Equal rights in America's armed forces
Gay warriors
Feb 24th 2005
From The Economist print edition
America should learn from its allies and let gays serve openly
IN THE armies of ancient Greece, homosexuals were prized as soldiers, though sent to fight in separate units. In Britain's armed forces no such distinction is made. Gays may serve openly, without fear of prejudice—and they seem to fight and fit in perfectly well when they do (see article). The same happens in most NATO countries. But in America, self-declared gay warriors are not allowed. As a piece of discrimination of no practical benefit, this is wrong.
Bill Clinton tried to introduce what might be called “open service” in 1993, but ended up bringing forth a backlash both against the idea and his own administration. Since then, by law, America's policy has been “don't ask, don't tell”—its troops neither should be asked nor need volunteer information about their sexuality. That has not stopped plenty of people being ousted and outed. Since 1993, more than 10,000 gay Americans have been booted back onto Civvy Street. Not a large number, perhaps, when America has nearly 2.5m people in uniform. But many of those ousted possessed valuable skills: between 1998 and 2004, 20 relatively rare Arabic speakers and six Farsi speakers were forcibly discharged after they were found to be gay.
So why ban self-confessed gay GIs? Three reasons are usually offered. First, the Pentagon fears that gay soldiers would undermine teamwork and morale. On the battlefield, soldiers do not fight for King and Country; they fight for each other—for love of their “band of brothers”, as Shakespeare put it. Some fear that soldiers would be wary of loving their gay comrades in this way. Second, allowing gays to serve openly could actually be bad for recruitment: the extra homosexuals would be outnumbered by the homophobic Americans thus deterred. The third reason is more abstract. Successful armies reflect the mores of the societies from which they are drawn, and America, it is said, is unwilling to allow its heroes to be gay.
Queer eye for the military guy
None of these complaints really stands up. Begin with the fact that there are already plenty of gays in America's armed forces. One recent estimate put their number at 65,000. Anecdotal evidence suggests lesbians may be more prevalent than is normal, and gay men slightly less prevalent. Many of these people will be “out”, at least to their close comrades—after all, military banter is excruciatingly personal.
According to a recent poll of enlisted men, more than half thought gays should be allowed in the armed forces. In the current time of overstretch, even the older, more conservative, officer class seems to be changing heart. The number of gay discharges rose steadily till 2001, when America went to war in Afghanistan; since then the annual figure has halved. As for the idea that the ban reflects American mores, polls suggest that at least 64% of Americans would allow gay soldiers.
Congress should look at the British example. In 2000, when the queen's army jumped out of its closet (so to speak), many senior officers were aghast. Their arguments then were similar to American fears now: sooner or later, showers and bars of soap were mentioned. Four years later, recruitment has not suffered; most new recruits are unfazed about meeting gay comrades. And with gays subject to the same rules governing appropriate behaviour as heterosexuals, the showers need hold no fears for happily-married men. Come on, Rummy, what are you afraid of?
,
