Could Repeal of DADT Put Gay Servicemen, Partners in Jeopardy On Middle East Deployments?
In a brief entry at Newsweek.com entitled "What Repeal Will Mean," Eve Conant fleshes out some of the legal and cultural changes that allowing openly gay servicemen would entail.
For example, how would this impact conservative chaplains whose faith condemns as sinful homosexual practice?
But the last item Conant discussed seemed to me one that I've not heard in any of the coverage I've read or seen thus far:
Gays and lesbians could travel to countries where homosexuality is illegal, with no restrictions on overseas assignments.
They would be briefed on legal risks before deployment, however. Partners traveling overseas would not get legal protections often afforded to opposite-sex spouses. “Our primary objective is repeal,” says Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the gay-advocacy group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. “It’s not politically expedient to insist on getting this perfect from day one.”
As with all public policy, the devil is in the details. Considering that the main theater of combat operations is presently in Islamic countries with very strict penalties for homosexual practice, this matter seems like a valid concern both for the safety of our servicemen and the political and diplomatic sensitivities involved with our allies in the region.
Regardless of where one stands on the issue of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), the media would do a great service to the public debate if it would break down the DADT repeal issue in greater depth rather than simply give a surface level treatment of the issue that traffics in soundbites.
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Crickets will Chirp
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 11:59am.
This gay servicemembers group will be silent on this for now...only when DADT is repealed will they shout from the rafters about extraordinary dangers for gays in Islamic countries, and then they'll demand special rules. Because if it is an issue, it should be a disqualifier from any service!
They don't want equal treament, they want "special class" and special rules. They'll want hate crime statutes and the whole nine yards, forced integration into the family life of the military, etc. (that's my big concern, btw, upon which I've expounded here before).
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
It's possible, I guess.
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 12:19pm.
It's possible, I guess, that repealing DADT would harm our military's reputation in the Middle East and, possibly, interfere with our missions, but, as most of the Middle East already hates us, I don't know how much more harm it would actually cause.
As for the Chaplains, they serve all denominations, so their personal preference and religious beliefs don't matter much. As each are Officers and not enlisted personnel (who must serve a limited enlistment), they could simply resign their Commission if they feel that their duties interfere with their personal beliefs. As they do not serve in combat related positions, or even combat support positions, their resignations won't affect combat effectiveness much. I don't think that many will resign their Commissions, tho.
The biggest threat I see is in the possibility for each "openly" gay man or woman to be approached and recruited to act against the Military and the US in the form of espionage. As most of the world, as well as the majority of Americans in general, actively, and sometime violently, opposes homosexuality, that "personal" information could very well be a good weapon for use as a mean of extortion, just like massive debt or family history, something that we all know is used as a means of coercing espionage. That's WHY no one discusses their financial situations or family backgrounds while serving. Every piece of information about a particular member is military intelligence, a weapon that can be effectively wielded against us. Personal sexual preference is no different
Some people may think that espionage is a minor threat, but it's not. Espionage is one of the biggest threats the military faces, one which cause far more harm to our ability to carry out our missions an any battlefield loss. Wars are won or loss due to espionage, not body counts.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Two ironies here:
Submitted by PolishBear on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 1:02pm.
1: Supporters of DADT are saying it should not be repealed when we are at war. But statistically the rate of discharges under DADT has always been highest during peacetime. Since 1993 the rate of DADT discharges has always gone down when we're at war, presumably because the military needs qualified personnel.
2: When young men between the ages of 18 and 25 register for Selective Service, as they are required by law to do, they are not asked about their sexual orientation. I suspect that if the United States ever finds itself in a major war that requires reinstatement of the draft, Gays in the military will be the LAST of our worries.
In your #2
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 2:43pm.
it's because Selective Service is covered by a civil law, not the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
And, you say discharges under DADT always go down when the U. S. is not engaged in a war, since 1993. Um, DADT has only been law since 1993. Before the passage of DADT, no homosexuals were allowed to serve in the Armed Forces. That's when they could, and did ask.
So, now that we're in a war, we have to retain qualified people. The rest of the time, the military just keeps slackers and unqualified people? Sorry, but I don't see Dan Choi as the poster boy for "qualified".
Qualified personell.
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 9:46pm.
The military always needs qualified personnel, peacetime is no different. The need for qualified personnel is so high that you are tested before you join, you're tested during basic training, you're tested in order to pass basic training, you're tested during AIT (Advanced Individual Training), you're tested in order to pass AIT, and you're tested at least once a year for your particular military specialty just to remain qualified for service. Never mind the fact that you're tested just to advance in rank (once you rise above PFC in the Army), or to receive command authority positions.
Anyone who fails qualification testing during any of these situations has a chance to re-qualify after remedial training. If you fail again, you're OUT! You usually get a general discharge in this case (For The Good Of The Military).
You see, the military is a dangerous occupation both on the battle field and outside the battlefield. The military can't afford to keep unqualified personnel at any time as unqualified people can, and has, gotten people KILLED.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Don't repeal. Ever.
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:51pm.
But if they do, I think the issue of gays and their partners traveling to the Middle East or other countries where public knowledge of their sexual preference might be problematic is a serious concern.
Before every major deployment, you always see a small percentage of those being deployed do whatever they can to get out of it. This happens for a variety of reasons -family issues, medical issues, or other personal issues- and the effect can be taxing on the remaining unit. The military has something called TO (Table of Operations) which refers to the strength of a unit in numbers of personnel at any given time. Rarely, if ever, did I experience the Marine Corps at full TO. As a Howitzer Crew Chief for the M198, we had a TO of 11 men per gun; we usually deployed overseas at 9, but between pumps we were often down to 6 or 7. That was a 15,000 lb weapon that once emplaced, had to be man-handled by the gun crew. Once uncoupled from the 5-ton truck that towed it, we had to spread trails, dig in the spades, and fire the weapon short-staffed; every round of the thousands I fired was done so with a short staff.
So when partners of gay service members point out to the dangers of deploying overseas to certain parts of the world, you'll surely see a greater number of requests for transfers, along with the soon to follow law suits regarding personal protections for partners of service members in hostile locations.
Of course, the whole idea of repeal is a bad idea anyway, and degrading our military is a secondary concern to the left.