What I’d say to the Joint Chiefs of Staff

With President Obama’s inauguration, there’s a new attitude in the White House about gays serving honestly in the military. Our Commander-in-Chief has publicly stated he wants to see the end of the infamous “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) law. In fact, the official White House website (http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/civil_rights/):
states that explicitly:

Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.

But the President has also stated publicly that he will seek the advice of his military experts, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on this issue. With that in mind, here’s what I think the Joint Chiefs should consider when they discuss DADT with their new Commander-in-Chief. First, DADT was enacted by Congress with the absolute concurrence of the then Joint Chiefs because it was assumed that the mere knowledge of the presence of a gay or lesbian service member would impair unit morale, degrade unit cohesion and therefore adversely affect combat readiness. There were no military or academic studies to support those assumptions. In fact, the study commissioned by the Pentagon at the time gays in the military was being considered in 1993 found exactly the opposite. The Rand Corporation, specifically empowered by DoD to investigate the issue of gays serving openly, concluded that there would be no adverse impact from allowing gays to serve openly (see: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR323/index.html)

It’s now fifteen years since DADT was enacted, and the Rand Corporation’s study has proven correct. Despite all the hand-wringing and fears about what would happen if known gays were to serve alongside their straight counterparts, the attitudes of our current troops is quite different. In what I like to refer to as The Reality on the Ground, there are thousands of known gays and lesbians serving right now, in both theaters of war; and unit morale, unit cohesion and combat readiness are undiminished. A 2006 Zogby International Poll of Iraq/Afghanistan veterans (the only scientifically valid poll of military personnel yet conducted – in contrast to the highly biased recently published Military Times poll of some of their subscribers) found the following:

1) 23% of the troops said they knew for certain there were gays in their own unit, and the majority of these troops said this fact was widely known by others in the unit;
2) 45% of the troops said they suspected there were gays in their own unit;
3) 73% of the troops said they were comfortable working around gays and lesbians

So, the Reality on the Ground shows that 68% of our current fighting force either knows for certain or suspects there are gays in their own unit, and the vast majority of them don’t care. Certainly combat readiness is unimpaired, as by all evidence our military effectiveness if just fine.

Since DADT was enacted, nearly 13000 troops have been kicked out under this law. Admittedly, in the grand scheme of military personnel end strength, this is a fairly small number, but it does include men and women with critical specialties, such as linguists, pilots, doctors, nurses, combat medics, engineers, ordinance disposal experts, etc. But far more significantly, about 3000 gay and lesbian troops voluntarily leave the military each year because of the stress of living a lie and fearing that at any moment the wrong person will find out about them and have their career terminated (http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/EffectsOfDontAskDontTellOnRetention.pdf). That translates to a loss of over 40000 personnel who left the service voluntarily and quietly over the last 15 years. And every one of those troops was trained, experienced and paid for. None of them could be easily replaced by a raw recruit out of boot camp or a nugget officer out of a service academy or OCS. THAT is a fact the JCS needs to consider carefully. We’re losing trained and experienced men and women, both through voluntary attrition and through DADT discharges, all because of an unnecessary law which has not only been shown to be groundless in its foundations, but harmful to military end strength and expertise.

Let me close with a couple of anecdotes. The very first American casualty in Operation Iraqi Freedom was an openly gay Marine, SSGT Eric Alva. Here’s what he had to say about his fellow Marines’ reaction to him:

"Being on the front lines and serving with the people who even actually knew that I was gay, you know, that was never a factor. We were there to do a job. We were [there] to do a mission. I don't think people would have a hard time with it because they know that the person right next to them is going to be there to protect them, in our terms, 'have their back.'"

On a more humorous note, here’s what a straight soldier had to say on a Military.com discussion board about “gays in the foxhole,” a common argument offered against gays serving openly:

Having been in a "foxhole" with incoming fire, I can honestly say I was only worried about not dying. The gentleman next to me was putting effective fire back at the bad guys and I was honestly too busy doing the same to even care if he was looking at my butt. If a raving, flaming drag queen can put rounds back onto the bad guys, do it effectively and still oogle my backside, I'm good with it. If that same drag queen hits on me, I'll tell him, "no, thanks." If he does it in a firefight I'll break his legs as soon as the shooting stops. Of course if an unattractive or uninteresting female hits on me, I'll tell her, "no thanks." If she does it in a firefight, I'll break her legs as soon as the shooting stops. It's a pretty simple equation. I don't care what the person next to me does with their genitals. I don't want to hear about Joe Lunchbucket and the guys from Third Platoon pulling a train on a hooker any more than I want to hear about Susie Sunshine and her girlfriend.

Patriotic gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans are currently serving their country honorably in every branch of our Armed Forces in this time of war. Yet the infamous “don’t ask, don’t tell” law requires them to serve in silence, to lie about who they are, and to violate the very code of honor they are defending by their service. Gay servicemen and women are fighting for their country, being wounded for their country, and some are even dying for their country. Yet Congress, the Pentagon and the White House seem unaware that these brave men and women have to serve in fear of being discovered, fear of being kicked out simply for who they are, or worse, fear of harassment or violence. Our nation needs to appreciate that gay men and women in the military are as patriotic, physically and mentally fit, and mission capable as their straight counterparts. In the Armed Forces, it is courage, commitment and devotion to duty that matter, not sexual orientation.

To the Joint Chiefs I say the following: you have the power to help change this law and allow gays and lesbians to serve their country under the exact same rules and regulations already in place for all personnel. You simply need to tell Congress that, 1) our military has the leadership to handle this issue as we did for integration of African Americans and for expanding the roles of women in the military; and 2) we can no longer afford to lose trained and experienced troops because of an unnecessary law. In the words of President Truman, June 15, 1952, talking about full integration of the armed forces:

“The United States needs the imagination, the energy and the skills of every single one of its citizens. Every man or woman who enters one of our Services is certainly entitled to equal treatment and equal opportunity

Gays in the Showers, Oh My!

The basic underlying assumption supporting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) is that there is sufficient discomfort, antipathy or outright hatred of homosexuals by some heterosexual service members that unit morale, cohesion and combat readiness would be undermined by gays serving openly. When one looks beneath the lofty philosophical discussions about the necessity of group bonding among members of the military to create an effective fighting force (a reality to which I and most others who have served in the military readily agree), one finds that maintaining one's privacy is the single-most important element for heterosexuals when they think about homosexuals serving alongside them. Indeed, the privacy argument is now championed almost exclusively by Professor Charles Moskos, who originally came up with the DADT idea in the first place. Here's what he said in a 2003 interview at Northwestern University: "To me, the issue comes down to privacy. Prudes have rights, too." Even more frankly, Prof. Moskos declared in a 2000 interview with a journalist from Lingua Franca magazine, "Fuck unit cohesion. I don't care about that ... I should not be forced to shower with a woman. I should not be forced to shower with a gay [man]."

Which brings us directly to the "shower argument." To gay men and women who have served their country in the military, the idea that they will misbehave, ogle or harrass their peers in a shower might seem far-fetched, strange and completely at odds with reality. But to hetereosexual servicemen (and it seems mainly a problem for males; females seem far less bothered by the concept of possibly showering with a lesbian), the shower issue is a powerful, gut level and very real concern. This concern is expressed in various ways, from the polite (e.g., "I would be uncomfortable thinking there's a gay guy in the same shower as me") to the overtly hostile (e.g., "I don't want some fag looking at me, or worse, when I'm in the shower"). The concern is also expressed more intellectually (e.g., our culture separates men and women in situations where privacy is a concern, as in bathrooms, locker rooms, showers and sleeping quarters). But it is also sometimes expressed in a more sexual way (e.g., "I'd love to be able to shower with women, but I can't; so why should a gay guy get to shower with the object of his desire?"). Thus, any discussion of repealing DADT must, of necessity, deal with this very visceral concern of some heterosexual servicemembers; that concern continues to be readily accepted by many in Congress and certainly by many in positions of leadership in the military.

So let's examine the issue in a rational way. The cultural norm in this country has always been: men shower with men, and women shower with women. It is unusual, even for opposite sex couples, married or otherwise, to shower together as a part of normal, daily life (excepting when it's part of sexual play). This means that it's quite rare for men to shower with women, but extremely common for men to shower with other men, and women to shower with other women. Thus gay men have been showering with straight men all along; and lesbians have been showering with straight women. To a gay man or woman, it's not a unique situation to shower with someone of the same gender. Consequently, instances of ogling, misbehavior and harrassment are relatively rare. Reducing this fact to a soundbite, one could say, "Been there, done that, no big deal." But for a heterosexual man, showering with a woman would be considered a rare treat, indeed. Straight men can readily identify their own sexual interest in that situation and thus project that interest onto gay guys. After all, the thinking goes, men are men. Thus the heterosexual serviceman assumes that the gay serviceman will have the same interest in him as he would in a woman in the shower. He doesn't consider the reality of the situation that gay men have been in showers with him all along, both in the military before he joined the military. If he understands DADT (which few do), he would know both the law and DoD regulations say the gay guy can be in the shower with him -- and so he has been.

In fact, under DADT, gays have been in the showers with their heterosexual counterparts; they've shared the same barracks, berthing spaces, workspaces, foxholes, humvees, tanks, tents, and every other situation where privacy is comprised and the enforced togetherness of the military prevails. Has there been a problem? Not so far as I can tell. The instances of same-sex harrassment are extremely rare.

Some might argue that the "don't tell" part of DADT prevents any problems. Although there is a general knowledge that there might be gay guys in the shower with you, you don't know exactly who that it is, so it's okay. If one accepts that argument, however, it would seem necessary to reject the previous arguments that "discomfort" in the presence of gays justifies DADT. After all, if you know or suspect that there's a gay guy in the shower with you, you would likely be uncomfortable, even if you didn't know precisely who it is.

On a more practical level, open showers in the military are fairly uncommon these days. A recent Zobgy International poll of combat veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan found that 71% of the troops always or usually showered privately, whereas only 8% always or usually showered in groups. Additionally, when one takes a shower is often discretionary. So if a heterosexual service member is concerned about taking a shower with a gay guy, he/she can take the shower when the known or suspected gay member is not there. Taking this latter tact even further, one might facetiously argue that someone who is "uncomfortable" in the presence of gays would want gays to be able to serve openly so that they'd know exactly who to avoid in the shower.

Reducing the issue of whether gays should be allowed to serve openly to a question of sharing shower spaces seems, to me anyway, most unprofessional. It basically implies that because some straight guys are uncomfortable with the potential for having to share a shower with a gay guy, that tens of thousands of capable, qualified, patriotic Americans cannot serve their country openly and honestly. It assumes that all gay guys want to ogle, touch, fondle or whatever their peers. And it assumes all straight guys think of gay guys in that way. In the words of former Army Ranger Brian Hughes, this insults the professionalism of both the gay soldier and the straight soldier.

Finally, all of the above discussion and arguments are rendered moot by what I term "The Reality on the Ground," the increasing frequency of gays and lesbians serving more or less openly in today's military. The same Zogby poll of combat veterans contained some strikingly shocking findings regarding the number of homosexuals who are known by their battle buddies, peers and shipmates. Twenty-three percent of them knew for certain there was a gay person in their own unit (for enlisted personnel, the percentage was 27%). Furthermore, of those who were certain, 62% said there were two or more gay people in their unit. In addition, another 45% of combat troops suspected there were gays or lesbians in their unit, and of these, 63% suspected there were three or more gays or lesbians in their unit. Bottom line: 68% of combat troops either know or suspect there is a gay or lesbian in their own unit. Yet combat readiness and unit cohesion are not suffering as a consequence. Obviously the "shower issue" is not of consequence to the majority of these troops. In fact, 73% of the troops replied that they are either very or somewhat comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians.

For the policy-makers in the Pentagon, the question comes down to this: is a simple shower, something that takes maybe five minutes a day and can usually be scheduled at one's discretion, reason enough to force tens of thousands of otherwise capable service men and women to lie and to fear having their paycheck and job security terminated? When more than two-thirds of combat troops report that they know or suspect there is a gay person in their unit, yet they continue to perform admirably on the field of battle, does the nation still need DADT?

I would argue that it's time to repeal DADT.

Gays in the Military: A New Look at the Data

Gays in the Military: A New Look at the Data

by

RADM Alan M. Steinman, USPHS / USCG (Ret)

Last December, the Michael D. Palm Center and Zogby International published the results of a poll of Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans concerning gays in the military. The poll was extremely significant because it was the first time a scientifically valid opinion survey of current military combat troops was conducted on this issue. The entire study can be found on the Palm Center website:

http://www.palmcenter.org/publications/dadt/dont_ask_dont_tell_isnt_working_survey_reveals_shift_in_military_attitudes

When looking at the opinions of these troops, it is important to remember that the entire basis of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) law was founded on the assumption that the known presence of gay troops would be so distasteful and disruptive to straight service members that unit morale and unit cohesion would suffer, and therefore combat readiness would be degraded. The Palm Center / Zogby Poll didn’t query stateside military members or those who served in the military a decade or more ago; the poll focused exclusively on troops who were either in combat in these two current wars or directly involved in support roles for the combat troops.

A brief summary of the demographics of the poll respondents is as follows:

*545 U.S. Military personnel who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan (or in combat support roles directly supporting those operations).

*65% active duty; 16% veterans; 6% mobilized Reserve/Guard; 13% non-mobilized Reserve/Guard

*46% Army; 29% Air Force; 17% Navy; 7% Marines; 1% Coast Guard

*66% enlisted; 31% O1-O8; 3% warrant officers

*29% combat; 32% combat support; 18% combat service support; 21% other or unsure

The poll asked a large number of questions on different issues. But most directly, the issue of known gays serving alongside their straight counterparts was addressed in the following three questions:

*Do you know for certain that someone is gay or lesbian in your unit?

Yes	No	Not Sure
23%	61%	17%

*Was the presence of gays or lesbians in the unit well-known by others (answered by those indicating “yes” to the above question)?

Yes	No	Not Sure
55%	25%	21%

*In your unit are there people you suspect are gay or lesbian, but don’t know for sure?

Yes	No	Not Sure
45%	31%	25%

From the above responses, it is clear that a large majority of these servicemen and women (68%) either knew for certain or suspected there were gays or lesbians in their own unit. And that this fact was widely known by other members of the unit. These results totally destroy the foundation for the DADT. The known and suspected gays weren’t just somewhere in the military; they were right there in the same unit with their straight peers. So obviously unit morale, unit cohesion and combat readiness are not degraded by the known presence of gays and lesbians (unless one thinks that our current military is suffering these problems, and certainly no one has stated our troops aren’t doing their jobs well).

Another issue often cited by those opposing gays serving openly in the military is the assumed discomfort of straight service men and women if gays were known to be present in the close quarters of most military operations. Colloquially this is often referred to as “the shower issue,” but it applies not only to showers but to barracks, tents, hooches, foxholes, ship berthing, submarines – basically any place where “privacy” is compromised. The poll asked the following question:

*Personally, how comfortable are you in the presence of gays and lesbians?

Comfortable	Uncomfortable	Not Sure
73%	19%	8%

Obviously the current crop of military men and women don’t seem to have a problem working with gays and lesbians. So much for the “shower issue”!

The poll results, however, did not contain only good news for gays and lesbians serving openly. The following question, often seized upon by opponents of replacing DADT with a policy of non-discrimination based on sexual orientation, directly addressed gays serving openly:

*Do you agree or disagree with allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military?

Agree	Neutral or Not Sure	Disagree
26%	37%	37%

So even though the majority of troops either knew or suspected there were gay members of their own unit, and nearly three-quarters of them were personally comfortable working with gays and lesbians, the troops were split on whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve honestly.

Therein lies an interesting finding in the poll data. It is not enough simply to look at the overall responses to the above question, since the troops might have differing opinions based on whether they actually know someone who was gay. Knowing a gay person in their own unit and seeing firsthand that he/she is a good soldier/sailor/airman/marine or coastie, might affect how they view the issue of gays serving openly in the military. A further analysis of the data allows one to evaluate just that possibility. When the data are separated out based on those who said they either knew or didn’t know for certain a gay person in their own unit, a dramatic difference of opinion emerges:

*Do you agree or disagree with allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military? (Data from only those answering “yes” or “no” to knowing for certain there were gays or lesbians in their own unit)

	Agree	Neutral or Not Sure	Disagree
Know gays in unit	45%	24%	31%
Don’t know gays	24%	30%	46%

From the above responses, it’s obvious that when the troops actually know a gay person, their opinions change significantly in favor of allowing gays to serve openly. In essence, the “bogeyman” of an openly gay man or woman serving in the military disappears when there’s a real, live person involved (and not some assumed stereotype).

Another argument used by opponents of gays serving honestly in the military is that while gays might be able to serve openly in support duties (medical, legal, linguists, cooks, clerks, etc.), the hyper-macho world of the combat troops at “the tip of the spear” would never be accepting of known gay soldiers, marines, etc. Again, the poll data allows for an analysis of just this issue. Of combat troops among the respondents to the poll, 18% said they knew for certain there were gays in their own unit; 66% said there were no gays in their own unit, and 16% were unsure. And the following data shows the results of combat troops’ opinions on gays serving openly based on whether they knew gays in their unit:

Do you agree or disagree with allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military? (Combat troops only)

	Agree	Neutral or Not Sure	Disagree
Know gays in unit	36%	40%	24%
Don’t know gays	16%	26%	58%

While the reliability of these results must be looked at with some caution, because of the relatively small numbers involved in the analysis for each of these subgroups, it again is evident that when someone personally knows a gay person in their own unit, opinions about allowing gays to serve openly change markedly in favor of gays serving honestly.

Finally, the issue of unit morale, the foundation rationale for the current DADT law, was addressed by the Palm Center / Zogby poll. And here there is a HUGE difference of opinion between those who personally know gays in their unit compared to those who don’t.

How does the presence of gays or lesbians in your unit impact your unit morale (or, how would the presence of gays in your unit affect unit morale)?

	No Impact	Not Sure	Negative Impact
Know gays in unit	64%	6%	27%
Don’t know gays	26%	14%	58%

Again, and significantly, knowing a gay person in your unit dramatically alters the opinions about whether gays serving openly would be a detriment to unit morale. When the troops know a gay person, they are more than twice as likely to say there is no impact on unit morale; whereas when they don’t know a gay person, they are more than twice as likely to assume there would be a negative impact.

Bottom line from the polling data: there are lots of gay men and women serving openly, right now, in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; they are not causing a negative impact on morale, unit cohesion and combat readiness.

And if that's the reality on the ground during combat operations, why do we still need DADT? It seems to me our nation needs all the help it can get. When patrtiotic gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans are prevented from serving their country with the same honesty and dignity afforded their straight counterparts, national security suffers.

You can help. Write your Congressional Representative and Senators to ask that DADT be repealed and to allow gay, lesbian and bisexual men and women to serve their nation without discrimination.