Anticipating a potential vote on the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) during the lame duck session, today, the Pentagon just released its study regarding repealing DADT, a day early with an eye toward the Senate voting on it during the lame-duck session.
At 267 pages, the Pentagon’s study is a serious read. Get started. Grab your copy here (PDF).
Bottom line quote from page 3 (11th page into the file):
“Based on all we saw and heard, our assessment is that, when coupled with the prompt implementation of the recommendations we offer below, the risk of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to overall military effectiveness is low. We conclude that, while a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will likely, in the short term, bring about some limited and isolated disruption to unit cohesion and retention, we do not believe this disruption will be widespread or long-lasting, and can be adequately addressed by the recommendations we offer below. Longer term, with a continued and sustained commitment to core values of leadership, professionalism, and respect for all, we are convinced that the U.S. military can adjust and accommodate this change, just as it has others in history.
The results of the Service member survey reveal a widespread attitude among a solid majority of Service members that repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will not have a negative impact on their ability to conduct their military mission.”
As we head into the Senate debate on repealing this issue keep in mind that the purpose of this report was not to ‘determine if we should or should not repeal’ this policy. The purpose of conducting this report was to determine what actions the military services might have to take subsequent to repeal of DADT. You can expect, however, that the interpretation of the survey’s purpose will be quite different than that for the minority party in the Congress.
The reality is that there are gay men and lesbians already serving in today’s U.S. military, and most Service members recognize this. As a U.S. Navy veteran, I can assure you that there have been gays and lesbians serving in the U.S. Military for quite some time. I remember a time during my stint in the Navy, where I was assigned to attend a 12-week school conducted at Lowry AFB outside of Denver, Colorado. I was billeted in an old WWII barracks that had 6 rooms on the first floor and six rooms on the second floor, with 2 ladies sharing each room. Each floor had a common shower area, 3 (or was it 4?) lavatory stalls, and several sinks. The same was true of the barracks building next door. Between the two barracks, my roommate and I were the only two straight ladies of the 48 ladies billeted between those two barracks, and that was in 1974. It wasn’t a problem for us then, so why in the world would it be a problem now?
Here’s a few of the numbers discusses in the report:
- 69% of the force recognizes that they have at some point served in a unit with a co-worker they believed to be gay or lesbian
- 92% stated that the unit’s “ability to work together” was “very good,” “good,” or “neither good nor poor” (89% for those in Army combat arms units, and 84% for those in Marine combat arms units—all very high percentages)
- In the late 1940s and early 1950s, our military took on the racial integration of its ranks … surveys of the military revealed opposition to racial integration of the Services at levels as high as 80–90%. But by 1953, 95% of all African-American soldiers were serving in racially integrated units, while public buses in Montgomery, Alabama and other ties were still racially segregated.
- Similarities occurred when the military integrated women into the force. In 1948, women were limited to 2% of active duty personnel in each Service, with significant limitations on the roles they could perform. Currently, women make up 14% of the force, and are permitted to serve in 92% of the occupational specialties
“The general lesson we take from these transformational experiences in history is that in matters of personnel change within the military, predictions and surveys tend to overestimate negative consequences, and underestimate the U.S. military’s ability to adapt and incorporate within its ranks the diversity that is reflective of American society at large.”