How Gay Soldiers Serve Openly Around The World
December 7, 2010
Listen to the Story
Fresh Air from WHYY
[28 min 4 sec] Add to Playlist
Download
Transcript
Enlarge
Alex Brandon/AP A protester holds a sign in the seating area of the Senate Armed Service Committee's hearing on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on Dec. 2.
Alex Brandon/AP A protester holds a sign in the seating area of the Senate Armed Service Committee's hearing on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on Dec. 2.
Read the Report
Gays In Foreign Militaries 2010: A Global Primer (pdf)
text size A A A December 7, 2010 The Pentagon on Nov. 30 released its long-awaited study on "don't ask, don't tell," which showed little risk in allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the military. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says repealing the policy would not produce the "wrenching, dramatic change that many have feared and predicted."
The change is not unprecedented. In February, historian Nathaniel Frank authored a comprehensive study of five U.S. allies that have successfully lifted bans or other restrictions on gays openly serving in the military — Britain, Israel, Canada, South Africa and Australia.
"In many of those countries, debate before the policy changes was highly pitched," Frank wrote in his study, titled "Gays in Foreign Militaries 2010: A Global Primer." "Many people both inside and outside the military predicted major disruptions. ... 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, readiness or overall combat effectiveness."
Unfriendly Fire
By Nathaniel Frank
Hardcover, 368 pages
Thomas Dunne Books
List Price: $25.95
Read an Excerpt
In a conversation about his findings with Fresh Air host Terry Gross, Frank explains that the United States is the only country in the world with a procedure like don't ask, don't tell:
"There's nothing that's been codified in any other part of the world that actually said, 'We will allow gays to serve if they pretend that they're not gay,' " he says. "Most of the countries in Western Europe now allow gays to serve, including the United Kingdom, our closest ally and probably the best analogy for the U.S., [as well as] France, Italy [and] Spain."
Case Study: Great Britain
In Great Britain, gay service members were banned from the military throughout the 20th century. But in the early 1990s, a court case challenging the ban made its way through the British court system and lost — so the ban remained. But after that case, the British High Court warned the military that although it could continue to enforce the ban, the policy was unlikely to survive a challenge in the European Convention on Human Rights.
"The military [then] ordered a relaxation of enforcement," says Frank. "So in many, many cases the actual end of a gay ban is preceded by a court case and a relaxation of enforcement. And when that [British] case wound its way up to and through the European Court of Human Rights in 1999, that court struck it down. Just four months later, the military lifted the ban and accepted the court case."
Frank says the quick change in England shows that concerns over implementing a repeal are unwarranted.
Charles Dharapak/AP
Defense Secretary Robert Gates listens to a reporter's question during a news briefing about gays in the military Tuesday at the Pentagon.
"This isn't like racial integration in that you're moving massive amounts of personnel around," he says. "All it really means is that you stop kicking out gay people: that you let them serve. There's already gay people, in other words, in these militaries. It's about whether you allow it, whether you acknowledge it and whether you allow gay and lesbian people to be honest. In Britain, they simply issued regulations saying this is now allowed. There was a minimal amount of training. There were sessions with leaders to make it absolutely clear that they would have buy-in. There were certainly steps taken. But there isn't an enormous amount that needs to be done or that has been done in these other countries beyond ceasing to fire people and making clear that gay people will be allowed and be respected."
Case Study: Israel
In Israel, military service is compulsory for men and women. And for many years, the Israel Defense Forces limited service by openly gay members of the military by requiring service members to undergo psychiatric evaluations, which would often trigger a discharge. Gay people were also banned from top secret positions in the military.
In 1983, the ban on gays in top secret positions was relaxed. In the early 1990s, after Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said, "I don't see any reason to discriminate against homosexuals," a review committee in parliament recommended dropping the ban.
More On 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
Politics
Marine Leaders Would Prefer Gay Troops Not Tell
Politics
Key Senators Appear Open To Ending 'Don't Ask'
Politics
A Final Push To Repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
The Picture Show
Gay Military Personnel Out Of The Closet, In Front Of The CameraGates To Senate: End 'Don't Ask' Before Courts Do
Nov. 30, 2010
Turning 'Unfriendly Fire' On U.S. Military's Gay Ban
June 16, 2009
As Frank notes, there are real differences between the United States and Israel. Because Israel is so small in area, many service members go home at the end of their workday. And men and women openly serve together.
"Some of these differences have been used by people to say this case is not instructive," says Frank. "But the fears were exactly the same. The opposition to letting gays serve was the same. The language of mental instability and unsuitability and concerns about intimacy were all very much the same."
The new Israeli policy says "there is no limit on the induction of homosexuals to the army, and their induction is according to the criteria that apply to all candidates to the army."
Commonalities
Frank says all five countries he studied — Britain, Israel, Canada, South Africa and Australia — had major concerns about the potential effect on military effectiveness and recruitment patterns before their bans were dropped. But all five countries quickly implemented changes. And, Frank says, they experienced no wide-scale problems after the bans were repealed.
"So many different sources have conducted research since the early 1990s — before, during and after transitions," says Frank. "There simply is no evidence showing problems, and there's overwhelming evidence showing that these transitions are a non-event and they can occur."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interview Highlights
Matthew Brown
Nathaniel Frank's writing has appeared in The New York Times, Washington Post and the San Francisco Chronicle. His first book is Unfriendly Fire.
On gay service members in Africa and Asia
"In parts of Asia and Africa, there are often no policies at all, either because homosexuality is not spoken about or because there are civilian laws against it and there you can assume it's not allowed."
On gay service members within NATO organizations
"Within NATO, there are about 35 countries that appear to let gays and lesbians serve. It just depends on whether you're looking for an outright policy allowing it or the lack of a policy banning it. There are at least 25 countries that researchers confirmed allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. And that number goes to 35 if you go to countries that don't have a ban."
On the concern that the ban shouldn't be lifted while the U.S. is at war
"If you actually look at what the Air Force chief said, in terms of this political moment, he said he would like to delay repeal for another year or so, but he does think the legislation should move forward so that the military has control over that.
"But again, when you look at the evidence, the research, what the courts have said, and now what the military has said, it becomes harder and harder in court to defend the existing policy. It becomes harder and harder to say, 'This policy has a rational basis' when all of the research, including the military's own research and many of its top leaders, are saying this policy is compromising our effectiveness, our integrity and our talent pool. Even the courts' tradition of deferring to the military [is] thrown into question."
Excerpt: 'Unfriendly Fire'
by Nathaniel Frank
Unfriendly Fire
By Nathaniel Frank
Hardcover, 368 pages
Thomas Dunne Books
List Price: $25.95 Brain Drain: Arabic Linguists
On September 10th, 2001, the United States government intercepted two phone calls placed from Afghanistan between Al Qaeda operatives. "Tomorrow is zero hour," said one of the voices. "The match is about to begin," came another ominous line.
The National Security Agency intercepts millions of messages every hour, but these calls came from sources deemed to be high priority. They were, of course, spoken in Arabic, so they made their way to a translator's queue, waiting to be interpreted. Unfortunately, in the fall of 2001 our government did not have enough Arabic linguists to translate the messages quickly. The phone calls were not translated until two days later, on September 12, 2001. It was two days too late.
The terrorist attacks of September 11th, as every American knows, changed everything. Almost immediately, a national consensus emerged, if only briefly, that nothing should stand in the way of true reform of the nation's broken intelligence apparatus. Nothing should stop a thorough and efficient re-orientation of our national security perspective, which must immediately be geared toward fending off future terrorist attacks. Nothing, that is, except letting gays in uniform take part in the fight.
The story of the ongoing purges of gay soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines with language skills critical to waging the war on terrorism pits political expediency and moral dogma against national security, social scientific research and common sense. It is a story that shines a spotlight on certain truisms that Americans seem to grasp only when it's too late, and then to promptly forget until the next time it's too late: that prejudice is generally self-defeating rather than productive, and that it nearly always has unexpected consequences.
But it's a story that should also be told with the hope-perhaps against our better judgment-that maybe this time we will learn from our mistakes, re-order our priorities, and face significant truths before we further compromise the security of our citizens and the safety of our troops.
The shortage of language specialists in the intelligence and military forces has been hobbling national defense since the days of the Cold War. But between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the World Trade Center, only a few voices in the wind had noted the growing threat of Arab terrorists to American security, and the culture of the armed forces and the intelligence agencies had only just begun to budge from a fixation on Russian language as the essential skill for keeping the country safe from its enemies.
Some students had begun to grasp the significance of the Arab world. The number of enrollees in Arabic language courses in colleges and universities nearly doubled between 1998 and 2002. But it wasn't nearly enough. The month before the 9/11 attacks, a major study from the University of Maryland's National Foreign Language Center warned that the country "faces a critical shortage of linguistically competent professionals across federal agencies and departments responsible for national security."
Less than a month after the attacks, a House Intelligence Committee report criticized the nation's three intelligence agencies — the FBI, CIA, and National Security Agency (NSA) — for relying on "intelligence generalists" rather than linguists with expertise in a specific foreign language, culture, and geographical area. The report concluded that "at the NSA and CIA, thousand of pieces of data are never analyzed, or are analyzed 'after the fact' because there are too few analysts; even fewer with the necessary language skills. Written materials can sit for months, and sometimes years, before a linguist with proper security clearances and skills can begin a translation." Meanwhile, the intelligence agencies poured funds into advertisements, including Internet marketing overseas, to try to lure linguists into the fight against terrorism.
By the fall of 2002, one year after the attacks, CIA director George Tenet warned that the U.S. faced a terrorist threat every bit as grave as it did before 9/11. A week later, the Council on Foreign Relations issued an even more sobering report. Despite bipartisan support for intelligence reform, backed by overwhelming public demand for addressing unpreparedness, the study found that "America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack. In all likelihood, the next attack will result in even greater casualties and widespread disruption to American lives and the economy" than those wrought by 9/11.
Yet during the first year of the war in Afghanistan, the U.S. had 69 intelligence teams on the ground but had a 75% shortfall of daily intelligence reports. This meant that no matter the number of troops sent into foreign territory, and despite the billions of dollars being thrown into our military campaigns, a full three-quarters of the data collected about the looming threats from our enemies was not getting processed. A major obstacle to producing the reports, according to an assessment by the Center for Army Lessons Learned in Fort Leavenworth, was the shortage of Arabic speakers.
The problem was not confined to intelligence agencies, but was felt in the armed forces too. In 2002, the Army reported, it could only find 42 of the 84 Arabic linguists it was seeking to hire. In addition to this 50 percent shortage of Arabic experts, it faced a 68 percent shortage of Farsi translators and a 37 percent shortage of Korean experts.
According to a General Accounting Office (GAO) study released the same year, the Army, along with the FBI, State Department and Commerce Department, failed in 2001 to fill all their jobs that required expertise in Arabic, Chinese, Korean, Farsi, or Russian. The Army reported that the "linguist shortfalls affect its readiness to conduct current and anticipated military and other missions."
It said, for instance, that it lacked the linguistic capacity to support the prosecution of two major wars at one time, the baseline requirement of American military planners since the end of the Cold War. The GAO study concluded that staff shortages at these agencies "have adversely affected agency operations and compromised U.S. military, law enforcement, intelligence, counterterrorism and diplomatic efforts." And it stated that shortages in language expertise resulted in "less timely interpretation and translation of intercepted materials possibly related to terrorism or national security threats."
Two years after 9/11, the situation had not improved. The shortage of Arabic speakers had become so desperate by 2003 that one of the top Arabic speakers in the Iraqi theater was being used to translate a common housekeeping exchange, taking him away from the critical duties needed to keep U.S. troops safe, mine the Iraqi desert for intelligence and win over Iraqi civilians.
On several occasions, the impact of the shortage was downright treacherous. In the summer of 2003, the Wedding Island Bridge in Baghdad was the site of an explosion targeting U.S. troops. The soldiers, part of the 40th Engineer Battalion of the 2nd Brigade of the Army's 1st Armored Division, had crossed the bridge repeatedly in search of their translator. If the Army had been able to hire and retain enough of its own translators, it would have made unnecessary these perilous trips, which ended this time with a land mine explosion that sent shrapnel and bits of road into the windshield and body of the engineers' Humvee.
It also might have prevented tragedies before they occurred. An Arabic document was reportedly found in Kabul before the murder of journalist Daniel Pearl, describing a kidnapping plot strikingly similar to the one that ended in his disappearance and murder. It was never translated due to a shortage of Arabic speakers.
An Army report released that year by the Center for Army Lessons Learned at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, found that "the lack of competent interpreters throughout the theater impeded operations" in Iraq and Afghanistan. "The US Army does not have a fraction of the linguists required."
The 9/11 Commission Report concluded that the government "lacked sufficient translators proficient in Arabic and other key languages, resulting in significant backlog of untranslated intercepts" and the secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, pleaded that "we need more Arabic-speaking analysts."
A Pentagon advisory panel reported in 2004 that the U.S. "is without a working channel of communications to the world of Muslims and Islam." A Justice Department Inspector General Report that same year found that the government "cannot translate all the foreign language counterterrorism and counterintelligence material it collects," due largely to inadequate translation capabilities in "languages primarily related to counterterrorism activities" such as Arabic and Farsi.
In response, President Bush ordered a 50% increase in intelligence officers trained in "mission-critical" languages such as Arabic. But the shortage was a problem that could not be cleared up overnight — precisely the reason that "preparedness" was so important.
Despite tens of thousands of responses to post-9/11 calls for more Arabic speakers to join the government's intelligence efforts, actual hires take time, especially for those positions that require security clearances. Background checks can take six months to a year. By the spring of 2005, Sen. Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee said the U.S. still had a "broken system."
Excerpted from Unfriendly Fire by Nathaniel Frank. Copyright © 2009 by the author and reprinted by permission of Thomas Dunne Books, an imprint of St. Martin's Press, LLC.
And this, related, from The Washington Post:
Repeal of 'don't ask' is far from certain
Top U.S. military officials testified Friday before the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is considering a bill to repeal the law that forbids openly gay men and women from serving in the military. (Chip Somodevilla) Network NewsX Profile
View More Activity
TOOLBOX
Resize Print E-mail Reprints
COMMENT
0 Comments
Your browser's settings may be preventing you from commenting on and viewing comments about this item. See instructions for fixing the problem.
Discussion Policy CLOSEComments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
By Philip Rucker and Ed O'Keefe
Sunday, December 5, 2010
This was supposed to be the year that the law banning gays from serving openly in the military would be repealed. President Obama and the top Pentagon brass made clear their distaste for "don't ask, don't tell." Polling suggests the nation has moved past it. The Democrats who control Congress, as well as some Republicans, are ready to overturn it. And last week a final potential obstacle was removed when an exhaustive Pentagon study found little risk in undoing the law.
Yet with the lame-duck session of Congress hurtling toward a chaotic close, the effort to repeal the policy is in peril. A divided Senate panel heard stern testimony Friday from the Marine Corps commandant and the Army chief of staff, who warned against incorporating openly gay troops into combat units now serving in Afghanistan.
But the biggest barrier is the calendar. Although a repeal bill passed the House in May, and there appear to be enough votes for it in the Senate, there are only two weeks left in the lame-duck session. Other priorities, such as negotiating a compromise on extending Bush-era tax cuts, have consumed congressional leaders.
Repeal advocates are growing convinced that time may be running out. "The rules of the Senate can capture you when you end up in the 12th hour," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.
The White House summoned repeal advocates for a private meeting Friday at which, sources said, administration officials told them they would not trade this priority for others. The officials were bullish, saying that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen would not have testified this past week if they did not believe the bill could reach Obama's desk before January.
That could be critical. The repeal effort would have to start over next year with the new Congress, which is decidedly more Republican and less energized to get rid of the policy.
"If we don't get it done this year, we'll have to start it all over again next year, and that will take many, many months," said Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
Pentagon officials fear that if Congress does not act soon, a federal judge could end the policy in an instant, making it difficult for the military to oversee an orderly transition. Recruiters would be unsure about whom to approve for service, and more critically, closeted gay and lesbian troops would be uncertain about whether they could discuss their sexual orientation.
"You will see a united Pentagon and White House trying to get some certainty," said a senior administration official intimately involved in the negotiations. "The right thing to do is to get this done right now."
Their efforts got a boost Friday when Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) said he would support repeal, which is included as part of a broader defense authorization bill. He joins Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), who have signaled they would vote to end the ban if Democrats allow enough debate time to introduce amendments to the bill.
Not if, but when
How an effort with such broad support could be in jeopardy is a classic Washington tale of competing priorities and shifting political realities, according to interviews with more than a dozen lawmakers, administration officials and other stakeholders.
Since Obama was sworn into office, the question has never been if, but always when and how, he would get Congress to overturn the law. It was a campaign pledge, and when Gates and Mullen met with Obama after his inauguration, a senior administration official said the president told them: "I don't believe in 'don't ask, don't tell' and I want it repealed. . . . We're going to do it together."
The three men decided 2010 would be the year, partly because they knew building a winning case would take time. Polling shows about six in 10 Americans support overturning the ban, but to sway skeptical lawmakers, proponents would need statistically sound evidence to alleviate concerns that allowing gays to serve openly would interfere with combat readiness.
In January, Obama called for repeal in his State of the Union address. The next month, Gates and Mullen testified in support, and in March, they ordered a comprehensive study of the impact to the armed services. Defense Department General Counsel Jeh C. Johnson and Army Gen. Carter F. Ham, who did not know each other but would soon bond over sweet potato pie, led the review. They held so many town hall gatherings and meetings that they came face-to-face with more than 23,000 troops and their families.
The study cost about $9 million and resulted in a 362-page report, released Nov. 30 - 17 years to the day after President Clinton signed "don't ask, don't tell" into law. It concluded that a large majority of troops were comfortable with overturning restrictions on gays in uniform and that they expected it would have little or no effect on their units.
Some lawmakers were critical of the administration's timetable, saying the White House was too cautious in tackling an issue that had roiled the Clinton White House.
"This is one of those times where you sit and say, wait a moment, can't you even see the nation has moved forward?" said retiring Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a former vice admiral of the Navy. "When you have leaders lagging those they are supposed to be leading, you lose credibility."
Back to an if
Politics has a way of knocking trains off their tracks. In May, with Democrats realizing they could well lose their majority in the House, the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, and Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina pushed for repeal with new urgency.
"For weeks, they tried to get Gates to understand that the political realities of life had changed," said a source with direct knowledge of the talks, who, like others interviewed, insisted upon anonymity to relay private conversations.
By late October, Obama called gay activists to the White House. Advocates feared their efforts could be stymied by a Republican House speaker. So, too, did the president.
"He looked us all in the eye and said, 'We're going to get this done this year. We need to get Republican votes. We need to stay committed on this,'รข€Š" said another source who was at the meeting.
December arrived with momentum on their side. On Thursday, after the report's release, Gates and Mullen faced the Senate Armed Services Committee again. Mullen, in his dress uniform, delivered a personal appeal to the panel's doubters, including the most celebrated veteran in American politics, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
"I've been serving with gays and lesbians my whole career," the bespectacled admiral said. "I went to war with them aboard a destroyer off the coast of Vietnam. I knew they were there. They knew I knew it. And what's more, nearly everyone in the crew knew it. We never missed a mission, never failed to deliver ordnance on target."
But McCain, a Navy pilot who was shot down in the Vietnam War and imprisoned in Hanoi, defied Gates and Mullen. He said allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would have a negative impact in combat units.
"Mr. Secretary," McCain said, "I speak from personal experience."
Dueling activists
While gay advocacy organizations and a broad network of policy groups have united behind repeal, conservative efforts to oppose lifting the ban have largely centered on a single activist, Elaine Donnelly. She has studied military personnel issues since the 1980s and founded the Center for Military Readiness, working from her home in Livonia, Mich.
Donnelly believes, and many retired officers and families of current service members agree, that allowing gays to serve openly would degrade the quality of the service. "It would be a strong disincentive for families considering military service for their sons and daughters," Donnelly said.
Donnelly and a veteran Republican operative she hired, Tommy Sears, orchestrated the right's opposition. She distributed exhaustive memos to Pentagon officials, lawmakers and reporters detailing her legal arguments against repeal, chiefly that there is no constitutional right to serve in the military and thus gays should adhere to the existing policy.
She lamented in a recent interview that traditionally conservative media, including commentators Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, have not zeroed in on the debate.
For years, Democratic lawmakers have introduced bills to repeal "don't ask, don't tell," but their efforts never got far. "There was a bill, but there was no real movement," Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said.
This time, though, there were faces to help build a movement. Lt. Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and Army infantry officer who served in Iraq a few years ago, came out as a gay man on MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Show" in March 2009. He was later discharged, even as he became a leading advocate for repeal.
Choi and several other gay veterans have lobbied lawmakers. Rep. Patrick J. Murphy (D-Pa.), an Iraq war veteran, and others also led the renewed push for repeal.
After meeting with Choi, Gillibrand said she was so moved that she quietly talked to her colleagues about repealing "don't ask, don't tell." "Surprisingly, I got much more support than I would've thought," she said.
The question now is whether there's enough time left to do anything about it.
"The one problem we've got here is the schedule," Levin said. "We have very little time left."
ruckerp@washpost.com ed.okeefe@washingtonpost.com
No comments:
Post a Comment