About That Unit Cohesion Thing ...

Not counting the "homo sex is evil" claque of the Republican Party, conservative legislators and an ever dwindling number of doddery old war hawks who oppose lifting the military's gay ban have been somewhat consistent with their reasons for keeping Don't Ask, Don't Tell firmly in place.  "Now is not the time," they sputter. "Why are we even discussing this while America is AT WAR?"  And there are always a few "unit cohesion" arguments tossed around for good measure.  Even so, the attitudes of rank-and-file soldiers, like those of average Americans, are changing.

From Think Progress:  After Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen’s declaration that he believes it is time to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the Military Times has released a poll of 3,000 active-duty troops showing that opposition to gay men and women serving openly in the military "has fallen sharply from nearly two-thirds (65 percent) in 2004 to about half (51 percent) today." According to the poll, among the servicemembers' concerns were "how to effectively implement new policies for sharing close quarters and living facilities with openly gay members."

One southern lawmaker, a member of the Conservative Coalition, warned that the military isn't ready for change. "There is no more intimate relationship in the world than that of combat soldiers sharing a foxhole," he said. "They eat and sleep together; they use the same facilities day after day; they are compelled to stay together in the closest association." Therefore, he argued, any kind of "social engineering just gets in the way of the armed forces doing their mission and defending the United States of America."

The legislator who expressed those sentiments was Senator Richard Russell of Georgia.  He made the remarks back in 1948, in an effort to explain why permitting African Americans to serve with whites would destroy "unit cohesion." (Russell also claimed that blacks were "morally inferior," something we still hear about LGBT folks.)

From Fact Sheet:  In the 1940's, two Army studies showed that more than 80% of white soldiers opposed racial integration...  During World War II and the Korean War, individuals like Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Gen. Omar Bradley, Gen. George C. Marshall, Secretary of the Army Kenneth Royall, and Navy Secretary Frank Knox - all voiced opposition to racial integration. 

Retired Army Colonel John M. House writes on the Ledger-Enquirer:  (T)his proposed change now is a big one, and it will affect the bond of the close combat squads and sections more than organizations not in close combat. These are the people who are fighting and dying the most. (Gay troops are also fighting and dying - but they're expected to sacrifice their lives while hiding in the closet.)  Is it right to make the change at this time? 

Another retired Army Colonel, David H. Hunter, writes on Athens Banner-Herald:  During my many years of military active duty, albeit a few decades in the past, I encountered a number of cases of homosexual soldiers serving honorably and effectively without any adverse consequences. The key was discretion - keeping their sex lives private, not overtly flaunting their preferences.  (Heterosexual troops are famous for keeping their sex lives private, donthca know.  In the barracks, they only discuss deer hunting and professional sports.  Snort.) 

Does anyone really believe that the moment the ban is lifted, gay and lesbian service members are going to jump out of the closet en masse and start regaling their comrades-in-arms with detailed accounts of their sexual escapades?  Gays may have a reputation for being loquacious, but stupid they're not.  Once DADT is repealed, gay soldiers will not want to invite hostility by "flaunting" their orientation.  They'll be circumspect and professional, as they've always been.  

Steve Chapman writes on the Chicago Tribune:  A couple of dozen countries already allow gays in uniform — including allies that have fought alongside our troops, such as Britain, Canada and Australia. Just as there is plenty of opposition in the U.S. ranks, there was plenty of opposition when they changed their policy.  In Canada, 45 percent of service members said they would not work with gay colleagues, and a majority of British soldiers and sailors rejected the idea. There were warnings that hordes of military personnel would quit and promising youngsters would refuse to enlist.  But when the new day arrived, it turned out to be a big, fat non-event. The Canadian government reported "no effect." The British government observed "a marked lack of reaction." An Australian veterans group that opposed admitting gays later admitted that the services "have not had a lot of difficulty in this area."

Thirty-one nations allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, and yet on this particular issue the United States has allied itself with repressive regimes like China, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Russia, Turkey, North Korea, and Iran.  It's no wonder our most valued allies are scratching their heads at America's laggardly march toward progress.  Our military should be at the head of the pack, not dawdling in the middle.