There is also a more nuanced ethical argument in favor of repealing DADT, which Hilzoy outlines pretty effectively here:
It has always seemed obvious to me that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is immoral and discriminatory. But I've never understood why it isn't clear that it's also an insult to the professionalism of the military. The very idea that our soldiers should not be quite capable of subordinating their personal beliefs to the needs of their unit is as insulting. The idea that if some of them can't, we should fire the people they object to rather than the ones who cannot be counted on to put their jobs first, is just bizarre.
I'm sympathetic to both of these arguments. In addition, I think that calling on some members of the armed forces to lie about their sexuality seems to (at least) violate the spirit of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
But there is another case for repealing DADT of which I'm far more suspicious. Over the past few years, many left-wing pundits have argued that DADT is simply bad policy because it turns away good soldiers for no sensible reason. In other words, DADT has made our country less safe by effectively decreasing the size of our military.
The problem with this argument is that it doesn't allow for any consideration of the counterfactual scenario. It's undeniable that DADT has had an effect on and recruitment rates. However, if this is a primary concern for policymakers, then the real question is: How would repealing DADT impact retention and recruitment rates?
Are the kinds of men who join the military disproportionately likely to be ultramasculine homophobes? Or religious zealots? Or perhaps just strong social conservatives? If so, would these men be less likely to sign up for duty if DADT is overturned?
It's difficult to foresee a circumstance in which repealing DADT wouldn't cause at least a mild decline in retention and recruitment among certain demographic groups. But would repealing DADT make the military worse off than under current law?
I think that opponents of DADT should stick to making the moral case. Because the answers to these practical policy questions are far less clear than advocates might suggest.
6 comments:
Over the past few years, many left-wing pundits have argued that DADT is simply bad policy because it turns away good soldiers for no sensible reason.
I haven't heard that argument by lefty pundits so much as the argument that the DADT's policy expels soldiers in specialized fields and soldiers who are difficult to replace - soldiers with Arabic language skills, for example.
I don't necessarily agree with you that making the moral case is sufficient, because for the moral case to succeed, you need enough people to look outside their own selfishness (both malignant and more benign) to do something solely for the good of others. I think, and I think this about all policies and arguments, there has to be a "practical" - for lack of a better word - appeal as well. An argument that has both moral and practical applications is, I think, more likely to succeed than one that relies purely on morality.
I haven't heard that argument by lefty pundits so much as the argument that the DADT's policy expels soldiers in specialized fields and soldiers who are difficult to replace - soldiers with Arabic language skills, for example.
Yes, I think you're just citing a narrower version of the argument.
The problem with this point is that the best translators are native Arabic speakers. But many native speakers are Muslim, and Islam has some very harsh things to say about homosexuality.
It's not clear that overturning DADT will result in a net increase in the retention and recruitment of native Arabic speakers.
I think, and I think this about all policies and arguments, there has to be a "practical" - for lack of a better word - appeal as well. An argument that has both moral and practical applications is, I think, more likely to succeed than one that relies purely on morality.
Maybe you're right. And there may be a more practical argument against DADT, but in my view, this clearly isn't it.
The problem with this point is that the best translators are native Arabic speakers.
I don't doubt that's true, much like the best translators of any language are probably native to that tongue. However, I also think it is a bit... problematic to limit the effectiveness of those Arabic translators who have been expelled from the military due to DADT simply because they are not native Arabic speakers. The last number I remember hearing was 58 Arabic translators were expelled from the military due to DADT - but that was before Dan Choi, so the number is at least 59 now. And to say, "Since they weren't native Arabic translators, their loss won't be as negative a factor" is, I think, kind of missing the point.
And to say, "Since they weren't native Arabic translators, their loss won't be as negative a factor" is, I think, kind of missing the point.
I do think that native speakers are more valuable, but that's not really what I'm saying. I think you're kind of missing my point.
Let's assume that the current policy has cause the loss of, say, 200 gay Arabic translators (native or non-native speakers), either because they were discharged for being gay or because they chose not to serve.
The key question is: Would repleaing this policy cause the loss of more than 200 Arabic translators? I think it's certainly possible that the answer to this question is "yes."
We just don't know.
The key question is: Would repleaing this policy cause the loss of more than 200 Arabic translators? I think it's certainly possible that the answer to this question is "yes."
I think that the answer would probably be "no", because in order for the answer to be "yes", then the 200 Arabic speakers would either have to assume they would definitely be serving with someone who is gay, or would have to assume - if they were in the army right now - that there were no gays in the military. Since gays are roughly 10 percent of the population, and since gays are already serving in uniform, albeit covertly, then the 200 Arabic speakers you are referencing would have to be both paranoid in a crazy way and obtuse.
Integrating the military may have stopped some bigoted white Americans from joining. It may continue to stop some bigoted white Americans from joining. However, the net benefit of having the troops integrated is, I think, fairly apparent.
Maybe you're right. We just don't know.
First, I think it's a little odd to ascribe that kind of rationality to what is essentially a bigoted act. Either way, there is clearly a difference between the current policy -- in which outted homosexuals are immediately discharged -- and a policy in which the military effectively endorses homoexuality, and outted gay servicemembers are allowed to serve openly.
Second, the polling on this is surprisingly limited, and the few polls that exist are a bit difficult to interpret. For example, the oft-cited Zogby poll found that 66 pecent of troops feel the presenece of gays in their unit has no impact on morale. But the same poll also found that a strong plurality of soldiers support the policy, and many simply do not believe that there are gay servicemembers in their unit. (I find that a little astounding.)
The only poll that I know of which actually asked service memebers directly whether or not they would leave the military found that about 10 percent claim they would. I don't know the details of the survey, though.
Third, I think it's a little weird that you say "some bigoted white Americans," since black Americans are far more strongly opposed to homsexual relationships and homosexuality in general. Arabs Americans, too.
Post a Comment