Max Boot’s Misplaced ‘Study’ of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
Military analyst Max Boot relies on suspect and irrelevant studies by the activist academic group, the Palm Center, to argue that openly gay military service wouldn’t be a problem for the U.S. military.
Military analyst Max Boot has a new post at Commentary magazine’s Contentions blog in which he argues that openly gay military service really wouldn’t be a problem for the U.S. military. In support of his thesis, Boot advances two big ideas both of which are wrong. I’ll address Boot’s two main points in two separate blog posts. (Here’s the link to the second post.)
First, says Boot, “studies” show that open homosexuality has not undermined “unit cohesion in allied militaries, including those of Australia, Britain, and Israel.”
But the “studies” Boot references were done by the Palm Center, an activist academic group which has been actively promoting openly gay military service for years. Thus, the objectivity and fairness of these studies are in doubt. In fact, there are four big problems with the Palm Center “studies”:
First, other countries militaries aren’t comparable to the U.S. military. No other military on the planet, after all, can or will do what our military does — namely, fight and win major wars in multiple theaters of operation over a prolonged, multiyear period.
Second, the fact that other countries have allegedly muddled along with openly gay military service doesn’t mean that openly gay military service is ideal or helps to promote military readiness and combat effectiveness.
There are some things, after all, that the military suffers and endures — a stultifying bureaucracy, a rigid hierarchy, and women in some combat units — which hinder its performance, but which are ignored or swept under the rug for political reasons.
Third, it is not clear that openly gay military service is really as pervasive as Boot and the Palm Center suggest.
“Indeed, according to Thomas Mackubin Owens, with the exception of the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries,
[our NATO and allied militaries] still discriminate, banning homosexuals from service in ground combat units and special-operations forces.
Owens is a Marine veteran of the Vietnam War, a professor at the Naval War College, and editor of Orbis, the journal of the Foreign Policy Research Institute. Owens also cites the late great military sociologist Charles Moskos, who wrote:
There is no country in Europe, much less Israel, that American advocates of gay rights would find a suitable model.
Fourth, the entire effort to “study” the issue and to gather “data” is completely misplaced; yet it dominates the debate — or at least what little debate there now is over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: Because in truth, only one side — those who want to trash “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — is making an argument. Supporters of the current policy are incredibly weak and inarticulate.
The effort to gather data is misplaced because the attitudes or “feelings” of our servicemen and women aren’t at issue.
What is at issue is the introduction of an overtly sexual dynamic into military units, and whether that will help or hinder military readiness and combat effectiveness. And for that we don’t need “data”; we simply need to understand human nature and our recent (but much covered-up and ignored) U.S. military history.
In my next post, I’ll refute Boot’s second point, which is that the military’s experience with women shows that accommodating open homosexuality would not be a problem. Boot misconstrues the role of women in the military and thus is wrong about open homosexuality within the ranks.
John R. Guardiano is an Arlington, Virginia-based writer and analyst. He served as a Marine in Iraq and is still a military reservist. Follow him on Twitter. Mr. Guardiano has also written an ongoing series — “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and Don’t Even Pretend to Be Fair” – about willful media bias and distortion regarding open homosexuality in the military.
I still disagree with this stand. Gays are human, and many are patriotic. Why disallow them from fighting for their land? Eventually, the concept of all people having equal rights will prevail.
A Deist, Feminist, Goy, Patriotic American Citizen, and Zionist.
I label myself because most posters put me in the wrong box.
I'm right in the middle on this one, but when I substitute the opposite sex for homosexuals, it becomes an easier decision. In other words, if the question becomes, "Why can't men and women serve together in the same combat unit?", then the answer seems obvious to me. All the same arguments would apply.
Once don't ask don't tell goes away, all of the same issues that could potentially arise if hetero men and women served together in the same foxhole/barracks would be put into play. If heterosexual men and women haven't successfully lobbied the military to allow them to sleep in the same barracks as the opposite sex, why would homosexuals be allowed to sleep in barracks with their sexual partners?
What if openly gay men were told they could serve in units with women, and openly gay women were told they could serve with men – would that make any more or less sense?
Thanks jhimmi. Besides, some of the great military minds were bisexual or homosexual.
Really. Who? And why is that relevant to the discussion?
Frederick the Great, for one. Baron von Steuben was also reputed to be gay.
T.E. Lawrence was reputed to have either been gay, a masochist, or both.
Homosexuality among soldiers was actively encouraged in Ancient Greece. See Burg, Gay Warriors, 2002.
It is relevant to the discussion because the history of gay military leadership makes it clear that sexual orientation is essentially irrelevant to soldiering. The real issue, as we all know, is that gays make some people feel "icky." My advice is to get over it and get on with your job.
They aren't banned from fighting for their land. The question at hand is whether or not gays and lesbians should have a legally protected right to tell everyone they please about their sexual preference, and whether that would be beneficial or detrimental to the overall effectiveness of the military.
As much as you might dislike it, military service entails giving up a lot of the legal rights available to civilians. You don't have the same free speech, freedom of assembly, etc. that a civilian has during your period of service to the country.
However, it is okay to spout off regarding the fact you are heterosexual viral female or male in the military?
Within very strictly defined limits, yes, it is. Doing so, again within strict limits, defined by regulations it would take months to read, does not undermine good order and discipline.
Now, if a man or a woman engages in sexual behavior that is prohibited by the UCMJ, such as fraternization or adultery, they're penalized under the UCMJ and often kicked out.
Kathy,
We are agreed regarding discipline, fraternization and adultery.
I hope you understand my claim, as many do not.
With regards,
aspacia
It depends on what you mean by "okay". If you mean that it's legally protected, that's not the case. If I as a male Marine were to, for example, constantly tell the women in my unit what a great lover I was, particularly if they were of lower rank, they could claim sexual harassment and I'd probably be punished.
If you mean that you're not going to get in trouble if you're sufficiently discreet, then yes, spouting off about your heterosexuality is something that you can do. As is coming out – but again, the key is discretion. I've served in units with gay guys, and it was never problematic, because they weren't in anyone's face about it.
Now if you repeal DADT as is being proposed, what you're going to have happen is that some folks of a gay persuasion, somewhere, are going to push the limits, and start confronting people with their sexual identity. It doesn't matter that the vast majority of the gays and lesbians in the military are not going to be behaving so. Just one person doing that, and getting away with it, will have a devastating effect on the unit's morale and unit integrity. How many units' integrity are you willing to destroy for your notion of equal rights?
And how many commanding officers are going to be willing to punish such violations of military discipline when Congress and the executive branch have taken away a key legal avenue for them to do so? The average field grade officer isn't going to be rewarded for sticking his neck out to save a cohesive military unit, and will have to face opposition from his superiors and Congress if he tries to punish someone for being disruptive, since they've adopted the more "enlightened" attitude that such disruption is the right of the individual in the service.
Of course, but I think we need to separate God's creations from their behavior. The concept of equal rights already applies, in my opinion. Rights come from God, the Creator. Some of these rights are codified into the Constitution. There is no "right" that a person who engages in behavior contrary to what the military folks call "good order and discipline" be allowed the privilege to serve.
Kathy, are we to live according to God's law, a law that encompasses numerous faiths, or according to human laws, secular laws?
I prefer secular laws to Allah's, Christian, Jewish, or Pagan laws.
This is my opinion, not demand.
There's a whole lot of people that would agree with you, I'll bet. And I think you've hit on the foundation for all the arguments, discussions, and comments on this issue (or any other issue for that matter). I had it put this way to me years ago, and this is the easiest way for me to remember:
In every argument, there are two sides: Man says, and God says. All that I'll add to this is that what God says is eternal and unchanging; what man says is changing every day.
I am hopeful that this issue, contentious though it tends to be, can be resolved in a way such that all sides are heard, even if the end result is not to everyone's liking.
Blessings to you!