Problems with Homosexuality in the United States Armed Forces - Essay Example

Introduction: People who oppose homosexuality, and they are a large group will raise their hands in acknowledgement of the work done by the undisclosed homosexuals who have fought bravely and without any hesitance for their country. General Colin Powell is of the opinion vis-à-vis gay service members that they are a bunch of pleasing, courageous, trustworthy and first-rate American citizens who have served their country well in the past and who have attended to their country with immense competence in the past and continue to do so today. The fact that gay men and women have served their country wonderfully in the past and are striving hard to continue in the same vein in the present leading up to the future is a fact that is also acknowledged by General H. Norman Schwartzkopf. However, the problem that these opponents face, not necessarily citing the aforementioned personal as members of the group of opponents is the notion whether the productivity of heterosexual people will be in any way adversely affected by the presence of these homosexuals in their ranks. This fact is largely based on the apprehension amongst all that allowing homosexuals to serve side by side in the country will only contrive in augmenting the levels of discomfort of the scores of heterosexuals who are serving in the army. This discomfort on the part of the heterosexuals will only lead to the sad demise of the paradigm of “unit cohesion” i.e. everyone serving in a unit is treated on the same scale and as one entity regardless of their race, gender, ethnicity etc; and this paradigm of governance is extremely important for the purpose of successful soldiering. Now, the proposition of the notion that these fears are responsible for the creation of a type of an unspoken, unwritten policy of preferential hiring and specific exclusion based on factors that should not be present for the process of recruitment would certainly seem to be a bit unfair at this point. However, we will tackle this problem from this exact viewpoint in order to ascertain whether there is any reason to believe in the truth of this statement. For this matter, we will also look at the empirical example of the military of four countries i.e. Britain, Australia, Israel and Canada and try to extrapolate any inferences for our specific case. Fifteen years ago, President Bill Clinton, the US Congress, and most of the nation were debating about whether self-proclaimed gays and lesbians could serve in the US military or not. Having promised in his campaign to extend this civic right to gays and lesbians, Clinton faced a difficult challenge when he tried to fulfill his pledge, opposed as he was by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and prominent members of Congress, like Senator Sam Nunn. Although their opposition, Clinton pressed on, and on 29 January 1993, he suspended the former policy that banned gay and lesbian personnel from service outright. Launched by President Carter and carried out by President Reagan, this policy had been under attack by gay and lesbian military personnel since its beginning as prejudiced, and Clinton intended to draw up a new policy that would be more tolerant of sexual minorities in the US military and preserve military effectiveness. Over the next six months, Congress held many hearings on this issue and finally included a new policy on homosexual soldiers in the 1994 National Defense Authorization Act, commonly referred to as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Billed by many as a compromise, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has been the subject of much criticism by both experts and activists, who view it as an imperfect solution to the problem it tried to solve ten years ago. In many ways, it was a politically expeditious policy that pleased no-one, and on its fifteen-year anniversary, perhaps revision and evaluation because of the impressive number of evidence that many scholars and experts have gathered about this issue meanwhile. (Halley, 1999) According to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” U.S. armed forces did not recruit known homosexuals. In complete contrast to the precious policy, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” leaves the sexual preferences of new recruits unknown but does also specify that personnel who reveal their sexual preferences are subject to dismissal. The official justification for the current policy is the unit cohesion reason, which states that military performance would decline if known homosexual and heterosexual soldier served side by side in uniform. Despite the constant debate vis-à-vis the effects of lifting this ban on military performance, the facts unearthed from studies on foreign militaries imply that lifting bans on homosexual personnel has not effect on unit cohesion or military performance. As imperfect an analogy as these countries’ experience may be to the United States, they serve as the best possible vantage point from which to evaluate the applicability and need of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Currently, 24 nations allow gays and lesbians to serve in their armed forces, and only a few NATO members continue to fire homosexual soldiers. In spite of the fact that countries are increasingly deciding to allow homosexuals in the military, the correlation of lifting this ban and military performance is still unknown. Little evidence is at the crux of the best and most recent case studies of foreign militaries as researchers wrote most of these because of the immediate outcomes of a decision to lift a gay ban without waiting for evidence on the affects of the new policy to amass. (Belkin, 2003) The lack of analysis of foreign experiences in lifting bans on homosexual personnel prompted the Centre for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military (CSSMM) looked at four cases in detail: Britain, Australia, Israel and Canada. The cases were specifically chosen in light of the massive up rise that followed the lifting of the ban of homosexuals from joining the military; also because the societal norms and culture of the test cases and the U.S. is quite similar; because the Israel Defense Forces are on the best worldwide; and because Britain’s policy was the same as the U.S.’s before they decided to lift the ban. To prepare the case studies, the researchers of these studies interviewed every identifiable pro-gay and antigay expert on the policy change in each country, including officers and enlisted personnel, ministry representatives, academics, veterans, politicians, and nongovernmental observers. During each interview, the interviewers asked experts to recommend more contacts; after which, the researchers contact and interviewed these sources. By the end of the research, there were a total number of 104 interviews and these researchers also complete a thorough review of 622 documents and articles. Although possibly more data exist, CSSMM believes the findings reflect a comprehensive appraisal of all relevant evidence. (Belkin, 2003) Cases of Australia, Canada, Israel, and Britain: Each of the four countries studied reversed its gay ban for different reasons. The ban in Britain was lifted as their justice system ruled that this ban when against the right of privacy that was guaranteed to its citizens by the European Convention on Human Rights. Australia’s lifting of the ban was an act to integrate international human rights conventions into the local constitution. In Canada, the justice system pushed the military into lifting the ban in October 1992, as in their view, it was in direct disregard of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Israel lifted its ban in June 1993 after public outcry over the famous Knesset hearings. Regardless of the direction routes these countries took the final destination, the effects encountered by each were of the same genre. (Belkin, 2003) Effects of the change in policy: Not a single one of the 104 experts interviewed believed the Australian, Canadian, Israeli, or British decisions to lift their gay bans undermined military performance, readiness, or coherence, led to increased difficulties in recruiting or retention, or increased the rate of HIV infection among the troops. In a 1985 survey of 6,500 male soldiers, the Canadian Department of National Defense found that 62 per cent of male service members would refuse to share showers, undress, or sleep in the same room as a gay soldier, and that 45 per cent would refuse to work with gays. A survey of 13,500 British military personnel conducted in 1996 came up with the conclusion that two-thirds of male respondents would be hesitant in serving if they had to serve with recognized homosexuals. However, none of this happened when the ban was actually lifted in Britain and in Canada for that matter. In Australia, Commodore R. W. Gates, whose rank equals a one-star admiral, remarked lifting the ban was in his opinion a complete impossibility. Professor Hugh Smith, a leading academic expert on homosexuality in the Australian military, noted that when the government ordered the military to lift the ban, some officers said were so adamant against change that they were happier in resigning than in serving with homosexuals. However, Smith said there were no such departures and soldiers accepted the change in “true military tradition.” Bronwen Grey, an official in the Australian Defense Ministry, reported that were no complains lodged by either of the groups against each other, there were no act acts of violence nor there was a drop in the number of people who wanted to enlist in the army. (Shilts, 1993) In Canada, Steve Leveque, a civilian official in the Department of National Defense, commented that including gays and lesbians in the Canadian Forces has not brought a significant change in the Canadian military to the extent that in the daily running of matters, there has hardly been any change at all. A 1995 internal report from the Canadian government on lifting the ban finished by saying that in spite all the apprehension through the late 80s into the early 90s vis-à-vis the change in policy, In reality, there was absolutely no effect on the indicators. In Israel, Stuart Cohen, a professor at the Center for Strategic Studies and a leading expert on the Israel Defense Forces, remarked that as far as I have been able to tell, homosexuals do not form an issue [about] unit cohesion in the IDF. In fact, the entire subject is trivial vis-à-vis this military. Reuven Gal, the director of the Israeli Institute for Military Studies, wrote, “According to military reports, [homosexuals’] presence, whether openly or clandestinely, has not damaged the morale, cohesion, readiness, or security of any unit.” (Reuven, 1994) An internal government report that evaluated the British change in policy claimed it to be a great achievement with a cheerfully less number of problems. (Belkin, 2003) The assistant chief of the navy staff, Rear-Admiral James Burnell-Nugent agreed saying that despite some did not welcome the change in policy, it has not caused any degree of difficulty. Overall, the report suggests that “there has been a marked lack of reaction” to the issue of including homosexual personnel in the British armed services. This completely coincided with the comments of the interviewees that had been recorded over the research process. These reactions were typical of the comments made during the interviews with politicians, academic experts, non-profit observers, ministry officials, veterans, active-duty officers, and enlisted soldiers. Even the leading opponents of allowing gays into the military settled that lifting the bans did not damage the armed forces. In Australia, for example, representatives for the Returned and Services League, the country’s largest veterans’ group, had previously said that lifting the gay ban would risk morale and military performance. When major general Peter Philips was interviewed in 2000 eight years after the lifting of the ban in Australia, he stated that homosexuals were not ostracized at all, in fact they had become very much the part of the system. The Defense Forces have not had several difficulties in this area.” In addition, our review of 622 documents and articles revealed no evidence that lifting the gay bans undermined military performance, led to difficulties in recruiting or retention, or increased the rate of HIV infection. (Belkin, 2003) Stress on similar treatment for all soldiers: Military leaders of all four countries stressed their expectation of professional conduct from every service member regardless of sexual orientation or personal beliefs about homosexuality. And in each country military leaders issued laws that held heterosexual and homosexual soldiers to the same standards. In Australia, for example, the 1992 Defense Instruction on Discrimination, Harassment, Sexual Offences, Fraternization and other Unacceptable Behavior referred to unacceptable conduct without making a distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Rather than define unacceptable conduct by sexual orientation, the instruction outlawed any sexual behavior that undermined the group or took advantage of subordinates. As one Australian official said, “Our focus is on the work people do, and the way they do the work, and that applies to heterosexuals, bisexuals, and homosexuals.” In each case, although many heterosexual soldiers continue to object to homosexuality, the military’s emphasis on conduct and equal standards was plenty for encouraging service members to work together as a team. As one Canadian military official reported due to the deeply ethical connotation of homosexuality or lack thereof, there was a real impediment of matter. However, he also said that the actual events did not validate the initial anxieties as he remarked that the notions of people vis-à-vis this matter changed when the entire military institution altered its stance on homosexuals. While none of the four militaries studied tries to force its service members to accept homosexuality, all four insist that soldiers avoid from misuse and harassment. The importance given to proper behaviour and equal rights for all was seen as a workable outcome in each situation on conduct and equal standards work. In Australia, for example, 25 out of 1,642 phone calls (1.52 per cent) received on the Defense Ministry’s sexual harassment hot line between 1997 and 2000 involved homosexuality. In Canada, none of the 905 cases of sexual harassment that occurred in the three years after the lifting of the ban involved “gay-bashing” or the sexual orientation of one of the victims. The Israeli experts could only recall a very small number of sexual harassment cases since the lifting of the ban In Britain, none of the interviewed military officials could come up with a single case of gay-bashing or assault related to sexual orientation. (Belkin, 2003) Conclusions: Therefore, we can safely say that the presence of homosexuals in the military does not adversely affect the military at all, therefore, a policy like Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is basically robbing them of life that every homosexual deserves to live with honesty, integrity and no fear of being ostracized. If such a policy is being used a test in order to recruit homosexuals into the military, then this certainly has be demarcated as discrimination against homosexual, hence, the conclusion that can be drawn from this analysis is that this policy is indeed an un-spoken discrimination against homosexuals in their bid to join the military and serve their country. Bibliography: 1. Belkin, Aaron “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Is the Gay Ban Based on Military Necessity?” University of California, Santa Barbara (2003) 2. Shilts, Randy “Conduct Unbecoming: Gays and Lesbians in the U.S. Military” New York: St. Martin’s Press (1993) 3. Halley, Janet E. “Don’t: A Reader’s Guide to the Military’s Anti-Gay Policy” Durham, N.C.: Duke Univ. Press. (1999) 4. Reuven Gal, “Gays in the Military: Policy and Practice in the Israeli Defense Forces,” in Gays and Lesbians in the Military: Issues, Concerns, and Contrasts, ed.W. J. Scott and S. C. Stanley, New York: Aldine de Gruyter (1994) Read More