Pentagon study condemns ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy
WASHINGTON – An article in the Pentagon’s top scholarly journal calls in unambiguous terms for lifting the ban on gays serving openly in the armed forces, arguing that the military is essentially forcing thousands of gay men and women to lead dishonest lives in an organization that emphasizes integrity as a fundamental tenet.
The article in the upcoming issue of Joint Force Quarterly, which is published for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was written by an Air Force colonel who studied the issue for months while a student at the National Defense University in Washington and who concludes that having openly gay troops in the ranks will not hurt combat readiness.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of Pentagon leaders, but their appearance in a publication billed as the Joint Chiefs’ “flagship’’ security studies journal signals that the top brass now welcomes a debate in the military over repealing the 1993 law that requires gays to hide their sexual orientation, according to several longtime observers of the charged debate over gays in the military.
“After a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly,’’ writes Colonel Om Prakash, who is now working in the office of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. “Based on this research, it is not time for the administration to reexamine the issue; rather it is time for the administration to examine how to implement the repeal of the ban.’’
As the Globe describes it, the article addresses the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy not as a question of equality or justice, but in terms of its damaging impact on the military as an institution. That makes it far more difficult for the military brass dismiss. The current policy encourages — no, it requires — dishonesty from gay service members and feigned ignorance from their superiors and the military itself. And while the Globe piece doesn’t address the issue, the policy must also be utterly arbitrary in application, with some superior officers content to look the other way while others are not, increasing the sense of vulnerability for gay service members..
“The law also forces unusual personal compromises wholly inconsistent with a core military value – integrity,’’ Col. Prakash writes. “Several homosexuals interviewed were in tears as they described the enormous personal compromise in integrity they had been making, and the pain felt in serving in an organization they wholly believed in, yet that did not accept them.’’
He continues: “In an attempt to allow homosexual service members to serve quietly, a law was created that forces a compromise in integrity, conflicts with the American creed of ‘equality for all,’ places commanders in difficult moral dilemmas, and is ultimately more damaging to the unit cohesion its stated purpose is to preserve.’’
Step up, President Obama. Let’s get it done and move on.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
244 comments Add your comment
Gale
October 1st, 2009
7:54 am
It was a stupid law to start, and it has cost America greatly in the loss of trained career military, just because they get tired of lying.
I Report/ Vast White Wing Conspirator (-: You Whine )-:
October 1st, 2009
7:56 am
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Peadawg
October 1st, 2009
7:58 am
Let ‘em fight if they want to. This was a pretty stupid law.
Turd Ferguson
October 1st, 2009
7:58 am
“Several homosexuals interviewed were in tears as they described the enormous personal compromise in integrity they had been making, and the pain felt in serving in an organization they wholly believed in, yet that did not accept them.’’
Awww…cry me a river.
Gale
October 1st, 2009
7:59 am
You don’t care, Reporter, that needed Arabic translators are discharged because they are gay, when they would be helpful to our troops on foreign soil?
Gale
October 1st, 2009
8:04 am
Turd, much as I favor repeal, I found that phrase to be harmful to the argument for repeal.
Northern Songs, Ltd.
October 1st, 2009
8:09 am
There should be no sexual orientation restrictions on serving in the military. That said, I’ve never understood the need for gays and lesbians to “tell”. What they do as consenting adults is their business; why are they compelled to make it mine too?
And we can always rely on Lemon Turd to offer insightful, meaningful, and intelligent commentary.
Paul
October 1st, 2009
8:09 am
I love it when inherent conflicts are exposed.
If one accepts that older military members are conservative and Republican, and since it appears the Joint Chiefs is encouraging discussion on this issue
then it’s time for some here to reassess the intellectual openness and honesty of conservative Republicans. (prediction: most responses will be of the ‘oh yeah you neocon fascist, well what about….” type).
Mrs. Godzilla
October 1st, 2009
8:09 am
It needs to be a permanent change, Congress needs to do it.
Go Patrick Murphy!
http://www.letthemserve.com/
Paul
October 1st, 2009
8:11 am
Northern Songs Ltd
[[That said, I’ve never understood the need for gays and lesbians to “tell”.]]
Nor have I understood the need for straight, testosterone-loaded, heterosexual males to ‘tell’ of their exploits or make comments about women when bosses aren’t around.
It’s not about the sexuality – it’s about the insecurity.
USinUK
October 1st, 2009
8:12 am
c’mon Obama … it’s time to do the right thing …
USinUK
October 1st, 2009
8:14 am
Northern –
“That said, I’ve never understood the need for gays and lesbians to “tell”. What they do as consenting adults is their business; why are they compelled to make it mine too?”
keep in mind, they don’t have to “tell”, per se … they can be outed by a third party and the result is the same
Peadawg
October 1st, 2009
8:15 am
“c’mon Obama … it’s time to do the right thing …”
For once! (sorry…couldn’t resist).
Turd Ferguson
October 1st, 2009
8:15 am
On another subject…
Ga. Prosecutor: Boy, 6, Begged His Killers To Stop
RUSS BYNUM, Associated Press Writer
Posted: 1:22 pm EDT September 30, 2009
Updated: 8:31 pm EDT September 30, 2009
BRUNSWICK, Ga. — Jurors in a Georgia courtroom Wednesday heard a horrific videotaped confession from a man who admitted he and his adult son stripped, sexually assaulted and strangled a 6-year-old boy inside a mobile home as the child pleaded with them to stop.
“He said ‘I’m going to tell my daddy and my grandma,’ and George choked him,” 61-year-old David Edenfield said in the videotape, referring to his son, 34-year-old George Edenfield. David Edenfield later admitted helping strangle the boy.
The jailhouse interview filmed by police was shown during the first day of testimony in the trial of the elder Edenfield, who faces the death penalty if convicted of the March 2007 slaying of Christopher Michael Barrios. The boy was missing for a week before police found his naked body dumped off a road and wrapped in trash bags.
Prosecutor John B. Johnson told jurors in his opening statement that Edenfield and his son lured the boy into their trailer across the street from the home of Christopher’s grandmother, then took turns molesting him.
“You will hear him say this from his own mouth,” Johnson said of David Edenfield. “Christopher Barrios didn’t want to be there. He said, ‘Let me go! Please don’t do this! I’m going to tell my parents!’”
David Edenfield is the first suspect to stand trial in the slaying. His son and wife, Peggy Edenfield, have also been charged with molesting and killing the boy, then hiding his body. The jury was selected from residents some 90 miles away because of pretrial publicity, and the jurors are being sequestered in Brunswick.
Jurors later saw the first hour of the interview the elder Edenfield gave to a police detective a day after the boy’s body was found. He at first blamed his son and denied any involvement, but slowly began to describe a horrible scene.
Edenfield said he and his wife watched while his son forced the boy to have sex.
Edenfield later admitted touching Christopher himself after Glynn County police detective Raymond Sarro showed him photographs of the boy’s dead body. He said the child had been crying and pleading for them to stop.
Edenfield at first said he told his son to stop choking Christopher, then changed his story. He said he placed his own hands on top of his son’s while they strangled the boy. Asked why he did that, Edenfield said, “I guess instinct.”
“You saw your opportunity, when George was choking him, to see what it felt like?” Sarro asked.
“Yes, sir.”
Defense attorney James Yancey Jr. told jurors the elder Edenfield’s confession was influenced by the police interrogators, but stopped short of telling jurors he was coerced.
Superior Court Judge Stephen Scarlett recessed court before Edenfield’s attorneys had a chance to cross-examine Sarro. The detective was to return to the witness stand Thursday.
Christopher lived in a mobile home park in the port city of Brunswick, about 60 miles south of Savannah, where his father and grandmother had separate homes. He would pass the Edenfields’ trailer when walking between them.
A shy boy with a big smile that showed off the silver caps on his front teeth, he loved superheroes such as Batman and Spider-Man.
The Edenfields moved into the mobile home park where the boy lived just a few months before his death. The family had been forced to move because George Edenfield was a convicted child molester. The family’s previous home was close to a playground, a violation of Georgia’s sex offender registry law.
Sarro testified police found Christopher’s toy Star Wars lightsaber in the Edenfields’ yard a few hours after the boy went missing. He said he then noticed the Edenfields peeking out their windows, which seemed suspicious because other neighbors were out helping search for the boy.
He said George Edenfield admitted he’d seen Christopher outside, then told the detective he heard voices calling his name.
“I asked him what voices did he hear that called his name, and he said ‘the devil,’” Sarro said. “I asked if the devil told him to do anything to hurt the little boy. He told me yes, that the devil told him to kill him.”
And to think some of those poor people on the registry list have to live in a make shift tent city. What a shame.
Gale
October 1st, 2009
8:16 am
The “don’t tell” part is easy for servicemen and women. The hard part is hiding a relationship, especially during separation. Partners cannot see off a service man or woman being deployed to combat… who may not return, or joyfully meet them upon ther return. They must hide the photo while they watch squad members longingly kiss their families’ photos before sleeping or departing for a difficult mission. That is the hard thing we ask of those people.
joe matarotz
October 1st, 2009
8:16 am
5 will get you 10 Obama does nothing. (Has he actually done anything yet – about anything?)
USinUK
October 1st, 2009
8:19 am
“And to think some of those poor people on the registry list have to live in a make shift tent city. What a shame.”
no, you lunkhead … what’s a shame is that a 17-year-old who has sex with his 15-year old girlfriend is lumped in with these same animals, punished like these same animals and has to live with the same stigma that these animals carry … THAT’s the shame of it all …
that, and the fact that you are so willfully ignorant, that you pretend this isn’t happening.
Brad Steel
October 1st, 2009
8:19 am
Col. Prakash writes, Several homosexuals interviewed were in tears as they described the enormous personal compromise in integrity… Oooff! Did they prance and flail about throwing their arms in the air while singing mawkish Barbra Streisand songs?
It’s f’n 2009. Who cares if you’re gay? But crying about your “enourmous personal compromise in integrity” may qualify for no-crying-in-the-marines discharge.
stands for decibels
October 1st, 2009
8:21 am
That makes it far more difficult for the military brass dismiss.
I would hope so but past history would indicate… well, see below.
keep in mind, they don’t have to “tell”, per se … they can be outed by a third party and the result is the same
ya know, I think every goddamned concern troll out there who’s trying to nuance this issue already knows this plenty well.
We all know DADT needs to be taken out back and shot.
I don’t go all Jo-Nix on Obama’s skinny ass for not having done it yet because I know what a bunch of pigfraking homophobe morons he has to deal with in shockingly high eschelons of both civilian and military control that’ll make his life absolutely miserable if takes it out back and shoots it. But come on. We all know it’s an abomination and has been since that skank-ho Sam Nunn pushed it as a compromise.
Sorry for lowering the discourse but, well, we all know this comments thread is heading there already anyway. Follow me, lads!
Disgusted
October 1st, 2009
8:21 am
And while we’re at it, let’s get rid of the restriction on women sharing quarters with male troops. I mean, if we’re going to ignore sexual orientation, we may as well go all the way.
I don’t think that DADT is really an issue of morale, much as its defenders would like it to be. The issue is more one of whether inherent sexuality should be ignored. A secondary issue is whether we can really expect to overcome decades of prejudice toward homosexuality by fiat.
Let me confess that my viewpoint has been framed by military service that occurred many decades ago. At that time, there was no such thing as privacy or modesty in the barracks. I am ignorant of how the services have changed in housing arrangements since my service, but I can tell you that I would feel less than comfortable in taking a shower with a known homosexual.
GEORGE AMERICAN
October 1st, 2009
8:22 am
GAYNESS IS AGAINST GOD’S LAWS AND SHOULD BE OUTLAWED IN THE MILITARY!!!
GEORGE AMERICAN WOULD NOT SHARE HIS FOX-HOLE WITH A YOU-KNOW-WHAT!!!!
USinUK
October 1st, 2009
8:24 am
disgusted –
“I would feel less than comfortable in taking a shower with a known homosexual”
considering the 1-in-10 ratio, you already HAVE shared the shower with a homosexual …
Joey
October 1st, 2009
8:27 am
If President Obama would address this issue we could put it away for awhile. What is the reason that he has not dealt with this? Is it because he or the First Lady or both oppose gays serving openly in the military?
Gale
October 1st, 2009
8:28 am
Disgusted, given gays in the miltary are a small minority of an already small minority, the odds of some gay soldier making a move in the showers is infanitesimally small. What? The other straight guys in the shower with you would just go along with that? Get real.
TnGelding
October 1st, 2009
8:29 am
Josef should be in a good mood tonight.
Disgusted
October 1st, 2009
8:30 am
considering the 1-in-10 ratio, you already HAVE shared the shower with a homosexual …
I’m sure I have, in that manly, manly world called the Marine Corps, but I didn’t know about it, and that made all the difference in the world.
Gale
October 1st, 2009
8:31 am
Time for the Obama administration to nudge some senator into championing the repeal.
TnGelding
October 1st, 2009
8:32 am
Gale
October 1st, 2009
8:28 am
Don’t you know they are so obsessed with sex that they can’t function? The way I understnd it they aren’t attracted to heterosexuals.
The real sexual problem in the military is hetero. And the Pentagon knows it.
Taxpayer
October 1st, 2009
8:34 am
Let’s see just how supportive the right wing truly is of the fight for integrity of those that choose to fight for our freedom. They volunteered yet a show of support seems to be slow in coming from some of our self-proclaimed conservative family valued christians. How about walkin’ the walk instead of playin’ more folks for a vote. Show some more of that bi-partisanship as was done with the de-fund fraud bill.
Mrs. Godzilla
October 1st, 2009
8:34 am
If Obama derails DADT by executive order it may not be permanent and the nutjobs dB so colorfully describes will go bat guano crazy.
It must be done through legislation.
Call your congress critter……
USinUK
October 1st, 2009
8:34 am
Joey –
8:27 –
criminey, the man can’t even do the benign act of trying to the the Olympics in the US without Sean Hannity and his ilk polluting their pampers …
Taxpayer
October 1st, 2009
8:35 am
I though MASH was reality TV.
Taxpayer
October 1st, 2009
8:35 am
Oops, that should be “thought”
Turd Ferguson
October 1st, 2009
8:38 am
“THAT’s the shame of it all”
*Glug glug glub* have some more kool-aid.
As I recall statuatory rape laws have been in existence since the 1960’s and probably before. This being the case any idiot that has sex with a minor pays the price. Thats just how it is and will continue to be. However, Im SURE everyone of our tent-city residents had a VERY GOOD EXCUSE.
Kinda like on COPS…”its my cousins car” “I was scared Sir” “A gave a man $20 for this 1997 Acura” and so on. Yes…lettuce forgive these miscreants because after all it isnt their fault.
TnGelding
October 1st, 2009
8:39 am
Joey
October 1st, 2009
8:27 am
Surely you jest? If he even utters it the right will go into attack mode, just like on every other issue.
USinUK
October 1st, 2009
8:41 am
“As I recall statuatory rape laws have been in existence since the 1960’s and probably before. This being the case any idiot that has sex with a minor pays the price.”
the point is, they should pay the SAME price as the people from your article. let the punishment fit the crime – and a life-long sentence that is equal to the monsters in your 8:15 does NOT fit the crime.
you need to learn the different between forgiveness and proportion.
Taxpayer
October 1st, 2009
8:42 am
Maybe there was a different reason why folks like Cheney and Chambliss kept getting deferrments. I won’t ask though.
Gale
October 1st, 2009
8:43 am
Good thing Cheney was not in the military. The man is a hazard with a gun!
stands for decibels
October 1st, 2009
8:43 am
but I didn’t know about it, and that made all the difference in the world.
Say it loud—I’m willfully ignorant and proud!
TnGelding
October 1st, 2009
8:44 am
Taxpayer
October 1st, 2009
8:42 am
What, you haven’t noticed Knees limp?
TnGelding
October 1st, 2009
8:47 am
Make that Knee’s limp.
Turd Ferguson
October 1st, 2009
8:48 am
“you need to learn the different between forgiveness and proportion.”
Uh no I do not. These type laws are intended for those who trespass upno them. Im sure, however, if it were a 17 year old male performing oral sex on a 15 year old female the story would be quite different.
Everyone would be “up in arms” so to speak. Let the judges and attorneys sort it out as I receive zero reminbursement.
Normal
October 1st, 2009
8:51 am
TURD: “To Err Is Human, To Forgive Divine” (when people do things wrong we should try hard to forgive them because all people make mistakes).
Gale
October 1st, 2009
8:52 am
“it were a 17 year old male performing oral sex on a 15 year old female” Oh I bet that happens a lot! ::eyes rolling:: Turn that around and I believe it.
jasper
October 1st, 2009
8:53 am
Kids, we’re not talking about a situation where all of the affected are self actualized enlightened liberal arts majors, sipping latte’s while sifting through the want-adds, and the gay guy is a constant source of hilarity. This scenario involves 18 to 20 years at an intellecuatual low point and peaking hormonally. Its essentially locker room mentality. The mindset that works on the football field also works on the battle field. Perhaps it is unfortunate, but it is what it is, and tossing in an openly gay policy, will simply translate into tax dollars to ACLU lawyers.
We’ve waxed several times before. We don’t need a gay policy, we need a gay branch. Remember all the fun we had ciommenting on the specifics of this very special branch of service. I love a man in a uniform.
Jackie
October 1st, 2009
8:53 am
You can ALWAYS tell those who scream loudest about sharing a fox-hole with a gay person has never been close to a fox-hole themselves.
When one is in a situation where bullets, shrapnel and other life threatning elements all about you, can you really believe one would be concerned about someone’s sexuality?
Secondly, what is a fox-hole?
Gale
October 1st, 2009
8:59 am
Jackie, good point, especially the counter-point.
jt
October 1st, 2009
9:00 am
Gays should be allowed in the Military as long as each recruit is issued soap on a rope in their initial ditty bag.
Normal- tell us more about your first time.
N-GA
October 1st, 2009
9:01 am
Don’t ask, don’t tell = much ado about nothing….just a bunch of haters wanting to discriminate against people not like them.
Kinda reminds me of the days of the KKK. They hated Catholics, Jews, Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Gays…in short, anyone who wasn’t white & Protestant. They would have hated Muslims too, but they didn’t even know what Muslims were.
Mrs. Godzilla
October 1st, 2009
9:02 am
jasper,
perhaps instead a homophobe branch
77th Manly Man Division
If these guys are afraid of “teh gay”, the can’t be brave enough to face “teh enemy”.