Federal Judiciary

Don't Ask, Tell, Or Investigate -- By: The Editors

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen has shown the white flag on defending ?don?t ask, don?t tell.? He came out against it in congressional testimony this week, on the heels of Obama calling for its end in his State of the Union address.

It?s a sign of how the debate has shifted on the issue that the current chairman favors repeal and the former chairman, whose opposition to gays serving openly weighed so heavily 17 years ago -- Colin Powell -- now has reversed himself to support repeal too. The military -- partly because of changing attitudes toward homosexuality, partly because it has more important worries -- won?t fight against openly gay troops the way it did in 1993. But that doesn?t mean a change now is wise or prudent.

It?s important to remember the purpose of the policy. Unlike the underlying law against gays in the military, ?don?t ask, don?t tell? wasn?t meant to exclude gays from serving, but to allow them to do so with a quiet dignity in keeping with the overriding need for discipline and good order in the ranks. It shouldn?t be controversial to note that sexual attraction is a powerful and potentially disruptive force, and therefore particularly unwelcome in a combat environment.

As one would expect of a messy compromise over a highly charged, personal matter, ?don?t ask, don?t tell? has been imperfect. Gay service members who have served honorably have been kicked out of the military on the basis of information provided by third parties. That?s unfair. And, although anyone in the military is subject to deployment, it seems senseless to discharge gays serving in desk jobs.

But the numbers affected are relatively small. Eleven thousand service members have been discharged since the policy?s inception, a tiny number compared to the millions who have served in the military during that time. Some of those, no doubt, were soldiers who used homosexuality as an excuse to get out of their military commitment.

Regardless, it?s the integrity of the military as an institution that matters more than anything else. Its purpose is not to serve a progressive social agenda. While there are aggrieved gay former soldiers who want nothing more than to serve their country, the urgency of repealing ?don?t ask? as a political matter is the symbolic victory it would give gay groups.

A reasonable compromise might be, as Defense Secretary Bob Gates suggested in his testimony, for the military to become more selective in the independent leads it pursues: a policy that would effectively be ?don?t ask, don?t tell, don?t investigate.? But let?s make no mistake: The function of the military is fighting and winning the nation?s wars, period. That requires it to maintain a culture and practices different from those dominant in civilian life.

No doubt, if most combat NCOs were asked whether they want the complexity of integrating openly gay soldiers into their units added to their already formidable tasks, they?d say no -- waging two wars of counterinsurgency is already difficult enough. For us, that?s the most important consideration.

Full post as published by Bench Memos - National Review Online on February 04, 2010 (boomark / email).