NY Times publishes op-ed with DADT "cohesion" falsehood that Times itself has debunked
The New York Times published an op-ed by former Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill McPeak falsely claiming that "proponents of allowing gays to serve openly have largely avoided discussion of unit cohesion." In fact, numerous studies have considered and debunked the unit cohesion myth and the Times itself has reported on a prominent study that found that allowing gays to serve openly "does not undermine unit cohesion, recruitment, retention, morale, or overall combat effectiveness."
NY Times publishes McPeak's "unit cohesion" falsehood
McPeak: "Advocates for gays in the service have by and large avoided a discussion of unit cohesion." From the March 4 New York Times op-ed by retired Gen. Merrill McPeak:
Assuming the services exist to fight and win wars, those seeking fundamental change in the composition of combat units carry a special burden of proof.
Perhaps young American men and women will fight better when openly gay soldiers are included in the ranks, though I've heard no one make this claim. Instead, advocates for gays in the service have by and large avoided a discussion of unit cohesion, relying instead on arguments falling into three categories: training costs, civil rights and individual performance.
McPeak: Repealing DADT "will weaken the warrior culture." In
his op-ed, McPeak wrote that "[t]he issue is whether and how the presence
of openly declared homosexuals in the ranks affects the solidarity of the unit." He then argued that "open homosexuality"
would damage the cohesion necessary to succeed in war:
Armies have to care about what succeeds in war. Sometimes they win or lose because of material factors, because one side has the greater numbers or better equipment. But armies are sure to lose if they pay no attention to the ideas that succeed in battle. Unit cohesion is one such idea. We know, or ought to, that warriors are inspired by male bonding, by comradeship, by the knowledge that they survive only through relying on each other. To undermine cohesion is to endanger everyone.
[...]
I do not see how permitting open homosexuality in these communities enhances their prospects of success in battle. Indeed, I believe repealing "don't ask, don't tell" will weaken the warrior culture at a time when we have a fight on our hands.
NY Times itself recently reported on
prominent study addressing cohesion
NY Times: "Gay Soldiers Don't Cause Disruption, Study Says." In a February 21 article, Elisabeth Bumiller reported on the Palm Center study. Bumiller wrote:
A comprehensive new study on foreign militaries that have made transitions to allowing openly gay service members concludes that a speedy implementation of the change is not disruptive. The finding is in direct opposition to the stated views of Pentagon leaders, who say repealing a ban on openly gay men and women in the United States armed forces should take a year or more.
The study, "Gays in Foreign Militaries 2010: A Global Primer," is to be released Tuesday by the Palm Center, a research group at theUniversity of California, Santa Barbara.
The Palm Center has no official position on "don't ask, don't tell," the American law that bans openly gay service members, but the group has become a leading force among advocates for repeal.
[...]
The report concludes that in foreign militaries, openly gay service members did not undermine morale, cause large resignations or mass "comings out." The report found that "there were no instances of increased harassment" as a result of lifting bans in any of the countries studied.
Numerous studies have shown openly gay service does not undermine cohesion
Study cited by NY Times "showed that openly gay service does not undermine unit cohesion." From the February 2010 Palm Center study compiling and updating research on the effects of lifting bans on openly gay service in foreign militaries:
Over the past twenty years, numerous studies of foreign militaries have been conducted, including studies by the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, the Rand Corporation, the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the Defence Ministries of Britain and other nations that transitioned to a policy of full inclusion. The results of each of these studies showed that openly gay service does not undermine unit cohesion, recruitment, retention, morale, or overall combat effectiveness.
GAO: Other countries say allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly "has not created problems in the military." In a June 1993 report to Congress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) studied four countries that allow gay men and lesbians to serve in the military -- Canada, Israel, Germany, and Sweden -- and found that military officials said "the presence of homosexuals has not created problems in the military because homosexuality is not an issue in the military or in society at large." It also found that "[m]ilitary officials from each country said that, on the basis of their experience, the inclusion of homosexuals in their militaries has not adversely affected unit readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, or morale." GAO wrote that it chose those four countries to study because they "generally reflect Western cultural values yet still provide a range of ethnic diversity" and have similarly sized militaries.
None of the 104 experts interviewed for study believed decisions to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in UK, Canada, Israel, or Australia undermined cohesion. In a 2003 article for Parameters, the U.S. Army War College Quarterly, Aaron Belkin wrote that CSSMM (now the Palm Center) had conducted a study of the impact of the decisions to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military in the United Kingdom, Israel, Canada, and Australia, and found: "Not a single one of the 104 experts interviewed believed that the Australian, Canadian, Israeli, or British decisions to lift their gay bans undermined military performance, readiness, or cohesion."
Furthermore, the Palm Center stated that "research shows that the ban itself undermines cohesion and readiness." On March 5, the Palm Center responded to McPeak's op-ed in a press release, stating that "research shows that the ban itself undermines cohesion and readiness." The Palm Center press release cited a report conducted by the General/Flag Officers Study Group, which found that Don't Ask, Don't Tell "has forced some commanders to choose between breaking the law and undermining the cohesion of their units."
Thank you for your service, one and all....
Homosexuals, or heterosexuals, should be judged by their behavior and are expected to control and monitor it depending on any given circumstance or situation. And they do. Everyday. Otherwise homosexuals would all live, work and play only in sex clubs and bathhouses because they are unable to control their urges or impulses or behaviors. They wouldn't live among us, work with us, exist with the rest of us because they are sex addicts who can't be trusted. Absurd, baseless, ridiculous and bigoted.
The nation of the United States is likewise unique in its culture and traditions, admittedly not as accomodating to perceived contrapositives. This is based in part on the influence of the Puritans and Separatists in the Colonial North and the Baptists in the South.
To say that because it works for other countries (states) means that it would work for ours is a non sequitur, as it implies that each nation and state are interchangable--perhaps the gravest of geographical fallacies.
The “nation” is not defined by political documents or geographical boundaries like a “state” is; rather, a nation comprises the political ideas, geographical influences, sociological interactions, economical practices, traditional customs, and moral expectations of a common people with a common heritage who share common goals. In other words, it is the tangibles that define a state and the intangibles that define a nation.
Would allowing homosexuals in the military be detrimental to unit cohesion? I don't know that it would, but I do know it would cost a lot of money to accomodate it. I am in the military, and have served with openly homosexual--in all but a signed confession--servicemembers. Some of them were terrible for unit cohesion, some of them weren't. Some were bad soldiers, some were good.
Ever wonder just how many hetero/homosexual males currently share sports locker rooms? Why no DADT for athletes? For gym club members?
Guess this guy never heard of Sparta....
Again, this is another fallacy of comparing nations to states. It was the nation of Sparta that encouraged this sort of behavior; and this encouragement was based on cultural traditions, moral and ethical expectations, geographical influences, and sociological interactions that are far different than the American nation's. Just because it works for one state does not mean it would work for another. One must consider the aspect of the nation.