I read with interest your editorial “Time to ask and tell” (Oct. 10, 2002). There are real costs to integrating the openly gay into the ranks. This is not to say that those costs may not be worthy of the goal, but let’s fully understand the ramifications of what you are advocating.
There is no question that the law requires the military to discriminate in its hiring practices, but gays are not the only demographic excluded from military service. The Americans with Disabilities Act, for instance, does not apply to the military either. Certain groups are excluded because their presence may impede the performance of the squads and platoons to which they’d be assigned. This is not an esoteric debate; when military performance is impeded, soldiers die.
In combat, military units depend upon bonds of cohesion to keep them functioning during incredibly stressful times. There is no reason to believe that gays cannot function in combat?clearly they have and they can. The problem is that there are some portions of our society who cannot deal with gays. This is a prejudice, pure and simple, but to denounce it does not make it go away. We must remember that the military is a reflection of society, and there are portions of our society who beat gays and tie them to fence posts to die of exposure, and still others who celebrate that act as God’s will.
Extreme examples aside, the real problems of course are lesser acts of prejudice where the straight simply cannot function alongside the gay. Bigotry is disgraceful, but there is no bigot detector until one’s behavior gives one away. In the military, such behavior can cause units to collapse and people to die. Sports analogies are never fully accurate, but consider this: Because the right offensive tackle and guard on a football team don’t function well together, the quarterback gets sacked. Because the quarterback keeps getting sacked, the team loses. The defensive end may have no problem with either the right guard or tackle, but he is on the losing team just the same. In combat, as small units begin to unravel, it can cause cascading effects to ripple throughout the force and people start dying needlessly.
So if you say that it’s time to open up the military to openly gay men and women, you’ve got to accept the possibility that your decision will get people killed. The moment the law is changed, the vast majority of the good men and women in the military will try to figure out how to make it work, but it will take some time. Football coaches call this time “building years” and they expect to lose some games while they implement changes. Your readers are smart enough to see what the military corollary is to “losing games.” President Truman desegregated the ranks in 1948, but racial tension continued to tear some units apart 20 years later during the Vietnam War. That’s the balance you’ve got to weigh, because it’s not just the bigots who will be casualties, of course, but some of the well-meaning people who are trying to make it work.
It may be that for the greater good, the United States should accept a higher rate of military casualties during this transition time until the military gets the programs in place to make integration work. The nation spends lives to achieve goals, and if you deem the integration of gays into the military worthy enough, then so be it. But be intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that cost. And while you’re being honest, let’s admit that the position is easier to take when it’s not going to be you or the vast majority of your readers who pay the price.
