This morning, the discussion on the radio was about the need to lift "don't ask, don't tell" because we need more soldiers. The idea was that there is a huge reservoir of homosexuals who want to fight in Iraq, but can't; and we are currently backed into a corner, and we need to act now to change this silly policy.
I hate to break it to you, but regardless of its merits, we will never be backed into a corner and forced to change "don't ask, don't tell." Let's use some clearly inaccurate numbers often thrown around to support changing "don't ask, don't tell."
I think both of these claims are dubious, especially when that 10% number is defended as "well, a lot of them are 'in the closet.'" Likewise, I'm pretty sure I could get the same job done with 513 people as with 520 people. Multiply that by 1,000, and you'll be where the US military is today. 7,000 additional troops just isn't that many when you already have more than half-a-million.
But let's work off of these inaccurate numbers. Making the assumption that without "don't ask, don't tell" homosexuals would sign up for the military at the same rate as heterosexuals (something tells me that a lower percentage of homosexuals want to join the military), we would expect a military without "don't ask, don't tell" would be made up of, roughly, 90% heterosexuals and 10% homosexuals. So, for our military of a half-million, there would be 51,300 homosexual troops.
Now, going back to the world we live in today. Under "don't ask, don't tell," we would expect to have some of those 51,300 homosexuals in the military, but not all of them. In fact, the only way the 10% number is possible is if nearly all of them are "in the closet," which means they are allowed to join under the current policy. Changing "don't ask, don't tell" would only open the door to people who want to join and can't because, frankly, they want to tell without being asked. And there simply aren't enough homosexuals in that category (want to join but can't) to start sounding "the calvary are coming."
Compare this to the racial integration of the military. During the Civil War, Lincoln waited until the military was in serious danger of losing before he allowed blacks and former slaves into the ranks. Even then, they were put in their own units. The important detail is that blacks made up a large portion of the population, and there were enough that they actually could form entire battalions (and slaves were willing to escape their Southern masters in order to swell the ranks).
It wasn't until the Korean War before the US actually integrated the units. In that case, there weren't enough soldiers to make all-white or all-black battalions. I doubt we will ever effectively "integrate" the US military on sexual preferences until we are up against the same wall. That is, only when it is impossible to make a battalion of heterosexual and secretly homosexual troops will we be forced to let openly homosexual troops in. We aren't at that point, and I seriously doubt we ever will be.
It may be possible that society's standards will change enough that we will lift "don't ask, don't tell," but we will never be forced to out of military necessity.
UPDATE I forgot my other point. Half of the homosexuals we're talking about in that inflated 10% (I'll buy the idea that 3% of the population in homosexual, but 10% is ridiculous) are women, and can't be assigned combat duties. While there isn't a big reservoir of homosexuals waiting to ride in and fix Iraq, there is a large number of women who would like to take a more active role in combat. I'm not going to say whether they should (I've worked in manufacturing, and I know women who took jobs in conditions that affected their ability to have children later; but then again I know men who took jobs that affected their ability to have children later as well). I will say that we are far more likely to be pushed into either redefining "combat roles" or changing the policy that prevents women from serving in those roles than anything. In short, "don't ask, don't tell" will be here until we want to change it, "no women in combat" may be changed out of necessity.
