Get Over Gay Fear, US Allies Advise

[zsdersw]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37787.html

By MAJ. PETER KEES HAMSTRA & LEIF OHLSON & LT. COM. CRAIG JONES | 5/26/10 5:10 AM EDT

As openly gay officers with decades of combined service experience in the British, Dutch and Swedish armed forces, we are closely watching U.S. developments around the repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell."

We were just in Washington at a Brookings Institution/Palm Center conference, where representatives from the world's militaries discussed this matter.

Though we maintain a respect for the American people, their military and their political process, we share a sense of puzzlement — and a sort of shock — at the rhetoric we heard surrounding "Don't ask, don't tell."

As Congress prepares to vote on this, we hope our international perspective can be of some value.

The U.S. armed forces are the world's most formidable, with an unrivaled might and a readiness to accept worldwide deployments to engage in a range of military conflicts that no other nation views with the same sort of international responsibility.

Yet it is also true that U.S. military power depends, in most cases, on an international coalition of partners. Members of Congress don't always seem to appreciate that America's allies are put off in serious ways by the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.

For example, units of our own or other armed forces have refused to deploy in some joint operations with U.S. forces because gay service members would not work with the Americans — for fear of hostile reactions.

In addition to protecting our men and women from enemy combatants, we must also protect them from anti-gay and anti-lesbian discrimination.

Increasingly, this is not a situation we and our personnel will tolerate. So we are less able to help accomplish our collective missions.

We are aware of colleagues in our own militaries who don't like it that gays and lesbians serve openly. However, despite considerable fears before we enacted these policies, such attitudes are rare.

In no cases, in fact, have negative private opinions about gay people undermined our ability to work with one another. Our service members are professionals who care, first and foremost, about the ability to do the job.

Moral opposition to homosexuality, while real, is just not allowed to undercut our militaries' missions.

Nor do we think it will have any impact on yours after you repeal "Don't ask, don't tell."

This is an important point because many Americans seem to believe that ending anti-gay discrimination in European and Israeli militaries faced no resistance because our cultures are more tolerant.

In fact, our polls, rhetoric and even threats of mass resignations were quite similar to the continuing resistance in America. Yet none of the doomsday scenarios came true.

According to research and assessments of our transitions, the new policies had no negative impact on military readiness.

Another dimension missing from the congressional debate is how the closet harms gay troops. We know this from personal experience.

Unit cohesion is paramount, and that's why the public debate about "Don't ask, don't tell" has focused on this topic.

But the impact of discrimination on gay troops matters as well — and we have not heard members of Congress discuss this.

Each of us has experienced what it means to have to live a lie. Enforced silence has undermined our well-being, readiness and ability to do our job. If you want your gay and lesbian troops operating at 100 percent, you cannot force them into isolation and dishonesty on a daily basis.

We are also puzzled about repeated claims we heard in Washington about the need for more research on "Don't ask, don't tell." There is more than enough on-the-ground experience, as well as serious social science research, showing what will happen when the U.S. military allow gays and lesbians to utter the words "I am gay" without getting fired.

We are confident that, despite the unique nature of each culture and military, you will have a similar experience to ours — which is that ending discrimination against gay troops was a giant nothing.

Washington must project force like no other nation. But the military is also about projecting values — and the discriminatory "Don't ask, don't tell" policy undercuts America's commitment to the democratic values of fairness and equality under the law.

The policy puts you in the company of Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China and Yemen. Is that the kind of company you want to keep?

Maj. Peter Kees Hamstra is in the Royal Dutch Army. Leif Ohlson is in the Swedish Armed Forces. Lt. Com. Craig Jones is retired from the Royal Navy of Britain.

Sounds about right to me.

 

[Danube]

"Moral opposition to homosexuality, while real, is just not allowed to undercut our militaries' missions"

And we know how seriously they take those.

​

 

[Double Trouble]

I don't give a shit what foreign military members or people think about our policy or if it "puts them off" or not. The only thing that matters to me is "what makes our military the most effective fighting force" -- I don't give a damn who gets offended or who doesn't like it or gets in a tizzy. Screw them. If the military concludes that having gays serving in the military makes it more effective, then let them in. If not, not. The military is not about political correctness, it's about accomplishing a mission.

 

[CitizenKain]

I don't give a shit what foreign military members or people think about our policy or if it "puts them off" or not. The only thing that matters to me is "what makes our military the most effective fighting force" -- I don't give a damn who gets offended or who doesn't like it or gets in a tizzy. Screw them. If the military concludes that having gays serving in the military makes it more effective, then let them in. If not, not. The military is not about political correctness, it's about accomplishing a mission.

Soldiers aren't man enough to serve with openly gay people I guess.

 

[Elfear]

For me it's the same issue as asking the female soldiers to let the male soldiers bunk near them and shower with them. You're just going to make people feel uncomfortable with their fellow soldiers which will end up affecting the ability of the team to accomplish the mission.

 

[Martin]

I don't give a shit what foreign military members or people think about our policy or if it "puts them off" or not. The only thing that matters to me is "what makes our military the most effective fighting force" -- I don't give a damn who gets offended or who doesn't like it or gets in a tizzy. Screw them. If the military concludes that having gays serving in the military makes it more effective, then let them in. If not, not. The military is not about political correctness, it's about accomplishing a mission.

Yeah. And if using foreign-born orphans as human shields makes them more effective, they should certainly start using them. After all, the military isn't there to worry about morals, ethics or reflecting the values of the their country - that's just plain ghey!

 

[Kirby]

Maj. Peter,...hehe....

 

[ayabe]

For me it's the same issue as asking the female soldiers to let the male soldiers bunk near them and shower with them. You're just going to make people feel uncomfortable with their fellow soldiers which will end up affecting the ability of the team to accomplish the mission.

Both sexual assault and inappropriate hetero relationships are a much bigger problem than having a gay guy in your platoon. Supposedly this was rampant in Iraq for years, not sure if they've gotten a handle on it.

 

[Throckmorton]

Soldiers aren't man enough to serve with openly gay people I guess.

I'm not. Gays are the population with the highest rate of HIV. What if one of them bleeds into my mouth or eye?

 

[ayabe]

I'm not. Gays are the population with the highest rate of HIV. What if one of them bleeds into my mouth or eye?

Don't forget about tears, especially because they're always crying, amirite?

 

[Shilohen]

I don't give a shit what foreign military members or people think about our policy or if it "puts them off" or not. The only thing that matters to me is "what makes our military the most effective fighting force" -- I don't give a damn who gets offended or who doesn't like it or gets in a tizzy. Screw them. If the military concludes that having gays serving in the military makes it more effective, then let them in. If not, not. The military is not about political correctness, it's about accomplishing a mission.

Then http://www.palmcenter.org/publicati..._say_about_impact_openly_gay_service_military

 

[TheBDB]

I'm not. Gays are the population with the highest rate of HIV. What if one of them bleeds into my mouth or eye?

Everyone gets tested for HIV...

 

[Elias824]

I'm not. Gays are the population with the highest rate of HIV. What if one of them bleeds into my mouth or eye?

Im pretty sure they dont let people with aids into the military regardless of if they are gay or not. Its a pretty serious medical condition that would inhibit their ability to operate in the field.

 

[her209]

For me it's the same issue as asking the female soldiers to let the male soldiers bunk near them and shower with them. You're just going to make people feel uncomfortable with their fellow soldiers which will end up affecting the ability of the team to accomplish the mission.

What!?!? Gays don't exist in the military and therefore cannot look at your wiener while you shower in front of them.

 

[HumblePie]

Im pretty sure they dont let people with aids into the military regardless of if they are gay or not. Its a pretty serious medical condition that would inhibit their ability to operate in the field.

^ This.. Wow, Throck talk about stupid strawman fear.

I was in the military and could care less if someone I was serving with was gay or not. It just doesn't matter when your life is on the line. I have more problems with the military letting in convicted felons by giving them get out free jail cards than with gays. Most of the judicial problems they have are because of low life scum no matter their orientation, race, or sex. I rather see a gay guy in the military with a sense of honor than someone trying to get out of not being in prison for the next 5 years instead. Talk about a screwed up moral compass.

 

[Double Trouble]

Then http://www.palmcenter.org/publicati..._say_about_impact_openly_gay_service_military

That's meaningless drivel. For starters, they include stuff about foreign military experience, which means nothing as it relates to the US armed services. Then, they have a bunch of stuff basically saying "we don't have significant evidence to support the contention that having gays serving in the military is bad". Where's the data that shows that allowing gays to serve in the military is going to make it a more effective fighting force?

I say leave it up to the military leadership -- they are in charge of making it the best fighting unit possible. Political correctness be damned.

From everything I've read, I don't see any particular reason not to allow gays to serve, and it appears military command is leaning that way. Still, it should be a military decision, not a political one. Also, I don't think having openly gay members serving is a problem -- they are in every other facet of society and it doesn't appear to be an issue -- as long as they don't start adding more politically correct bullshit like "oh no, Bob said something offensive".

 

[Fear No Evil]

I guess we'll take Britain's advice when they give their citizens the right to free speech. The Dutch and the Swedes? When's the last major conflict they were involved with? WW II? Whats next, the Chinese lecturing us on human rights? Oh wait...

 

[werepossum]

I don't give a shit what foreign military members or people think about our policy or if it "puts them off" or not. The only thing that matters to me is "what makes our military the most effective fighting force" -- I don't give a damn who gets offended or who doesn't like it or gets in a tizzy. Screw them. If the military concludes that having gays serving in the military makes it more effective, then let them in. If not, not. The military is not about political correctness, it's about accomplishing a mission.

This. The military was racially integrated before the country as a whole, and is perfectly capable of determining when openly gay service members can serve without a negative effect.

Also, this is a group of openly gay officers within our allies' armed forces; it is not the allies themselves, nor any other group without a dog in the fight.

 

[theeedude]

This policy is going to be overturned eventually, the sky will not fall, and supporters of it will be looked at as bigots and/or idiots.

 

[MJinZ]

I don't give a shit what foreign military members or people think about our policy or if it "puts them off" or not. The only thing that matters to me is "what makes our military the most effective fighting force" -- I don't give a damn who gets offended or who doesn't like it or gets in a tizzy. Screw them. If the military concludes that having gays serving in the military makes it more effective, then let them in. If not, not. The military is not about political correctness, it's about accomplishing a mission.

We should just kick out all the women right now because as we all know, women are physically less strong and are always wanting babies.

 

[Fear No Evil]

This policy is going to be overturned eventually, the sky will not fall, and supporters of it will be looked at as bigots and/or idiots.

Bigots like Bill Clinton?

 

[theeedude]

Bigots like Bill Clinton?

Is he now against repealing it and allowing gays to serve openly?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Is he now against repealing it and allowing gays to serve openly?

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) is the nickname for the policy stated within Defense Directive 1304.26, issued by President Bill Clinton late in 1993." -Wikipedia

 

[shiner]

If someone wants to serve in the military who the fuck cares if they are gay or straight? Seriously....who the fuck cares? Can someone who is gay do the job required? Yes, then STFU because that is all that really matters.

Fuck people are so god damned stupid sometimes.....well most of the time...come on asteroid!!!!!!!!

 

[Patranus]

Maybe U.S. allies should be left to their own devices and be forced to build their own armies.