The Military Should Not Have to ‘Manage’ Unneeded Social Problems

For the past six months a Pentagon working group has been reviewing ways to “manage” unprecedented social problems that the military can and should avoid. If Congress revokes the 1993 law that is usually mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the armed forces will have to recruit and accept professed (not just discreet) homosexuals in all branches and communities of the armed forces.

On August 15 the Defense Department concluded a massive survey sent in July to 400,000 troops, asking about ways to handle problems if Congress acts. Only one in four responded, which is not surprising since the Pentagon survey did not ask the key question: Should Congress retain or repeal the 1993 law? Taking sides, the Obama Administration is not interested in the opinions of personnel who support the status quo.

Even civilians understand this. In a new public opinion survey of likely voters, commissioned by the Military Culture Coalition, 57% of respondents agreed that President Obama’s push for repeal is primarily motivated by politics, not principle. The Commander-in-Chief expects the military to pay the price for his campaign promises to LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) advocates he has twice hosted at White House celebrations of June as “LGBT Equality Month.”

In May the House of Representatives passed legislation to repeal the 1993 law with deceptive “delayed implementation” provisions. If the Senate passes the same “repeal deal” in the pending defense authorization (not appropriations) bill, the administration will order full-scale acceptance of professed lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders in all military units, including infantry battalions, Special Operations Forces, ships, and submarines.

Last February Defense Secretary Robert Gates did not tell the Senate Armed Services Committee that repeal of the law would benefit the armed forces. Instead, he testified, “We have received our orders from the commander in chief and we are moving out accordingly.” Moving out to go where?

Secretary Gates established a working group to come up with plans to “mitigate” ensuing problems, “if any.” The understatement was naïve at best, since military commanders will have to deal with a host of new sexual tension and misconduct issues in addition to those already occurring. Absent current law, deployed personnel living for many months in close quarters with little or no privacy will have to accept exposure to others of the same sex who might be sexually attracted to them.

There is no dispute about this. LGBT advocates insist they will not accept “separate but equal” accommodations for openly lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered persons applying or re-applying to serve on a retroactive basis. Nor would separate quad-sexual-orientation living quarters be practical in deployed combat units and ships, including submarines.

In the annual 2009 Military Times poll, only 30% of active-duty respondents said they would be “comfortable” with such arrangements in private areas such as showers. In the same poll, 58% expressed discomfort with privacy violations, but they would have no recourse except to decline re-enlistment. Many potential recruits would avoid the military all together.

Unlike previous polls of civilians, the MCC survey of likely voters asked questions about advocacy group recommendations that are supposed to make the new policy “work.” For example, under “zero tolerance” policies involving “carrots” and “sticks,” military promotions would be contingent on full support of the new LGBT policy.  Officials enforcing recommended “strong sanctions for noncompliance” would deny promotions to men and women who disagree for any reason, including religious conviction. In the military, denied promotions end careers.

The MCC survey found that 52% of likely voters opposed the imposition of career-ending penalties against military personnel and chaplains who do not support homosexuality. In addition, 55% of respondents opposed modified training and education programs to enforce acceptance of openly lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons in the military.

On the legislation itself, the MCC survey found that 48% of likely voters (67% Republican and 47% Independent) preferred maintaining the law. The overall 45% level of support for repeal was 30 points less than the 75% figure claimed in the March 2010 ABC News/Washington Post poll of adults. Even if the gap were half that size, the difference suggests there is no public consensus for overturning the law.

Congress should know that 57% of military personnel and family members randomly surveyed by the Military Culture Coalition favored the current law. This percentage is almost identical to the annual Military Times poll of active-duty subscriber/respondents four years running (2005-2008).

In 2009, 1,167 retired flag and general officers, including 51 former four-stars, personally signed a statement to President Obama recommending retention of the current law. Our forces are at war and the Pentagon’s review is incomplete. Nevertheless, the House hastily voted for repeal over the objection of the four service chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.

Even if the working group’s December report endorses LGBT recommendations, it will be interesting to see how the Pentagon plans to overcome the normal human desire for modesty and privacy in sexual matters. This goal is inappropriate for the military and unlikely to succeed.

Instead of forcing unnecessary problems on the military, members of Congress should take this issue seriously.  Combined voluntary and involuntary losses of careerists in communities, grades, and skills that are not easily replaceable could break the All-Volunteer Force. As a matter of national security, Congress should retain the 1993 law.