Is the "Dont ask dont tell policy in military" needed?

Question

I am thinking that u can be kicked out for behavior that seems to be unrelated to defending our country...also, if Soldier A is gay and Soldier B "tells" his commander about Soldier A, then isn't Soldier B violating policy and thus subject to a reprimand?? Just wondering because I dont think it matters but so many people are sooooooooo uptight or maybe just fearful??

Answer 1

I think it needs to be changed to a "what difference does it really make?" policy.

Answer 2

People who serve in the military are historically rather conservative. Certainly, not all of them but as a rule of thumb. No one realistically expects to be ravished by a fellow Marine or soldier, or whatever while they are taking a shower but the idea of openly gay servicemen and women is something that many military personnel find uncomfortable. There will be a point in the future when openly gay and lesbian people will serve and most people won't really notice. It will take time and confrontation to get to that point, however. Just like when the military began to accept blacks. At first they were segregated into all black units and then they were integrated into regular units. There was a lot of struggle when these two events occurred. People fought, were discriminated against, and many people got hurt until finally the military and the nation came to accept it and it ceased to be an issue for most people. There are still racists in the military but they are a minority and the extremists don't last long.

The "Don't ask - Don't tell" policy was an attempt to integrate gays into the military without that initial tension and violence filled adjustment period. Sadly, it does not appear to be working. The policy actually makes it easier to abuse and discriminate against known and suspected homosexuals because it prevents them from seeking help from their command structure.

I served alongside a Marine that I and the rest of my unit found out was gay. There was some initial discomfort and I will not say that heated words were not exchanged or that a nose or two didn't get bloodied when somebody stepped out of line. Most of us, however, simply didn't care that much. The guy had been with us for a while and was a damn fine Marine. He never hit on any of us, and he didn't ogle any of us in the shower or any nonsense like that so after a while you sort of forgot about it. It was just part of his non-Marine background, like being black or jewish or something like that. We understood intellectually that he did things on his personal time that the rest of us didn't but it just wasn't something that anybody cared about enough to discuss. Just like we didn't really care what Goldstein did during Hanukkah (sp?). What mattered was what he did on Marine time. When I left active service he was still serving, although I do not know if he still is.

As far as the scenario that you mentioned above, we have a term in the military called "field expedience" and basically what it means is you make it work and accomplish the mission. Whatever "it" happens to be. If soldier A is a good trooper, does his job, doesn't cause problems, etc. then the officer is going to look at soldier B and ask him why he cares so much. If it appears that soldier A and soldier B are going to have problems with each other (no matter who is causing the problem) the officer is going to try to find a way to keep them separate, possibly by encouraging one or the other to transfer to another unit if it is really bad. The officer is going to look to his or her NCO's to monitor the situation to keep things from getting out of line. Only if the officer is pushed into a corner will direct administrative action be taken. Most units prefer to handle problems internally when ever possible.

Answer 3

The policy is divisive, and does far more harm than good.

Discrimination was tried for decades based on race, and then again based on gender. In the end, after some turbulent period of adjustment, people were intergrated.

Hatred based on sexual orientation is no different. The problem is not the gays. The problem is the people who hate them as a group because of fear or because their religion tells them to hate.

But passing laws or rules that sustain and justify that hatred doesn't help anyone. Certainly not a country that needs all the competent military personnel it can get.

As an aside, why does it seem that people think that just because someone is gay they go around raping everyone of the same sex around them? Isn't that the same as assuming that if someone is straight, they'll go around raping everyone of the opposite sex around them?

Answer 4

In some ways, it's good and in some ways, it's not.

It's bad because the military is kicking them out of the military and discriminating aganist people based on sexual preferences.

But, it's good because some guys really don't feel comfortable around gay men and they may even resort to violence in the worst cases. So, it's defin. not a black & white scenario.

Answer 5

"Don't ask don't tell" applies to every soldier. If soldier A violates that then it is soldier B's obligation to inform the command.

Answer 6

No, soldier A is at fault for letting soldier B know that he is gay. If soldier B knows that soldier A is gay and does not tell , he is guilty of neglecting his duty. This policy is needed because you can't have gay men and straight men sleeping in the same room. Why do you think they separate the men and women? Asking straight men to share their shower with gay men is like asking the female soldiers to share their shower with male soldiers.

Answer 7

The fact of the matter is that allowing open homosexuals into the military would have a serious negative effect on both recruiting and retention.

Have you noticed that the people who most strongly support gays in the military are also the ones least likely to serve?

Answer 8

The last thing a soldier needs to worry about while sitting in a foxhole is getting cornholed.