When DoD Chairman Roberts Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen testified before Congress last week and announced that the military would begin the process of ending Don't Ask/Don't Tell, Gates seemed to be going along -- but Mullen's testimony seemed truly heart-felt.
He spoke of having served with gay members throughout his long career. He said, "No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that 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.
And he added that "allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do."
We cheered. That is not boiler-plate rhetoric. Those are words from someone who gets it -- note our head military man is saying "gays and lesbians," not the more distant, clinical "homosexuals."
Even so, some were skeptical, especially in view of how long they're going to study how to implement it and for Congress to change the law. But when you look at some of the questions they will have to address, I understand why it will take time. For example, what to do about a gay service member who is married in one state where it's legal but is stationed -- and living in the community -- in another state where it is not regarding spousal benefits, health care, etc.
What they can do in the interim, however, is to put a moratorium on any more discharges while the law is being changed.
Now today comes some news that shows they really mean it.
Last year, Lt. Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and an Arab linguist who had served with his Army National Guard unit in Iraq, was discharged because he had come out on television -- clearly a violation of DA/DT. It became a test case and Lt. Choi a leading voice advocating overturning the law.
Today, it was announced that Lt. Choi has been called back to active duty.
I believe they really mean it.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I do too. There's a lesson in DADT. It seemed really silly at the time. But it redefined the problem. It recognized that it was the prejudice that needed to be dealt with, not the presence of homosexuals in the Army. In the process, it created a situation where homosexuals and heterosexuals served together with no problems. Now, there's little resistance except for a few jerk Congressmen who would probably oppose women voting or fluoride in the water if they had the chance [many of whom avoided the draft themselves - eg Saxby Chambliss R-GA].
ReplyDelete