Been There, Done That. Integrating Gay Troops Into The Army

It’s always enlightening to dive into the military’s historical archives, because armies have been doing the same things for hundreds of years. While the troops in charge today might think they’re blazing a new trail, chances are good soldiers a generation or two earlier traveled the same path, now overgrown with the passage of time.

A black U.S. Army soldier guards Nazi troops, April 1945 / DoD

Take the coming end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” For months, we’ve heard the political axes swinging into the timber of opposition. You’ve been able to see the top of the tree shake,  white chunks of freshly-cut wood spewing from the trunk with every blow. Even the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals action late Wednesday saying that the ban can remain in place — at least for now reversing a lower court ruling terminating “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — only seems likely to delay the inevitable.

“My gosh,” some folks fret. “How will the military ever deal with allowing openly gay men and women to serve in uniform?” Actually, pretty much the same way it dealt with the integration of black soldiers into a white Army 60 years ago.

Take Integration of Negro and White Troops — U.S. Army, Europe, 1952-1954, written by Army historians in 1956, for example.

This was the lay of the land, according to the report, when President Truman ordered the armed forces integrated in July 1948:

The official policy of the U.S. Army since the Civil War had been to keep the white and Negro races segregated in separate units. Negro soldiers had been assigned to Negro units of regimental size or larger, some of which had Negro officers. Most Negroes had been employed in service support functions because they had generally been regarded as unsuitable for combat.

So the Army began to comply, slowly and secretly:

The Korean conflict erupted in June 1950, only a few months after the removal of racial quotas for enlistments; this was about the time that Negroes were first integrated into white training units…The recommendation was made to integrate Negroes into all units up to 15 percent of strength with implementation to take place through normal attrition and replacement processes. On the basis of the limited integration that had already taken place in Korea, the FECOM Assistant Chief of Staff, G1, concluded that colored soldiers could and did fight well when integrated.

Then came the push to integrate the U.S. Army in Europe:

In the summer of 1951 the Department of Defense sent Dr. Eli Ginzberg, Columbia University professor and sometime Army consultant on manpower, to Europe to inform the senior officers in Heidelberg of the integration progress made elsewhere and to consult with them on the preparation of a similar program in Europe. Upon his arrival, Dr. Ginzberg encountered doubt that integration in the United States and Far East had been successful. Even if true, integration would not advance beyond the planning stage in Europe, and if implemented, it would probably be unsuccessful. Some officers were not aware of the progress made by integration elsewhere; they thus reflected the Army’s success in having kept the program classified.

(Kind of makes you wonder if somewhere — maybe in the wilds of  636,000-acre Fort Irwin, in California’s Mojave Desert — the Army hasn’t secretly combined straights and gays into a couple of brigades to see if they can get along.)

Anyway, despite such concerns, integration happened and national security wasn’t hurt:

The standard guides for determining whether appropriate levels of performance and effectiveness have been reached are the various unit training tests and inspections. The results of these tests [Army Field Forces (AFF) Army Training Tests (ATT)] and the reports of these inspections [Annual General Inspections (AGI's) and Command Maintenance Inspections (CMI's)] in the integrated units showed generally that integration had raised the level of performance of former all-Negro units and had improved their capability to perform their mission. Moreover, integration had not decreased the combat effectiveness of former all-white units.

Within a few years, I’m sure Army historians will churn out a new report detailing the integration of gays into the U.S. military. I have a sneaking suspicion its bottom line will say something like this:

Moreover, integration had not decreased the combat effectiveness of former all-straight units.

Related Topics: army, don't ask don't tell, National Security
  • Latest on Battleland

    Army photo / Sgt. Michael J. MacLeod

    Humpin’ It…And Jammin’ It…

    Reuters

    China’s ‘Security Dilemma’ Risks Arms Race in Asia

    TOKYO – A shooting war with China may not be inevitable, but a dangerous arms escalation seems a dead certainty. That’s the take from a rare public discussion here this week among naval experts from Japan, the U.S. and China.

    Chris Hondros / Getty Images

    Mental Ills Top Reason U.S. Troops Now Hospitalized

    Four of the top five non-combat medical conditions sending troops to the hospital in 2011 were mental ailments, the Pentagon reports:

  • Paul-no not that one

    Nicely written. Thanks Mark Thompson.

  • liberalmeltdown

    “Actually, pretty much the same way it dealt with the integration of black soldiers into a white Army 60 years ago.”
    .
    You mean re-integrating them after Woodrow Wilson segregated the armed forces and federal offices in 1912.
    .
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wilson/portrait/wp_african.html
    .

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    You’re equating black soldiers with gay soldiers? The simple commonality -the fact that there wa a societal push-back against the integration of both- is hardly enough of a similarity to warrant your suggestion that all will be well. I don’t have any objection to gay soldiers serving their country openly, DADT is a wrong-headed policy, but seriously, can we stop pretending that everything is friggin equal all the time and has a comparable equivalent. For f*ck’s sake, gay people are gay, black people are black, Hispanics are Hispanics, etc. etc. They’re not all the same!

  • Paul-no not that one

    You agree that they should be allowed to serve openly.
    .
    “I don’t have any objection to gay soldiers serving their country openly”

    .
    You agree that there is a common thread running from discriminating against African Americans to denying openly gay people to serve.
    .
    “The simple commonality -the fact that there wa a societal push-back against the integration of both”
    .
    And from that you conclude that “we stop pretending that everything is friggin equal all the time and has a comparable equivalent”
    .
    I didn’t read this as “everything is equal”, I read this as an apt historical comparison.
    .
    A comparison with which you seem to agree.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    No, I agree that prohibiting black soldiers from serving with white soldiers and prohibiting gay soldiers from serving are both wrong. Doesn’t necessarily imply that the outcome will be the same, though. I think Bush was a terrible President and I think Clinton was a terrible President. This doesn’t mean that the two are comparable, does it? Listen, I understand the sentiment that Mark Thompson is trying to convey. But, I also think far too often we simply lump all minorities in one category and it comes off as condescending and aloof, no matter the intent.

  • Paul-no not that one

    “But, I also think far too often we simply lump all minorities in one category”
    .
    Who is the “we” that has you upset?
    .
    Mark Thompson didn’t. I didn’t.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Mark Thompson most certainly did. Not sure about you. I’d say it’s highly likely that you have as well, however unwittingly.

  • Paul-no not that one

    Cites please.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    You want me to cite something that I said I am not sure about? I’m not suggesting that you have certainly made this well-intentioned patronage, I’m suggesting, based on extensive observation of people, that it is probable that you have. Sometimes people are lost in their idealism, in this case so distracted by their pursuit of equality and political correctness, that they lose sight of the proud distinctions between groups of people and the individuality of people within those communities.

  • Paul-no not that one

    “Mark Thompson most certainly did”
    .
    I’ll ignore your condescending and aloof suggestion it is probable that I have, even unwittingly.
    .
    After all sometimes one is so lost in their idealism and is so distracted by their pursuit of making a point they go slightly over the top.

  • textee

    For the boys and girls unfamiliar with Time magazine, long story short: Time magazine, notwithstanding its complete ignorance on the issue at hand (that’s never stopped the mindless political advocacy at Time magazine!) favors opening the military to homosexuals. Duuuuuuuuuh. Ditto for Time magazine’s fellow political advocacy and lobbying groups, to wit: ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, A-Mess-NBC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN News, ESPN Classic, ESPN U, ESPN Deportes, ESPN in HD, ESPN in 3D, ESPN Radio, ESPN360.com, HBO, Showtime, NPR, the New York Times-Democrat, the Washington Post-Democrat, the Associated (with terrorists) Press, Sports Illustrated, Sports Illustrated en espanol, Oprah, Good Housekeeping, et al.

  • shaiarra

    XTIANS ARE delusional, Military Fact The UCMJ (ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (JAG), IS NOT A FEDERAL JUDGE OK, JAGS CANNOT PRESIDE OVER THE CONSTITUTION), WHILE IN THE MILITARY ITS JAG COURT BUT ONCE OUT THE MILITARY THE CASE IS UP FOR FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BY A FEDERAL JUDGE WHO CAN CONSTITUTIONALLY TEST THE CASE, FOR THE UCMJ Gets its power from the US Constitution which also Govern the Commander and Chief all USC LAW ARE SUBJECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL AND UCC ( UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE )REVIEW 28USC3002 (15) (A)(B)(C) (US CORPORATION) THE FEDERAL COURTS HAS JURISDICTION TO PRESIDE OVER CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, NOT JAGS

    FEDERAL COURTS DO HAVE JURISDICTION, DISPROVE IT WITH THE FACTS OK, NOT ASSUMPTIONS, GOOGLE: UCMJ FEDERAL COURT CASES REVIEW….SEE READ FOR YOURSELF THE CASES, BEFORE A JUDGE TAKE UP A CASE HE HAS TO 1ST SEE ITS MERITS THEN BY STATUTE IF THAT COURT HAS JURISDICTION..OK GOOGLE/WIKIPEDIA JUDICIAL PROCEDURAL LAW AND REVIEW OK

    A JAG IS JUST THAT , A JUDGE ADVOCATE ie HE/SHE ACTS IN PLACE OF A JUDGE, CANT BE FLYING JUDGES TO OTHER COUNTRIES ALL DAY $$$$, BUT A JAG CANNOT PRESIDE OVER THE CONSTITUTION, ONLY A FEDERAL JUDGE WITH JURISDICTION CAN DO THAT, THE JUDGE A GWB APPOINTEE HAD SUCH JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE CASE

    Sources for this topic are the UCMJ itself (also found at 10 USC 801), as well as ex parte Quirin (317 US 1 [1942]) and the Government Printing Office’s commentaries on Article 1 of the Constitution. Sources for contemporary topics include the web sites for CNN and The New York Times.

    THE CHAIN ON COMMAND (1) THE US CONSTITUTION, (2) THE PREZ, (3) UCMJ AS DRAFTED BY CONGRESS (4) THE 4 BRANCHES ie ARMY(AIR FORCE)/ NAVY (MARINES) REGULATIONS

  • liberalmeltdown

    Well they could test this with a company of Sharia Law Muslims and openly gay soldiers.

  • apr2563

    Mark, thank you for sharing that enlightening bit of history with us.

  • apr2563

    Exiled: Mark is writing about a process. He is not saying the issue is the same but the solution could be similar.

  • nflfoghorn

    Your Nutjob Certificate has been mailed to you. Please allow 2 – 4 weeks for delivery.

  • bobell

    I’m generalizing here, and I know this isn’t universal, but for the most part it’s a lot tougher to hide being Black than it is to hide being gay. So it’s not true that gays aren’t integrated in straight units as of today. They most definitely are. But most of those gays aren’t known to be gay.
    .
    The whole point of DADT was supposed to be that gays could serve as long as they remained invisible. That way, they wouldn’t upset those who are offended by their presence. The right of straight people to be unaware of gays in their midst was more inportant than the right of gays to make their identity public. (Again, I’m describing, not endorsing.)
    .
    Of course, DADT never worked as designed, because the haters wouldn’t let it. They asked, and they told, even when some gay soldier tried to comply with the “don’t tell” part of DADT. People staged witch hunts. That’s not the whole story, but it’s surely a part of it.
    .
    DADT hurts the military in so many ways. It’s a cancer on the body politic, even if the textees of this world don’t realize that. Eventually we’ll be rid of it, and as with racial segregation we’ll wonder why we ever tolerated it.

blog comments powered by Disqus