Thursday, October 14, 2010

Judge bans DATA (AKA: Screw careful consideration!)

A California judge, Virginia Philips, ruled on October 12th that the military's policy of Don't Ask Don't Tell is unconstitutional and, showing the good sense equivalent to pulling your emergency brake while cruising at highway speeds, ordered the immediate ending of all enforcement of this policy worldwide. Obviously Philips, after taking a good solid hit from her self-rolled doobie, decided that he knew better than the thousands of officers and NCOs in the field, the Defense Secretary, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Congress.

There is a report due to come out December 1 on the possible impact of such a decision on the military which is supposed to encompass everything from combat readiness to morale, but I mean, why wait? It's just the readiness of the world's finest military at stake. I don't see what the fuss is about, honestly.

There is question as to whether the judge even has the authority to make such a decision but that aside there are serious problems with the action taken. Secretary Gates, who supports the eventual repeal of the law, "warned of "enormous consequences" for troops if the court order is allowed to stand, saying the decision on repeal of the law known as "don't ask, don't tell" should be decided by Congress and not the courts."

While my faith in Congress has waned considerably since the approximate day of my birth, I am inclined to agree with Secretary Gates. This is a matter to be decided, carefully, by those who are charged with running our military, not some lone crackpot judge in America's nutbasket.

I personally do not support the repeal of DATA as it stands today. My problem is purely logistical. I honestly do not care one bit if the man shooting, moving, and communicating next to me is gay, straight, bi, white, black, yellow, or Martian, as long as he can keep up. The problem is logistical. In the military (particularly in combat branches like my own, the Infantry) there is a high premium on privacy. Barracks can be large open bays with no consideration for isolation during changing or sleeping. Showers may or may not have stalls, bathrooms may or may not have partitions, etc. While overseas, even back in the rear, I shared my living space with a roommate, college dorm room style. In the field even this modicum of privacy disintigrates.

I have seen more naked men in my career with the Army than I ever thought possible. If you put a gay man with a bunch of straight men it is naturally going to make things a bit uncomfortable, in the same way that putting a naked woman in the middle of a bunch of naked men would be awkward. Unless we're willing to make the military completely co-ed and house men and women together with disregard to their sex it isn't consistent to do the same with gay men and women and their straight counterparts. Until there is a viable solution presented for how these legitimate issues are going to be overcome we cannot in good conscience repeal this standard which has worked reasonably well up till now.

The hard truth is that the military does not exist to be fair. It exists for two reasons, and two reasons only: To kill people and break stuff. Being fair is a secondary objective, and if it interferes with combat effectiveness, it needs to go by the wayside. Yes, it sucks, but the business of the military is war, and war sucks the big one.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

The thing is, DATA isn't a law, it's a policy. The courts don't have jurisdiction to declare policies unconstitutional as I understand it.

Lobe said...

I think they're saying they can because it infringes on Constitutional rights, which are above the level of policy...It's kinda grey. Everyone else seems to take it for granted they can do this, though, so I guess we have to go along too. *shrug*