HRC Back Story

As Congress prepares to hold its first hearing on Don't Ask Don't Tell since 1993, the national media is focusing increased attention on the issue. USA Today's Andrea Stone writes that former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman John Shalikashvili thinks tomorrow's hearing is step in right direction:

Democrats in Congress hope to ignite a drive to reverse the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy Wednesday with the first hearing on the subject since 1993, when President Clinton said gays could serve in uniform if they kept quiet about their sexual orientation.

Without this hearing, said former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman John Shalikashvili, "you will never repeal the law. It's a great idea." He is among more than 50 retired generals and admirals who have said it is time to rethink the policy.[...]

The hearing comes as the volunteer armed forces struggle to retain troops to fight two wars. Changing attitudes are seen in polls such as one by The Washington Post, published Saturday, showing that 75% favor allowing gays to serve openly, up from 44% in 1993.

[Photo: General Shalikashvili in 1997.]

There is definitely a growing shift in public attitudes on DADT and that same Washington Post poll found that support for repealing DADT is growing even among white evangelical Christians.  At Newsweek, Jamie Reno interviews Congresswoman Susan Davis, chairwoman of the House Military Personnel Subcommittee that is holding tomorrow's hearing. Here is a portion of Reno's Q&A with Congresswoman Davis:

NEWSWEEK: You've been pushing for this hearing, so what do you hope to accomplish this week?
Susan Davis: This issue is important to a lot of people. We just want to break the ice, to hear from people and start a conversation about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" that has not taken place. I had hoped to hear from the Department of Defense; I wanted to include them in the hearing. We would have liked to discuss with them the recruitment and retention issues that are so vital at this time of war. But essentially all we're hearing from them is that they are upholding the existing law and that it isn't appropriate to comment. So I think it's up to Congress and the American people. We're beginning the conversation.

Since 1993, more than 12,600 men and women have been separated from the military under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." What message does this hearing send to these folks?
The message it sends is that we are finally going to look at this issue fairly and try to understand the impact it's had on service members and their families, as well as our ability to fight the wars we are involved in today and will be involved in tomorrow. Our interest is to get a better understanding of the extent to which we've separated people who want to serve their country and had a lot to offer. When the compromise occurred and this law was passed [in 1993], I was not around then. There are still legitimate concerns on the one hand because we are in the middle of a war, but more significantly, I think, is the fact that we are losing people who want to serve their country.

Do you not believe that being openly gay could be disruptive and could potentially lead to divisive and dangerous situations in a combat setting?
I think there are instances where that could be true, just as it can be true among men and women who are serving together. There are also issues of morale, and a host of other issues, but my sense from talking to commanders and others in the military anecdotally is that it hasn't turned out to be so critical in that regard. There are recent studies showing that it's not a major issue in terms of the ability of military units to function well. I'm hearing that from younger commanders, especially; they have said that it hasn't been an issue. There is definitely a generational aspect to this.

Do you think it's commonly known that among the 25 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 20 permit gays and lesbians to serve?
Most of them do. Britain has had a policy of openness since I think 2000. Israel does, too, and Poland. Most of our major allies in fact do. Our troops have served together with troops from all of these countries, and it hasn't been an issue.

While most polls indicate that a majority of Americans do not favor gay marriage, polls show that a majority of Americans do favor allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military . How would you explain or reconcile this seeming dichotomy?
I don't know. It may be that the military issue is less threatening to some people than the marriage issue. It also may be that in this country we greatly value those who are interested in sacrificing for our country. Gays and lesbians are as patriotic as anyone else and want to serve, and they have so many skills to offer, from linguists to medics to soldiers. I know a number of medics and others who serve.

Does it strike you as odd that while you're on Capitol Hill this week discussing this law, an estimated 65,000 gay and lesbian service members will be serving their country on active duty or in the reserves?
Yes, and those numbers will be a part of the discussion, they will be brought out by the witnesses. Percentagewise, it's low, but it is significant in terms of the roles they play, the contribution they have been making. A lot of people are serving today without a lot of concern on the part of their fellow members of the military or their superior officers that there may be a problem. It begs the question: does this policy have merit? Should it remain the same, should it be tweaked, or should it be done away with?

The entire interview is here.