‘Beginning the
Conversation’
Fifteen years after the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy
was enacted for the U.S. military, Congress is prepping
to review the law.
By Jamie Reno | Newsweek
Web Exclusive
Jul 21, 2008 | Updated: 9:05 a.m. ET Jul 21, 2008
 Rep.
Susan Davis of San Diego has been pressing her colleagues
in the House Armed Services Committee to review the
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy that bans military
service for people who are openly gay. On Wednesday,
Davis gets her wish when the House Military Personnel
Subcommittee she chairs holds the first formal congressional
hearing on the controversial law since it was enacted
in November 1993.
Crafted by Colin Powell, military sociologist Charles
Moskos, and former senator Sam Nunn, "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell" was a compromise between President
Bill Clinton and the hard-liners in Congress who wanted
to maintain the complete ban on gays in the military.
In the 15 years since it passed, according to government
statistics, 12,600 service members have been dismissed
under the policy (most were honorably discharged), including
nearly 800 with skills deemed "mission-critical"
by the Pentagon: 322 were language experts, and of those
60 were proficient in Arabic.
Davis says subcommittee members will look at both the
personal and operational aspects of the policy but will
focus on the toll it takes on those who've been discharged
and their families. Among those scheduled to testify
is former Marine S/Sgt. Eric F. Alva, the first American
wounded in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Alva, who lost a
leg when he stepped on a land mine, has since become
a crusader for gay rights in the military. On Saturday,
a new Washington Post-ABC poll revealed that 75 percent
of Americans now think gays who are open about their
sexuality should be allowed to serve in the armed forces.
Support for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is split
generally now along party lines. Of the two presumptive
presidential nominees, John McCain supports it, while
Barack Obama thinks it's counterproductive and says
he'll work to repeal it if elected. Davis, whose husband
served as a doctor in the Air Force during the Vietnam
War, is cosponsor of the Military Readiness Enhancement
Act (HR 1246), which would replace "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell" with a policy of nondiscrimination
in the military based on sexual orientation. Davis spoke
with NEWSWEEK's Jamie Reno about the upcoming hearing
and what she hopes and expects to happen as a result.
Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: You've been pushing for this hearing,
so what do you hope to accomplish this week?
Susan Davis: This issue is important to a lot of people.
We just want to break the ice, to hear from people and
start a conversation about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
that has not taken place. I had hoped to hear from the
Department of Defense; I wanted to include them in the
hearing. We would have liked to discuss with them the
recruitment and retention issues that are so vital at
this time of war. But essentially all we're hearing
from them is that they are upholding the existing law
and that it isn't appropriate to comment. So I think
it's up to Congress and the American people. We're beginning
the conversation.
No one expects that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
will be repealed during this administration, so what
is the real goal here? I think we all understand
that we aren't going to see this overturned in the next
few months, but I would think this will begin a conversation
and that over the next few years people will take a
closer look at it. We certainly will. It's just time
we look at this policy from a real-world perspective,
to talk about how it affects real families and how it
affects real-world military operations.
Do you think that, if elected, Barack Obama
would be able to convince anyone in Republican congressional
leadership to vote to overturn this policy?
I can't speak for the senator, but we're doing our job
in the House. We shall have to wait and see.
At the hearing, will you have speakers both
for and against the policy? Yes. It was not
originally my wish to do pro and con, but realistically,
since we don't have DoD representation, we want to bend
over backward to make sure both sides felt they had
an equal opportunity to present witnesses. Traditionally
the majority party has the opportunity to get the majority
of witnesses, but we chose not to do that. At this hearing,
because the DoD will not be present, we're going to
hear more anecdotal information than operational.
Since 1993, more than 12,600 men and women have
been separated from the military under "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell." What message does this hearing send
to these folks? The message it sends is that
we are finally going to look at this issue fairly and
try to understand the impact it's had on service members
and their families, as well as our ability to fight
the wars we are involved in today and will be involved
in tomorrow. Our interest is to get a better understanding
of the extent to which we've separated people who want
to serve their country and had a lot to offer. When
the compromise occurred and this law was passed [in
1993], I was not around then. There are still legitimate
concerns on the one hand because we are in the middle
of a war, but more significantly, I think, is the fact
that we are losing people who want to serve their country.
Do you not believe that being openly gay could
be disruptive and could potentially lead to divisive
and dangerous situations in a combat setting? I
think there are instances where that could be true,
just as it can be true among men and women who are serving
together. There are also issues of morale, and a host
of other issues, but my sense from talking to commanders
and others in the military anecdotally is that it hasn't
turned out to be so critical in that regard. There are
recent studies showing that it's not a major issue in
terms of the ability of military units to function well.
I'm hearing that from younger commanders, especially;
they have said that it hasn't been an issue. There is
definitely a generational aspect to this.
Do you think it's commonly known that among
the 25 countries that participate militarily in NATO,
more than 20 permit gays and lesbians to serve?
Most of them do. Britain has had a policy of openness
since I think 2000. Israel does, too, and Poland. Most
of our major allies in fact do. Our troops have served
together with troops from all of these countries, and
it hasn't been an issue.
While most polls indicate that a majority of
Americans do not favor gay marriage, polls show that
a majority of Americans do favor allowing gays and lesbians
to serve in the military . How would you explain or
reconcile this seeming dichotomy? I don't know.
It may be that the military issue is less threatening
to some people than the marriage issue. It also may
be that in this country we greatly value those who are
interested in sacrificing for our country. Gays and
lesbians are as patriotic as anyone else and want to
serve, and they have so many skills to offer, from linguists
to medics to soldiers. I know a number of medics and
others who serve.
What is the status of the HR 1246 , the bill
that would repeal this law? Does it have a realistic
chance of ever passing? The bill has been
introduced. No markup. My gut feeling is, well, I'm
not sure how it will do. I know there are districts
where it may meet with more opposition than in San Diego,
which I represent. The city, generally, is fairly receptive.
This weekend we have the gay pride parade, and it's
become a major event with public officials, churches,
synagogues and companies showing their support. There
is perhaps a greater appreciation in San Diego, over
the years people have increased their level of acceptance.
But things don't happen at once.
Does it strike you as odd that while you're
on Capitol Hill this week discussing this law, an estimated
65,000 gay and lesbian service members will be serving
their country on active duty or in the reserves?
Yes, and those numbers will be a part of the discussion,
they will be brought out by the witnesses. Percentagewise,
it's low, but it is significant in terms of the roles
they play, the contribution they have been making. A
lot of people are serving today without a lot of concern
on the part of their fellow members of the military
or their superior officers that there may be a problem.
It begs the question: does this policy have merit? Should
it remain the same, should it be tweaked, or should
it be done away with?
What do you think personally? I'm
a signer on the bill. But before I signed on, I spent
some time with commanders and other military people
in San Diego. I asked them about it. I tried to get
to the heart of the operational issues in terms of ability
to do their job. And I didn't get anyone saying it was
an issue.
TO TOP |
