and say, if the decision makers ignore a single element in the process (the culture, the troops input, to name a few). Or abandon parts of the process because you or others may not like the process – then the decision (whatever it may be) will tumble down like a badly built wall in an earthquake. But if the process is faithfully observed and if the necessary steps are taken, the risk will be minimized the decision will have a good chance of turning out successful.
Does OBAMA CARE ring a bell here? He made the decision to move forth with Healthcare and the impact of that decision is huge and unpopular. Does not mean the decision is right or wrong. Rather, was it even necessary to make the decision? Same with the Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell – we have a system that is generic enough to leave alone. And in some sense, we have fairly good rules and policy to address an exception. This is all about politics which piss me off. To this end, I want the troops input given they are the ones today making all of the sacrifices so the rest of us can discuss our prejudices.
miff
July 14th, 2010
8:12 am
And we’re not a democracy either, Einstein. We’re a representative republic. Funny that a ko.ok wouldn’t be in favor of a poll, since you same freaks lived by polls during all 8 years of Bush’s presidency. Just more, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Jon
July 14th, 2010
8:13 am
@kevingoode – You ask some questions of me that I did not respond to in my last post. I will attempt to answer them now for you. I will not include your orginal questions for point of reference.
No, I am not projecting a bit or at all what I imagine the thoughts and behaviors of gay service members may be. I support the survey of our troops on this topic. And, I am willing to support their input and judgment on this topic. To include any projections they may have.
Military regulation is not at stake here. The policy is at stake. It is not about a gay guy or gay woman – bisexual, etc painting pictures on the plane. That is what you and the other left wingers want to reduce it to.
It is about..Do you support a gay person soliciting another to engage in a homosexual act or acts? If you do, do you believe the risk is acceptable or unacceptable to moral, good order and discipline in the Military.
I tend to think it is unacceptable risk.
If left up to you and the others, you think the risk is acceptable and all we really need is a ‘Change’ of attitude or another OBAMA speech on this topic.
I’ve experienced several guys serving our country, the public sector, the private sector well. Not sure of the religious sector given the Catholic Church record. The point is not their ability to serve. Or that many of my friends are black too. Can they be discipline to not engage in homosexual acts while serving? From all indication, this would not be the case
A. Reader
July 15th, 2010
11:22 am
“about leftists inflicting as much dissension”
no, it’s just another one of those times where the fast have to keep reassuring the slow that path ahead is safe then the slow finally find out that yes it is safe.