Wednesday, August 23, 2006

A Result Of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

I will never understand why the first issue that Bill Clinton addressed after he was inaugurated as president was that of gays in the military; the fact that he had not served (he did register but drew a high number) strained his relationship with the services, and trying to address the culture of something he really didn’t completely understand right away was a big misstep (I’m not saying Clinton was wrong; I’m just saying he didn’t choose the time and place for the battle very well, so to speak). However, I believe Clinton rebounded from that as well as we could have hoped.

I’m mentioning this because President “Pull My Finger” (hat tips to Atrios and Tbogg…Dubya somehow finds a way to sink lower and lower every day) has just brought back the “backdoor draft” for our marines, and this would have been mitigated somewhat if gays and lesbians could serve in our military in greater numbers.

As noted in this story...

As military and political leaders struggle to address critical troop shortages in the Middle East, they should consider the results of a data analysis just released by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, of the University of California at Santa Barbara. Our report, which analyzed data obtained from the Defense Manpower Data Center through a Freedom of Information Act request, revealed that the military is losing mission-critical combat and support specialists because of the ban on openly gay soldiers. What is particularly troubling about the results is that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which requires the discharge of known gays and lesbians, is ousting troops in the very same occupational specialties as service members who are being involuntarily recalled from civilian life.
And E.J. Dionne notes here the reflexive hostility on the part of the Repugs and most Democrats to allowing gays and lesbians to serve our country (I mean, if Colin Powell wasn’t “on board” with it in 1993, did anyone seriously think that Rummy would be now?).

No comments: