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

[rextrek]

I saidf it before, and I'll say it again...while it's VERY Admirable that Gays and Lesbians serve,are serving, and WANT to serve in the Military...I find it hard to exactly Understand WHY? Why would you want to RISK YOUR LIFE & serve a country that treats you AS SECOND CLASS CITIZENS while you serve, and when you are home? Secondly even IF Gays/Lesbians Could serve openly they ARE SHORT CHANGED ON THE BENEFITS ...that thier hetero counterparts GET,and in case of DEATH,LEAVE to thier spouses......sorry..I don't understand it..but, I guess serving openly is a STEP in the Direction America SHOULD have been doing all along!

[Vern58]

Lets tell that to the thousands of Gay men and Women who have lost their careers in this orgy of fear and loathing. It really should help.

[RobinSeattle]

What gets me is that Bush's dumbed down recruiting standards would allow gangbangers to sign up (and helping to therefore train criminals in urban warfare) while gay men and women who have walked the straight and narrow all their lives and want to contribute to their country are told to piss off because of their love lives.

It's amazing this country can still stand when we keep shooting it in the foot by rebuffing talented mean and women who could help this nation in accomplishing its military goals. Too many generals and members of Congress taking their cues from divisive and manipulative televangelists.

[WillNYC]

the same reason there straight counterparts want to join.

[Grunty1]

Personally, I find it hard to imagine why ANYONE would want to join the military with B'ushco in charge.

Even if you feel a military career is your future, at least have the good sense to wait out B'ush and (curse us all) McB'ush.

[djreedps]

"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.

I disagree. Keeping secrets results in a lack of trust. Don't Ask, Don't Tell does not keep gay people out of "a close combat environment." Instead, it forces gay people to keep secret who they are. Furthermore DADT prohibits gay military people from exercising their First Amendment free speech rights. They have to spend energy in keeping their orientation secret and trying to not be kicked out of the military. That energy would better be spent in fighting our country's enemies.

[Redrover666]

That all sounds very reasonable over a cup of coffee, generally discussed by the uninvolved. However, it is a privacy issue and is something that makes most men, particularly young men viscerally uncomfortable.
That's not something you can work out with a few sensitivity classes. You can force the issue and gays will simply be ostracized, subtly or otherwise.
It's interesting to me that you would not for a second extend your sympathy to an 18 year old girl who indicated she was uncomfortable sharing a public bathroom or shower with a group of men, however you are significantly less sympathetic if it's an 18 year old boy. There's a double standard here that seems only to apply to the military. I suggest that the civilian community start by providing an example and remove all gender restrictions in all public settings. Bathrooms, gyms, showers, in schools and any other public place. I'm sure that this will go over very well as the public is far more open minded than those homophobes in the military.

[WillNYC]

well news flash in Europe its co-ed facilities and openly gay? the homophobes will have to obey their superiors just like their gay counterparts.

[Kodachi]

Newsflash: there are already gay people in the military. The straight boys who just can't bear the thought of showering in the vicinity of gay men are already showering in the vicinity of gay men.

[jjasonham]

Sorry, but your logic doesn't hold water. If the young men are that paranoid about being seen in showers, knowing that someone is or isn't gay isn't really going to help. Furthermore, one what kind of person would be inclined to believe that "girls and boys" must be separated into different bathrooms and showers because they're afraid the other is going to be compelled to rape? Its usually because they have differences physiologically. The point is, to advocate that a group of people be kept from serving openly is a civil rights issue, plain and simple.

[Deaninphilly]

Fact is 20 years ago when DADT went into effect it was the best that could be done at the time. Here we are and a different generation of people are enlisted and are controlling the military high positions. DADT is now outdated and no longer serves it purposes as even the retired Generals of the day recognize as such. It really is high time that those in Congress face reality and the reality of such is that the days of old are gone. Sexuality is not something that is discussed in secret anymore, Sexuality is not something that this generation is ashamed of. If they don't see that it is time to keep up with the change they will find themselves left behind.

[Pleidian]

Mark Thatcher and the Equatorial Guinea Coup Plot. This is getting a lot of attention in Europe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/07/equatorialguinea

[insanityfollows]

Being gay is not a crime. The larger point is that despite their sexual orientation, these are people who are willing to give their lives for our country. In light of the fact that that same country berates them, belittles them and won't allow them to marry makes their willing sacrifice that much more heroic. Personally, if the you-know-what hit the fan tomorrow, fellow troops are not going to stop and ask (nor are they even going to pay attention) about the sexual orientation of their fellow troops. Neither are any civilians that might receive help from those same troops. What; are people and fellow troops going to turn down help in battle or in a crisis situation and say, "No thank you. I will wait until someone straight comes along." Get real. I don't give a damn what a troop's orientation might be. I just want them to be able to shoot a gun, steer a boat or tank or fly a plane and protect me and my country if need be.

[Anonani]

Following your logic, the Soldier who is suing the DoD from down range because he is being targeted with death threats because he is an atheist ought not be happening......but it is happening. The military encourages conformity and differences are not necessarily welcomed as history has demonstrated.

[Annette]

It seems the military NOW has a problem in enforcing good order and discipline. I was in the war during the 1960's we had Atheists, Christians, Jews, and every other group you can think of, We had Gay people and straight people, we had black people, white people, racists and non racists. The military made it clear that none of that mattered, you were there to do a job. They actually enforced good order. It seems now that the military is just to finicky to have anyone except people just like us. They seem to be unable to enforce discipline and are unable to create a cohesive fighting force from the many sorts of people that America has to offer. I suspect a failure of leadership from the top down. To be honest after I read about the evangelical ministers refusing to do Jewish and Catholic services because it would be against their beliefs and the military backing down, I figured that todays military was being badly run. It isn't the faults of the soldiers, it is the fault of those who cannot lead effectively.

[BoredAtWork16]

This is why people of faith should all band together and go to heaven. Man, human behavior is so flawed....

[JustADumbFireman]

If you're too godd*mned squeamish to take a shower with somebody who might be gay, you're too godd*mned squeamish to go into combat.

[Wolfdaughter]

Moreover, Red Rover, under the current DADT policy, you DID take many a shower with gay guys, you just didn't happen to know it. So is your point that you should not have to feel uncomfortable taking a shower with some guy who's openly gay?

I don't have much sympathy with that idea. We all have to do things that make us uncomfortable. That's not a good reason to deny people the right to be who they are, as long as they don't act in ways harmful to others.

[Anonani]

There is one way to solve this issue, ask the men and women who serve right now. I don't think any retired Generals, or used to be's, have the credibility to speak for the rank and file who currently serve. I am sure that it is very easy to poll the uniformed service members, and get a representative sample, on this issue. It is one that definitely evokes a response. Those who serve are not looking to be a social experiment simply because they wear the uniform of the nation.

[Deaninphilly]

That is just a plain outright stupid comment. Yes, retired Generals do and can speak for the rank file. If anything these Generals are from a time when all kinds of things were discriminated against in the military not just on sexual or race matters but many many things. I think what is bugging you is that the report didn't go the way you wanted it so we need to now come up with something to discredit it somehow. Tell me, are you an active General or retired General in any one of the armed forces? If not do be quiet and stop insulting our military.

[Anonani]

Actually, I am very much in the best of positions to articulate an opinion. And,I don't agree with you about whether or not the retired GO's speak for the rank and file. They don't. And, if you have served you know that and if not ask those who do. As to my opinion and my comment being stupid....beyond the fact that it is an abusive statement, it is completely built upon suppositions that just don't hold water with me.

[Anonani]

BTW it is my military. (smile)

[NTO08]

DUH...most countries, except retrograde nations like ours, allow gays to serve...they have always served in our military since its establishment.

[JustADumbFireman]

You're right about that - we ARE a retrograde nation, and seem to be regressing further and further in the ability to think critically.

[realityczech4u]

I am fascinaed at the supreme court decisions being announced and studies such as this finding their way into the headlines, as if by mere happenstance, mere months before a national election. You hear many denouncements of elections riding on 'hot button' issues like the 3 G's, yet the essential elements just seem to keep falling into place, as if by magic.

[GJP2006]

Of course they don't. A family member is an officer in the military and he shared that folks don't really care about this issue and in fact many have g/l family members and don't understand what all the fuss is about. It is the homophobes in the higher ranks that make this such an issue.

[MarkInEugene]

Wonderful comments made by young posters setting the fear based community straight.

You young people are scary because you're secure in your sexuality wherever you fall on the sexual preference spectrum. The idea that it's ok to be yourself regardless of your preference is a breath of fresh air, but also threatening to a lot of oppressed people out there. People stuck in their beliefs borne out of 1000 year old medieval religions that have long since outlived their relevance are looking for the guilt-ridden. It's an ugly place to go, so don't waste your life on that dead end path of despair.

I don't condone irresponsible behavior, and I believe in the military code of conduct. And I also believe in my comrades regardless of their color, ethnicity, gender, preference or religion. I judge each person as an individual not on these superficial attributes, but on their character, their honesty, their loyalty, their sense of responsibility.

Where are we as a nation when we listen to the confused voices of fear, hatred and oppression? Don't ask don't tell is pure cowardice.

[nonconformist2]

Well said. YOU should be the HUFF POST PICK!

[macbabe]

I'll second that!

[doctorwang]

"Where are we as a nation when we listen to the confused voices of fear, hatred and oppression?"

Unfortunately, it's where we are right now....and have been for the last 7 years.

Great post, MarkInEugene. You've got my vote, too.

[JeffmChicago]

MardkInEugene that was beautiful, man.

Kudos to a well thought out response!

[Guynemer]

Exactly what do they mean by Gays should be allowed to openly serve? Homosexual marriage isn't recognized by the federal government and sex outside of marriage is forbidden even to heterosexuals. To the best of my knowledge there are no restrictions on how you talk, or walk or whatever it is that defines you as openly Gay

[nonconformist2]

"How your talk, walk, or whatever that defines you as openly Gay"? WTF? It is about people not hiding who they love. Same expecting you to hide your wife and kids.

P.S. They "walk and talk" just like you. Maybe they are you. Or your best friend. Or your brother.

[Geoffreys]

One doesn't have to engage in sexual activity to be Gay. Is a straight person no longer heterosexual if they don't have a sexual partner?

[steamboat]

I agree with Obama's position. I'm also against gay marriage and will accept a strong civil union outcome

BTW, when you think about it, there is nothing wrong with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". If that person never opens his/her mouth then nobody will know and there will never be a problem.

[nonconformist2]

Keeping their mouth shut is discrimination, plan and simple. They have the right to put a picture up of their 'signicant other" on their locker, and call and email them and express the fact that they miss their loved one just like anyone else serving and dying for this country. Any less is just plan disrespect and discrimination.

Science will prove that sexual orientation is something that people are born with. Then how will all those people feel who openly discriminated against them? It's like discriminating against someone for having brown eyes.

It's archaic and ridiculous.

[truelinguist]

And if that person has a partner? He's supposed to pretend that person doesn't exist? Or lie and say that it's just his "friend"? Would you say that about your spouse? Or pretend your spouse simply doesn't EXIST???

Maybe you don't consider that a "problem", but I do. Integrity, self-respect...just to name a few traits that I would hope we'd expect in our servicemen and women: these do not permit people to lie or dissemble for no good reason. The DADT policy is immoral and reprehensible: gay people live full and meaningful lives. They fall in love, they date, they have life partners.

Would YOU consider it not to be a problem if YOU had to pretend you were single when you were happily married or dating? Egads, you really think we should ask that of those brave gay men and women willing to DIE for us?

I don't. DADT is a represensible policy. And those who argued for it and put it in place ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. I am certainly ashamed of them.

[JackNasty]

If only bigots would keep their desire to propagate inequality for gay taxpayers to themselves.

[WillNYC]

problem is the military is still actively investigating people for being gay. Not because of anything they have done. That's not supposed to be happening but it is.

[luvobama]

One more time please. What did the study find?

[FoShizzle]

The study found that homosexuals serving openly do not effect unit cohesiveness.

Unit cohesiveness is not the only issue.

[Redrover666]

It found what it was looking for.

[loax]

HuffPost's Pick

In this day and age, nobody cares what anybodys sexual nature is. These men and women atand and fight for and with each other is all that matters. This don't ask crap is outdated. I would trust my life to a gay or lesbian soldier as would I do the same with a heterosexual man or woman, In a firefight, they protect each other as is should be Brother protecting Brother! It is time to move on.

[groot]

i'm a cop and a military reservist. what the hell do i care who you like? i got your back and you got mine. nuff said...

[indypete]

Nuff, indeed... you said it all!

[Titonwan]

I don't want to see open expression of affection. Not from heterosexual couples nor homosexual couples. IF you can do that, fine. IF you can't, then you have no business around live ammo. It's not the Dating Game- it's war and the preparedness for it. That's a hard standard but it is what it is. And if you don't think there are homosexual horn dogs, you're fooling yourself. They are just a common as heterosexual horn dogs. Neither is acceptable. Keep it in your pants and we'll be fine. And don't tell me some gay men will back off when you tell them your orientation. They're horn dogs and are as stupid as heterosexual men convinced they can "turn" a lesbian around. It's stupid, and it's sexual harrassment. I would only agree that men and women be in a combat unit if the men are castrated. I'm a man by the way. Let's not fool ourselves. We are animals and sex is vital. Keep the horn dogs out- both orientations.

[Anonani]

Hmmmm, looks good on paper but is very far from reality.

[Anonani]

I think that the country at large should perform this transition BEFORE it is asked of its military.

[patricklee5150]

Why? Wasn't it the military that ended segregation within it's ranks before the country at large did so? Yes, I believe it was.

[Anonani]

Racism is and always has been a much bigger societal issue that segregation ever was. Segregation may have "ended" but racism has not been eradicated in or out of the military. If your skin color is black, and you are discernibly a descendant of African slaves you remain, even today, the recipient of racism, bigotry, and discrimination in all of its forms. It is instituitionalized. To equate discrimination against Black people with this entire gay issue is, IMHO, comparing apples and oranges.