DADT, RIP

I missed the racial integration of the U.S. military, but I witnessed up close the mixing of women into nearly every rank and file. Soon it will be time for openly gay men and women to serve, as well. I can recall the tirades against opening up more billets to women some 20 years ago. There was a special commission set up to deal with the issue, and tensions ran high following the notorious Tailhook convention in 1991, where Navy aviators groped and sexually assaulted women at a Las Vegas hotel.

PFC Barry Winchell, 1977-1999

That sad chapter finally pushed the Navy into action, and you could see it unfold the following year at its boot camp in Orlando, where men and women began training together for the first time. “I think we’ll see a decline in sexual harassment when these men and women, having trained side by side, get to their ultimate assignments,” Rear Adm. Leonard N. Oden, commander of the training center, said back then. “With a lot of hindsight, I’ve been asking myself why we didn’t start this integrated training back in 1973″ when women first began training there.

That’s precisely the point advocates of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” have been making. The Pentagon actually bolstered their argument in its expansive troop survey, released last month. It showed that troops who had served alongside gays were far more comfortable with the notion of letting them serve openly than those who hadn’t.

In the years since, women have become a key piece of the U.S. war machine. Yes, the nation could have struggled to do without their services, but the resulting force would have been weaker for it. Granted, there have been occasional problems, like the recent news about a pair of Navy officers punished for fraternization while in command of a minesweeper, but stupidity knows no gender. Stories like these are newsworthy only because 99.99 percent of women in uniform, and their male colleagues, are saluting each other smartly and getting the job done.

It took another infamous, and far more serious, case in 1999 to highlight homophobia in the ranks of the U.S. military:

If it had been anyone else who stood up to Private Calvin Glover about his outrageous, macho bragging that summer night, things might have turned out differently. But it may have been just too humiliating to be challenged by Private First Class Barry Winchell, of all people. Glover was in full boast on the eve of July Fourth as he and his fellow soldiers drank beer around the concrete picnic table outside their barracks at Fort Campbell, Ky. “He would say he was on ‘smack’ since he was 10,” Private First Class Nikita Sanarov said, “and had been on probation since he was 12. Stuff like that.” Recalls Private First Class Arthur Hoffman: “He was just trying to make himself look like a badass. The stories were pretty out there.”

Finally one of the beer drinkers, Winchell, told Glover that he was full of it. Glover walked up to Winchell and tried to knock a beer from his hand but failed. Winchell insisted he didn’t want to fight, but something drove Glover to keep provoking one. Finally, Winchell tossed his beer aside and hit Glover quickly several times with the heel of his hand. As Glover reeled backward, Winchell grabbed him around the waist and threw him to the ground. That should have been the end to an ordinary fight, but for Glover the stakes were higher. He had just been beat by a man whose suspected homosexuality had preoccupied the barracks for months. “It ain’t over,” Glover vowed to Winchell. “I will…kill you.”

Forty-eight hours later, Winchell was dead. Eleven years later, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is, too.

In another 11 years, we’ll wonder just how “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ever became the law of the land, and why it was allowed to stand for 17 years and ruin the careers of nearly 14,000 people.

Related Topics: barry winchell, 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:

  • http://gum0nshoe.wordpress.com gumOnShoe

    I don’t know that “Rest In Peace” are sentiments I’d express towards DADT. Given a personified DADT and hence a grave site & burial. I’d promptly by up the property and build a disco on top with a special set of tiles labeled for the position where DADT lay.
    ·
    I’d also have done the same for Hitler.
    ·
    That law doesn’t deserve any more respect than jim crowe laws do.

  • http://2thirdsrocks.wordpress.com 2thirdsrocks

    Gee gummy, Didn’t realize this subject meant so much to you. Such sincerity and conviction. The sun has finally come out..

  • kbanginmotown

    From Adam’s Post:
    .
    “Programming note: Things will be a bit slower around here this week as everyone takes some holiday time.”
    .
    Sadly, the trolls never sleep…

  • http://gum0nshoe.wordpress.com gumOnShoe

    I had a friend who had to drop out of West Point because of, ultimately, DADT. Brilliant guy. Horrible policy.
    ·
    I’m glad to see its done.

  • textee

    Can we get any of the political activists/lobbyists at Time magazine to detail the homosexual activism of U.S. Army Private Bradley “Wikileaks” Manning?

    Can we get any of the political activists at Time magazine or at any other leftist political advocacy group (e.g., ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, A-Mess-NBC, NPR, ESPN, ESPN 2, ESPN News, ESPN Classic, ESPN Deportes, ESPN Français, ESPN Radio, ESPN Magazine, ESPN in HD, ESPN in 3D, the New York Times-Democrat, the Washington Post-Democrat, the execrable Associated (with terrorists) Press, al Reuters, al Jazeera, al McClatchy, Sports Illustrated, Road and Track, Car and Driver, Better Homes and Gardens, et al.) to ask any pertinent questions? Such as:

    If a member of the United States military objects to sharing a room with homosexuals will that be declared a so-called “hate crime” and an illegal act of “homophobia” punishable by court-martial?

    Will the “spouses” of homosexuals be recognized as military dependents?

    Will bi-sexuals in the United States military be allowed to have one male “spouse” and one female “spouse” recognized as military dependents? If not, why not? Will a member of the military who has seven or eight “spouses” be allowed to declare all seven or eight as military dependents? If not, why not?

    Will taxpayers be paying for so-called “sex change” operations? If not, why not? Will females who have so-called “sex change” operations be required to meet the male physical fitness standards? If not, why not? BTW, why do we currently allow females to meet much lower physical fitness standards than those required of males?

    Will military installations now include gay bars to go along with the enlisted, NCO and officer clubs? If not, why not?

    Who will conduct the “sensitivity” so-called “training” (i.e., indoctrination)? ACT-UP? The self-described “Human Rights Campaign”? Some other militant, virulent. leftist, anti-American group?

    Will cross-dressing males be allowed to wear Army-issued skirts? If not, why not?

    Will those members of the military who get taxpayer-funded, so-called “sex change” operations room with males or females?

  • http://gum0nshoe.wordpress.com gumOnShoe

    Do you want best homes & gardens to ask what the effects of homosexual gardeners are on the growth and development of shrubberies?

  • https://maninblackreviews.wordpress.com The Man in Black

    I can’t tell if the person above is asking questions for the sake of asking questions, or if they honestly believe that homosexuality equates to polygamy (illegal) and transvestitism (which has no bearing on gender preference), tolerance equates to indoctrination, and that homophobia is any different from racism, or that cosmetic surgery has ever been military funded for service members.

    That said, some of the questions there are definitely valid and worthy of enlightenment (though not necessarily related to recent changes in law).

  • aaron228

    textee, you’re obviously a rational, concerned citizen just looking for answers to some questions, so hope this helps you out! In the order your questions were asked:

    Commanders will be given freedom to sort out roommate issues as they see fit. Most anticipate our professional servicemembers won’t have any problems treating each other with dignity and respect.

    Spouses of homosexuals will not be recognized as dependents. Even though legally married, the marriages will not be recognized by DoD.

    Bigamy is currently illegal in all 50 states. The bill passed does not alter any state laws concerning marriages.

    Taxpayers will not pay for gender reassignment. Policy change does not alter the current prohibition on transgendered individuals from serving.

    Establishments on post fall under the purview of the garrison commander. Just FYI, hanging out at gay bars has never been considered a violation of don’t ask, don’t tell.

    Servicemembers receive quarterly training on Equal Opportunity/Sexual Harrassment and the prevention of sexual assaults. Changes to that training, such as the addition of lessons regarding treating all servicemembers with dignity and respect regardless of sexual orientation, would probably come from the Pentagon.

    Currently males are allowed to wear only uniforms designed for males and likewise for females. This bill does not change that. I don’t believe this issue has been raised by gay servicemembers, though it’s obviously on the forefront of your mind.

    Last question you asked was a repeat.

    Thanks for your questions! Please feel free to check out this website called google if you have any others! It’s a godsend!

  • olderamericansoldier

    Every military branch of service has sexual harassment regulations and sensitivity training. Does this prevent people from raping and harassing others? No, there will always be a few knuckleheads who offend and the UCMJ will take care of them in a swift, legal manner. Same goes for unwanted sexual behavior of any kind. I seriously doubt gay spouses will be considered as legal dependents because not all 50 states recognize gay marriage. Their offspring (children) would be recognized as dependents. However, each service member is allowed only 1 dependent in terms of receiving extra pay and allowances. The only time I had to take a communal shower was in Bootcamp. So the probability of a service member gawking at your private parts decreases exponentially after one completes basic training.

  • Ike Jakson

    Mark

    Do you folks realize how many different views are floating around the Internet on this subject? Who is going to be the judge to announce what is right or wrong or just plain insanity?

    I give you but a few:

    http://crockettlives.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/as-those-caissons-go-mincing-along/

    http://nolanimrod.com/2010/12/15/bothcolumnist-artist-angry-at-the-wrong-guy/

    http://ikejakson.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/joe-the-puppet-oscar-winning-washington-comedy-for-year-end/

    Add your one to the list.

    See whether you can find a point of compromise?

  • textee

    Will homosexual males be allowed to shower with female members of the military? If not, why not?

    Homosexual advocates say that members of the military who object to showering with homosexuals should get over it because male homosexuals are not attracted to male heterosexuals. Therefore, since male homosexuals are not attracted to female heterosexuals, then female heterosexuals should have no valid objection to male homosexuals entering the female bathrooms, right?

    Dueling idiots Robert Gates and Mike Mullen have no idea what’s about to hit the United States military, and it ain’t gonna be pretty ….

  • tyrantking

    My brother-in-law is the most homophobic* person I know. He is also a former Marine having served for five years from 2003-2008. So on the one hand I worry about the effect the repeal will have on an institution that is as intolerant as the Marines. On the other hand, had he served with openly gay Marines, I do not believe he would be as homophobic as he is.

    *I use homophobic for lack of a better word. Gay people make him very angry.

    My wife, children and I went to Camp Pendleton to welcome him home when his final cruise returned. We swam in the Pacific on base that weekend. The bathroom and changing facilities on the beach varied between mens and womens. The mens facility had one large communal shower area much like your middle school locker room. My wife reports that the womens facilities had individual shower stalls. It seems to me that many of the concerns that the marines who have spoken out against DADT have expressed would be alleviated by installing individual shower stalls in mens facilities.

  • bojimbo26

    It still has to get past the military .

  • Mark Thompson

    Ike — I think there are so many screed-like views on this topic because certain elements, on each side, have made it a far bigger issue than it is. It’s worth remembering that much of the U.S. military hierarchy, as well as troops in the ranks, said integrating black soldiers into the force would cause all sorts of disruption following WW2. It didn’t, and we’ve since had a black chairman of the Joint Chiefs — never mind a black commander-in-chief — which should help us keep such things in perspective.

  • http://huntress6.wordpress.com/ huntress6

    Kudos to Mark Thompson for a great piece! I agree with your conclusion!!

    Kudos to Aaron who responded to textee’s stupidity with a lot more dignity and decency then textee’s homophobia & utter ignorance is worthy of.

    US soldiers have fought, showered, sh*t, shaved, eaten, and shared quarters with openly gay troops from NATO forces in both Iraq and AFG, and somehow they didn’t manage to catch “Gay cooties”, Textee.

    The Canadian Military actually allows bisexuals to serve openly… OMG!! The HORROR!!! Next thing you know, cats will be sleeping with dogs!!

    A study of gays and lesbians in the Canadian military has found that after Canada’s 1992 decision to allow homosexuals to serve openly in its armed forces, military performance did not decline. Unit cohesion NEVER suffered and dig this: The study is the most comprehensive academic study by US researchers of homosexuality in a foreign military ever compiled and reflects an exhaustive inventory of relevant data and research. Its title is “Effects of the 1992 Lifting of Restrictions on Gay and Lesbian Service in the Canadian Forces; Appraising the Evidence”.

    * Lifting of restrictions on gay and lesbian service in the Canadian Forces has NOT led to any change in military performance, unit cohesion, or discipline.
    * Self-identified gay, lesbian, and transsexual members of the Canadian Forces contacted for the study describe good working relationships with peers.
    * The percent of military women who experienced sexual harassment dropped 46% AFTER the ban was lifted. While there were several reasons why harassment declined, one factor was that after the ban was lifted women were free to report assaults without fear that they would be accused of being a lesbian.In other words, women put up with men sexually harassing them, because they were afraid that in retaliation for “not accepting” these sexual advances, men would claim these women were lesbians. AND TEXTEE is worried about the way homosexuals behave!!
    * Before Canada lifted its gay ban, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male soldiers found that 62% said that they would refuse to share showers, undress or sleep in the same room as a gay soldier. After the ban was lifted, follow-up studies found no increase in disciplinary, performance, no decrease in recruitment, no sexual misconduct, nor resignation problems.
    * None of the 905 assault cases in the Canadian Forces from November, 1992 (when the ban was lifted) until August, 1995 involved gay bashing or could be attributed to the sexual orientation of one of the parties.
    (Seems heterosexual soldiers were too busy assaulting each other instead)

    Oh and here’s the killer Textee and the rest of you homophobes — uniformed military same sex couples actually marry on Military bases in Canada!!! OMG !!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!

    Canadian homophobes, just like textee made the same dumbass comments & expressed the same ignorant, pugnacious, quarrelsome, contentious, asinine fears. Sadly for them — NONEcame to pass: Unit Cohesion, Morale & Discipline were never compromised or affected negatively.

    Today The Canadian Armed Forces remains one of the best and most respected fighting forces globally.

  • http://huntress6.wordpress.com/ huntress6

    Dear Bojimobo – NO. IT. DOESN’T have to still get past the Military.
    Neither did integrating black soldiers or females.
    Once the bill to repeal is signed by the CiC – it’s a done deal. It’s implementation will be done methodically, but it will be done. There is nothing that has to get past the Military.

    The Pentagon study found a solid majority of troops were NOT bothered by the prospect of lifting the ban and that the military could implement the change without a major disruption or upheaval.

    “Once this legislation is signed into law by the president, the Department of Defense will immediately proceed with the planning necessary to carry out this change carefully and methodically, but purposefully,” SecDef Gates said.

    Even the homophobic Marine Commander James Amos finally decided to take a leadership role “I…will personally lead this effort, thus ensuring the respect and dignity due all Marines. Fidelity is the essence of the United States Marine Corps. Above all else, we are loyal to the Constitution, our Cmdr in Chief, Congress, our Chain of Command, and the American people”

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    You’re right, of course, huntress. But even if Bojimobo were right, it wouldn’t mean anything. He is forgetting that Sec. Gates and the Joint Chiefs are for the repeal, except, of course, Amos, who would rather have had DADT remain the law of the land. But that’s the Marines for you. They were the biggest hold outs of integrating blacks and women, as well. And the Marines ultimately didn’t suffer for either of those policy changes either.

  • apr2563

    Textee: Just for you. What happens in the barn stays in the barn.

blog comments powered by Disqus