Dont Ask Dont Tell Military Policy
Dont ask dont tell is the nickname given to military defense policy banning gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. The policy introduced in 1993 by president bill Clinton, has a two sided argument, the first is dont ask means that high ranking military officials cannot initiate investigation into a persons sexual orientation unless faced with incriminating and substantial evidence. On the other hand dont tell means that closeted gays can serve in the military for as long as they do not disclose their true sexual orientation or carry on a gay sexual relationship while serving. It is imperative the issue to be discussed openly as it affects one of the most sensitive security organ of the nation which is the military and ignoring it will disastrous to both the military and the nation.
Problem Background
The dont ask dont tell military policy was introduced as a compromise, to give the gay people a chance to serve in the military while at the same time protecting the integrity of the profession. Previously, sexual orientation in the military was governed by President Reagans policy, which declared explicitly that homosexuals could not serve in the military, and further that people engaged or found to be in homosexual relationships would immediately be dismissed from the military, (Scott and Stanley 1994, 147). Reagans policy became the official ban on homosexuals in the military. President Bill Clinton held his presidential campaigns on the grounds that he would introduce policies that would allow people of all sexual orientation to serve in the military. The National Defense Research Institute was therefore commissioned by the president to find a way of introducing policies that could allow people to serve despite their sexual orientation. The research institute concluded that such policies would have to be introduced with special strategies and care in order to maintain the integrity of the military profession. After much deliberations and discussions, the president introduced the directive 1304.26, the dont ask, dont tell policy (Scott and Stanley 1994, p.152).
The Matter of Gays in the Military
Over time the military and defense department has often worked hard to dispute the public opinion that the profession encourages homosexuality. Serving personnel have been dismissed abruptly and without their benefits for engaging in or suspicion of engaging in homosexual acts. Although the military sees these dismissals as necessary, less and less people are joining the military. After the introduction of the policy more than 14,000 military personnel have been dismissed on grounds of their sexual orientations. Gay rights movements however place the numbers at a much higher figure of 36,000. (Rimmerman, 1996, p.113). After the September 11 bombings it was found that the American military was suffering a period of low recruitment and high misconduct dismissals. The military is slowly weakening, and one of the reasons cited for this was the introduction of the dont ask dont tell military directive.
Gay rights activists have stated time and time again that each American citizen has a right to choose their profession irrespective of hisher sexual orientation. The activist have often viewed this policy as an infringement on the rights of homosexuals and a form of discrimination by the highest and most powerful offices in the United States. Stewart (2001, 195) In addition, the activists have pointed out that cases of gay bashing in the military have been on the high since the introduction of the ban. The gay rights movement has in fact shown that cases of assault, discrimination and abuse based on sexual orientation have been increasing since the introduction of the policy.
Historical Solutions
Though the American people and the government take a lot of pride in the democratic policies and protection of the rights of people, the military is one area where compromise has failed. There have been no steps by either the government or the military itself o protect the rights of gays wishing to serve in the military. The right of each American to choose the profession they wish and pursue it has not been applied previously. President Reagan declared homosexuality illegal in the military. The total ban on homosexuals led to the dismissal of more than 30,000 officers from the army and other military affiliates. The policy allowed military officials to dismiss people on the suspicion that they were homosexuals. This led to the wrongful dismissal of many military officers, (Stewart 2001, 196)
The only step taken by the government to provide a solution to the problem was the introduction of the Dont Ask, Dont tell policy. The policy at least allowed homosexuals to serve in the military though not openly. Gay rights movements have often petitioned courts suing the government, the military and its personnel for dismissing individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation. Although most of their cases have failed miserably, the publicity given to them has made the issue much more recognized by the public.
Proposed Solution
The solution to the problems caused by the dont ask, dont tell policy lies in the amendment of the entire Military act. The amendments must be considered as a whole to include the homosexuality itself, homosexual relationships and the homosexual acts. Each of these parts must be addressed in detail. The sexuality of an individual should continue to remain a matter of personal choice that does not reflect on the choice of career whatsoever.
The public and government needs to be made aware that the important qualifications for military recruitment lie not in the sexual orientation of a person but more on the strength, endurance and most importantly the desire of an individual to serve their country. No person should be denied the chance to serve their country because of their sexual orientation. Each American citizen has a right to serve in the military if they so wish and if they qualify to do so, (Scott and Stanley 1994, 159).
The proposed military readiness act (2010) is a step in the right direction. The act introduced and supported by president Obama protects the rights of homosexuals to serve openly in the government. The act also stops the use of federal funds to expel homosexuals from the military. It declares discrimination of any kind within the ranks of military illegal, and protects the right of each person to choose their sexual orientation without retribution.
Opposition
The opponent of the policy review of homosexuality say that there are very urgent problems and matters to be addressed and considered such as the health care dilemma, and the economic crisis that have almost paralyzed the nation or taking the nation to the brink of collapse. As such many people consider the issue of homosexuality to be a small and insignificant matter that may warrant some attention in the future but not today and its all upon individual choices. Conservatives groups in fact questions the aspect of upholding morality and the ability of Gay military members to effectively discharge their duties in that status. In addition there are those who feel that there are some other factors that need attention in the military such as equipping training camps, recruitment channels and the compensation of injured military officers. Americans seem to consider this as more pressing issues in the military as opposed to the sexual orientation of officers who are injured and killed protecting their country.
Alternative Solutions
Whereas providing a general act governing military conduct is an excellent solution, adopting and altering small portions of the act maybe easier. Homosexuals can be given the right to serve in the military under certain conditions which will be governed by the amendments. Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation should warrant severe punishment for the perpetrators. Finally, the high ranking officials should be given the mandate to consider each case individually and find better solutions to them. Since the officers have much more contact with the supposed homosexuals they are at a much better position to judge them and their conduct. The question to be considered should not be the sexual orientation but the conduct of military personnel, (Stewart 2001, 194).
Rebuttal on the Opposition
Although there are other urgent issues to be considered people need to understand that the military is the backbone of the American defense and protection of the American people and should always be perfect. Discrimination of homosexual individuals has often had negative effects on the morale of military personnel. The performance of military departments depends highly on the morale of the officers. Without morale, less and less people are willing to apply for recruitment and those already in the military are unwilling to serve whole heartedly.
In addition dismissal of military personnel has often put the military in the public negatively. Such dismissals are often considered discriminatory garnering the military bad publicity not only in the country but also the entire international community. Recruits are often discouraged by negative publicity, and the public becomes hostile to the people given the mandate to protect them.
Reasons for Changing the Dont Ask Dont Tell Policy
Consequences Rimmerman (1996, 122), the Clinton policy has come under fire recently for its effect on new recruits. Fewer and fewer people are applying for recruitment and one of the reasons sighted is the stand of the military on homosexuality.
Secondly the military has dismissed many qualified personnel on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Many of these officers have skills that cannot be easily replaced. Much more money is being spent on training new personnel while there are some qualified personnel who are dismissed on flimsy grounds. The dismissals have also left holes in the military defense systems which are becoming harder and harder to fill, often leaving the military vulnerable to external attacks, (Scott and Stanley 1994, 184) More than 200milliom dollars have been spent on recruiting and training new personnel to replace those who have been dismissed. In addition, much more money has been spent implementing the policy. Officers who have contested their dismissal have required the military and government to spend even more on defending themselves and settling the cases. Personnel have been recruited to look into the homosexuality cases and implement the required steps. All these spending as many see it could have been directed to other much more worthy causes in the military such as compensation, and purchase of equipment (Rimmerman 1996, 118).
Category reasons The military is among the biggest employers in America in addition to being the biggest budget allocation. The matters that concern the military often draw a lot of attention because they reflect on the countrys defense system and protection of its citizens. With the recent attacks of terrorism on American soil, military personnel are becoming more and more important to the welfare of the country. The defense mechanism is relying much more on the military than there before.
The American government cannot afford to dismiss more personnel, when there are those dying in wars and the recruits are being fewer and fewer. If the rate of dismissal continues, the American defense system will become a laughing stock in the international arena. The attacks on United States and its citizens will increase and some areas will be left unprotected for lack of personnel, (Rush 2003, 56).
Resemblance The right to declare once sexual orientation in the military has often been compared and contrasted to the right of gay marriages. The issue has long been debated in public forums. Many people often feel that whatever policies apply to non homosexuals should also apply to the homosexuals. Each person has a right to love whomsoever they choose and to let the public know of this whether they acknowledge it or not.
Rush (2003, 58)Requiring that homosexual military personnel be quiet about their sexual orientation is similar to denying them the right to be themselves and to define themselves as they wish. The act is also considered to be discriminatory in nature because it poses different standards for military personnel based on sexual orientation. Whereas the straight military personnel are allowed to conduct themselves as they wish with whomsoever they love, the homosexual personnel are required to either conduct their relationships in secret or deny their sexual orientation altogether if they wish to serve.
Although the dont ask, dont tell policy did grant some reprieve for military homosexuals, it is not enough. There is need for the rights of homosexuals with regard to publicly declaring their sexual orientation and choosing careers to be taken seriously. American citizens have the right to serve their country if they wish despite their sexual orientation. The military will continue to remain a respectable profession despite the sexual orientation of its members. The judgment lies not on the nature of sexuality of the members but on the skill and performance level of the department as a whole. Those who choose the military as a profession are dedicated and brave American citizens who require our respect despite their sexual orientation.
Problem Background
The dont ask dont tell military policy was introduced as a compromise, to give the gay people a chance to serve in the military while at the same time protecting the integrity of the profession. Previously, sexual orientation in the military was governed by President Reagans policy, which declared explicitly that homosexuals could not serve in the military, and further that people engaged or found to be in homosexual relationships would immediately be dismissed from the military, (Scott and Stanley 1994, 147). Reagans policy became the official ban on homosexuals in the military. President Bill Clinton held his presidential campaigns on the grounds that he would introduce policies that would allow people of all sexual orientation to serve in the military. The National Defense Research Institute was therefore commissioned by the president to find a way of introducing policies that could allow people to serve despite their sexual orientation. The research institute concluded that such policies would have to be introduced with special strategies and care in order to maintain the integrity of the military profession. After much deliberations and discussions, the president introduced the directive 1304.26, the dont ask, dont tell policy (Scott and Stanley 1994, p.152).
The Matter of Gays in the Military
Over time the military and defense department has often worked hard to dispute the public opinion that the profession encourages homosexuality. Serving personnel have been dismissed abruptly and without their benefits for engaging in or suspicion of engaging in homosexual acts. Although the military sees these dismissals as necessary, less and less people are joining the military. After the introduction of the policy more than 14,000 military personnel have been dismissed on grounds of their sexual orientations. Gay rights movements however place the numbers at a much higher figure of 36,000. (Rimmerman, 1996, p.113). After the September 11 bombings it was found that the American military was suffering a period of low recruitment and high misconduct dismissals. The military is slowly weakening, and one of the reasons cited for this was the introduction of the dont ask dont tell military directive.
Gay rights activists have stated time and time again that each American citizen has a right to choose their profession irrespective of hisher sexual orientation. The activist have often viewed this policy as an infringement on the rights of homosexuals and a form of discrimination by the highest and most powerful offices in the United States. Stewart (2001, 195) In addition, the activists have pointed out that cases of gay bashing in the military have been on the high since the introduction of the ban. The gay rights movement has in fact shown that cases of assault, discrimination and abuse based on sexual orientation have been increasing since the introduction of the policy.
Historical Solutions
Though the American people and the government take a lot of pride in the democratic policies and protection of the rights of people, the military is one area where compromise has failed. There have been no steps by either the government or the military itself o protect the rights of gays wishing to serve in the military. The right of each American to choose the profession they wish and pursue it has not been applied previously. President Reagan declared homosexuality illegal in the military. The total ban on homosexuals led to the dismissal of more than 30,000 officers from the army and other military affiliates. The policy allowed military officials to dismiss people on the suspicion that they were homosexuals. This led to the wrongful dismissal of many military officers, (Stewart 2001, 196)
The only step taken by the government to provide a solution to the problem was the introduction of the Dont Ask, Dont tell policy. The policy at least allowed homosexuals to serve in the military though not openly. Gay rights movements have often petitioned courts suing the government, the military and its personnel for dismissing individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation. Although most of their cases have failed miserably, the publicity given to them has made the issue much more recognized by the public.
Proposed Solution
The solution to the problems caused by the dont ask, dont tell policy lies in the amendment of the entire Military act. The amendments must be considered as a whole to include the homosexuality itself, homosexual relationships and the homosexual acts. Each of these parts must be addressed in detail. The sexuality of an individual should continue to remain a matter of personal choice that does not reflect on the choice of career whatsoever.
The public and government needs to be made aware that the important qualifications for military recruitment lie not in the sexual orientation of a person but more on the strength, endurance and most importantly the desire of an individual to serve their country. No person should be denied the chance to serve their country because of their sexual orientation. Each American citizen has a right to serve in the military if they so wish and if they qualify to do so, (Scott and Stanley 1994, 159).
The proposed military readiness act (2010) is a step in the right direction. The act introduced and supported by president Obama protects the rights of homosexuals to serve openly in the government. The act also stops the use of federal funds to expel homosexuals from the military. It declares discrimination of any kind within the ranks of military illegal, and protects the right of each person to choose their sexual orientation without retribution.
Opposition
The opponent of the policy review of homosexuality say that there are very urgent problems and matters to be addressed and considered such as the health care dilemma, and the economic crisis that have almost paralyzed the nation or taking the nation to the brink of collapse. As such many people consider the issue of homosexuality to be a small and insignificant matter that may warrant some attention in the future but not today and its all upon individual choices. Conservatives groups in fact questions the aspect of upholding morality and the ability of Gay military members to effectively discharge their duties in that status. In addition there are those who feel that there are some other factors that need attention in the military such as equipping training camps, recruitment channels and the compensation of injured military officers. Americans seem to consider this as more pressing issues in the military as opposed to the sexual orientation of officers who are injured and killed protecting their country.
Alternative Solutions
Whereas providing a general act governing military conduct is an excellent solution, adopting and altering small portions of the act maybe easier. Homosexuals can be given the right to serve in the military under certain conditions which will be governed by the amendments. Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation should warrant severe punishment for the perpetrators. Finally, the high ranking officials should be given the mandate to consider each case individually and find better solutions to them. Since the officers have much more contact with the supposed homosexuals they are at a much better position to judge them and their conduct. The question to be considered should not be the sexual orientation but the conduct of military personnel, (Stewart 2001, 194).
Rebuttal on the Opposition
Although there are other urgent issues to be considered people need to understand that the military is the backbone of the American defense and protection of the American people and should always be perfect. Discrimination of homosexual individuals has often had negative effects on the morale of military personnel. The performance of military departments depends highly on the morale of the officers. Without morale, less and less people are willing to apply for recruitment and those already in the military are unwilling to serve whole heartedly.
In addition dismissal of military personnel has often put the military in the public negatively. Such dismissals are often considered discriminatory garnering the military bad publicity not only in the country but also the entire international community. Recruits are often discouraged by negative publicity, and the public becomes hostile to the people given the mandate to protect them.
Reasons for Changing the Dont Ask Dont Tell Policy
Consequences Rimmerman (1996, 122), the Clinton policy has come under fire recently for its effect on new recruits. Fewer and fewer people are applying for recruitment and one of the reasons sighted is the stand of the military on homosexuality.
Secondly the military has dismissed many qualified personnel on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Many of these officers have skills that cannot be easily replaced. Much more money is being spent on training new personnel while there are some qualified personnel who are dismissed on flimsy grounds. The dismissals have also left holes in the military defense systems which are becoming harder and harder to fill, often leaving the military vulnerable to external attacks, (Scott and Stanley 1994, 184) More than 200milliom dollars have been spent on recruiting and training new personnel to replace those who have been dismissed. In addition, much more money has been spent implementing the policy. Officers who have contested their dismissal have required the military and government to spend even more on defending themselves and settling the cases. Personnel have been recruited to look into the homosexuality cases and implement the required steps. All these spending as many see it could have been directed to other much more worthy causes in the military such as compensation, and purchase of equipment (Rimmerman 1996, 118).
Category reasons The military is among the biggest employers in America in addition to being the biggest budget allocation. The matters that concern the military often draw a lot of attention because they reflect on the countrys defense system and protection of its citizens. With the recent attacks of terrorism on American soil, military personnel are becoming more and more important to the welfare of the country. The defense mechanism is relying much more on the military than there before.
The American government cannot afford to dismiss more personnel, when there are those dying in wars and the recruits are being fewer and fewer. If the rate of dismissal continues, the American defense system will become a laughing stock in the international arena. The attacks on United States and its citizens will increase and some areas will be left unprotected for lack of personnel, (Rush 2003, 56).
Resemblance The right to declare once sexual orientation in the military has often been compared and contrasted to the right of gay marriages. The issue has long been debated in public forums. Many people often feel that whatever policies apply to non homosexuals should also apply to the homosexuals. Each person has a right to love whomsoever they choose and to let the public know of this whether they acknowledge it or not.
Rush (2003, 58)Requiring that homosexual military personnel be quiet about their sexual orientation is similar to denying them the right to be themselves and to define themselves as they wish. The act is also considered to be discriminatory in nature because it poses different standards for military personnel based on sexual orientation. Whereas the straight military personnel are allowed to conduct themselves as they wish with whomsoever they love, the homosexual personnel are required to either conduct their relationships in secret or deny their sexual orientation altogether if they wish to serve.
Although the dont ask, dont tell policy did grant some reprieve for military homosexuals, it is not enough. There is need for the rights of homosexuals with regard to publicly declaring their sexual orientation and choosing careers to be taken seriously. American citizens have the right to serve their country if they wish despite their sexual orientation. The military will continue to remain a respectable profession despite the sexual orientation of its members. The judgment lies not on the nature of sexuality of the members but on the skill and performance level of the department as a whole. Those who choose the military as a profession are dedicated and brave American citizens who require our respect despite their sexual orientation.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment