Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy - Term Paper Example

Dont Ask, Dont Tell: An Argumentative paper This research paper undertakes a profound exploration of the United s military policy “Don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT), according to which the U.S. military personnel are restricted from being inquired about their sexuality. The topic is of current relevance and is being widely discussed that it is fully concerned with one’s sexuality. According to DADT, people with a tendency to engage in same-sex acts may highly lack order and discipline and this tendency is not acceptable in the armed forces. Thus, under “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, the members of the U.S. military “are not to be asked about nor allowed to discuss their same-sex orientation” (Burrelli, 2010 Para 1). Significantly, there have been arguments in favor of as well as against the policy and a reflective analysis of the policy is required for a judicious judgment on the issue. “A Gall up poll taken in July 1993 found the public evenly split over both a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and a question of whether homosexuality is incompatible with military service. Forty nine percent agree and 48 percent disagree with the statement “homosexuality is incompatible with military service” (National Defense Research Institute U.S. P.202). Therefore, this paper analyzes the various aspects of the policy “Don’t ask, don’t tell” to determine a careful position on the topic. Although there are several criticisms raised against the military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy, both in the Congress and among the general public, the military is not prepared for this drastic change as the positive results of the policy are several. Significantly, the policy DADT has already become a central element of the military policy regarding same-sex acts, a relaxation on the policy is not acceptable to the U.S. military. Therefore, I strongly agree with the idea behind the policy “Don’t ask, don’t tell” as this policy will help the U.S. military personnel in emphasizing the need for order and discipline in the army. The “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy assumes greater significance as there is an imminent danger that the parents who are very much orthodox may not allow their children to join the army that it is lacking in high moral standards. A military unit would be sacrificing its reputation if it is lacking in discipline and unit cohesion. There are chances of internal disagreements and Soldiers may gather against the gay and lesbian groups and the military unit perishes under these circumstances. The spread of STDs and the resulting plight to HIV and AIDS may ruin the force and thus lead the nation to lose its confidence in the safety and security provided by the armed forces. The conduct of the military operations requires the members of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense. Significantly, the policy DADT has already become a central element of the military policy regarding same-sex acts, a relaxation on the policy is not acceptable to the U.S. military. Similarly, any force united for the common cause of nation should have high moral background. This acts as a force that unites the members of the unit. If the soldiers are not making the least sacrifice to promote unity in the unit it adversely affect the cohesion. The interpersonal relationships of minorities and cliques invite moral degeneration. Thus familial and parental support for the young ones to join the army reduces. There are chances that the sexual minorities being doubted and attacked by other members of the unit. An army of a nation cannot take any chance of this sort. One also needs to take into account the likelihood for the spread of Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Sex, without any discretion, leads to HIV and AIDS. In the case of a defense force the most basic thing is that the soldiers must have good physique and health. Any news of such diseases among the members affects the morale and courage of the members. If the statistics of this sort comes out the citizens who entrust the security of their nation in the hands of these soldiers may get restless. So a welfare government cannot tolerate this kind of indiscipline in the armed forces. The life of a soldier is known to be of sacrifices or even the complete sacrifice. The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise. Section 8 article, one of the Constitution of the United States of America gives the powers to the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces. According to its instructions a soldier is bound to work for the nation round the clock and there is nothing called privacy in the matter of national interest. So in the beginning of the service each cadet is given the duties of his service in black and white. So any violation of law or indiscipline which may be termed as ‘private’ cannot be entertained as it hurts national interest (Burrelli, 2010 Pp.14-16). David S. Burreli (2010), a specialist in military manpower policy, summarizes the vision behind the policy as the persons with a propensity or intention to engage in same sex act would bring about an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline and unit cohesion which are the essence of military capability. Under this policy, but not the law, service members are not to be asked about nor allowed to discuss their “same-sex orientation” (Para 1). The law itself does not prevent service members from being asked about their sexuality. This compromise is not withstanding, the issue has remained politically contentious. But there were many incidents that the military officers were misusing the policy then there comes the amendment in March 2010. On March 25, 2010, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates announced changes in the department’s enforcement of the 1993 law. Under these changes, Secretary Gates said only a general or flag officer would have the authority to separate someone who had engaged in homosexual conduct, that information provided by a third party must be given under oath, and that the information given to certain individuals—lawyers, psychotherapist, clergy, and abuse counselors, for example—cannot be used in support of discharge proceedings (Burrelli, 2010 Para 1). Current regulations, therefore, are based on conduct, including verbal or written statements. Since sexual “orientation” is “personal and private,” DOD is not to ask and personnel are not to tell. Should an individual choose to make his or her homosexual “orientation” public—i.e., no longer private and personal, nor abstract—an investigation and discharge may well occur (Burrelli, 2010 P.12). The number of persons discharged from the service in the year 1980 was 1,754 which would come up to 0.086 % of the total strength of the armed forces. In the year 1982 the number was 1,998-(0.088%).Then the graph shows a slight decline. The years 1998 to 2001 witnessed a rapid increase in the numbers. But in the present decade the graph shows noticeable decline and in the year 2009 only 428 are in the list and that would only come up to 0.030% of the total strength. The people against DADT argue that the punishment is lesser when the force is in deployment and after the war the procedure is fast and many are kicked out of the force without any justice. The point I make here is that as the law is very much strict and the soldiers are well aware that what is questioned is not view towards sexual orientation but it is their indiscipline in the army (Burrelli, 2010 P.12). The issue of homosexuality, gay sexuality and bisexuality has been discussed with the social life. Even the marriages among same sex are still a matter of controversy in some countries. As a result there are changing ideologies and discussions are going on in this regard. At the same time emotional and sexual indiscipline among defense personnel are of utmost importance as it hurts national interest and national security. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) Policy has got the dual effects that none of the military personnel is investigated on his sexual orientation unless and until a third one is giving an oath against the accused. At the same time no soldier is permitted to disclose the details of his sexual orientation or leanings. The argument sexual aspirations and sexual orientation is a matter of privacy strengthens the side of the opponents of DADT policy. But after proper analysis and research it is evident that privacy of any citizen or soldier cannot be enjoyed at the stake of national interest and security. The members of the defense force should have high moral status. They should be disciplined to maintain proper unity in the army. So the policy has got utmost importance in the regulations of the army. Although the policy is concerned only with ones sexuality its scope is wider that of ordinary thinking. It is well knit with the security and interest of our nation. Our nation can take no chances in this regard. Strict order and discipline should be maintained among soldiers. Divisive forces, if there are of any sort, should be taken away. If we make it silly by giving the reason that it is merely a matter of privacy it will affect our soldiers, especially the younger ones, physically, mentally and culturally. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) Policy will help the US military personnel bring discipline in the army and thus empower the defense of the country. Work Cited Burrelli, David F. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:” The Law and Military Policy on Same-Sex Behavior. Congressional Research Service. 2010. 28 July, 2010. Web . National Defense Research Institute (U.S.), United States. Dept. of Defense. Office of the Secretary of Defense. Sexual orientation and U.S. military personnel policy: options and assessment, Rand Corporation, 1993. Print. Read More