Study: Gays Don't Harm Unit Cohesion

[Tsyroc]

Military.com

July 08, 2008
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Congress should repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law because the presence of gays in the military is unlikely to undermine the ability to fight and win, according to a new study released by a California-based research center.

The study was conducted by four retired military officers, including the three-star Air Force lieutenant general who in early 1993 was tasked with implementing President Clinton's policy that the military stop questioning recruits on their sexual orientation.

"Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion," the officers states.

To support its contention, the panel points to the British and Israeli militaries, where it says gay people serve openly without hurting the effectiveness of combat operations.

Undermining unit cohesion was a determining factor when Congress passed the 1993 law, intended to keep the military from asking recruits their sexual orientation. In turn, service members can't say they are gay or bisexual, engage in homosexual activity or marry a member of the same sex.

Supporters of the ban contend there is still no empirical evidence that allowing gays to serve openly won't hurt combat effectiveness.

"The issue is trust and confidence" among members of a unit, said Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, who retired in 1993 after working on the issue for the Army. When some people with a different sexual orientation are "in a close combat environment, it results in a lack of trust," he said.

The study was sponsored by the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara, which said it picked the panel members to portray a bipartisan representation of the different service branches. According to its Web site, the Palm Center "is committed to keeping researchers, journalists and the general public informed of the latest developments in the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy debate." Palm himself was "a staunch supporter of civil rights in the gay community," the site says.

Two of the officers on the panel have endorsed Democratic candidates since leaving the military - Army Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, who supports Barack Obama, and Marine Corps Gen. Hugh Aitken, who backed Clinton in 1996.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Robert Minter Alexander, a Republican, was assigned in 1993 to a high-level panel established by the Defense Department to examine the issue of gays in the military. At one point, he signed an order that prohibited the military from asking a recruit's sexual orientation.

Alexander said at the time he was simply trying to carry out the president's orders and not take a position. But he now believes the law should be repealed because it assumes the existence of gays in the military is disruptive to units even though cultural attitudes are changing.

Further, the Defense Department and not Congress should be in charge of regulating sexual misconduct within the military, he said.

"Who else can better judge whether it's a threat to good order and discipline?" Alexander asked.

Navy Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan said he had no opinion on the issue when he joined the panel, having never confronted it in his 35-year military career. A self-described Republican who opposes the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war, Shanahan said he was struck by the loss of personal integrity required by individuals to carry out "don't ask, don't tell."

"Everyone was living a big lie - the homosexuals were trying to hide their sexual orientation and the commanders were looking the other way because they didn't want to disrupt operations by trying to enforce the law," he said.

It'll be interesting to see if the government listens to them on this.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Not right now they wont.... the next administration hopefully will

[Korvan]

"The issue is trust and confidence" among members of a unit, said Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, who retired in 1993 after working on the issue for the Army. When some people with a different sexual orientation are "in a close combat environment, it results in a lack of trust," he said.

Its a bit interesting if you take sexual orientation in the 2nd sentence and replace it with religion or race. Weren't US units racially segregated as recently as WWII? What sort of issues cropped up when they were integrated and couldn't the measures to deal with those issues be applied to sexual orientation issues?

[Justforfun000]

Supporters of the ban contend there is still no empirical evidence that allowing gays to serve openly won't hurt combat effectiveness.

What kind of fucking double talk is this? Shouldn't it be their responsibility to show that gays serving openly are harmful? How the fuck can you prove they are NOT harmful? Isn't that the same as trying to prove a negative?

On top of this it's a lie because both Canada, Israel and Britain have gays serving openly and both have reported no problemo. Oh but that doesn't count of course because that isn't the States. They're special.

"The issue is trust and confidence" among members of a unit, said Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, who retired in 1993 after working on the issue for the Army. When some people with a different sexual orientation are "in a close combat environment, it results in a lack of trust," he said.

Oh and deliberately lying about their actual feelings and desires furthers a great deal of trust and confidence. What better way to worm your way into other people's confidences and care then misrepresenting yourself.

I love the implication (albeit unspoken), that somehow the possibility of a fellow soldier knowing the other is gay could somehow have some direct impact on their being in a "close combat environment". What's the allusion they are trying to hint here? That they will jump their bones in the trenches?

Idiots!

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Scientists: "Hey, we've conducted this study that shows that open gays don't cause problems in the army. Furthermore, we've seen several other countries already implement this without any trouble. Do you have any sort of rebuttal that hasn't already been thoroughly shredded by the facts?"

Homophobes (in government and out): "La la la! We can't hear you, la la la!"

[Sea Skimmer]

Its a bit interesting if you take sexual orientation in the 2nd sentence and replace it with religion or race. Weren't US units racially segregated as recently as WWII? What sort of issues cropped up when they were integrated and couldn't the measures to deal with those issues be applied to sexual orientation issues?

The US military was racially segregated until 1951, with integration being formally completed on 30 October 1954. This was almost single-handedly the work of a great and forgotten general, Matthew Bunker Ridgway. When he took over command of 8th Army, in the midst’s of its full retreat from the Yalu river found his black units, poorly trained and led by the worst white officers the Army could find, to be worse then useless and decided he had to do something about it.

On his own authority he decided to integrate the 8th Army, adapting a ratio of no more then 12-20% blacks in any one unit (12% for combat units, 20% for support). Reaching this ratio however required that he also integrate units in Japan, which had to be approved by the Pentagon since he was not yet commander of all Army Forces in the Far East. To his surprise the Pentagon approved the request almost out of hand. As soon as favorable results were reported from Korea the Pentagon went on to order US Army forces in Europe to integrate, and soon the order was spread to all theaters and all units.

To round it off, the integration of the military actually allowed the Army to purge its self of thousands of low grade enlisted men (basically they raised aptitude test standards and refused reenlistment to the guys who failed them) since it now could more easily recruit and retain high quality black enlisted manpower.

Unfortunately for several reasons we wont see a repeat of this kind of performance in the modern day.

[Guardsman Bass]

On top of this it's a lie because both Canada, Israel and Britain have gays serving openly and both have reported no problemo. Oh but that doesn't count of course because that isn't the States. They're special.

I think Representative Duncan Hunter more or less said something like this during one of the Republican Presidential Primary Debates - something like "a lot of American young men come from conservative backgrounds" and so on an so forth.

[Civil War Man]

Its a bit interesting if you take sexual orientation in the 2nd sentence and replace it with religion or race. Weren't US units racially segregated as recently as WWII? What sort of issues cropped up when they were integrated and couldn't the measures to deal with those issues be applied to sexual orientation issues?

Interestingly enough, while the US Army was heavily segregated during the Civil War, geographically as well as racially (entire regiments would be drawn from the same city, even the same district of a city in places like New York and Boston), the Navy was not. Black sailors, simply due to the racist mindset at the time, would obviously not be made ship commanders, but if you wanted to join the Navy, they did not turn you away based on race.

Also, IIRC, Lincoln actually had a racially integrated White House staff, which remained in place until Woodrow Wilson (ranked as one of my least favorite Presidents in American History) reversed it.

[Darth Yoshi]

It's my experience that, in the Air Force anyway, people just don't give a shit as long as you get your job done. We had one fellow out himself and get discharged, but I think that was just because our unit fucking sucked and he wanted out. Before that, nobody really cared.

[Stark]

Scientists: "Hey, we've conducted this study that shows that open gays don't cause problems in the army. Furthermore, we've seen several other countries already implement this without any trouble. Do you have any sort of rebuttal that hasn't already been thoroughly shredded by the facts?"

Homophobes (in government and out): "La la la! We can't hear you, la la la!"

Don't be too harsh. On this very forum, Americans honestly ask how policies (generally social policies) can work when other nations have been doing it sometimes for decades. I think the reactionary 'how can it work?' thing must be ever-present in American media, since even non-idiots honestly ask these questions.

[Darth Yoshi]

I think it's more because Americans don't pay attention to the rest of the world, so when a proposal is made, it gets questioned because Americans don't know that it's been tried elsewhere.

[Lusankya]

Dude, there are examples on this website of Americans saying that things can't work, after several pages of foreigners saying that it works fine in their country. I really don't think it can be completely chalked up to ignorance.

[Darth Wong]

Dude, there are examples on this website of Americans saying that things can't work, after several pages of foreigners saying that it works fine in their country. I really don't think it can be completely chalked up to ignorance.

Indeed. That happens in every single health-care debate, without fail.

[Stormbringer]

Dude, there are examples on this website of Americans saying that things can't work, after several pages of foreigners saying that it works fine in their country. I really don't think it can be completely chalked up to ignorance.

And while those that are doing it out of an anti-homosexual bias are never going to be persuaded, there are certainly issues that face the US military aren't there for the more developed parts of Europe. It's not fair, it's not right but it is a fact.

For one thing, the US military just plain old sucks at dealing with it's personnel and sex. I may be ignorant but I can't recall any of the militaries b being mentioned as counter-examples having anything like Tailhook or the more recent Air Force Academy sex scandal. Not to mention plenty of lesser issues right down to female personnel having to be discharged or reassigned because of pregnancy while fooling around. If the US can't deal with straight behavior, how well is it going to deal with the much more delicate issue of gays?

In a way, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is an extension of that policy of simply trying to ignore sex entirely. It's an admission that there is an issue and one that won't go away. But then turning around and trying to make it go away anyway. Stupid and only making things worse in the long run but it looks better.

Of course that brings us to the second issue. The members of the US military are not really drawn from the most progressive elements in a country that's not terribly progressive to begin with. And those militaries aren't trying scraping the goop at the bottom of the barrel to try and wage two wars. There are going to be issues and trying to equate Britian with the US is silly. If nothing else, they unloaded their Puritans... on the US. There are homo-hating assholes and even if discipline forces them to behave, it won't force them to perform well. Look at the number of evangelicals that have brought attention to themselves from pushy preaching to borderline hate crimes. Can you really say that Britain has the same?

Really, the policy is just plain morally wrong. In something like a just world, there would be action taken to change the culture of the US military so that gays, and the women already serving, are not virtual second class human beings but accepted equals. Unfortunately the culture of the US is simply not there.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You know what that sounds like to me Stormbringer? It sounds like capitulation. There are bigots in the military. Of course there are! But instead of passing the equivalent of non-discrimination and hate-crime laws, you are suggesting that we capitulate. Not only capitulate, but actually punish the victims for having the gall to want to serve their country and not live in hiding at the same time.

Non-whites were integrated in the 50s, when the culture was not even wanting them integrated into public schools. They did just fine. Hell, a good number of military vets that I know, actively covered for men in their unit they knew to be gay.

Why not nail those that harm us to the wall? Why not dishonorably discharge those that are found to be culpable for poor performance due to refusal to work with a gay person?

Nope. Cant do that. We cant ever punish the perpetrator, we punish the victim, by dishonorably discharging them and ruining their lives in the process. Removing benefits, removing their ability to get a job or if required a security clearance. Fuck that. I would rather force the idiots, bigots and incompetent administrators to face the very real issue of homosexuality. To find an actual solution to the problem rather than trying to shove it under the rug.

I am not a virtual second class citizen Stormbringer. I am a very real second class citizen. And I think I can speak for myself and the rest of the gay community, and say that we are sick and fucking tired of being bent over and fucked because a bunch of bigoted slack-jawed morons cant bring themselves to treat 'dem queers' like human beings. We are not diseased, we are not evil, we are not rapists or child molesters. The problem is not with us. It is with them. Let the brass deal with them, let the military culture change if it has to. But we are human beings and will NOT be treated otherwise.

[Darth Wong]

Unfortunately the culture of the US is simply not there.

So? Why shouldn't the military lead the way, as it did with racial integration? The US military was way ahead of the general population in terms of its attitude toward racial integration, remember?

[Ender]

, let the military culture change if it has to.

Which right there shows the reason so many are against integration. This "my group matters more then the whole" is the exact fucking attitude they refer to when they speak of morale problems. It there with groups of fuckhead blacks/whites/mexicans/asians/puerto ricans/phillipinos/etc who come in and have their own little cliques and drag their feet with anyone outside it. Gays are just the latest group.

Let's make this real clear: you are supposed to change yourself to adapt to military culture, NOT the other way around. If the military lifts the ban and you go in with that attitude, you will still be treated as a second class citizen, and rightly so, because you will be what is known as a "fuckhead". "Fuckheads" are the jackasses who put themselves above the mission, and they have zero business being in.

This attitude of yours is what they seek to combat. They way they have chosen to do so is open discrimination, and needs to go. But the problem itself needs a solution.

[Darth Wong]

Let's make this real clear: you are supposed to change yourself to adapt to military culture, NOT the other way around.

That's a fair criticism if someone is talking about a recruit walking in with an attitude problem. It doesn't apply to civilian government imposing new rules upon the military, which then filter down through the command structure. In that case, the fucking soldiers are supposed to obey, and not say that their "culture" overrides the chain of command.

[Alyrium Denryle]

, let the military culture change if it has to.

<Snip Large Strawman>

First off, if you are not capable of making a non-strawman argument, dont speak.

Second, you dont change yourself to adapt to military culture. Military culture changes you. They systematically rip apart aspects of an individuals identity, and then build a new one in its place, focused around unit cohesion etc etc. It would be very very easy to integrate non-bigotry toward gay people into this. But instead they dont. That is what I meant when I said that.

This is not about putting myself, or my minority group above the mission, or anything else. This is about wanting to be equal. This is about wanting my gay friends who want to be a part of the military to be able to do so without having to live a lie for years. No one else has to make that kind of adjustment. No other person in the military has to hide something as fundamental to their life as their sexual orientation from their unit. Hell, if I know marines, and I do, the rest of them get to revel in their sexuality.

This attitude of yours is what they seek to combat. They way they have chosen to do so is open discrimination, and needs to go. But the problem itself needs a solution.

Gee, maybe teaching soldiers that they are not allowed to beat the shit out of their gay machine-gunner, and that said machine gunner will not rape them might be a start. Rather than blaming gay people for the discrimination they face, punishing them for it, or shoving one's head into the sand and pretending the problem does not exist.

[Ender]

Let's make this real clear: you are supposed to change yourself to adapt to military culture, NOT the other way around.

That's a fair criticism if someone is talking about a recruit walking in with an attitude problem. It doesn't apply to civilian government imposing new rules upon the military, which then filter down through the command structure. In that case, the fucking soldiers are supposed to obey, and not say that their "culture" overrides the chain of command.

True, except his statement was from the position of how the military must adapt to the new recruits. "The problem is not with us, it is with them" - that the military must adapt to the new soldiers being admitted. Not how it works, and his attitude is exactly the problem.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Let's make this real clear: you are supposed to change yourself to adapt to military culture, NOT the other way around.

That's a fair criticism if someone is talking about a recruit walking in with an attitude problem. It doesn't apply to civilian government imposing new rules upon the military, which then filter down through the command structure. In that case, the fucking soldiers are supposed to obey, and not say that their "culture" overrides the chain of command.

True, except his statement was from the position of how the military must adapt to the new recruits. "The problem is not with us, it is with them" - that the military must adapt to the new soldiers being admitted. Not how it works, and his attitude is exactly the problem.

How exactly is a gay man supposed to "adapt" to bigotry?

If you are going to accept gay people into the military, the system has to adapt. No way around it. Policy has to change. Or, you could take my statement in context.

We are not the problem. Bigots are. If an PFC named McGillis who is gay joins a unit, and gets tied to fence post, beaten and left to die because he was gay, he is not the problem. The asshole who did it is the problem. He has the problem, he needs to change or go. In the same way that a woman who gets raped in the military is not the problem. The rapist is the problem.

Maybe you should just learn reading comprehension.

[Ender]

, let the military culture change if it has to.

<Snip Large Strawman>

First off, if you are not capable of making a non-strawman argument, dont speak.

This from the guy who flat out lies in his post about how the military responds to when a soldier is outed? Funny.

Second, you dont change yourself to adapt to military culture. Military culture changes you.

Spin those semantics!

They systematically rip apart aspects of an individuals identity, and then build a new one in its place, focused around unit cohesion etc etc. It would be very very easy to integrate non-bigotry toward gay people into this. But instead they dont. That is what I meant when I said that.

Funny, my monthly EO training already covered that.

This is not about putting myself, or my minority group above the mission, or anything else. This is about wanting to be equal. This is about wanting my gay friends who want to be a part of the military to be able to do so without having to live a lie for years. No one else has to make that kind of adjustment. No other person in the military has to hide something as fundamental to their life as their sexual orientation from their unit. Hell, if I know marines, and I do, the rest of them get to revel in their sexuality.

Quick spin it up to get away from your original claim!

[Alyrium Denryle]

This from the guy who flat out lies in his post about how the military responds to when a soldier is outed? Funny.

maybe I am just out of date. Perhaps you ought clear that up, what exactly is the penalty for being outed in the military these days?

Spin those semantics!

No. Not semantic. Entirely different. One is a self-willed change. The second is an externally imposed brain-washing technique.

Funny, my monthly EO training already covered that.

Then, where is this problem that supposedly exists within the military culture? If you are being trained for it, maybe it is time to start prosecuting perps rather than discharging victims.

Quick spin it up to get away from your original claim!

Here is the original claim.

We are not diseased, we are not evil, we are not rapists or child molesters. The problem is not with us. It is with them. Let the brass deal with them, let the military culture change if it has to.

in context of this

I would rather force the idiots, bigots and incompetent administrators to face the very real issue of homosexuality. To find an actual solution to the problem rather than trying to shove it under the rug.

and this

Non-whites were integrated in the 50s, when the culture was not even wanting them integrated into public schools. They did just fine. Hell, a good number of military vets that I know, actively covered for men in their unit they knew to be gay.

So how about you go get a job picking cherries. It might suit you better than your current occupation.

The simple matter is, the bigotry cited as a part of the culture as a reason to keep gay people out has nothing to do with the functioning of the military. It has nothing to do with the mission, or military values. To the extent to which it exists, it is bigotry. Plain and simple, and I will be damned if I will apologize for saying it has to go.

[Lusankya]

What the hell, Ender? Are you trying to be a fuckhead, or were you just born with a cock in your mouth? Seriously, it's like you were gunning to make a bigoted response to the thread, and were just waiting for a chance. Imagine this conversation:

Alyrium: I want to be treated like a human being.
You: Stop being such a fuckhead.

That is the short version of what I just read.



Also, I find it cute that the first reaction to the claim that Americans can't see how policies can work (even though they've been successful in other countries) is "Well, they can't, because of [quantum]." This not only ignores the fact that the integration of gays into the military worked in other countries, but also completely ignores the OP, which states that the presence of open gays would not underine the military.

[Morilore]

Which right there shows the reason so many are against integration. This "my group matters more then the whole" is the exact fucking attitude they refer to when they speak of morale problems. It there with groups of fuckhead blacks/whites/mexicans/asians/puerto ricans/phillipinos/etc who come in and have their own little cliques and drag their feet with anyone outside it. Gays are just the latest group.

Except that they actually aren't, according to the study in the article that formed the opening post of this entire fucking thread.

True, except his statement was from the position of how the military must adapt to the new recruits. "The problem is not with us, it is with them" - that the military must adapt to the new soldiers being admitted. Not how it works, and his attitude is exactly the problem.

Except that in this case the problem is indeed with the military and not the recruits. It is the military, not gay recruits, that engages in destructive behavior, and it is the military, not gay recruits, that must change.