The New Republic

DADT helped by creating a group of very effective advocates for DADT repeal: servicemen and women forced out by DADT.

- subterran

December 28, 2010 at 7:24pm

It's a tough call. I'd call it a mistake, though; it did make things worse, and there should definitely be some sort of effort to make amends on that account.

- GSpinks

December 28, 2010 at 10:54pm

of course it made a difference. You have Conservatives stating that gays could serve as long as they kept their mouths shut, but at the same time were stating that gays could not serve because straight men would be creeped out in the shower, so it was the worst of both worlds, closeted gay men could ogle straight men in the shower and no straight man would have any opportunity to know that was happening (I am thinking from the perspective of the looney Conservatives). Since Conservatives could no longer state that no gay could serve under any situation (though that is what they really wanted) it never made sense to me that they were happy being duped by closeted gays. Actively promoting duplicity by servicemen and women is idiotic.

- blackton

December 28, 2010 at 11:01pm

In my experience, between 2003 and 2006, DADT allowed (or seemed to allow) gay men and women to serve, and do so without a whole lot of restriction; it seemed to me far better than the previous official policy of not allowing it at all. I served with what I would describe as openly gay comrades (i.e. everyone knew, though the policy indicated they couldn't talk about it openly). There were two restrictions: they could not talk about their sexual preferences in a military setting, even though their attitudes, style of dress, etc. might make them obvious, and (a much more significant restriction, as far as I can tell), they could not *practice* those preferences in a military setting. The policy actually has three parts: "don't ask, don't tell, don't harass,' though the media often used a shortened moniker, comprised only of the first two clauses. The third clause, however, was important, because it mandated that gay service members be left alone about it, so long as their sexual preference was kept out of the public sphere, even if not really secret. Overall, it struck me as being a more liberal policy than an all-out ban. That said, I have no idea how the policy was implemented in 1993, and even in the 2000s the policy clearly unnerved at least one (presumed) gay service-member of my acquaintance. Still, my overall impression of the policy was that it was far less less anti-gay than I had been led to believe before I joined up--and I wonder if in retrospect Clinton wasn't unfairly (if understandably) maligned by the left for advocating it as a compromise. **caveat: every unit in the military is different, with its own traditions and operating procedures, built up over the previous decades, and it may be that at least a few other units than mine had more restrictive implementations of the DADTDH policy--maybe things were worse in, say, the marine expeditionary units, than they were in the regular Army, where I was. That wasn't what I experienced, though.

- Curran1

December 29, 2010 at 12:57am

I served just under 9 years. I always considered the conservative argument against repeal... that if gays let it be known they were so that it would be detrimental to unit cohesion... to be laughably naive. Military units are very close. Combat units exponentially more so, closer than family. Some, to be sure, will argue with me...after all no matter how homogeneous a culture, in a military of a million and a half souls and on every continent, differing experieces will certainly be had... but when I was in, in every unit at every location, it was the same: if there was a member of the unit who was gay, man or woman, everyone knew. No one cared. The idea that in a combat theatre, with the threat of death or lifechanging debilitating wounds a constant worry, with brothers being lost in front of you and the fear that every relationship you have...to spouse, to children, to God, to society...being forever altered by exposure to humanity at its worst, the concept that effectiveness as a fighting unit would be affected by showering near someone who you know to be gay is beyond silly. Everyone knows. No one cares.

- Tristan

December 29, 2010 at 9:56am