Do Ask Congress, Do Tell the Military... It's Time for a Change

The WashPo had an article that focused on one particular Air Force pilot, Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, who is awaiting a policy change regarding gays in the military. The airman -- who has nine Air Medals, including one for heroism under fire during an enemy ambush near Baghdad in 2003 --was outed by a civilian. 

He faces dismissal which means he will lose nearly $50,000 a year in retirement pay as well as medical benefits. Fehrenbach is more disappointed that he will be unable to serve the country in a time of war. "It doesn't make sense to throw out someone who's ready, willing and able," he said. 

He was hopeful with Obama's election that the policy would change, but the President has backed down from campaign promises. He's probably shrinking away for political reasons. He doesn't want more controversy with everything else going on right now.

The President has mentioned conducting a study. Which according to this article, has already been done -- more than once -- with the conclusion that changing the policy will not adversely affect morale.

An excerpt:

Professor Diane Mazur, a former Air Force officer who teaches at the University of Florida and who has published widely on gays in the military, added that “every research study published over the last fifteen years has concluded that military readiness is not harmed — and may be strengthened — when all qualified Americans can serve and no one has to live in secrecy.”

The article also points out that "conducting a study" is usually code for "delaying and killing."

I believe BO should not make an executive order, but he should urge Congress to take action soon. Because this is a change that should not be a mandate from any President. It should come from Congress --those who represent the citizens of this nation -- which will give it more legitimacy.

Yes, I know there are still strong opponents. Yes, I recognize that the military brass should generally be the ones who make policy decisions. AND it's about time that everyone acknowledges that a person's sexual orientation has nothing to do with their ability to serve.

The argument is that gays in the military are a disruption. In fact, the airman was charged with "damaging good order and discipline." How is that so, when he served in an exemplary manner for 18 years? It seems the supposed disruption only happened when his orientation was revealed by an outsider.

Nothing changed except the presumed reaction of those around him. Seems to me -- if any problem even exists --it's their problem -- they are the source of the disruption, not Fehrenbach.

If the compromise needs to be that it's taken on a case by case basis -- I think that's fair enough. But the burden of proof should be on the military to prove that the person's behavior or actions was the problem -- not the biases of those who serve with them. Anyone who has a problem can be reassigned.

There's no compelling reason to dismiss good men and women who just want to preserve our freedoms. It's time for Congress to act and change this archaic policy.

Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach

Comments

[ChunLing]

The "Don't Ask don't Tell" policy is probably the worst possible compromise position. Officially sanctioned uncertainty about the sexuality of your comrades in arms is generally worse for unit cohesion and morale than actually knowing certain buddies are homosexual.

Heh heh...gotta tell the "Black Stallion" story sometime. That one involved an Air Force officer too...there are a lot of reasons Army guys already don't like Air Force brass, so it isn't like that sort of thing makes a big difference...when it's just an Air Force guy.

But...it isn't always a joking matter. If you want to kick all "homophobes" out of the military, that's fine. It just means that you'll have a 90% force reduction among combat units. Or you can kick out homosexuals, with a less than 1% force reduction in those units. But asking homophobes and homosexuals to get along under high stress situations which involve sharply limited privacy and lethal weapons...you might think "Americans don't act that way". Good for you. But if you're serious about keeping that true, you have to think seriously about what goes into insuring that American soldiers behave differently.

Or, given that you've already decided to lose this war anyway, you could just save a lot of money by disbanding the military entirely.

[Colette Moran]

I'm leaving this comment -- although I fear exactly what the "Black Stallion" story is (I'm afraid I don't want to know -- I'm thinking you can just not tell it, ChunLing).

It is clear to me that you did not read the linked story re: the studies done about this issue. The studies do not predict a reduced force, but a larger one.

Women in the military have a lot more to fear from straight male colleagues -- as is evidenced by the rampant sexual assaults and harassment -- than men or women need to fear from homosexuals. And yet women still choose to serve.

So, are you honestly going to tell me that "homophobes" will leave in droves? (I did not say that they should be kicked out -- I suggested reassignment.) Or that "phobes" will not enlist for fear of being around homosexuals?

THe studies say you are wrong. And since you are no fan of "DADT" either -- just what solution do you suggest? Going back to the old policy? Talk about a joke!

(And btw I proudly call myself a "security mom" -- in no way have I "decided to lose this war" -- you are blowing smoke on that one!)

[ChunLing]

Sorry, I didn't mean you personally. But America has, on the whole, not decided to win. And that is, by default, deciding to lose. This is not always the wrong decision. After all, in most wars, eventually one side has to decide that surrender is the best remaining option. Which is part of the calculus of victory for the other. If you are not willing to reduce the enemies options to the point where surrender is likely to be their best choice, then you are not fighting to win. And if you are not fighting to win, one must question why you are bothering to fight at all.

I do ask that question, given American military policies and the nature of the debate behind them. The 'gender policies' of your military are among the reasons I wonder why America even bothers to declare wars, but they are not all or even most of the problem.

The claim that any "study" shows that you will have a more effective (or even larger) force if you allow open homosexuality in your military has to be examined with a critical eye. What was the nature of the study? Did it consist of statements collected from a group of individuals who are under considerable social and career pressure to give the non-"homophobic" answer? Or did it consist of actual combat units which included homosexuals serving openly in various capacities? Or, just possibly, did it consist of a group of "gender studies" experts sitting around considering various paper scenarios? Whatever the nature of the study, do the conclusions follow the data (assuming any data was collected, which is no longer the norm), or is the data massaged to permit the conclusions? Reluctance to discuss these points should always make one suspicious of any purported 'study'. Bad science happens. Good scientists know this, and make an active effort to root it out.

The "Black Stallion" story is rather innocuous compared to what you're imagining, I think. But I won't tell it, if you don't want to know. It merely illustrates, in a very lighthearted and mild setting, some of the problems that can arise in a military setting.

To avoid the politically and personally charged question of homophobia (I have dealt with homosexual advances myself, but still feel no inclination to judge others), perhaps it would be useful to talk about a bit of military science that is more interesting and less controversial.

America's military abandoned the draft, not because of political considerations, but based on pure military science. It turns out that, when one analyzed combat effectiveness of historic units at the individual level, about 12% of the soldiers did almost all of the damage to the enemy. And these soldiers shared a set of qualities which included a spirit of voluntary service. They generally either volunteered to serve or volunteered for combat duty. These soldiers also had lower logistical costs, requiring less medical attention and being more conservative of equipment and even food. They were more likely to help their fellow soldiers, not only in combat, but in auxiliary tasks. They were also less likely to commit crimes (possibly a result of being too busy already).

The conclusions of studying this group of individuals compared to the typical draftee was that all the military effectiveness was produced by these volunteers. When you separated them out, draftees actually inflicted greater costs on the army attempting to use them than on the enemy. Which makes it obvious that you shouldn't even bother to field them. And so the military changed policy.

This was not an entirely popular decision. If you look at the popular thought about the draft at the time (and some of this survives today), it was generally believed that relying on volunteers would be unfair, or dangerous, or both. The popular idea was that men who would volunteer for combat were criminal or insane (an idea that still has surprising currency in some circles), and that reluctant soldiers were necessary to protect democracy. The anti-war crowd realized that a draft is always their strongest argument.

More important than the public resistance was the military culture. The entire institutional cultures of the U.S. Army and Navy are still based on treating enlisted soldiers like draftees rather than volunteers, decades after the draft was abandoned. At the time, the officer corps strongly favored the draft as an essential tool of force management. And yet, the science was just that persuasive. Draftees cost far more than they were worth. So the draft was abandoned.

The point here is that the motivation for that decision wasn't anyone's feelings about the draft (or draftees). The decision was made based on a desire to win wars. The science was real science based on real data from actual combat. It was not "data" based on desired "science". And, of course, the elimination of the draft did not change the military culture very much, or possibly at all. Enlistees are still generally trained and deployed as if they were draftees, with a dramatic reduction in their effectiveness.

[Colette Moran]

Ok! Trying to write a quick response...

You don't have to tell me about junk science -- global warming, anyone? But the quote above says *every* study in the past 15 years has come to the same conclusion. Granted, I'm taking that woman's word for it (and/or trusting the investigative lengths the author of the article took in checking what she said).

And at this point, I'm going to take your word on the draft issue. (You don't cite any sources, but it sounds reasonable enough.) And I'm also going to assume that *every single* study about gays in the military was not "data based on desired science" -- I find it highly unlikely that every study would be suspect.

But of course -- knowing for sure would involve time I don't have. If you can name a source that has proved otherwise, then we can end what is pure speculation on your part, made by drawing a comparison that may or may not be relevant.

As always, I have to admit, I'm no expert and that I feel I am a provider of food for thought and encouragement to seek more info on topics -- hence the name of this blog...

[ChunLing]

If every study comes to the same conclusion, then there's something fundamentally wrong. Not just with the studies themselves, but with the system being used to decide on those studies. The Spartans were much admired by the other Greeks, but there was one particular aspect of their culture which inspired derision and ridicule. The Spartans claimed not to permit homosexuality. Obviously, the judgment of history is that the Spartans were just complete hypocrites, since it is wildly impossible that any Greek culture of that period could have rejected homosexual conduct.

But that aspect of the Spartan's history was largely written by the other Greeks. Their only evidence that the Spartans must have secretly been as homosexual as everyone else was their own cultural imagination.

So, do the Spartans go in the "homosexuality is good for a military" column or not? Here making the completely unjustified leap of assuming that any of the recent studies have used any historical data at all. But I'm illustrating a basic problem with almost all "gender studies".

I served (well, enlisted) in the military, and I have family currently serving, and a high percentage of the people with whom I have friendly relations have military experience. In practice, suspicion that a barracks mate might be a psychopath is less destructive of unit cohesion than suspicion about his sexual orientation. I do not know if this holds true for females (given the general attitudes of female soldiers towards sexuality I suspect it does not), but females do not comprise any significant portion of the combat forces. There are reasons for this, which are possibly outside the scope of the current post but not unrelated to the topic as a whole.

More generally, when someone makes a claim in support of overthrowing an existing system, it is up to that person to provide evidence (not mere assertions about the existence of such evidence) in support of that claim. Before I take apart my lawn-mower, I require evidence that something is wrong with the lawn-mower which I am likely to be capable of fixing (or that the lawn-mower has something inside it which I want more than I want an intact lawn-mower).

These people want to make dramatic changes in your military. There are three essential aspects of a nation. You need a national culture, language, customs, values. You need a place to live and work. And you need some means of defending yourselves from those who would kill you. So a military is pretty important--it may not be the most important thing, but everything else depends on it. Therefore, if people wants to tinker with it, the burden of proof falls on them.

"I have proof" is not proof. Show me the study, show me the methodology, show me the data.

Or not. Your politicians have decided not to use the military in any way that would actually protect your country, so it isn't that big a deal if you let some idiots break it.

[Colette Moran]

So, your anecdotal experiences in what you think is the mindset of your friends and family and their cohorts who are currently serving -- that has more weight than actual studies because anything that comes up the same every time has to be "fundamentally wrong"?

Questioning their methodology is understandable, but to condemn them outright is not logical.

You're telling me that men tough enough to serve in the military are more scared of -- what, *brushing up against* a gay man? -- than they are of having a psychopath turn their weapon and start firing on them?

Forgive me if I'm more than a little skeptical!

And what are you talking about when you say "your politicians"?

[ChunLing]

Hey...it's what I've observed from personal experience with military guys. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the responses to various situations I've seen. But I'd like a study that comes to a different conclusion to have at least as much evidence as I can personally recount from my own experiences. Or any evidence at all, for that matter.

I could claim to have done a study, but I won't. I don't know how closely you've examined the details of how things often work in the humanities, but there's a reason the other scientists tend to look down on social sciences. A huge amount of "ground-breaking new science" in the humanities is...well, completely made up. "Gender studies" (which should properly have something to do with cognitive linguistics, but almost never does) is one of the worst fields on a very screwy plantation.

But yeah, soldiers see a guy licking blood off a knife, and it makes 'em raise an eyebrow. But they still can trust that guy in a foxhole. They see a guy licking sweat off another guy...and it's totally different. I don't really know the specifics of how that works, but I do realize that it's different from how civilians usually look at things. Not that I claim to understand how civilians think either.

By "your politicians" I refer to the folks that you vote for and then obey the laws they make. You know, the people 'serving' in elected office. The ones that make decisions about what orders to give your military. Said orders being to avoid doing anything that might let your military actually win.

Anyway, like I said, if you want to exercise authority, order people (even soldiers) what to do, then it's incumbent on you to provide some persuasive evidence backing what you say. It's a pretty basic principle...restate it as "if you want to persuade us, you'll need to be persuasive", and it becomes a tautology. We commonly think of tautologies as being not worth the trouble of asserting, but only because it is usually supposed that nobody is going to contradict something so obvious.

And yet, here we are talking about this.