Military’s gay policy is absurd
A few weeks ago in Washington, D.C., I met a 23-year-old Marine. He fought with the 3rd Division, 1st Marines in the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Then he was rotated home that fall to Camp Pendleton near San Diego.
But, short on troops, the military sent his division back to Iraq in June to help quell the seemingly endless waves of insurgent attacks. His left leg was shot off in a November ambush that killed a fellow Marine. He has been at Walter Reed Army Medical Center ever since, recovering from the injury and learning how to walk on a prosthetic leg.
Nearly every branch of the military is struggling to find new men and women to fill their ranks. The Army missed its recruiting goal in April by 42 percent, the third month in a row it has fallen short. Some members of the National Guard and the Army Reserve have been called up for duty more than once.
All of which highlights, now more than ever, the absurdity of the ban on gays and lesbians in the military. It’s more than an absurdity. It’s counterproductive. The evidence put forth in a February report by Congress’ nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) could not be clearer: The ban has cost the country millions of dollars in recruitment and, more important, sapped the military of much-needed troops and specialists.
The GAO report, requested by Congress, found that 10,000 troops have been discharged since President Bill Clinton instituted the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in 1993. Among those were 322 language specialists, 90 nuclear power engineers, 150 missile specialists, 49 nuclear, chemical and biological warfare specialists, 50 intelligence operatives, and 163 police officers and professional prison guards.
Since 1998, the military has discharged 20 Arabic and six Farsi translators because they are gay. One Arabic translator, a soldier named Ian Finkenbinder, had served eight months with the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division in Iraq in 2003. In December 2004, he revealed he was gay and was discharged just as his unit was about to return to Iraq. His company commander was said to be “distraught” at the loss.
The Navy’s 1957 Crittenden Report found no basis for the military’s assertion that homosexuals posed a security risk. A report to Congress from the GAO reached this conclussion: A ban on gays in the military is costly and serves no purpose other than to deny the military, and the country, the talents and skills of willing volunteers.
If Congress does finally lift the ban, the motivation is not likely to be based on any of these reports, or even the example of Great Britain and Canada, which lifted their bans and saw no adverse effects. (Twenty-four nations, including Israel, now let gays serve openly.) If the ban is lifted, and I’m not at all confident it will be, it will be because legislators now know the public is ready for it. Five polls in the last two years have found between 61 and 79 percent of Americans believe gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military.
We assess the value of a law by looking at two things: benefits and costs.
The ban on gays does not deliver any benefits to the military.
The ban on gays saps the military of much-needed personnel.
Even a schoolchild can figure out the solution to this one. Maybe Congress can, too.
Joan Ryan is a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle. Send comments to her in care of this newspaper or send her e-mail at joanryan@sfchronicle.com.