'DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL'
Who will overturn Pentagon ban?
By Leslie
Feinberg
The biggest employer in the United States--the Pentagon war
machine--is carrying out vicious witch hunts against lesbian,
gay and bisexual service people. Who is capable of leading the
struggle that will force the brass to retreat from their
brazenly bigoted ban on gays in the military?
Surely no one expects a Republican politician to lead the
charge. But can any progressive person have confidence that a
Democrat will stand up to the generals?
Public horror and outrage over the July 5 murder of young
Pfc. Barry Winchell has forced politicians to scramble for
positions on whether or not openly lesbian, gay and bisexual
people should be allowed to serve in the armed forces.
Winchell was bludgeoned with a baseball bat as he slept in
his base barracks at the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division at
Fort Campbell, Ky. He died the next day.
Winchell, identified as gay in the media, isn't alive today
to define his own sexuality. But he endured six months of
anti-gay epithets and harassment after he began dating a
transgendered woman--Calpernia Adams. His tormentors
illustrated how anti-trans and anti-gay oppression can
dovetail.
After angry protests by lesbian/gay/ bi/trans organizations,
two soldiers were taken into military custody. Pvt. Calvin
Glover was convicted of premeditated murder. Spc. Justin Fisher
was convicted of lesser charges of obstructing justice on a
plea bargain.
But what about Winchell's company section leader Sgt.
Michael Kleig? He reportedly launched an investigation--not
into the harassment, but into Winchell's sexuality. This is
supposed to be a breach of the "don't ask, don't tell"
policy.
Soldiers in Winchell's company reportedly complained to
their officers about the treatment he was suffering. Yet the
officers did nothing.
Like the 1998 killing of Matthew Shepard, the murder of
Winchell has raised broader social consciousness about the rise
in right-wing lynchings.
But Winchell's death also put a smoking gun in the hands of
the generals, admirals and commander in chief who licensed the
open season on the hunting of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans
people in all branches of the armed forces.
All talk, no action
In the wake of public outrage at Winchell's killing, the
Pentagon held hearings into his death on Aug. 10. Three days
later, Pentagon officials announced they were revising
guidelines for the "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue" policy
on gays and lesbians in the military.
The tinkering with the policy amounted to this: Base
commanders are now supposed to seek approval from officers
"higher up" before investigating anyone for homosexuality.
But the military is the quintessential "top-down"
organization. The orders for anti-gay oppression in the
military come from the highest ranks--those with clusters of
gold stars on their epaulets. They're the same top military
officials who forced President Bill Clinton to backtrack on his
campaign promise to overturn the ban on gays in the
military.
Clinton vowed again and again during his 1992 campaign that
he would overturn this ban. But once in office, he melted like
butter under the hot bayonet of Pentagon and congressional
opposition. Both houses of Congress, it should be recalled,
were controlled by Democrats at that time.
Clinton instead proposed a "don't ask, don't tell, don't
pursue" policy as a "compromise" that would protect gay and
lesbian GIs as long as they stayed in the closet. This was a
capitulation to the generals, plain and simple. His surrender
emboldened the brass.
The murder of Barry Winchell has refocused community and
public anger about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. This
sustained outrage has forced officials--from the War Room to
the Oval Office--to issue placating statements.
On Dec. 13, Defense Secretary William Cohen ordered his
department's inspector general to conduct a 90-day review
within each branch of the military to determine whether or not
lesbian and gay service people are being harassed.
What a waste of taxpayers' money. And it's a diversion to
avoid taking action against the Pentagon ban on gays in the
military.
Last year the Service Members Legal Defense Network
determined that the number of GIs booted out of the armed
forces in 1998 on the grounds of homosexuality was 92 percent
higher than in early 1994, when "don't ask, don't tell" was
implemented.
Another study by the same organization revealed that between
1997 and 1998 reports of anti-gay assaults--including verbal
bashing and death threats--more than doubled.
On Dec. 18, the Defense Department sent memos to each branch
of the military urging the brass hats to issue a "strong
statement" to their field officers that anti-gay harassment
would not be tolerated.
But as long as the anti-gay ban remains in place, this is
merely lip service. It's still business as usual: hounding and
terrorizing and witch hunting lesbian, gay and bisexual GIs out
of the military.
For example, the Jan. 7 New York Blade noted that the SLDN
obtained an Oct. 21 e-mail sent by Marine Lt. Col. Edward
Melton. In it, Melton uses vile language to mock Winchell's
murder. This senior officer at a Marine Corps base in
California implies that commanders should merely be careful not
to get caught carrying out their harassment.
The SLDN also documented two other incidents at Winchell's
own army base after his murder.
One sergeant allegedly referred to the meeting on the
Defense Department's directive as a "fag briefing."
And another sergeant reportedly led a march of soldiers with
the cadence: "Faggot, faggot, down the street, shoot him, shoot
him, until he retreats."
Talking out of both sides
of their mouths
Public outrage over the ban on gays and lesbians in the
military has made the issue a political hot potato in this
year's elections.
On Dec. 8, Hillary Rodham Clinton took the position that
gays should be able to serve openly in the military. She made
her well-publicized remarks at a $1,000-a-plate gay fundraiser
in Manhattan. Rodham Clinton is a virtual candidate in the New
York race for the Senate.
But here's the catch: Rodham Clinton said lesbian and gay
voters shouldn't expect that there is support in Congress for
overturning the ban. So is she telling voters that the road to
the Senate should be paved with good intentions?
Lest anyone think Rodham Clinton is a genuine friend to the
lesbian/gay/bi/trans communities, the very next day she
announced that she wants to march in this year's New York St.
Patrick's Day Parade. Its organizers exclude the Irish Lesbian
and Gay Organization. Most Democratic politicians have
considered it the better part of wisdom not to march in a
parade that has faced protests since 1991 for its anti-gay
policy.
In a waffle deserving of maple syrup, Rodham Clinton's
campaign spokesperson Howard Wolfson said, "She hopes to march,
and she hopes it's inclusive."
President Clinton, in a stunning admission on a Dec. 11 CBS
News radio interview, publicly conceded that his "don't ask"
policy is "out of whack" and has failed to protect gay and
lesbian service people.
But rather than change it, he's still for continuing it.
"I can only hope," Clinton said, "this last brutal beating
death of a gay [sic] soldier will give some sobering impetus to
a re-examination about how this policy is implemented and
whether we can do a better job of fulfilling its original
intent."
Presidential politricks
In mid-December, after serving as vice president for eight
years in the administration that instituted the rotten policy,
Al Gore told media, "In the light of the Winchell case and
other evidence, I believe the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy
should be eliminated."
On Jan. 5, during a New Hampshire debate between Republican
and Democratic presidential candidates, Gore said he would
require any appointee to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to agree in
advance to allow openly gay and lesbian GIs to serve. "I would
insist, before appointing anybody to the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
that any individual support my policy. And yes, I would make
that a requirement," he stated categorically.
Gore was immediately hit by a volley of opposition from
Pentagon officials and politicians--including Democrats in his
own campaign, like Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.
Two days later, Gore backpedaled at a hastily organized news
conference. "I did not mean to imply that there should ever be
any kind of inquiry into the personal political opinion of the
officers in the U.S. military," he told reporters. Gore's press
secretary called this a clarification; the New York Times
called it a retraction.
Asked by reporters if he would tolerate dissent among
officers on this question, Gore replied, "Of course."
The Jan. 8 New York Times noted that Gore's backtracking
"put him in line with his opponent for the Democratic
nomination for president, former Senator Bill Bradley of New
Jersey."
Bradley voted against the Clinton administration's
"compromise" proposal in 1993. But he never led a campaign for
its overturn in all these years. Only in the heat of the
election race has Bradley vowed to overturn the gay ban. And
even this campaign "promise" has been wishy-washy.
The Times explained: "Mr. Bradley has also said that the law
should be changed to allow gays to serve openly in the
military. But when asked in the debate about a litmus test on
the issue for his appointment to the Joint Chiefs, he said only
that if he were elected he would expect military officers that
he appointed to carry out his orders."
So the question still stands. What kind of social effort
will it take to overturn the grossly bigoted Pentagon ban on
gays in the military? And who will lead this fight?
Lobbying and pinning hopes on candidates from either
big-business party has historically proven to be fruitless.
Just as it takes a mass movement to stop Pentagon wars, the
same is true here.
The massive grassroots mobilizations of the mid-20th century
forced two presidents to sign executive orders formally ending
Jim Crow segregation in the war industries and the
military.
And in doing so, this militant anti-racist movement
reaffirmed the succinct truth summed up by the great 19th
century Abolitionist Frederick Douglass: Without struggle,
there is no progress.
Next:How the victory to desegregate the
armed forces was won.
This article is copyright under a Creative
Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
HOME
:: U.S. NEWS ::
WORLD NEWS ::
EDITORIALS ::
SUBSCRIBE ::
DONATE
Email
this article
Printable
page