It was a policy put into place by President Bill Clinton in an entirely different climate for the homosexual movement. In order to both cater to these supports but still ally the fears and concerns of the armed forces, a deal was struck that officers would not be asked their orientation and were instructed not to tell their orientation, or else they would be removed from service.
Many have declared their orientation and have been sent out of the armed forces afterwards—some of them decrying this move as injustice.
Personally, I believe that this is a flawed approach—but I’m also against women in combat. The last thing that I think a military needs to be concerned about when facing the enemy is their sexual drive. I believe that there’s a lot of mental pressure that comes with fighting wars, and it’s hard to keep disciplined in sexual areas when you’re about the business of killing people and breaking things.
Too many armed conflicts have been recorded in history where no only were people killed and property destroyed, but women raped. And we’re not immune from this effect.
I don’t believe that you can support a homosexual force simply because it would necessitate yet another series of provisions for these people. Some would have a problem bunking with or fighting with someone that could be attracted to them—some of them would have a moral problem with their behavior, and it would be weird to make the accommodations necessary to provide them with the privacy, etc. that they would need.
Where’s the leadership here by President Obama? Seriously… if he believes what he says about this issue, that he wants to repeal the policy, why is he saying that the law is the only way? He’s the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.
It seems to me that he wants the cover the legislature would provide—one way or the other—instead of taking a stand on what he considers a moral issue. If the Congress leaves it in place, he can put the blame on them. If they act, he can take the credit.
But this points to an underlying character flaw in him—he is a politician at heart. He’s seeking his best play more than seeking to do what he believes is right—or at least what he says he believes is right.
Just remember, this man can push forward a bill to spend twice as much money as the government takes in, but can’t do anything for don’t ask, don’t tell. How much can we believe what he says?