The
Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and Don’t Ask, Don’t
Tell (DADT)
by
RADM
Alan M. Steinman, USPHS/USCG (Ret)
|
|
Recent comments by
ADM Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, in response to a question following his address
to the West Point graduating class earlier this month,
have stirred optimism that the Pentagon is finally
ready to relinquish its long standing opposition to
gays serving openly in the military. ADM Mullen said:
[Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell] is a law and we follow it.
Should the law change, the military will carry that
out, too."
Although optimism
may be warranted, I’m a little more guarded in my
interpretation of his remarks. After all, he is simply
stating the obvious: the military must follow the law
of the land. Congress makes the law; Congress issued
the DADT law in 1993; Congress can repeal DADT; if so,
the Department of Defense (DoD), as part of the
Executive Branch of government, will carry out the
law. This, to me, is not particularly newsworthy.
After all, if he had wanted to, he could have been far
more positive, acknowledging that gays and lesbians
are currently contributing to the nation’s war
efforts, putting their lives on the line just like
their straight counterparts, and deserve the same
dignity and respect as does anyone else in uniform.
But he didn’t say that. He simply said what he had
to.
On the other hand,
we should be encouraged that he didn’t reiterate the
previous DoD mantra that gays serving openly would
undermine unit morale, be a detriment to unit
cohesion, and thus degrade combat readiness. That he
didn’t restate these assumptions (and they are
indeed assumptions, since they’ve never been
demonstrated to be true) that underlay the DADT law,
is decidedly a good thing. In so doing, he was
following the lead of the current Under Secretary of
Defense, David Chu, who, in a letter to Oregon’s
Senator Wyden last year said that current military
policy simply carries out the DADT law, but that
"the [Defense] Department will, of course, follow
Congressional direction on homosexual conduct."
I must admit that I
was encouraged by Under Secretary Chu’s letter: he
could easily have reiterated the "unit morale,
unit cohesion, combat readiness" argument for the
DoD wanting to keep DADT, but he did not. THAT,
to me, was significant. ADM Mullen’s comments to the
graduating cadets were simply a reiteration of DoD’s
current position.
Now, with all that
said, ADM Mullen and the other Joint Chiefs most
definitely have a big role to play in future
deliberations on the DADT law. For gays to be able to
serve openly (and I much prefer the term
"honestly"), either Congress must repeal the
law, or the federal court system must find the DADT
law unconstitutional. A blow was struck in that latter
direction just this week when the 9th District Court
of Appeals reinstated USAF (Reserve) Major Witt’s
lawsuit against her being discharged under DADT. But
judicial action to repeal DADT is likely many years
away. Far more likely is a Congressional repeal,
assuming the Democrats win the White House and
maintain majorities in both the Senate and the House
of Representatives.
But here’s the
rub: even with a sympathetic Commander-in-Chief and
with Democratic majorities in both chambers of
Congress, it’s not certain DADT can be repealed (in
my humble opinion, anyway) unless the Joint Chiefs
give at least a tacit approval. There are enough
conservative Democrats and lots of conservative
Republicans who likely would oppose repealing DADT
unless the Joint Chiefs, government’s experts on all
things military, say that allowing gays to serve
honestly won’t be a problem. The JCS don’t have to
jump up and down with joy over the issue; they simply
have to state that the military has the leadership to
make it work, as they did with integrating African
-Americans into the military (despite fierce
opposition from within the ranks) and with expanding
the role of women in the military (also met with
opposition, which continues even today in some
conservative circles).
If the military has
anything, it has quality leadership. That is its
strongest component. So the Joint Chiefs need to
emphasize that the military’s leadership will ensure
that gays serving honestly will not degrade morale,
cohesion or combat readiness. If they can make that
statement, most opposition (with the exception of
those who have religious or moral arguments against
homosexuals) will melt away. To get to that point,
though, we are going to need the support of the senior
non-commissioned officers in the military,
particularly the most senior E-9s. If this community
maintains a strong opposition, particularly if they do
it publicly, it will make it difficult for the JCS to
endorse repeal of DADT. The JCS will, of course, seek
the opinions of the senior enlisted troops for advice,
for that is where the rubber meets the road in the
armed forces. So these senior enlisted advisors also
have to assure that gays serving honestly will be
"okay."
The flip side of all
of the above is, itself, a strong argument. For the
military to admit that gays serving honestly will
create an unmanageable problem is to admit that the
military lacks the leadership to manage the troops. It
says that racism and sexism can be outlawed and that
racists and sexists won’t be tolerated, but
homophobes are just too much for the military to deal
with. I don’t think the military leadership wants to
be put in that situation publicly, but that is
precisely where they are now, with the current DADT
law and the unproven philosophical nonsense that
created it (e.g. morale, cohesion and combat
readiness).
Bottom line: ADM
Mullen’s comments are at best neutral, but the role
of the Joint Chiefs in the future is absolutely
critical. Hopefully, the next president will choose
his/her Joint Chiefs with that in mind.
©
2008 Gay Military Signal
|