There's a lot of outrage among liberals right now at the Army's dismissal of Dan Choi, the gay Arabic linguist lieutenant who came out publicly on TV. Well, unlike some of my more conservative friends and family, I really have no personal rancor toward or condemnation of gays. As long as they don't harass me (and that goes for straights, too), their sexual practices are a personal matter between them, their partners, their doctors, and God, who sees beyond appearances and judges every heart rightly. In short, it's just none of my business.But I think "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was a terrible policy to enact. I was a sergeant on active duty when Clinton first proposed allowing LGBT to serve openly. My first gut reaction was, "What a leadership nightmare. Now we're going to have to deal with troops who refuse to shower or bunk together; blanket parties; cliques and "black sheep" when we're having a hard enough time building unit cohesion and esprit de corps; hell, possibly even fragging and other tragic consequences. You can't FORCE people to truly accept one another. The military's not ready for this!"
Military leaders must've voiced the same concerns, and the right undoubtedly pressured him to retract in order to score their own political points. So Clinton, rather than retracting completely, goes, "Allright, we won't go that far, just don't ask, don't tell... (winkwink)" At that point, I thought, "How chickenshit. Grow a pair, please, Mr. Prez."There was a young gay black private in my unit, although not in my squad. He used to confide in me about his trips to see his boyfriends and such. Nobody seemed to have a problem with him, fortunately, but he was pretty discreet. I doubt anybody in command knew anything about it.
Choi's mistake was in trotting out his orientation on national TV, for what? To get attention? To force the administration's hand? Sorry, Mr. Choi, but have you noticed that the President has just a few little emergencies he's sorta tied up with right now? Could this have just waited a while, ya think? Because right now, DADT is still in effect. And surely you're smart enough to know that Obama's not going to suddenly throw all his political capital your way when he needs it for so many other things. Some of us are wearing ourselves ragged pleading for environmental and species protections, health care reform, and other priorities that are literally matters of life and death to many Americans. So could we just stop stirring the pot if possible, at least until the country and the world are in a little more comfortable spot economically, environmentally, and strategically?
Choi knew what he was doing. What did he expect Obama to do in response? I don't blame the administration one bit.
~~Cheryl
Cheryl,
ReplyDeleteI've seen LT Choi on TV. While I agree that President Obama has many more important items on his plate, he did promise to eliminate DADT during the campaign.
In general the gay rights community is pushing him very hard right now to take a firmer stand on many of their issues, including the elimination of DADT.
Yes, we are in the middle of a very serious situation in Afghanistan / Pakistan and the President is being very lenient with the JCS and the Secretary of Defense. I can't say that is wrong, but I can't say it's wrong for the gay rights community to be as noisy as they can right now.
Prop. 8 in California activated the community and they are not in a mood to stop or compromise their principles. I don't blame them. While they are being critical of the President, it's a criticism he needs right now to move forward on that part of his agenda.
I believe the President is right to move slow, but I also believe it is right for those to the left of him to push their agenda as vigorously as possible. We are getting far too much press to the idiot far right Republicans right now. those on the left, including those to the left of the President need to do all they can to get their equal time.
Steve
(from a discussion on Obama Rapid Response):
ReplyDeleteI'm just saying, if you think violence against gays is bad now, try thrusting them into a gang of fresh recruits who are all trying to out-tough one another through the 8 weeks of basic and whatever specialized training they go on to afterwards -- living, working, eating, bunking, and showering together in close quarters the whole time. What's a squad leader to do when none of his squad will shower if the gay guy's in there? Do you set up a separate shower area, or draw up a schedule? And don't think the leaders are immune, either. You wouldn't believe the harassment I endured as a female serving in combat under a bunch of regressive, crusty old misogynists who had never known me in peacetime (I was a "cross-level," so deployed with a unit I had never trained with previously). How much worse would it have been had I been a gay man?
The female battalion sergeant-major of the unit I deployed with was "openly" gay. That is, it was "common knowledge," but nobody really had any proof, and she of course didn't flaunt it. Yes, she could pull rank, and often did, but behind her back she was mocked unmercifully, and never received a whit more cooperation than folks were duty-bound to render. This is a sad situation at any time, but during combat, it can prove deadly.
A whole slew of areas for potential harassment, favoritism, and discrimination -- or accusations thereof -- could suddenly open up if this policy were abruptly abolished with no phase-in or educational program, eroding trust, respect, and unit morale, and eating up far too much of commanders' precious time and energy dealing with complaints. Maybe in peacetime it could be done, but I'm no sure that right now, when we're busy fighting two wars, is the appropriate moment.
Just my $.02...
~~Cheryl