The Next Frontier: Gays in the Military

By Grace Vuoto

President Barack Obama has pledged to continue to make his administration a transformational one: His next major endeavor will be to revolutionize our armed forces.

In a speech to about 3,000 gays, lesbians and their supporters on Saturday, Oct. 10 at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay civil rights advocacy group, the president repeated the promise he made on the campaign trail in 2008: “I will end ‘don't ask-don't tell,’” he said to a rapturous crowd and a standing ovation.

Mr. Obama did not provide a timeline for the intended change to the 1993 law that bans gays from serving openly in the armed forces. Yet there is no doubt that he means what he says. In the forthcoming year, he hopes to enact his radical agenda on the world’s most effective fighting force—regardless of the fact that the majority of the members of the armed forces, even the younger generation who have enlisted in the past decade, are opposed to the change.

The president is under increasing pressure to uphold his pledge. Gays and lesbians have been among his most stalwart supporters, have filled his campaign coffers and are now growing impatient by his inaction. Mr. Obama reassured them that he remains committed to their cause.

“I appreciate that many of you don’t believe progress has come fast enough,” he said. “Do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach.”

On Sunday, the day after his speech, thousands participated in the National Equality March in the nation’s capital, demanding full civil rights for gays and lesbians. Many in the crowd said the president is not securing the rights he promised in an expeditious manner. They are calling for full federal equality regarding marriage, adoption, the workplace and the military. 

The president is now between a rock and a hard place. He is well aware that the majority of active duty members reject lifting the ban. He needs a strong, united military to conclude the vexing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and cannot afford a major upheaval now. Yet the left flank will not relent for long. For now, he can only continue to make grandiose speeches and stall for time.

The facts, however, are little different than in 1993 and will remain unchanged throughout the president’s term. The military community has expressed itself unequivocally this year in two major incidents. On March 31, more than 1,100 retired admirals and generals, known as The Flag and General Officers of the Military, delivered an open letter to the White House and Congress expressing their disapproval of any changes to the existing law. The Center for Military Readiness (CMR), a nonprofit organization specializing in military personnel policies, was active in the campaign. The petition said:

“We believe that imposing this burden on our men and women in uniform would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all levels, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the all-volunteer force. ... Forcing soldiers to live so closely with openly gay troops for months at a time does hurt morale and cohesion."

Among those who signed the petition are 51 four-star generals. Hence, changes to the policy are alarming to many of America’s leading military figures—individuals with a proven record of success and who have intimate knowledge of the armed forces. The petition cannot be easily dismissed by the Commander-in-Chief if he expects to be taken seriously about being effective in battle.

In addition, an online poll conducted by the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) this year also had conclusive results: the majority of active-duty service members oppose integrating gays openly in the military. MOAA is the nation's largest association of military officers, with over 370, 000 members.

The poll of 1,664 respondents revealed that active duty members, including those younger than 45, do not condone changes to the current legislation: 16 percent said the current law is working, 31 percent said it should be repealed to allow all individuals to serve regardless of sexual orientation, and 52 percent supported "an outright ban on military service by homosexuals." Thus, 68 percent want either the status quo or even stronger restrictions against homosexuals. The MOAA poll was initially posted on their Web site and then removed; a source who leaked the information said some members of MOAA disagree with the decision to bury the poll and want the organization to be more vocal on the issue.

Nonetheless, efforts to downplay the poll are fruitless since the MOAA online results are in line with polls conducted by the Military Times four years in a row: In 2008, that poll showed that 58 percent of active-duty respondents oppose repealing the ban and 24 percent of active-duty service members said they would either not or consider not re-enlisting if the policy is repealed. Opponents of repeal insist this loss, amounting to over 750,000 troops, would be devastating to the all-volunteer force.

This means little to the zealots who want change such as Rep. Patrick J. Murphy, Pennsylvania Democrat, who is sponsoring the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009. The bill seeks to repeal the ban. It was introduced in the House in March and has over 180 sponsors. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Armed Services and the Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Congressional leaders are expecting its passage in 2010.

Advocates insist it is in the national interest of America to integrate gays in the military since vital skills these warriors possess are being squandered. They lament the fact that more than 15,000 openly gay soldiers have been discharged from the armed services since 1993. Some of these individuals had vital skills that, in the view of reformers, have now been wasted.

Advocates for repeal argue that tens of thousands more warriors would join the forces if the ban is lifted, tens of thousands within the forces are under the constant fear of dismissal and that the persecution of gays in the military is a waste of taxpayer dollars. They also maintain that the focus for disciplinary measures should not be on sexual orientation but on sexual misconduct—a standard that must be upheld for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. Proponents of change point out that only the U.S. among NATO nations still prohibits the service of open homosexuals and nations such as Britain and Israel, for example, have effective armies while nonetheless permitting the open participation of gays.

Yet Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, does not accept these arguments and urges Americans to be wary: “It is imperative that the law be defended, since repeal would do great harm to the ‘3 R’s,’ recruiting, retention, and readiness in the only military we have,” she said in a June 14 Newsmax interview.

“Repeal also would do irreparable harm to the culture of the military, which depends on high morale, discipline, and unit cohesion based on mutual trust. Introducing unprecedented, demoralizing sexual tension into all military units, including Marine and Army infantry, Special Operations Forces, Navy SEALS and submarines, would be tantamount to forcing military women to live constantly with men in conditions of little or no privacy,” Mrs. Donnelly said.

She regards the issue as part of a larger pattern of the president’s degradation of American traditions.

“Obama is wrecking many institutions of American life —we cannot let him wreck the culture of the military too,” she said.

The president has already demonstrated that he is animated by a revolutionary zeal to “change” America. He has expanded and continues to expand the size and scope of the federal government. On the world stage, he is a relentless appeaser who has thus far made concessions without gaining concomitant provisions in America’s national interest.

His policies are effete, both at home and abroad: He is rendering Americans more dependent on the government and gradually pairing down our super-power status. Ultimately, he wants a weaker population and a diminished nation.

For Mr. Obama, it is more important to enact his radical ideology than to uphold the current power and strength of the military: It is more important to him to satisfy his left flank than to shore up American forces.

By persisting in his promise to repeal the ban despite the objections of the troops, the president is also showing that he is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces in name only: it is not the military that he seeks to lead for he evidently cares little for its opinion and the concerns of its members. He is, after all, the magician who has come to remake the world. As he pledges to dismantle the pillars of sound military policy, Mr. Obama is endangering the very liberties he thinks he is so gallantly advancing.

-Grace Vuoto is the executive director of the Edmund Burke Institute for American Renewal.