Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' Try to Survive Crushing Stones
When the Taliban controlled Kabul in the late 1990s, the only permissible mode of mass entertainment was stadium day. People accused of crimes were trucked into Kabul Stadium and maimed or executed in front of large crowds. Among the capital crimes: homosexuality. The offender was executed by having a stone wall topple over him. If he survived, his sentence was commuted.
The Pentagon has this much in common with the jihadists it's fighting in Afghanistan: hatred of gays. It doesn't topple walls over them. But its "don't ask, don't tell" policy, a surviving deformity of the Clinton years, is all about walls and humiliation -- based on a value system mirroring the Taliban's contempt for human and civil rights. The policy assumes there are acceptable and unacceptable human beings. Heterosexuals, however leering their behavior, are acceptable. Homosexuals are not. But they'll be "tolerated" as long as they deceive themselves and those around them. Military values, inculcated in such places as West Point and the Citadel, demand that soldiers will not lie or tolerate those who do. Except when it comes to homosexuals. Lying, in their case, is a condition of service.
Lie badly and a dishonorable discharge will follow, and with it loss of health, veteran's and education benefits accrued while in the service. Gays booted out of the military (13,000 of them in the era of don't-ask-don't-tell) must pay back portions of the money invested on their behalf in their schooling.
The greatest dishonor, of course, isn't the cause of the discharge. Gays should take that as their worthiest medal. The dishonor is the military's pretentions of equality and integrity that crumble like those stadium walls with every discharge. The dishonor is the nation's tolerance of a policy no less offensive than segregation-era racism -- or current-era worship of "diversity," which stops at sexual preference. The military's institutionalized bigotry of don't-ask-don't-tell has its civilian-law equivalent in more than a dozen state laws banning gay marriage and the federal misnomer known as the "Defense of Marriage Act," another Clinton-era ulcer (compliments of the Republican-majority Congress at the time). Six states have legalized gay marriage. Florida, which has yet to legalize the 21st century, isn't among them.
Barack Obama isn't a fan of what he calls "the so-called Defense of Marriage Act," but he's done nothing more than ask Congress to repeal it. He's being too kind. You don't ask for the repeal of depraved laws. You lead the fight against them. But Obama subscribes to the halfway insult of granting gays civil unions while forbidding them the right, older than the Bible, the Koran and the Torah combined, to marry.
To win points with liberals, he hitched his gay-rights credentials on ending the military's neo-segregation policy. Or so we thought. He promised to end don't-ask-don't-tell back on the campaign trail. Like so many promises, that one has gone wanting. Last week at a Human Rights Campaign dinner he delivered one of his stirring speeches and again pledged that "I will end 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' "
Timetable? Don't ask. Method? "I'm working with the Pentagon, its leadership and the members of the House and Senate on ending this policy." That's the problem. When Harry Truman desegregated the military in 1948, he signed an executive order and appointed a seven-member advisory panel to stay on top of things. Granted, it was six years before the last unit was desegregated, and Southern Democrats (as the Neanderthal branch of the modern-day Republican genus are called in polite company) re-enacted the Civil War through filibusters in Congress to defeat Truman's civil rights agenda. Truman did it anyway.
Ironically, blacks had more leverage against Truman in 1948 than gays have over Obama today. In one of the bitter ironies of the era, blacks had been an essential part of the American effort to defeat fascism only to come home to a kind of Aunt Jemima fascism that had them recite the Pledge of Allegiance to their second-class citizenship status.
A. Philip Randolph, the civil rights and union leader, paid Truman a visit and warned him that blacks would quit obeying the draft if the military's Jim Crow act continued. Days later, Truman signed the order calling for "equality of treatment and opportunity."
Gays don't have that sort of pull now. They just want to volunteer as the Pentagon peddles degenerate tales about morale and unit cohesion to justify its immoral prejudice. But any soldier's morale faint enough to be affected by a fellow-soldier's sexual inclination is a warning that that soldier's fibers may not be worth the fatigues he's wearing. Homophobia, not homosexuality, is the sickness still proudly bull-whipping our Stars and Stripes.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
16 Comments so far
Show AllTo be sure GLBT deserve equal rights in society. But when the subject is the US military and its global operations in the world today, we must ask a different set of questions because of the documented horrors and moral depravity of US military actions around the world: invading helpless 3rd world countries to grab resources on behalf of corporate greed and profits, a heinous regime of torture in direct violation of US law and the Geneva Conventions, environmental destruction on a massive scale using depleted uranium, mines, cluster bombs, toxic chemical warfare agents which inflict generations of destruction. The personal ethical and moral questions regarding having to lie to remain in the US military fade into near insignificance when moral choices must be made about actions destroying the lives of thousands, indeed millions, as in Iraq, with more than a million civilian deaths, 2 million plus driven from their homes as internal refugees, and 2 million more fleeing their home country. Or the direct moral questions in the gulags of the US prisons at Guantanamo and Baghram and other unknow locations where torture became routine and likely continues under Obamacare among a prison population swept up in bounty hunting and military sweeps in a culture where US personnel know little or nothing of the language or culture---typical empire behavior. When will we hear or read an in depth discussion of the morality of the US empire and US military actions and practices by those GLBTs and their supporters who are so fired up about the immorality of DADT? The central moral question is about the morality of being part of a totally immoral military system. If there were any such, should we be honoring 1930s-1940s GLBT Germans who sought "valiantly" to be equal members of the concentration camp guards or the Whenmacht to thus demonstrate their good German citizenship and love of country?
Seems ever clearer as the evidence and bodies and ruined lives pile up, that US foreign and military policies and actions are rapidly approaching or exceeding Nazi levels of depravity and immorality. So why does part of a movement for GLBT "freedom and equality" give priority to wanting to be open and equal partners in the murder, torture, and destructive mayhem the US military inflicts around the world?
Courtjester: I yield to no one in my disdain and outrage at the military operations of the Pentagon, and the irony that the gay rights movement is working toward equal opportunity to participate in these operations. But it's a separate issue really, isn't it, about the immorality of U.S. foreign policy and the immorality of exclusion of gays in the military? If nothing else, the personnel practices in the military are symbolically important in this militaritic society of our: don't ask, don't tell in the military can and probably does promote the modelling of such behavior in the society at large.
A little different comment on Tristam's article. It's well to remember that, when Obama made his promises to the LGBT meeting, he cautioned that it might take a lot of time to deliver them, since the issue "raises strong emotions" in the country. In so saying, he seems to continue the practice of giving way to the emotions of some but not other public constituences: to homophobes as to tea-baggers, anti-abortion crazies, militarists who question his "patriotism," and any other groups with the chutzpah to carry pictures of him with a Hitlerian mustache. These are the people whose insanity is described in clinical detail on almost any daily postings on Alter Net, and those "strong emotions" are used as cover for the President for failing to do progressive things: he would like to do these things, but he's restrained by the strong emotions that rage among such people. Tristam has it right, that Obama would only have to issue an executive order as commander-in-chief to repudiate don't ask don't tell...just as he can and will decide on his own decision to send more troops to Afganistan, or to withdraw them therefrom. But no, say the timid progressives, he'll have to get a strong majority of Democrats in Congress (as if that had helped anything so far) before he can put his marvelous aspirations---those that one him the Nobel Peace Prize---into "operations."
Sioux Rose
COURTJESTER: Powerfully true and poignant post. Thank you for posting it.
Military justice is to justice as is Military music to music.
One good thing about DADT: any soldier sick of redeployments and murdering civilians (based on Bush's lies) can say, "Colonel, sir. I'm gay. Where's my ticket home?"
godistwaddle: Your remark makes me think about how we HAVEN'T progressed in our humanity since earlier wars. The "gay" way to get out of service would probably not have worked for the Yossarian of Heller's Catch 22 and certainly did not work for the cross-dressing Clinger in M*A*S*H*
Tristram needs to remember that the "Pentagon peddles degenerate tales . . .to justify its immoral prejudice" about all kinds of peoples around the world, mostly those in 3rd world nations where the goal is to grab land or resources by any means necessary for the US corporate global empire. And the result of these degenerate Pentagon tales is that ever growing numbers of people who were never any threat to the US are "eliminated with extreme prejudice" in another memorable phrase, their lands, homes, and families and cultures utterly destroyed. But then, isn't that the glorious history of the European attack on people's all over the world for the last 500 plus years. It is usually wrapped up in a nice and friendly package as "the glorious age of exploration". Merciful God, help those on the lands the glorious explorers reached. But then, HE is a Christian God, and the others were ignorant pagans or heathens, usually needing the sword or a bullet or a drone attack to be gotten into a proper frame of mind so as to receive the Good News of the Gospel--of capitalism or Jesus or markets. And so it continues. So what decent democrat, liberal, social reformer, advocate of equality would want any group to be excluded from all the glorious fun of bringing western civilization now to the still backward areas of the world, and who just might have a few resources or resource access
corridors via pipelines.
Dear Brethern, let us sincerely hope and pray that all we good people of conscience will set aside these mundane questions of the morality of torture gulags, violations of international treaties and domestic law, the devastations of entire nations and cultures via mass murder and displacement, including the lands and peoples in the Cradle of Civilization, and now turn our minds with laser like intensity on the great moral dilemma of our time: equal access for all into the ranks of deliverers of torture, mass murder and mayhem with all the tools of modern technology. There may be among us those such as the infirm, disabled, aged, pregnant women, youth under 18, mentally ill or others who are still discriminated against and who may want equal access to the task of bringing enlightened western values and civilization to the dark corners of the world via the sword, gun and bomb, so their right to serve must also be vigorously and ethically sought such that we will finally reach that glorious goal of all morally minded people: a military machine prepared and willing to accept anyone, teach them to kill on order or whim, and equip them with the best weapons Corporate Amerika can supply for the glorious tasks ahead. In the name of Jehovah, Jesus Christ, and bottom line profits for Corporate Amerika, let it be so.
So - when don't ask, don't tell is gone, what then?
Do ask and do tell?
See, here's the big point missed: Everything human is chemical - eye color, five fingers, etc - including human sexuality. It is NOT the exception to the rule. (That would be the soul, a topic for a way different discussion.)
Because it's chemical, it manifests physically. Hence, 'gaydar.' Hence, the big point missed is that no matter what 'policy' is instituted, homosexuals will continue to be easy targets for homophobics, just as, even today, no number of Civil Rights Acts can stop a racist from hating (fearing) everyone but those like himself.
So, gay brothers and sisters who wish to volunteer to serve 'their' country, never forget: you are on your own - and will be until a mass enlightenment occurs - no matter what the 'official policy.'
As far as courtjester's post goes...perhaps we are not wanted in the military due to the fact that the majority of gays have too much sympathy and compassion. I think this is why the military did not want women in the service.
Sadly thought, women have become as brutal as men and I fear that there are gay men and women who will also lose their way.
_____________________________________________________________
Let the President hear you. Visit Our President | Our Voices to tell your story and share your thoughts. That's www.ourpresidentourvoices.com
I have long believed that the main reason there is so much bigotry and homophobia in so many male dominated organizations are their own suseptibilities to attraction. The brutality is a way to mask their real desires. It is pathetic.
Actually homosexuals are not suited for military service but not for any reasons stated so far.
Chris Hedges observes in "War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning":
"We feel in war time comradeship, we confuse this comradeship with love...but this is part of war's intoxication. War time always brings with it this comradeship which is the opposite of friendship. Friendship takes place between men and women who posess an intellectual and emotional affinity for each other.
The danger of the external threat that comes when we have an enemy does not create friendship, it creates comradeship and those in war time are deceived about what they are undergoing.
In freinship there is a deepening of our sense of self. We become through the friend more aware of who we are and what we are about. Friends probe and question and challenge each other to make each other more complete. They draw the secrets out of us and know our inner core of being.
In comradeship, the kind that comes to us in patriotic fervor, there is a supression of self awareness, self knowldge, self posession. Comrades lose their identity in war time for the collective rush of a common cause, a common purpose. In comradeship life is ecstatic, corporate, as oppossed to friendship where life is singular and individual. In war time when we feel threatened we no longer face death alone, but as a group, and this makes death easier to bear. We ennoble self-sacrifice for the other, for the comrade. In short we begin to worship death and this is what the god of war demands of us.
Think finally of what it means to die for a friend. It is deliberate and painful, there is no ecstacy. For friends dying is hard and bitter. The dialog they have and cherish will perhaps never be recreated. Friends do not, the way comrades do, love death and sacrifice. To friends the prospect death is frightening and this is why friendship and let me say love is the most potent enemy of war.
**************
The homosexual's capacity for both friendship and love with those of the same gender totally short-circuits the need of the military to dehumanize people into robots capable of doing whatever they are told without any second thoughts including the willingness to kill and/or die as the occasion warrants.
Homosexuals, in short, are not suitable for military service because of its perversions and not because of any of their own.
Poet
And yet the homotropic soldiers of Sparta (I think it was Sparta) were considered extremely desirable soldiers because they would fight more fiercely for having their lovers by their side: not only to defend the lover, but to make him proud of them. (Noted by the late Prof. Marvin Harris)
DA-DT is so wrong for so many reasons, the issue is really one of practical politics. That game is rife with nuance and ambiguity, more than a few gaming the game along the way. How and when the charades are brought to an end are the questions. Not soon enough for too many, for sure, though the vagaries of consequence loom large, very large.
I thank those commenting for reminding of us of the wrongfulness of the use of military force generally. Unfortunately those of us who share such a view seem to be an ineffective minority, worldwide. And, relative to DA-DT it is a non-sequitur.
However, the comparisons Pierre Tristam makes between the Pentagon and the Taliban are way, way off base. There is no comparison there. Why distract such an important issue with such inflammatory and offensive and inaccurate references?
courtjester-You have said something that I've wanted to say about this issue for a long time.
WHY ARE GAYS FIGHTING TO GET INTO THE MILITARY AT ALL? WHY SHOULD ANY WORKING OR POOR PERSON WANT TO SERVE THE WAR MACHINE?
It always astonishes me how the most anti-war people will change gears when it comes to the issue of gays in the military. All of a sudden they're defending the rights of patriots to serve when they'd otherwise be laying in front of recruitment centers.
Not that anyone, regardless of their gender or sexuality, should be subjected to abuse and harassment, but what does our military do to nations weaker than ours?
I don't want gays, women, or anyone else in the military, right now or ever again!
See, liberals want gays in the military because they don't see war as inherently evil. Radicals don't want anyone serving in the military because they do see war as inherently evil.
Call me crazy, but I'm a straight white man, and I have never had a desire to shoot foreigners. If I were gay or female, I'd get the hell out if I was enlisted. Why ANYONE would want to serve right now, I have no idea. Unless of course they're hurting for money.
Hell, if there's a draft, I'm grabbin' the first guy I see and french kissin' him!!! I'll hit on a frickin' male recruiter! I'll show up for duty in drag!
I don't say that to make light of homosexuals or homophobia, but when it comes to war, gays are lucky. They're not going to be expected to fight if it comes to a draft.
Gays deserve, need equal rights. No one deserves the right to kill other people, especially in the service of corporations and flags.
Poet-gays can be macho and violent and callous and unempathetic to those of their own gender also. Remember, there are gays in the Republican party.
Not that the Dems are much better, but I'm just saying.
I've heard and read that too Mairead.
But should society be churning out more soldiers, regardless of their sexuality or gender?
Now if we had some sort of People's Army, where instead of fighting, people would be trained how to rebuild homes and clean up the environment or something along those lines, then yes, let everyone serve who is able to.
I just can't champion the idea of sending people to kill and/or die, gay or straight. I'm not killing for any flag or corporation.