Anti-Gay Bigotry and The War Against Terrorism

[trilingual]

The reason we continue to have problems in the U.S. military is precisely because of "don't ask, don't tell." Beyond the fact that there's plenty of inappropriate "asking" going on (witness the Gamble case that sparked this thread) the policy is just a mask for continuing institutionalized prejudice against gays in the U.S. military. In the militaries of countries that have eliminated barriers to gays serving in the armed forces, there have been virtually no reported incidents. In part this has to do with education of the troops and in part because of the rules and expectations of military discipline. You're supposed to be in the military to serve and defend your country, not to attack your own fellow soldiers!

 

In the U.S., unfortunately, there's no such education or expectation. When someone is targeted or attacked because they're gay (or merely perceived as gay) they immediately become victims and "don't ask" goes right out the window. There's also no accountability in the service for such violations. After the hideous incident in which that gay serviceman was bludgeoned to death by his own comrades, there was a complete denial of responsibility by the Army, and nothing whatsoever happened to the command structure at the camp that allowed the homophobic atmosphere to fester, even after being on notice of it.

 

To the contrary, when the U.S. armed forces became fully integrated on racial and gender bases, there were few incidents, and those that did occur mostly were dealt with appropriately, because among other things they undermined unit cohesiveness. Once African-Americans and women were LEGITIMATELY parts of the military, the command structure had no choice but to ensure that they were able to serve unhindered, and that's exactly what they did. Anyone who didn't like the change either got out or sucked it up (and eventually got accustomed to the new situation). But as long as gays can only serve in the U.S. military while they're in the closet, and are effectively only there on sufferance, the current sick scenario will continue unabated. :-(

[Guest newawlens]

>The reason we continue to have problems in the U.S. military

>is precisely because of "don't ask, don't tell."

 

I'm sorry, but there were many such incidents in the U.S. military prior to 'don't ask, etc.,' so it is simply wrong to suggest that that policy is to blame for anti-gay harrassment and related problems.

 

I'm afraid you are trying to take two positions that contradict each other. On the one hand in your previous post you stated that America has a homophobic culture. On the other hand you insist that this homophobic culture would not cause any problems in the military if gay men were allowed to serve openly. There is no way both of those statements can be true. A long history of anti-gay incidents in the military shows that it is when a serviceman is identified by his comrades as gay that the problems arise.

 

> You're supposed to be in the military to serve

>and defend your country, not to attack your own fellow

>soldiers!

 

That is absolutely right. There is no greater evidence of problems with unit cohesion than that members of the same unit, who are supposed to help and protect each other in combat situations, attack each other instead.

 

>But as long

>as gays can only serve in the U.S. military while they're in

>the closet, and are effectively only there on sufferance, the

>current sick scenario will continue unabated.

 

I'm afraid that just as was the case with racial integration of the military, it will take many years of experience with allowing openly gay men to serve before the problems abate. The question is, does our society consider it worthwhile to go through all that in order to reach that goal?

 

I have long been a proponent of allowing openly gay men to serve. Until I read Merlin's post I never thought about the fact he mentioned, which is that gays clearly do not consider it to be a problem to deprive straight men in the military of sexual privacy. I have to admit he is right about that. My hat's off to him for introducing an important issue into an otherwise one-sided discussion.