Study: Military Gays Don't Undermine Unit Cohesion

WASHINGTON — Congress should repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law because the presence of gays in the military is unlikely to undermine the ability to fight and win, according to a new study released by a California-based research center.

The study was conducted by four retired military officers, including the three-star Air Force lieutenant general who in early 1993 was tasked with implementing President Clinton's policy that the military stop questioning recruits on their sexual orientation.

"Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion," the officers states.

To support its contention, the panel points to the British and Israeli militaries, where it says gay people serve openly without hurting the effectiveness of combat operations.

Undermining unit cohesion was a determining factor when Congress passed the 1993 law, intended to keep the military from asking recruits their sexual orientation. In turn, service members can't say they are gay or bisexual, engage in homosexual activity or marry a member of the same sex.

Supporters of the ban contend there is still no empirical evidence that allowing gays to serve openly won't hurt combat effectiveness.

"The issue is trust and confidence" among members of a unit, said Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, who retired in 1993 after working on the issue for the Army. When some people with a different sexual orientation are "in a close combat environment, it results in a lack of trust," he said.

The study was sponsored by the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara, which said it picked the panel members to portray a bipartisan representation of the different service branches. According to its Web site, the Palm Center "is committed to keeping researchers, journalists and the general public informed of the latest developments in the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy debate." Palm himself was "a staunch supporter of civil rights in the gay community," the site says.

Story continues below

advertisement

Two of the officers on the panel have endorsed Democratic candidates since leaving the military _ Army Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, who supports Barack Obama, and Marine Corps Gen. Hugh Aitken, who backed Clinton in 1996.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Robert Minter Alexander, a Republican, was assigned in 1993 to a high-level panel established by the Defense Department to examine the issue of gays in the military. At one point, he signed an order that prohibited the military from asking a recruit's sexual orientation.

Alexander said at the time he was simply trying to carry out the president's orders and not take a position. But he now believes the law should be repealed because it assumes the existence of gays in the military is disruptive to units even though cultural attitudes are changing.

Further, the Defense Department and not Congress should be in charge of regulating sexual misconduct within the military, he said.

"Who else can better judge whether it's a threat to good order and discipline?" Alexander asked.

Navy Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan said he had no opinion on the issue when he joined the panel, having never confronted it in his 35-year military career. A self-described Republican who opposes the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war, Shanahan said he was struck by the loss of personal integrity required by individuals to carry out "don't ask, don't tell."

"Everyone was living a big lie _ the homosexuals were trying to hide their sexual orientation and the commanders were looking the other way because they didn't want to disrupt operations by trying to enforce the law," he said.

___

On the Net:

Palm Center: http://www.palmcenter.org

Comments

[Redrover666]

DANOSC

Few here have been in the military or been drafted and are unfamiliar with the process A draftee served two years, one in Nam, not two.
Volunteers served longer and possibly, multiple tours. However, enlistees were asked quite directly if they were gay. Amongst other things, Peace Corps participation disqualified.. You'd have been warned specifically and firmly, more than once, that fraudulent enlistment was a felony punishable by up to five years in federal prison.
The military tolerated no gay soldier under any circumstances and was harsh in it's treatment. You indicated that you were openly gay. That's an impossibility. You'd have been arrested immediately and sent to the stockade till discharge. I personally watched a good soldier arrested while in morning formation by plainclothed CID and taken away in handcuffs in front of a stunned company, for a relatively harmless pass at another soldier.
The US military has traditionally been extremely hostile to homosexuality and has made great strides in the past thirty years. I think that is a good thing.
I have served in multiple combat environments beginning with Grenada and ending my career with Iraq. I have tried to share with you the opinion of a recently retired soldier (CSM) but as my opinion does not jibe with your agenda it's discounted as homophobic. That's a shame, because a better understanding of both sides of this issue would go a long way to resolving it.

[sunworshipper]

I would just like to respond to Redrover, who keeps comparing mixed bathrooms and sleeping quarters in the military to life in college and stating that surely both are equally unacceptable. As a parent of a college sophomore I must enlighten him by explaining that in fact many colleges now have completely co-ed dorms and that in my son's college dorm the bathrooms were also virtually co-ed (neither sex caring who used which bathroom). The world is very different today from the one he obviously grew up in and young people are less concerned with single sex arrangements than they used to be. They are also many occasions when a 'straight' male or female has to live at extremely close quarters with a gay roommate and somehow it's rarely a problem because everyone is open and honest with each other, so why should it be in the military?

[Redrover666]

Is it mandatory? And if your son or daughter objects, are they compelled to conform?

[sunworshipper]

At many colleges all the freshmen dorm buildings and floors are co-ed, but with individual rooms shared with someone of the same sex. This is the case at my son's own college (and those of some of his friends), where there is no single sex floor or dorm building offered to freshmen at all. Roommates are randomly allocated so you could easily find yourself sharing with someone gay. If you cannot get along with your roommate you'd have to have a pretty good reason to ask for a transfer and I don't believe just being homophobic would count as a good reason!

[Redrover666]

sunworshipper, I ought to have also mentioned that most barracks are entirely co-ed. However, I find it odd that there is no capacity to see any issue in terms other than black or white here.
As I have indicated many times in my comments, I think that gay people ought to be allowed to serve, make fine soldiers and Marines and I do not dislike, nor do I have a fear of them. It's strange to me that those points are entirely disregarded and the insults and derision flow unimpeded.
It is unfair and implies a deep disregard for others to insist that those who disagree are wrong, evil, mentally ill or otherwise. It also implies a deep seated disdain for the military, which I have seen unabashedly expressed by many here on other blogs.
There is a large gray area in this issue. I believe that the rights of gay people ought to be respected and are no different than anyone else's. However, the rights of those who are uncomfortable with sharing their privacy and close quarters with gay people are no small minority and ought to be treated with respect as well. Until that happens, there will indeed be a negative impact on unit cohesiveness, anger and resentment.

[akkadian]

How about the joke that goes:
"I can't shoot him, he's gorgeous!"

[KevinVT]

Finally some of the older brass are coming around. I've heard for years that younger enlisted men and women could care less about serving alongside openly gay and lesbian servicemembers. It's been the old guys in charge who have supported the costly and discriminatory policy.

Don't ask don't tell costs taxpayer money, it undermines the quality of our armed services, and it's just plain wrong.

[Bystander]

Michael D. Palm Center...I thought, surely, this has to be a joke. I googled it, and it really does exist...apparently a "gay think tank." Like a cigarette company doing a study on the effects of smoking.

[JoyceBains]

Are there enough people enlisting for the military to be turning people away? No? Then let it go.

[JeffmChicago]

Well I spent 9 years in the Navy and boy let me tell ya it was worth it. The experience, the friendships and travel was something I will always treasure. And the sex! I was a closeted gay young man in my 20's and I had no problem adhering to the rules and regulations of the Military. When my fellow shipmates would comeback on board all puffed up about their female conquest in Spain, Italy, Greece et al I would do the same except in my case the conquest were men Spanish, Italian and Greek and boy let me tell ya they love black American men over their in Europe.

Be it straight or gay fraternization while on duty or on a ship or military facility is punishable.

Follow the rules and regulations and there will be no trouble. . NO FRATERNIZATION., period. This keeping gays out of the military is upfront in your face discrimination and nothing less.

[situationcritical]

"The military always has been about warriors, not lovers."
++++++++++­++++++++++­++++++++++­++++++++++­+++++++

"That's what I told Alex. But what could I do? He kept insisting.­"--Hephaes­tian

[Eric8869]

I find most of the comments and debate on this issue insulting.

Gay people have always served, are serving now and will always serve their country. They are as patriotic as anyone else. (They also die for their country)

This is about them not being hunted down and thrown out of the military for being gay. Not about their conduct while serving which is a seperate issue.

If you don't understand the issue then Conduct Unbecoming by Randy Shilts is an excellent book on the topic.

[KeysDan]

"Supporters of the ban contend there is still no evidence that allowing gays to serve openly will not hurt combat effectiveness." First of all, there 'still' is no evidence? Where is the primary evidence? Where are the germane studies? Second of all, isn't this topsy-turvy? If the government has decided to trample on the right of certain Americans to serve in the military, should not the burden of proof be on the government that combat effectiveness will be hurt? It appears to be an historical truth, that gays serving in the military has not affected combat effectiveness; serving openly is the remaining issue, and studies and experiences along these lines in the military of other countries do not support such contentions. It seems homophobia equipped with stereotypic anecdotes, such as shower-hysteria, has been the underpinning of the "evidence".

[Redrover666]

Hysteria and stereotypic anecdotes aside. Simply visit a blog dominated by military personnel and ask them. If your daughter refused to shower with the boys, would you consider her to be hysterical?

[oafishcad]

Gays have been showering with your sons (and daughters) all their life. Get over your prissy little girl attitude and man up.

[KeysDan]

Please stay focused. The issue is sexuality, not gender. You are just changing the subject.

[SantaFeStars]

The piousness of this issue is nothing new! Religious fanatics attacking the core of equality for ALL people, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. Gays should be allowed to serve their country openly and without fear of discrimination. Israel has one of the best armies in the world and, they accept gays openly without the BS of our archaic policies. Gay men and women fight and die for our country every day. I, for one, applaud their courageous service!!

[StephenDedalus82]

Homosexuality has been a reality in armed forces since the beginning of time, just as it has been in prisons and other traditionally single-sex environments. I find it comically rich that our soldiers, supposedly the fiercest the world has ever known, trained to tread in blood and body parts, are presumed to be too squeamish to share a shower with gay men. Our macho warriors are awfully dainty in this way, aren't they? Or could it be the only people uncomfortable with it are the chicken hawks who make the policies but would never fire a gun except in the presence of flightless quail?

[WillNYC]

The timing of this report is priceless. A perfect wedge issue for the empty, useless GOP.

[Titonwan]

One more word on the matter- promiscuity. If you're going to tell me that gay men are not more promiscuous, then we have nothing more to discuss. ALL men are pigs (a genetic need to procreate) and by putting men together that don't understand that ALL of the men are here for war and NOT to find a date, you create confusion and lack of cohesion. Heterosexual men can't take their wives into combat for the very same god d_ mned reason. That's the biggest problem. You shouldn't fool yourself into thinking you can enlist and find your mate. You do that OUTSIDE of the military. If you find someone that becomes a love interest, you should be separated immediately- hetero or homo, period. So, if your gay, tell me, I don't care. But don't expect to flaunt it no more than a girl and guy flaunting it around the rest of the crew that is there, alone, doing their job. The military always has been about warriors, not lovers.

[WillNYC]

lol.... now gays join the military to find boyfriends? LMAO. You closet cases really crack me up.

[Vern58]

Reality Check- most of us spend years in faithful long term relationships and not whoring in the streets. Get a grip.

[soithoni]

We have nothing more to discuss... not because of anything you *think* is true. It's because you don't let *facts* interfere with your opinion. And your opinion is the most important thing in the world. Go for it. But discussion is done.

Have a nice life.

[RobinSeattle]

The problem is that the U.S. military does give tacit permission to heterosexual conduct, even that which is illegal in the U.S. You can find brothels and hookers in Korea, for example, that cater to U.S. troops while the soldiers' superiors look the other way. The same was true in Vietnam and is probably now the case in Iraq.

By separating soldiers who engage in any intimate sexual conduct in the theater in which they are operating just isn't feasible. That is because there are basic things almost all people want to do: Going to the bathroom, eating, gambling, getting high and having sex. Trying to exterminate most of these things just makes money for organized crime. So they have to be managed in such a way as to be as societally benign as possible. If the soliders are handling their personal affairs (John McCain had a few, after all, and the GOP considers him a hero) without it impinging on the military's ability to realize its goals, then who really cares?

[KeysDan]

It seems that ideally, if not practically, a part of the requirement for military service, especially in the case of males, should be castration. Please consult Governor Bobby Jindal for details on chemical treatments, you really do not have to surgically remove any body parts these days and it is reversible most of the time. Thanks for the good idea, we can start with the generals, and, then, move on down (so to say).

[Titonwan]

Gays and lesbians scare me in the least. Whatcha scared of guys? It don't "rub off". But hold on, I pride myself on trying to see both sides. Just what do you want when you want to be openly gay? Liven up the ol' battleship gray with a little lavender? Lace on your bunk? Gawdy jewelry or uniform accessorizing? NO. You can't have that. You can't have open expression of emotions either. Sorry, you just can't. It is forbidden for heterosexuals to do that. I'm not going to man a gun station while Bill and Bob over there are discussing fashion and swapping slobbers no more if it was Bill and Bobbie. NO. You cannot have military obedience and cohesion when someone might object to their lover being ordered to do something. You have one master in the service- your country. You didn't sign up to get paired up and then object to orders because you're family objects. Ask any military wife how well that works. "Your in the Army now, you're not behind a plow". (old military motto)

[Vern58]

Reality Check- there are thousands of Gays and Lesbians serving currently in the military services under the radar, and you are indulging in these hateful fantasies of what LGBT Americans are really like? Wake up. We are like everyone else out there. Do you think we are all like the guys from Queer Eye? Reality is that the vast majority of us are just as pedestrian as any other person. These fantasies you are indulging in have no place in reality.
You are just a garden variety bigot.