2 - 15
APR
2009
2
/
Books
BY DOUG IRELAND
A
round March 1, the 15thanniversary of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT),Barack Obama’s White House began to leak that it was “open-ing a dialogue” with military leaders about lifting the ban onhomosexuals in uniform. But,in a March 29 interview on Fox News Sunday, Obama’s secre-tary of defense, Bush holdover Robert Gates, let it slip that the dialogue hadn’t really even begun, that the administrationhad other important fish to fry at the moment, and that any revis-iting of DADT would have to bepostponed. How long? “Down theroad” was as far as Gates wouldgo. Just in time to influence thedialogue that isn’t happen-ing — yet — comes NathanielFrank’s superb critical history of DADT that is also a brilliantly researched brief for opponentsof the absurd policy. “Unfriend-ly Fire” demonstrates how thepolicy was conceived based onlies and deception; why it hasincreased, not decreased, thenumber of queers being thrownout of the military; and why it is the height of inefficiency and wastefulness of human talent for a nation simultaneously fightingtwo wars. As an anti-militarist (thoughnot a pacifist), I have to admit that for a long time I didn’t havethe issue of gays in the military very high on my list of priori-ties. Then, as Bill Clinton was inthe last year of his presidency, I wrote a cover story on the issuefor The Nation magazine (a link to which appears in the online version of this story at gayci-tynews.com). What had mademe interested was that “military homophobia is also a class issue: The overwhelming majority of its victims are young recruits who joined up to get an education or career, lured by the bright prom-ises of flashy ad campaigns andaggressive high school recruit-ing, often before they admit tothemselves they’re gay.” And my reporting showed that DADT hadturned thousands of innocent and idealistic working class kidsinto victims of institutional prej-udice encouraged from the top — with the gay-baiters and gay- bashers just as much victims of the climate of fear and suspicioncreated by DADT as the gaysthemselves.In the decade since my story,Nathaniel Frank has steepedhimself in the history and work-ings of DADT and become thecountry’s foremost expert onthis failed policy from his baseas senior research fellow at thePalm Center at the University of California-Santa Barbara. Frank brings passion to his meticulousand carefully documented schol-arship and the result is a superb book that ought to be force-fedto those in the Obama adminis-tration who’ve decided that thepresident, with a 66 president approval rating, doesn’t need tospend any of his political capitalon overturning the ban. The first major purge of gaysin the services took place in 1919at the naval base in Newport,Rhode Island — with the autho-rization of then Assistant Navy Secretary Franklin D. Roosevelt — when a chief machinists materecruited a squad of comely vol-unteers from the ranks who“entrapped suspected gay sail-ors by soliciting and having sex with them.” The US Senate, which subsequently investigatedthis inquisition, condemned thepurge’s “shocking” and “indefen-sible” tactics, adding that “per- version is not a crime… but a disease that should be treated ina hospital.”But during the inter-war years, “the military took theprocess out of the hands of psy-chiatrists and relied on the most crass and degrading character-ization of gay people.” However,it was World War II that “sys-temized discrimination against homosexual people,” Frank writes, and the Cold War, withits paranoia about queers being blackmailed into spying for theCommunists, did noting to lib-eralize views on homosexuals inthe military.But a universal ban on same-sexers in uniform only came inthe final week of Jimmy Carter’sadministration, when his deputy defense secretary managed toput through a service-wide ban“removing any discretion that different branches or individualcommanders previously enjoyed”in dealing with the gays in their ranks. As a result, “in the 1980s,the military lost 17,000 troops togay exclusion.”It was a “sweeping purge of suspected lesbians at the Par-ris Island Marine training center in South Carolina in 1988” that crystallized opposition to the gay ban. “Threats, naming names,informants, revealed affairs, and broken promises of immunity… were the order of the day.” As a result, 18 women were kickedout of the Navy and three were jailed; one committed suicide while under investigation. ThisParris Island purge prompteda handful of gay and women’sgroups to launch the Gay andLesbian Military Freedom Proj-ect (MFP) at the end of 1988, thefirst organized effort to fight the ban and aide its victims. Thanksto the MFP’s agitation, the banmade its way onto the agenda of the gay citizenship movement,fueled by lawsuits by Joe Stef-fan, who’d been one of Annapolis’highest rated midshipman before being booted just weeks beforehis graduation; Lieutenant JG Tracy Thorne, an A-6 bombar-dier navigator who announcedhis homosexuality on ABCNews, as did Petty Officer KeithMeinhold, a navy flight systemsinstructor; and Colonel Marga-rethe Cammermeyer, a 50-year-old grandmother who was chief of nursing for the WashingtonState National Guard.In 1992, looking for a way to impress wealthy gay donorsand the growing gay-identifiedelectorate, Bill Clinton stum- bled almost by accident intoannouncing his support for anend to the ban when asked about it at a Harvard Kennedy Schoolappearance. Then, just a week after Clinton’s election, a federal judge in San Francisco orderedthe Navy to reinstate Meinhold. This convergence of eventsput the gay ban and Clinton’sHarvard pledge into the nationalspotlight — and was the signalfor an unprecedented mobiliza-tion in support of it by the puis-sant Christian right that hadhelped elect Ronald Reagan. The week after Clinton’s inaugura-tion, Congress was deluged with434,000 phone calls in a singleday, five times the average daily number of calls, and nearly all of them in opposition to lifting the ban.Frank’s long and detailedaccount of the tawdry story that followed should embarrass bothBill Clinton, whose spinelessnessin the face of a well-orchestratedreligious rebellion soon becameevident, and our military’s lead-ership, with Colin Powell at itshead. The generals and admirals,Frank’s book shows, admittedthey lied about the threat that openly gay and lesbian soldiersposed to “unit cohesion,” their favorite catch-word, and repeat-edly concealed or repressed stud-ies commissioned by the military showing there was no justifica-tion for the ban. They also usedpropaganda materials prepared by the religious right, includ-ing a video purporting to provethat gays would “undermine themilitary,” and stacked the work-ing group eventually tasked withexamining the military ban withtop brass who were religiousfanatics.In the end, Bill Clinton cavedin to a silent
coup d’etat
led by Colin Powell that shredded thehistoric constitutional principleof civilian control over the mili-tary — and if I have any criticismof Frank’s fine book, it’s that heskips over this anti-constitution-al angle too quickly.Frank puts all the studiesof gays in the military under the microscope, exhaustively sifts through the evidence, andcomes to the inescapable conclu-sion that “it is the pressure gen-erated by gay exclusion rules tofixate on the private lives of ser- vice members [that] is the threat to cohesion and morale” in our armed forces.Basing his account on hun-dreds of interviews with servicemembers, as well as individualcase studies and institutionalreviews, and wielding his factslike razors, Frank demonstratesirrefutably the disastrous resultsof DADT: “Gay and lesbian menand women were hauled beforedischarge boards not only whenthey chose to ‘tell’ but whenthey were outed by coworkers,ex-lovers, psychologists, chap-lains, Internet chat rooms, andeven their own parents. Pursuitsremained rampant, with flimsy evidence used as the basis of dis-charge proceedings. Mass witchhunts continued and threatsand intimidation were all tooroutine. Gays and lesbians werestill thrown in prison for privateconsensual sex; their educationand retirement benefits were vengefully snatched from themonce they were discharged; their mental health suffered as they were denied access to support services that all other troopscould use.” Just as I’d found in my report-ing for The Nation a decade earli-er, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has con-tinued to lead to ever-escalatinglevels of harassment, abuse,intimidation, threats, physical violence, and even murder withinthe uniformed services, against which those perceived as gay have no recourse: They cannot complain to their superiors, for that would be “telling,” and they would be summarily expelled.Frank also reviews the experi-ence of the many countries that have ended their bans on gaysand the military and embracedthem; in each one, unit cohe-sion has improved, as has troopmorale. Yet, while banning gays, thearmed forces — so desperate for manpower — has put tens of thousands of criminals in uni-form. As Frank shows, “Between2003 and 2006, thanks to themilitary’s moral waivers pro-gram, 4,230 convicted felons,43,977 individual convictedof misdemeanors, includingassault, and 58,561 illegal drugabusers were allowed to enlist.”During the war in Iraq, “between2004 and 2007, the number of convicted felons nearly dou- bled, rising from 824 to 1,605.
A Timely Telling
Nathaniel Frank writes the definitive Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell exposé
UNFRIENDLY FIRE: HOW THE GAYBAN UNDERMINES THE MILITARYAND WEAKENS AMERICA
By Nathaniel FrankSt. Martin’s Press/ Thomas Dunne Books342 pages; $25.95
DON’T ASK
,
continued on
p.13
Leave a Comment