The Crossed Pond

As I mentioned here, a large group of retired generals and admirals
have signed on to an open letter to the president strongly advising against repeal of Section 654 of U.S. Code Title 10: the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy excluding openly gay and lesbian citizens from military service. Yesterday I sought to put the numbers in perspective, as well as point out the significance of those key generals and admirals that are not included on the list of signers. Today we tackle the groups message, in all its alarmist glory.

The Washington Post commentary and associated open letter was created by an organization called Flag and General Officers for the Military. The name strikes me as a bit odd, considering that the primary purpose of the organization is not to pursue or demand a broad range of reforms or programs in support of our military, but is entirely focused on one issue: preventing gays and lesbians from openly serving. Lest you think I exaggerate, from their “About Us” page:

The Flag & General Officers for the Military project was organized for the purpose of showing support for the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military (Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C.) This law, which has been upheld as constitutional several times, is frequently mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

The Washington Post commentary begins:

With the nation engaged in two wars and facing a number of potential adversaries, this is no time to weaken our military. Yet if gay rights activists and their allies have their way, grave harm will soon be inflicted on our all-volunteer force.

Has there ever been a time in U.S. history when we have not been “facing a number of potential adversaries?” I am reminded of a statement, which I am irritatingly unable to source, to the effect that for the entire history of our nation, the government and her agents have been telling us that we face so great a threat that it is necessary to temporarily restrict civil liberties in order to safeguard our republic, and that they have been lying for all this time. I remain entirely unconvinced that… no strike that: I find it utterly ludicrous that these thousand generals and admirals believe that out gays in the military would be a grave harm, while the thousands of serving closeted gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are fine. My suspicion is that far too many of them harbor the bigotry of their age, and are disgusted by Teh Gay in all its forms.

Section 654 recognizes that the military is a “specialized society” that is “fundamentally different from civilian life.” It requires a unique code of personal conduct and demands “extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.” The law appreciates military personnel who, unlike civilians who go home after work, must accept living conditions that are often “characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.”

Right, because the women serving in large numbers throughout our military are not living in forced intimacy with little or no privacy with male soldiers. Women, privacy, intimacy: Hot. Gays: Grave threat to our military, and icky.

While there have been changes in civilian society since this statute was adopted by wide bipartisan majorities in 1993, the military realities it describes abide. If anything, they are more acute in wartime.

Desert Storm, Cold War, Iran hostages, Grenada, Lebanon, Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, Latin American intervention ad nausea… When have we not been “acute”? And those changes to civilian society in the sixteen years since DADT came about: do ya think it might be possible that those changes are also reflected in the attitudes and coping ability of our all volunteer military?

In our experience, and that of more than 1,000 retired flag and general officers who have joined us in signing an open letter to President Obama and Congress, repeal of this law would prompt many dedicated people to leave the military. Polling by Military Times of its active-duty subscribers over the past four years indicates that 58 percent have consistently opposed repeal. In its most recent survey, 10 percent said they would not reenlist if that happened, and 14 percent said they would consider leaving.

Well, I’m guessing that 58% or more of the military preferred McCain. So freaking what. Someone might want to inform the Generals that the military is not a democratic organization. There are these “orders” and “regulations” and “civilian control of the military” and what not. As to the mythical 10% that would not reenlist: complete nonsense. After we adjust that figure down for the percent that, like always, will not reenlist anyway: how many do you think are having an emotional kneejerk reaction that would fade in the face of reality? Is there, perhaps, a precedent? Let’s check the Military Times link conveniently provided by our august authors:

David Segal, a military sociologist at the University at Maryland, drew a parallel between the current debate and earlier discussions about changing the composition of the force, from racial integration in the 1940s and 1950s to gender integration in the 1970s.
Segal described the nearly 10 percent of active-duty respondents who said they would leave the military if the policy was overturned as “a relatively small number.”
“That’s a smaller number of career officers than who in the 1970s said they would leave the service if women were admitted to West Point,” Segal said. “They were expressing a strongly held attitude. But when women were admitted to West Point, there was not anything near that kind of exodus from the service.”
Similar debates have surfaced in other countries that recently lifted in the ban, including Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and Israel, Segal said.
“None of the dire consequences that were expected occurred,” Segal said. “My sense is, and this is just impressionistic, it was more peaceful than the gender integration of the military.”

Stated differently: The generals’ argument is total nonsense. My addition: they probably know it, so add meretricious fabulists to the list of appropriate adjectives for this crew.

If just the lesser number left the military, our active-duty, reserve and National Guard forces would lose 228,600 people — more than the total of today’s active-duty Marine Corps. Losses of even a few thousand sergeants, petty officers and experienced mid-grade officers, when we are trying to expand the Army and Marine Corps, could be crippling.

“Could be crippling.” Could be. “Could be” if anything stated in support of this argument passed a basic logic and statistical analysis check. “Could be” if a dozen other western militaries experience proves completely different than ours. “Could be” if every historically analogous precedent proved dramatically wrong as a predictor. “Could be” if we simply accept their assertion that it will happen. But since we know it won’t happen this way, since we know this entire line of argument is founded on ludicrous assertions, it would be just as relevant to argue that flying monkey attacks could be crippling to our military, and we must therefore outlaw gay orangutans.

And the damage would not stop there. Legislation introduced to repeal Section 654 (H.R. 1283) would impose on commanders a radical policy that mandates “nondiscrimination” against “homosexuality, or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived.” Mandatory training classes and judicial proceedings would consume valuable time defining that language. Team cohesion and concentration on missions would suffer if our troops had to live in close quarters with others who could be sexually attracted to them.

Wait wait wait, you are not suggesting that the already existing annual mandatory sexual and workplace harassment training might have to be updated, are you? OMG, that would be insane. I mean, updating a standard training lesson plan to comply with changing legislative requirements is unprecedented! Also, thank god that none of the women serving so ably in our military forces are the least bit sexually attractive to the men with whom they serve in close quarters. Thank god.

We don’t need a study commission to know that tensions are inevitable in conditions offering little or no privacy, increasing the stress of daily military life. “Zero tolerance” of dissent would become official intolerance of anyone who disagrees with this policy, forcing additional thousands to leave the service by denying them promotions or punishing them in other ways. Many more will be dissuaded from ever enlisting. There is no compelling national security reason for running these risks to our armed forces. Discharges for homosexual conduct have been few compared with separations for other reasons, such as pregnancy/family hardship or weight-standard violations. There are better ways to remedy shortages in some military specialties than imposing social policies that would escalate losses of experienced personnel who are not easily replaced.

Sooo, this zero tolerance policy thing: I wonder what the current military policy is for soldiers and sailors who disregard existing rules. I mean, if a soldier thinks this whole racial integration thing is against, say, the will of God, and he chooses to assign his colored boys all the menial tasks: Is that totally cool, as things stand now? Or might violators of current regulations and laws suffer in some way, might they have a more difficult time achieving promotion, might they also leave the service? See, ’cause I’m guessing that obeying the regulations and laws is pretty standard, and pretty well ingrained in military culture.

Some suggest that the United States must emulate Denmark, the Netherlands and Canada, which have incorporated homosexuals into their forces. But none of these countries has the institutional culture or worldwide responsibilities of our military. America’s armed forces are models for our allies’ militaries and the envy of our adversaries — not the other way around.
As former senior commanders, we know that the reason for this long-standing envy is the unsurpassed discipline, morale and readiness of our military. The burden should be on proponents of repeal to demonstrate how their initiative would improve these qualities of our armed services. This they cannot do.

Why is it the burden of the proponents? And why is the burden to “improve these qualities” rather than “not significantly impact these qualities while simultaneously improving the equal treatment of all service members”? The proponents of repeal have demonstrated, through both academic study and comparative analysis with other western militaries, that the damage, despite these generals’ and admirals’ alarmist predictions, is non existent. They have also rather clearly shown that this is a fair treatment, and equal access and protection issue. It is, therefore, the burden of the opponents to show the error, to contradict through logic and data. This they cannot do. Also: civilian control of the military.

As to the American exceptionalism aspect of this argument: America’s military is NOT universally the model for our allies and the envy of our adversaries because of our discipline, but rather because of our capability. It is a capability derived from resource allocation: we buy it. We purchase the best weapons, we fund the best training, and we pay for the best logistics support. Gay presence or absence in our armed forces has absolutely nothing to do with our allies’ and enemies’ admiration or envy.

Consequently, our recent open letter advised America’s elected leaders: “We believe that imposing this burden on our men and women in uniform would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all echelons, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force.”

The existing policy, among other issues, has an adverse effect on my willingness to lend my 18 and 17 year old children to the service. Stated more broadly: the retrenchment mindset of these military leaders is just as likely to result in a growing portion of the parental population questioning the value and moral rightness of sending their children to be lead by bigots. And that last sentence, I can’t believe they had the cojones to write. Are you freaking serious? “break the All-Volunteer Force.” Could you people be more ridiculous? Could you jump the shark in a more grand and obvious manor?

Everyone can serve America in some way, but there is no constitutional right to serve in the military. The issue is not one of individual desires, or of the norms and mores of civilian society. Rather, the question is one of national security and the discipline, morale, readiness and culture of the U.S. armed forces upon which that security depends. It is a question we cannot afford to answer in a way that breaks our military.

“Breaks our military.” Are these people for real? Seriously, I have to wonder what part of this they really believe.

It is almost too tiresome to point out, but every argument made by these throwbacks is exactly parallel to those made by their predecessors in opposing racial integration of the military, and at every significant expansion of female service members’ roles.

I readily admit to a spiteful nature. Accordingly, I hope that, aside from a repeal of DADT in the near future, the signatories of this list will never live it down. That for the rest of their lives, whenever they appear for speaking engagements, for media “expert” analysis, and even as their obituaries are published, people will point out their endorsement of this moronic letter. That as they pontificate, some questioner will remind them, in light of the completely mundane and uneventful repeal of DADT in 2010, of their dire predictions of a broken military, of catastrophic consequences, of doom, and will ask them if they have adjusted their opinion to conform to reality.