Let’s face it: It is only a matter of time before gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly in the military. The chorus of criticism about the current “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy–which allows homosexuals to enter the armed services and remain there as long as they keep their sexuality under wraps–merely serves as a distraction. The policy is not ideal but it does work as a transition phase and helps anticipate the difficulties we will face when full integration inevitably comes about.
As lead analysts on a portion of the Project on the Gap between the Military and Society of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies, we found significant differences between the military and civilian elites and mass opinions on the role of open homosexuals in the military. Reasonable people will disagree on their implications, but the facts are these: almost three-quarters of the military respondents, but about a third of the civilians, oppose letting homosexuals serve openly in the military. More than a quarter of military respondents say they would leave the military if the policy were liberalized, compared to fewer than 7 percent who would leave if women were allowed into all combat positions. Since the military sample was drawn from among the most promising officers, this is disturbing.
Nevertheless, we believe the direction of social change is clear: There is increasing public consensus that some areas of individual choice are beyond the proper role of the state to prohibit, including sexual relations between consenting adults. It is only a matter of time before this view affects military policy. Meanwhile, “don’t ask” has worked well informally for decades.
The impact on military effectiveness and the people involved will vary depending on whether the transition is handled well or badly. Any change should be implemented carefully. We should pay close attention to the experience of the British military–an armed forces most like our own–as it undergoes its own integration of open homosexuals under the order of the European Court.
There is evidence that the U.S. military is finally using the breathing space provided by “don’t ask” constructively. In fact, the service leadership is trying to do the right thing. For example, the chief of naval personnel sent an instruction to all hands in October emphasizing, “commanding officers must not condone homosexual jokes, epithets or derogatory comments and must ensure a command climate that fosters respect for all individuals.” This message, echoed by the other services, is correct no matter how long the transition period lasts.
Supporters of change too often underestimate the consequences of their proposals, reflecting either a genuine or willful lack of understanding of the military. Sexual orientation may be a status but sexual activity is a behavior–and homosexual activity is abhorrent to a large number of military people. This will not change quickly, whatever rules may come down from above.
Training is most effective when it is based on agreed moral principles. Yet moral disagreement is precisely the problem. This leaves the services in a difficult position. They cannot teach that behavior specifically outlawed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice is morally acceptable, but they must emphasize that the harassment of persons believed to be homosexual is prohibited. This dilemma will not evaporate when current restrictions are removed.
A sensible and pragmatic training program must recognize the following realities:
Freedom of belief must be respected for heterosexuals as well as gays; it is behavior that must be regulated. Just as gays cannot be expected to alter their orientation to please the military, other service members cannot be expected to cast aside their religious or moral convictions about homosexuality. Heterosexual men, in particular, are unlikely to be comfortable any time soon sharing the forced intimacy of military living conditions with men they believe may find them sexually attractive.
For similar reasons, men and women are not required to live intimately together, but separate berthing for gays and heterosexuals is not a viable option.
Neither physical nor verbal harassment can be tolerated.
Homosexuality need not be celebrated, but no one may create an intimidating atmosphere for others, gay or straight. Sexual harassment, sexual assault and sexual relationships between officer and enlisted or between individuals in the same chain of command can and must remain prohibited, regardless of sexual orientation.
The integration of open homosexuals into the military will require serious advance planning and will not be implemented easily. The experiences and information provided to the military under “don’t ask” must be used wisely. The policy is not to blame: Any attempt to merge deeply held and clashing values will produce resistance and conflict.
This monumental task will require wisdom, patience, and leadership of the highest order. We will discover soon enough whether military and civilian leaders and the American people themselves are up to the challenge.
