A prime opportunity is at hand for Congress to repeal the repressive "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy that has drummed out more than 13,000 capable members of the military simply because they are gay men and lesbians.

President Obama and the top Pentagon brass have called for repeal, and House strategists plan a floor fight to attach repeal to the big defense budget bill that comes up this week. Election-year nervousness is evident among some supporters, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi braced them last week with a flat prediction that don’t-ask "will be a memory by the end of this year."

The speaker did not detail the process, but an amended defense bill generated by the House would be a good start. Senate opponents would have to come up with a supermajority to delete repeal from the measure.

Some lawmakers who favor repeal want to wait for a Pentagon study due in December about how — not whether — to carry out the change. The obvious legislative solution is to make repeal effective after the study is in the hands of Defense Secretary Robert Gates. He has already ordered the end of such abuses as third-party accusations that are not made under oath, or that are made with malice and intent to harm a good soldier’s career.

The Pentagon study reportedly will survey more than 300,000 people, including service members and families. Possible changes focus on whether the military code will have to be amended to ban discrimination against gays and lesbians, and whether their partners will receive family benefits. These questions are subsidiary to Congress’s obligation to enact repeal, which opinion polls indicate the public clearly favors.

"Don’t ask, don’t tell" is a culture war scar on military honor that finds the nation alone among the major Western allies in denying qualified gay men and lesbians the chance to defend their country. Military generals from Britain, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands and Israel were in Washington last week offering assurances that ending the gay ban became a nonissue once their services were justly integrated.

"There were concerns in the late ’90s of gay men walking across the gangplank in feather boas and high heels," retired Lt. Cmdr. Craig Jones of the British Navy related. "That just did not happen."

Congress has the chance to strike down similar absurdities in the American mind and military by enacting repeal to end a shameful injustice.

(Source: New York Times, 21-5-2010)

==================================================================================================

Military personnel take part in a Gay Pride parade in London. A British officer says integrating gays was not a problem.

Representatives from Great Britain, Canada, Australia, Israel and the Netherlands gathered Wednesday at the Brookings Institution, a think tank in Washington, to describe how the militaries in those countries handled allowing homosexuals to serve openly. The consensus was that, in spite of concerns before the change, it became a nonissue once gays and lesbians were allowed to serve.

"I did not see one case at any level when homosexuals did not get along with other soldiers. The problems are among men and women," said Maj. Gen. Walter Semianiw, an infantry officer in the Canadian military. "This is not an issue for our country."

"We know the U.S. as a country that favors the individual rights, freedom, giving the people the opportunity to flourish in their life," said Col. Kees Matthijssen of the Royal Dutch Army. "From that perspective it's still very strange the U.S. is still having a kind of ban on openly having gays and lesbians in the military."

"There were concerns in the late '90s of gay men walking across the gangplank in feather boas and high heels," said retired Lt. Cmdr. Craig Jones of the British Royal Navy. "That just did not happen."

Jones said British military officials saw an unexpected benefit of allowing gays to serve openly -- better retention of qualified soldiers and sailors in key positions. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the British military had a 6 percent to 8 percent gap in unfilled positions. Now it's down to the 2 percent to 3 percent range.

Jones said one reason for that is the new policy allowing gays to serve.

Now that gays are able to serve, military recruiters in the United Kingdom have more volunteers to choose from, Jones said. Also, having children is often cited by British troops as one reason why they leave the military in their late 20s or 30s. Jones said because gays and lesbians are less likely to become parents, they tend to stay in the military longer.

During a recent congressional hearing on the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell," policy, retired NATO Commander Gen. John Sheehan testified that he believed the Dutch military's policy of allowing gays to serve was in part to blame for the Dutch military's failure to halt the massacre of Muslims in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica in 1995.

Sheehan later backtracked on his testimony, but Matthijssen of the Dutch army addressed the comments.

"I was in Srebrenica myself, I was a company commander, I was there. I had a full professional company," Matthijssen said.

"The homosexual, sexuality that he suggested would have affected that unit, that is absolutely not the case."

Matthijssen said, "There was good cohesion within the unit, the unit was effective. But the unit was put in a place -- based on political decisions within the U.N., within the international community -- with too [few] troops, too few means, not the mandate to really fight and overwhelm ... That's what really happened."

Matthijssen said allowing gays to serve openly has made the Royal Dutch Army better.

"We're much more effective because we have an organizational culture and climate that people know that they can tell about who they are, and that's what we encourage," he said.

(Source: CNN, 20-5-2010)

Allies to America: Gays Do Not Destroy Military Readiness

Taking a toll: over 13,000 qualified servicemembers have been discharged under DADT .

Many things about America stir wonderment in global friends and foes alike: a spirit of ingenuity, a belief in opportunity, and a commitment to freedom are all American hallmarks that modern nations emulate.

But according to a May 19 CNN article, America's military allies are struck by the disconnect between those virtues and the fear that if the U.S. fully integrates its armed forces by setting aside a 17-year-old ban on service by open gays and lesbians military morale and combat readiness will suffer. America's allies know from first-hand experience that dire warnings of mass chaos in the ranks and sexual predation are only so much vapor--because those same allies have long since integrated their own fighting forces, with no adverse effects.

"We know the U.S. as a country that favors the individual rights, freedom, giving the people the opportunity to flourish in their life," the Royal Dutch Navy's Col. Kees Matthijssen observed. "From that perspective it's still very strange the U.S. is still having a kind of ban on openly having gays and lesbians in the military."

Col. Matthijssen was part of a gathering of military officials from around the world who came to the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institute to share their views on how repeal of the anti-gay policy, known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" DADT, might affect America's military--or, more to the point, not affect it. The institute hosted military guests from Australia, Britain, Canada, Israel, and the Netherlands--all nations that have set aside their own bans on service by openly gay and lesbian troops.

"I did not see one case at any level when homosexuals did not get along with other soldiers," Maj. Gen. Walter Semianiw of Canada said, adding that military service for sexual minorities "is not an issue for our country."

Some of the anecdotes shared by the visitors verged on the humorous, though they made a point. Said British Royal Navy Lt. Cmdr. Craig Jones retired), "There were concerns in the late 90s of gay men walking across the gangplank in feather boas and high heels." Sound preposterous? It was: "That just did not happen," said Jones, who went on to note that by setting aside its anti-gay ban, the British Royal Navy was able to hold on to talented personnel who happened to be gay.

That outcome was a far cry from fears that allowing openly gay people to serve in uniform would decimate the ranks, driving straight personnel out of the service and turning off young heterosexual recruits--warnings that are being issued in America today by anti-gay voices who want the ban to be kept in place. Virtually no one left the British military when their ban was ended and gays could serve openly, and neither morale nor discipline disintegrated.

Jones also said that setting aside the ban allowed the British military to draw on a whole new pool of recruits--young people who refuse to lie about who they are and tarnish their personal integrity in the name of serving their country honorably. Moreover, military retention is helped by adding openly gay people to the ranks: gays are less likely to have children and therefore less likely to leave their military careers due to family issues.

Some anti-gay proponents of the American ban say that allowing gays to serve openly would weaken or undercut the military; one high-ranking American official, Gen. John Sheehan, claimed that gays in uniform among the Dutch ranks enabled a 1995 massacre in Bosnia to take place because the Dutch military presence in Srebrenica was watered down by gay troops.

That claim sparked angry denunciations and led to an apology from Sheehan. Matthijssen recalled Sheehan's claims, however, CNN reported, and said, "I was in Srebrenica myself, I was a company commander, I was there. I had a full professional company. The homosexual, sexuality that [Sheehan] suggested would have affected that unit, that is absolutely not the case." The officer went on to note, "There was good cohesion within the unit, the unit was effective. But the unit was put in a place--based on political decisions within the U.N., within the international community--with too [few] troops, too few means, not the mandate to really fight and overwhelm." Added Matthijssen, "That's what really happened."