The study surveyed military personnel who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan and found that having a gay or lesbian colleagues in their unit had no significant impact on their unit's cohesion or readiness. The study, by researchers from the RAND Corporation and the University of Florida, was published online by the journal Armed Forces and Society.Just great. I think I only have a paper subscription to that journal.
Those of you who are interested in sociology and interested in the US military might consider joining IUS and reading their journal.
* * * * *
But, back to DADT, someone came up with an interesting idea. I put it out here, confident that the idea will die before it gets a fair hearing. But, the author is thinking and innovating and I like that.Don't Ask, Don't Tell or Serve Openly: Let the Tribe SpeakNo, we will not be holding the vote at this blog site. But, I would be interested in thoughts about the idea.
It has been my feeling that for a while now the biggest issue with homosexual personnel hasn't been so much that they were homosexual but that "Change" in policy around this issue was always being pushed from the outside by civilians.
As we know, the armed forces are largely an enclosed society, part of, but distinctly separate from civilian society as a whole.
It has very unique social and moral parameters and bottom lines that differ from the rest of the nation. No one at Citibank, Wal-Mart, ACE Hardware or TGI Fridays is being asked to risk death by blast injury and dismemberment, accidental or deliberate, by just coming to work. (Police and Fire, etc. excepted)
Essentially, from a sociology standpoint, the military thus represents a very special sub-tribe within the national social tapestry.
Thus, this Sub-Tribe can (and should) get a little touchy when those who do not share the same burdens of responsibility, experiences and hailing from another tribe, push in and try to tell them what to do and how they should view the world on an issue that is not specifically mission or national security related.
We practice this sort of sensitivity in our dealings with other minorities in our country, why should the same realizations and mores not apply to the Warrior Tribe?
During the Clinton years, the issue of social engineering from above by outsiders touched off a firestorm and a lot of guys hung up their soldier suits for good. This wasn't because they didn't like gay people or hugely resented things like "Sensitivity" training, IMO.
It felt at the time more like they were angered that someone who was not a member of their tribe, had no perceived understanding of their tribe and apparently no inclination to do so, came in and tried to tell them how they should think.
We may be seeing that dynamic again. If not yet, then we're going to.
I think I might have a remedy...Let The Warrior Tribe Decide For Itself.
It's pretty simple: Everyone has a .mil e-mail account (ako, etc).
Because this requires individual log in, you can set up an online vote. It's very similar to how AOL runs their little online polls. Once you hit that vote button, your account remembers that you did and you cannot vote twice.
So, with that tool in hand, you let the troops vote on it. Make it a requirement if nescessary.
You can keep it up for several weeks, this ensures that troops in even the most remote outposts will be able to log on by the end date. (and you have to be pretty remote not to have some access these days)
If the troops, by a 2/3rds vote say OK, it's a done deal. gays can serve in the open. If not, the troops have spoken and that is that...everyone in Washington is off the hook.
The Tribe Has Spoken.
It will be the Tribe who decides, not outsiders. It's the only way to get this addressed without resentment. If the vote is "Yay" then everyone is happy, all branches are open for service along present lines (and the various rules on fraternization still apply, for everyone, as they do now).
If the vote is "Nay," it will just have to be a question of, "Dear gay community, it's not that we don't like you, but this is our tribe and we get shot at and blown up here. It's a bit different world we live in and we're just not comfortable with this yet. Our living arrangements are different from everyone elses. So for now, we're going to politely decline. Thank you for your understanding."
We more than have the computing power to do this and do it ligitimately. (a sub-contract to AOL could probably have this up and running in a few weeks)
"Yes, No, Abstain....click here."
Regards — Cliff
6 comments:
The military serves at the whim of their civilian overseers. To the extent that civilian oversight does not deem sexual orientation as a reasonable basis for discrimination, (sure would be clearer with a constitutional amendment, but I guess we'll have to do with the grey area), I should think it beholden on the military to either, A, show why it might be a detriment to good military order, or B, eliminate it as a basis for any sort of discrimination, told or untold. Voting amongst the "tribe" hardly seems to satisfy either option, and as much as I like the idea of respecting the tribe's special status, I still say that the civilian laws need to be applied as rigorously as good military order allows. Otherwise, we're not the democracy we thought we were, or that our military was formed to protect.
However, if the tribe might feel put upon, I should think it very reasonable to respond that the civilian overseers should put it all in the constitution if they feel so strongly about it, so that the military could follow as they are sworn. That should buy 'em a little time to get their own ideas in place about how it should be managed.
The military that I know and love is a Socialist, Totalitarian Regime.
Let the "tribe" vote?
They swore to defend the Constitution. Case closed.
I am thinking that this proposal isn't so much about letting the Military vote on which parts of the Constitution to accept as it is a way of getting the US Congress off the hook.
Once the majority of US Military Service members say to the US Congress, "It's OK with us," then those brave men and women on Capitol Hill can vote the change.
The US Congress is the author of DADT. They must, therefore, be the ones to end it. This isn't like racial integration. There, the AAF and common sense started it down the road (again) and a Presidential Directive accelerated it and the Korean War helped cement it into place.
Regards — Cliff
Was it Truman or the Military that took the leadership to integrate?
Eleanor.
She went down to Tuskeegee and road around in an airplane with a Negro pilot (he was a Negro at the time). So, in the ways of Washington, the Air Force was given a chance to have more aircraft if they trained Black Pilots.
The guys trained up as Fighter Pilots benefited from being commanded by Benjamin O Davis, whose father was the first Black General in the US Army. Guys training as bomber crews were being lead stateside by some Caucasian Colonel who didn't understand the mission and was never able to pull the unit together for combat. Unfortunate.
But, the stage was set for Truman to sign Executive Order 9981.
Regards — Cliff
Our history is replete with identification of human categories that couldn't or shouldn't do this or that. Combat arms has of course seen more of its share. Blacks couldn't serve in the more "involved" units, relegated to essentially caretaking jobs, Filipinos could only be messboys in Navy ships, women couldn't fly combat aircraft....well....any aircraft for that matter, and on and on.
That gays can't or shouldn't be in the military because they will negatively impace unit discipline is frankly, a bogeyman. Truth be known, I would wager that there are many, many more who have served and are serving...in the closet....than this society wants to realize.
If the Constitution doesn't make the differentiation, nor should those who serve it. It is such a odd twist that the greatest free society on earth also discriminates to viciously.
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is God's.
I don't like internal votes because they reflect only held beliefs...ie....the loudest group gets what it wants.
Regards,
Neal
Post a Comment