DADT: How H.R. 2965 and S. 4023 Changed American Military

Many of my good friends have expressed to me their great happiness to the Repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy (original policy). As a political scientist and as a person, it was my duty to understand the nature behind the drive--not just clearly from the motivation by the "minority complex," as I call it. So, I began a detailed research from across the globe and from right here. In my search there are compelling arguments for the successful integration of the LGBTQ community into the highly effective and powerful United State military machine. However, these sources do have a different take since they are from multiple countries that have established such a program for some time and may or may not have the same philosophical and or political cleavages that the US has. 

The overarching theory in the repeal is that everyone should be allowed to go into the military, regardless of sexual orientation, which in the legal language defines it as someone who is confirmed, either by society or self-induced. I agree that all should have the opportunity to serve in our military. Yet, here is the problem: in our society, the trend and tendency for members actively serving and enlisting come from from more conservative and religious affiliations. In the picture, right, from the Heritage Foundation, has compiled a ratio of total proportion of members serving to the population. Any ratio which exceeds 1.0% indicates an overrepresentedness and any below a 1.0% indicates an underrepresentedness of those serving (2007 data, Heritage Foundation). While this is not just the only data that shows the more social climate of military, the previous article on members serving by state opens a possible different trend--which may have counter intuitive meaning to this dynamic problem. The social climate--or more accurately, the political climate--of the military tends to be on the more Conservative/Republican side. While this is not solely true, it tends to be at least the lowest possible majority figure.

But let us get to the bigger picture and the hypothesis that will form by this article. In the understanding of the actual repeal of the DADT Polity, (H.R. 2965 and S.4023), these laws codified as Public Law No: 111-321, did not actually repeal the law, it only allowed the Department of the Defense to circumvent the policy indicated in 10 USC 654 and implement the other policy of all inclusion. So how does this effect the outcome of the military effectiveness? It probably will not pose a great reduction of readiness, however, it will pose a psychological issue. As mentioned before, the tendency for the US military is to be from more religious and conservative values--again, this is not always the case--so in that conceptual lens, it would be possible for any military personnel to actively seek a way to commit a form of genocide within the US military by de facto reasoning.

To understand this concept more, a deeper understanding of the social climatology of American ideals needs to be inspected. In a report by the FBI's on the victims targeted by bias motivation on sexual orientation shows as high percentage of anti-male homosexual bias, the next is the more overarching title of anti-homosexual bias, then anti-female, anti-heterosexual, and finally anti-bisexual bias rounds out the lowest form of bias targets. This data was current in 2007, when speculation on the repeal was beginning. The pie chart, left, shows the overall breakdown of the victim by bias motivation. This data, which shows a high concentration against male homosexuals as targets in general, will transcend to a possible correlation into the military which in itself has a higher propensity to cultivate a stronger culture of what is applicable by law. The change in P.L. 111-321 may eventually change the social climate of the military to be less than the national averages, shown in the chart. Yet, it may be a little late to help.

In it this belief that the bias motivated targets on anti-male homosexuals would indeed pose a direct threat to the lives of those members who serve our country. In that, if the motivation in general, occurs, a form of genocide within the confines of the military may occur. Take for example a male, whom being brought up in religion and of moderate - to high income will have a less likely chance to accept someone who is a male homosexual, than would another male who is brought up in a more secular and "politically correct" nature. In this example, the two male's from differing backgrounds may have gone into the military for differing reasons, but the ideal--prior to P.L. 111-321--would have been to form cohesive groups of their respective ideologies. Expanding it so that by the end of all of it, the person who has more religious and social conservative values will have a higher chance and likelihood to form some psychological need to "eliminate" a problem.

So what am I saying with this? For me it is possible, even highly so, that a person who is against homosexuals serving openly or at all in the military would, in times of war, make the opportunity to have the gay service member be killed in the line of fire without any visible--at that time--recourse. Now this example takes form in an infantry man, but I am not excluding the possibility that officers--who appeal to the same variety of the religious, social conservative male discussed earlier--could fabricate some sort of plan to slowly allow the male homosexuals who serve to be rotated to the front lines in many operations that may not be winnable or have a high probability of death occurring.

As a connector, I would say that while the DADT is a policy that had the intentions to protect, and possibly on some level to discriminate, I feel that the protection of minorities is more capable in DADT than to, as already accomplished, fixate on a new policy that opens more doors and alleyways of bias motivated crimes and the possible link to genocidal tendency that I fear some of my more ignorant conservative military friends will begin to adhere to implicitly or explicitly. While recourse is always an option, it would considerably difficult for someone who is homosexual to seek recourse in such a wide majority of those who are in favor of DADT. My foremost job as a blogger and a political scientist--and even more so as a human, is to protect all from crimes of hate and prejudice.And with that, my feelings on the repeal is negative as it may hurt the LGBTQ community more than help!