Tim Peterson, Columnist
Ideology: Socratic | Writing from: Queens, New York

In 1948, President Harry Truman commissioned a committee to begin desegregating the United States Armed Forces and then to review the policy’s effects. On May 11, 1949, the U.S. Air Force began to enact this policy. Not surprisingly, the change was immediately met with apprehension by commanding officers; some feared that there would be conflicts between black and white officers, which would subsequently lead to widespread destabilization and military inefficiency. A year later President Truman received first reports on the policy’s implementation.

The commanding officers who initially feared the effects of integration unanimously stated “that their fears had been completely groundless, and that they were amazed at the ease with which the new policy had been effected and the absence of trouble. […] It was the opinion of some officers that this program could not but have an effect, eventually, on civilian attitudes; that it was impossible for a white boy to live and work beside a Negro in basic training and in the technical schools, without some real change taking place in his attitude toward race and racial superiority.” Furthermore, the report cites that “most commanding officers” viewed the integration policy as improving the efficiency and manpower of the military.

It is this last part that proves most telling in light of the ongoing Senate hearings regarding the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. While military recruitment is up and an estimated 65,752 lesbians, gay men and bisexuals currently serve in the U.S. military (accounting for approximately 2.2% of all military personnel), the continuation of DADT is detrimental to the nation and its military—but not because of its social/moral implications.

There are those who view the acceptance of gays and lesbians in the military as possibly leading to the suspect classification of

Credit: Mike Luckovich, Atlanta Journal-Constitution

homosexuals, paving the way for equal rights (namely marriage). This is not the immediate issue nor is it even assured that such a domino effect would occur. Rather, the pressing issue is national security. DADT reduces the number of citizens eligible to join the military—despite estimations that repealing the policy would result in addition of 36,700 active duty service members. True, many people choose to point out that LGB individuals can serve so long as they don’t out themselves. But this does not account for the possibility of other service members outing an LGB individual. Furthermore, as Admiral Mike Mullen said at last week’s Congressional hearing, “We have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.” Compounding Admiral Mullen’s assertion, we have in place a policy in which we are willing to sacrifice intelligence and expertise to purportedly maintain order.

According to a June 22, 2009, letter addressed by seventy-seven congressional members to President Obama, “since DADT was enacted in 1993, almost 13,000 service members have been discharged under the policy at a cost to U.S. taxpayers of over $400 million. Over the past 5 years, nearly 800 mission-critical troops and at least 59 Arabic and 9 Farsi linguists have been discharged simply for being openly gay.” Such a loss of specialized personnel poses potentially severe vulnerabilities for the Armed Forces. For evidence, one need only look to the recent suicide bombing in Afghanistan that killed seven CIA officers and contractors. While the loss was minor in count, it left a huge vacuum of intelligence and expertise vital to counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations in the region. The discharge of LGB service members represents the potential for similar losses of trained specialists, losses that would further endanger national security.

Many politicians claim that repealing DADT would cause instability to arise in the military ranks and disrupt the camaraderie and trust among soldiers, thereby weakening units and the overall military. This claim, however, is of highly suspect validity. Though there are politically active soldiers, an apolitical ethos does pervade. In his 1957 book The Soldier and the State, Samuel Huntington asserts that it is most beneficial to the country and its military for its commissioned officers to remain political impartial, in a sense, to be mercenaries. Tellingly, General David Petraeus, perhaps the most popular officer of the past decade, subscribes to this theory, and has not voted since becoming a two-star general in 2002. He exemplifies the soldier who does not permit personal beliefs to pollute professional duties. Yes, there may be initial apprehension among service members at a repeal of DADT, but why wouldn’t those premature grumblings be replaced with gratitude as they were with the repeal of military segregation – gratitude not for any gained moral clarity, but gained military capability?

In the report furnished by Truman’s committee two years after their investigation began, the committee members concluded:

“The Committee found, in fact, that inequality had contributed to inefficiency…As a result of its examination into the rules, procedures, and practices of the armed services, both past and present, the Committee is convinced that a policy of equality of treatment and opportunity will make for a better Army, Navy, and Air Force. It is right and just. It will strengthen the nation.”

Soldiers are groomed to adapt to changing conditions. When the military first became racially integrated, politicians lagged severely behind the soldiers in adjusting—not until nearly two decades after Truman’s decree did Congress pass the Civil Rights Act. Why should America compromise its military strength so that an ever-diminishing number of legislators and citizens are not discomforted?

National security is ultimately dependent on strength in skill and numbers: When at war, the more experienced you have soldiers at your back, the better the odds you have against those in your face. Politicians waver on DADT because they claim to want to protect the military, but if so, wouldn’t they want to ensure the military is protected when that protection is most needed, when more soldiers are needed?

Tim Peterson graduated from New York University in 2009 with a concentration in the representation of cultural identities. His political views tilt towards the left but he dislikes conventional ideological labels and is particularly interested in the role of the loyal opposition. He is also an Associate Editor at Access magazine.