Don't ask, don't tell: military policy and implications

¶ … Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the United States Military has been one of the most acrimonious and highly debated issues in the history of the country. The policy, which was introduced during the presidential administration of former President Bill Clinton, restricted U.S. military personnel from discriminating against lesbian and gay members of the armed services so long as said members remained quiet about their sexual orientation. The policy also prohibited persons who were openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual from enlisting in the various services. Prior to the introduction of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," it had been military policy under the dictates of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to discharge anyone who engaged in homosexual acts or who stated that they were either homosexual or bisexual.

The atmosphere surrounding the policy has been difficult for everyone involved. The issue involves considerable emotion and both sides have not hesitated to use such emotion in presenting their arguments. Former President Clinton made the repeal of the long-standing ban against homosexuals enlisting in the military a major plank in his run for the presidency but when he encountered considerable opposition in Congress he agreed, and actually suggested, the compromise that became known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The issue continued to be discussed during the Bush administration but there was no major movement to change or abandon the policy during these years. President Obama's election, however, marked a renewed interest in the repeal of the policy and, after many months of debate and negotiation, the policy was ultimately repealed in late December, 2010, however, it remains in effect pending the formation of new Defense Department regulations and the completion of a study on the effects of the repeal on military readiness and effectiveness. Once the regulations and study have been completed a 60-day waiting period will be begin.

There has been no shortage of articles addressing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," policy. These articles cover the wide range of collateral issues involved in the implementation of the policy, the divergence of opinion as to its effectiveness and its need, and the public arguments regarding both sides of the issues. Not surprisingly, throughout the application of the policy the articles represent the split in society and the military on the issue and reflect how acrimonious the matter has been for the nation.

One such article, entitled Bill Clinton: I Regret DADT (Advocate.com) and published in The Advocate, a magazine dedicated to promoting the views of lesbians and gays and, covered an interview conducted by CSB news anchor Katie Couric of former President Bill Clinton. The article reveals that Clinton regretted having agreed to policy but that he had no choice. Clinton also reveals that he feels that he was misled by Colin Powell, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, relative to how the policy would be operate. Clinton stated in the article that Powell represented that: "Gay service members would never get in trouble for going to gay bars, marching in gay rights parades, as long as they weren't in uniform. That was what they were promised. That's a very different 'don't ask, don't tell' than we got."

A more pragmatic approach to the issue was taken by a much different publication, Stars and Stripes. In an article entitled as GAO: Gay ban cost military $53,000 per dismissal (Leo Shane), the article's author, Leo Shane III, reviewed the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy from a purely financial perspective. Shane set forth how the implementation of the policy cost the military $53,000 per dismissal during the time that the policy was in effect. In presenting the figures Shane pointed out that the figures were disputed by Pentagon officials and gay rights groups argued that the figure understated the true cost of the policy's implementation.

The two articles cited begin to reflect the different issues presented in the application of the DADT policy and how it precipitated strong feelings on the issue. Both articles took a detached approach to the underlying issue while simultaneously demonstrating the divergence of opinion and the emotional depth involved. Similarly, two other articles, both appearing in the traditionally conservative Christian Science Monitor, address the issue from different angles but like the earlier cited articles continue to demonstrate how wide the influence of the policy reaches. In the first article, entitled Marine chief: 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal could be deadly 'distraction,' (Mulrine) the author, Anna Mulrine, writes about Marine commandant, General James Amos', testimony before the congressional committee considering the repeal of the DADT. Mulrine, through the use of extensive quotations from Amos' testimony clearly sets forth Amos strong opposition to the repeal of DADT. Unlike the other articles cited, however, Mulrine offers little information to dispute the comments by Amos but she does point out that Amos' position is inconsistent with the Defense Department's stance. Despite the fact that other service commanders had already testified before the Congressional committee in support of the repeal of the policy, Mulrine failed to include such information in the body of her article.

In the other Christian Science Monitor article, this one entitled, Supreme Court refuses to hear bid to block 'don't ask, don't tell," (Richey) Monitor staff writer, Warren Richey, wrote an article regarding the United States Supreme Court's refusal to reinstate a federal judge's order blocking enforcement of the DADT policy. The author explains in some detail the reasons for the Supreme Court's decision and offers a series of arguments suggesting the repeal of the DADT policy may be in danger. The article, which is published a mere five weeks prior to the policy's being repealed, creates the impression that the policy is likely to be continued for some time in the future. The article, unlike the earlier cited Monitor article, does offer some oppositional thought in the way of citing comments from both opponents and proponents of the policy's repeal.

Each of the articles cited above were written and published prior to the repeal of the DADT policy and addressed the issue from the basis of a narrow aspect. The articles cited examined the policy from the viewpoint of the cost, the attitude of one of the command officers, the feelings of the former President who initiated the policy, and how the policy withstood legal challenge. All the writers were forced to review the policy without the benefit of knowing what might ultimately develop and, with one exception, attempted to present the issues in an even handed manner while still providing valuable information. The final article reviewed was prepared after the repeal of the DADT policy and does an exceptional job of providing a historical perspective as to how the policy developed, how the differing points-of-view came to exist, and what the future might hold as Congress and the military prepare for the post DADT era.

The article, Don't Ask, Don't Tell (New York Times), written by the staff of the New York Times, appears in the publication the morning following President Obama's signing the legislation that repealed the DADT, traces the history of the policy from its inception through its ultimate repeal and, in doing so, offers a perspective from both sides of the issue. The article takes a neutral position as to the moral and legal implications of the policy and, instead, offers quotations and references that display the opinions and judgments of others involved in the matter in an effort to demonstrate that the issue was a difficult and complicated matter for everyone. For those not fully advised on the issue and wondering about the impacts, both negative and positive, this article offers a concise, unbiased approach.