We can't possibly vote to repeal the Military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy before it's been thoroughly studied. We shouldn't make a decision like that lightly!
Two decades ago, in 1993, the Rand Corporation made a study about gays in the military, at the request of the Clinton administration and the Pentagon. From the report:
Based on the research findings, the study group found that the most promising policy option for achieving the President’s objectives focuses on conduct and considers sexual orientation, by itself, as not germane in determining who may serve in the Armed Forces.
In 2005, the Government Accountability Office, GAO looked into the cost of "Don't ask, Don't tell." Their report said:
GAO estimated that, over the 10-year period, it could have cost DOD about $95 million in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars to recruit replacements for servicemembers separated under the policy. Also, the Navy, Air Force, and Army estimated that the cost to train replacements for separated servicemembers by occupation was approximately $48.8 million, $16.6 million, and $29.7 million, respectively.
In 2006, the Palm Center, in conjunction with University of California, released its own study, concluding the GAO estimates were too low:
The report, to be released Tuesday by a University of California Blue Ribbon Commission, questioned the methodology the Government Accountability Office used when it estimated that the financial impact of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was at least $190.5 million.
The university study said the GAO erred by emphasizing the expense of replacing those who were discharged because of the policy without taking into account the value the military lost from the departures.
In 2007, the Williams Institute studied the rentention effect of DADT. They found:
If the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy had not been instituted, an estimated 4,000 lesbian, gay, and bisexual military personnel would have been retained each year since 1994. The military intends to add more than 18,000 new troops each year for the next five years. If patterns observed in 2004 were to continue for the next five years, the estimated retained LGB personnel would account for nearly one in six of the additional troops required.
In 2009, the Rand Corporation was asked to revisit the topic of "troop cohesion." This time they said:
"Service members said the most important factors for unit cohesion and readiness were the quality of their officers, training and equipment," said Laura Miller, study co-author and a sociologist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. "Serving with another service member who was gay or lesbian was not a significant factor that affected unit cohesion or readiness to fight."
About 20 percent of those polled said they were aware of a gay or lesbian member in their unit, and about half of those said their presence was well known. In addition, three-quarters of those surveyed said they felt comfortable or very comfortable in the presence of gays or lesbians.
In 2010, the Palm Center released a study looking at honest service effect on our allies' military. That study's executive summary concluded:
- Twenty-five nations now allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
- In many of those countries, debate before the policy changes was highly pitched and many people both inside and outside the military predicted major disruptions. In Britain and Canada, roughly two thirds of military respondents in polls said they would refuse to serve with open gays, but when inclusive policies were implemented, no more than three people in each country actually resigned.
- Research has uniformly shown that transitions to policies of equal treatment without regard to sexual orientation have been highly successful and have had no negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, eadiness or overall combat effectiveness. No consulted expert anywhere in the world concluded that lifting the ban on openly gay service caused an overall decline in the military.
- The updated research conducted for this study confirm that early assessments by both military and independent analysts hold across time: none of the successes and gains of transitions to full inclusion were reversed by any of the nations studied, or yielded delayed problems over the years in which these militaries allowed openly gay service.
- Evidence suggests that lifting bans on openly gay service contributed to improving the command climate in foreign militaries, including increased focus on behavior and mission rather than identity and difference, greater respect for rules and policies that reflect the modern military, a decrease in harassment, retention of critical personnel, and enhanced respect for privacy.
- All the countries studied completed their implementations of repeal either immediately or within four months of the government’s decision to end discrimination. These experiences confirm research findings which show that a quick, simple implementation process is instrumental in ensuring success. Swift, decisive implementation signals the support of top leadership and confidence that the process will go smoothly, while a “phased-in” implementation can create anxiety, confusion, and obstructionism.
- Two main factors contributed to the success of transitions to openly gay service: clear signals of leadership support and a focus on a uniform code of behavior without regard to sexual orientation. Also key are simple training guidelines that communicate the support of leadership, that explain the uniform standards for conduct, and that avoid “sensitivity” training, which can backfire by causing resentment in the ranks.
- None of the countries studied installed separate facilities for gay troops, nor did they retain rules treating gays differently from heterosexuals. Each country has taken its own approach to resolving questions of benefits, housing, partner recognition, and re-instatement. Generally, the military honors the status afforded to gay or lesbian couples by that country, and the military rarely gets out in front of the government or other institutions in the benefits offered. ousing, partner recognition, and re-instatement. Generally, the military honors the status afforded to gay or lesbian couples by that country, and the military rarely gets out in front of the government or other institutions in the benefits offered.
- Lifting bans on openly gay service in foreign countries did not result in a mass “coming out.” Yet gay and lesbian troops serve in all levels of the armed forces of Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and Israel, in both combat and non-combat positions, at both the enlisted level and as high commanders.
- There were no instances of increased harassment of or by gay people as a result of lifting bans in any of the countries studied.
- Informal discrimination in treatment and promotions have not been wiped out, but evidence suggests that formal policies of equal treatment for people equally situated helps reduce discrimination and resentment, and helps keep the focus on behavior necessary to complete the mission rather than on group traits that can distract from the mission.
- The U.S. military has a long tradition of considering the experiences of other militaries to be relevant to its own lessons learned. While there is no doubt that the U.S. military is different from other militaries, such distinctions have not prevented the U.S. military from comparing itself to and learning from foreign armed forces. Using resources like the Foreign Military Studies Office, the U.S. military itself has commissioned research on matters of personnel, health policy, housing, weapons innovation, technology, counterterrorism, and the question of gay service.
In 2010, VoteVets commissioned the only existing scientific poll of veterans' attitude about repeal. The pool consisted of only post-9/11 veterans who had served in the currently ongoing actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. They found:
• Iraq and Afghanistan veterans believe being gay or lesbian has no bearing on a service member's ability to perform their duties. Overall, 60% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans agree with that statement, including 42% who strongly agree.
• An overwhelming majority of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans say it is personally acceptable to them if gay and lesbian people were allowed to serve openly in the military. Seven in ten (73%) say it is acceptable.
• In total, 81% of those in the Air Force, 78% of those in the Navy, 67% of those in the Army, and 68% of those in the Marines would find it acceptable if gay and lesbian people were allowed to serve openly in the military.
• The notion that today's military members are uncomfortable around gay and lesbian people is unfounded; the data prove it is untrue. Iraq and Afghanistan veterans say they are personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians. Seven in ten Iraq and Afghanistan veterans (73%) are personally comfortable, including 37% who are very comfortable. Hardly anyone is very uncomfortable (only 7%).
So, tell me exactly how many mountains of paperwork does the Pentagon have to shuffle around before they decide to judge the value their soldiers based on the content of their character and the quality of their work?
How many times do we have to study a law to conclude it's stupid, wasteful, not good policy and the objections to ending it are based on the hyperbolic projections of crazy people?
Well. I guess just this one last time. Right?
Or... how about we just let Lt. Dan Choi, SSgt. David Hall, Chief Hospital Corpsman Brian K. Humbles, Sgt. Tracey L. Cooper-Harris and Petty Officer Jason Daniel Knight serve their country and promote or discharge them out as their job performance merits? Crazy as it sounds, it also sounds like a truly patriotic American concept to me.