Maggie's Farm

I care that some friends who are gay or defend gays, as I have at corporate career risk many times, have an opposite view of the immediate congressional repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT). But, I care more about the immediate effect on the welfare of US combat troops and for US national security.

Yes, “national security” is a BIG term, and can be read as overexpansive. Yet, that is precisely what is stake, in immediate and longer-term consequences. Neither the US nor our military will fall off a cliff. However, the immediate repeal of DADT is another slip down the decline of a strong US foreign policy. Most liberals may see no problem or that as desirable. The majority of Americans and nations do not see the US policies of which this is part that way.

There is no reason to doubt, and to even applaud, that the majority of Americans and of military servicemembers do not have strong objections to, or favor, gays serving openly in the US military. It is a commendable affirmation of American fairness. Further out, a less rapid and more measured elimination of DADT may be more practical.

Some Western nations have openly gay military service, almost all in non-combat positions, but their militaries are weak and dependent upon US forces and umbrella, none of them taking the commitment and responsibility for the magnitude of the tasks the US does. Israel’s military is raised as an exception, but that ignores the different realities there which even official US reports recognize.

At the same time, it ignores or is a repudiation of the warriors who now serve in the front-lines, whose tight bonds with and complete trust and reliance upon the guy next to him determines his very survival, as the New York Times interviews of Marines makes clear. The majority of combat troops see the possible negative impacts, as clear in the Pentagon report, and some will pay with their careers or lives. The official Pentagon summary says 70% of the military see a positive or neutral effect, but that skews the actual poll result: 20% saw no and 19% positive impact, 30% negative, and 32% some of both. The majority of Marine and Army combat troops saw negative impacts. Nothing in the Pentagon report says there will be betterment of military effectiveness, which should be the key issue. Our military exists to accomplish combat missions, first and primary, above all. The major veterans organizations and the largest number of retired generals and admirals ever to publicly speak out on a military issue – 1167 – expressed their opposition to immediate repeal of DADT.

The immediate repeal of DADT is especially dangerous to the combat units and troops, already under severe stress. Further, both Admiral Mullens testified to Congress and General Petraeus’ Command Sergeant Major clearly stated that combat troops can either stifle or get out.

If you look at the Pentagon “implementation plan” attached to its survey of attitudes, focus on the supposedly guiding “Vignettes” appendix (p.69 fwd). The New York Times comments of the implementation plan, "The plan offers few specifics on the substance of the training to be provided." In almost every case, there is no real answer to how to deal with challenges to military order or living conditions. Instead, the Vignettes repeatedly just rely upon command judiciousness, which in effect will mostly mean accommodation or acquiescence, for the sake of their own careers. There can be little doubt, under the best of circumstances, that boundaries will be constantly disputed, will take up much time and resources, and thus distract from focus on military effectiveness issues. The limit on the military’s costs and troubles of accommodating gay marriage, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) only recognizing heterosexual legal unions, is under judicial challenge. Gay rights activists intend for DADT repeal to be the precursor to DOMA repeal. So, expect further turmoil in the ranks and defense budgets.

The actual repercussions will be less than the worst case in most cases. No one expects gay – or liberal or libertarian -- enlistments or service in combat units to surge or, even, increase by a tiny fraction of a percent. However, the efforts to accommodate that relatively tiny number will still consume much effort and resources, and will establish conditions that significantly affect the majority of combat troops. Similarly, no one expects newfound support from those opposed to our military’s missions or who ignore our troops’ safety. Meanwhile, a much larger number of those who do enlist will not or will not re-enlist or will be ushered out of the military.

Talk to combat troops and veterans, as I frequently do, and the resentment quickly comes out at the excesses of “political correctness” unrealistically imposed on them, especially when it puts their lives at increased risk. Most stay, but a great many do not. Military commands turn to alternatives, like targeted predator bombing instead of face-to-face killing. In both cases, of course, there is infrequent collateral damage (meaning of innocents or non-combatants), but predators are less personal so less protested by domestic liberals. Still, that alternative is less effective than on-the-ground eliminating or neutralizing foes and holding territory so that conditions can be created for more lasting civilian safety.

Support for our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan declined for many reasons, including the difficulties and potential futility of accomplishing even modest lasting objectives with too few troops committed and backed to do what’s necessary. Other countries see and retreat from supporting the US or from taking a stand against encroaching threats, whether from Islamist radicals or from other anti-Western states.

The world sees the Obama administration “incensed” at the UN removing explicit protection of gays from its official policy, and nowhere near this firmness in defense of US allies – or US troops -- who confront existential enemies.

I have two young sons, and like many others have serious doubts whether they should choose to follow me into military service.