The Impending “Do Ask, Do Tell” Reexamination

By Lt Col Dan Tulley, USAF

It is almost as though someone pressed “Play” on the nation’s Tivo after 17 years. Since Admiral Mike Mullen’s Congressional testimony, the question “should gay people be allowed to serve openly in the military?” has hit the national conversation once again with stunning effect.

The question is truly out there for the first time since President Clinton’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” in 1993. We can smile confidently knowing that if nothing else, our imperfect yet better-than-most democracy is once again working its magic.

Or is it? Other than the nation’s most senior uniformed member, joined last week by the other service chiefs, who in the military has voiced an opinion? A quick check of op-ed pages and Sunday talk shows reveals conspicuously absent from the conversation are the voices of perhaps the most relevant…our men and women in uniform.

Do ask, and do tell. Don’t ask our service members whether they are gay, but rather how they feel about gays serving openly. Don’t ask just gays, ask everyone wearing the uniform. Let them tell our decision makers their thoughts and opinions on performance, cohesion, readiness, discipline, morale and more. Let them help us determine whether these are truly fundamental issues of concern. As any good leader knows, your people will surprise you with what they come up with.

No, the military is not a democracy. Of course, its members will faithfully execute any decision. There should be no expectation that all military decisions are transparent down through the chain of command. Allowing the voices of those most affected to be heard is not typically associated with military culture. Ironically, in this instance it might just be the key to getting it right.

While many of our current senior leaders were just entering the field grades or executive ranks, the majority of our current military population was not yet old enough for service during President Clinton’s first term. As Admiral Mullen and General Colin Powell have alluded to, there can be broad shifts in society over a 17-year period. It is critical we accurately assess the impact of any changes on the younger majority of our military.

Is uniformed military service a right or a privilege? African Americans, women, and immigrant non-citizens have all faced related challenges in different contexts. Maybe the issue of moral conduct expressed by Gen (ret) Peter Pace in 2007 is most relevant, or the issue of integrity expressed by Admiral Mullen. Does the current policy force gays to lie? Our all-volunteer military has been very clear in its policies over the last century.

My intent is not to take a side in this debate. When you raise your right hand and take the oath, you need to understand what it is you’re getting into. The same holds true for policy changes. Who is permitted to serve, how, and under what circumstances must be carefully balanced with the requirement to maintain an effective military force capable of defending our national interests.

The services could employ one or a combination of options to assess the views of their members. Surveys, focus groups, and independent consultants would all accomplish part of the objective, however they likely would not translate the honesty and forthright opinions this issue demands. Perhaps more broadly, a specific DoD policy could be authored: Encourage members to participate professionally in the public debate while protecting them from career-damaging repercussions.

Several criteria should be applied as the services go their deliberations. First, the opinions of current members should not be confused with those of veterans. The voices of our veterans are no less important, they simply constitute a different point of view. While opinions of retired leaders such as General Powell are very relevant, they do not accurately reflect the thoughts and opinions of the majority of our armed forces, or other veterans for that matter.

Second, opinions should not be filtered by the chain of command. Before Private Jones tells his commander he supports gays serving openly, he will likely give some thought to where his commander stands on the same issue. After all, the commander has almost complete control over Jones’ promotions, future assignments, and every other aspect of his career.

Finally, opinions must be presented professionally and with respect. Members must be held accountable if they fail to uphold the high standards of our diverse military.

No doubt, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the Joint Chiefs are aware of larger implications such as foreign military partnerships and personnel costs. They are also well aware the most profound outcomes could be more tacit than explicit, more unintended than desired. As they wrestle with these issues, we should commend their pragmatic desire to fully and deliberately assess the implications of any potential change.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2027 is serving right now, and will inherit a force impacted by this debate. Without compromising good order and discipline, we need to ensure an accurate assessment of the impact on that force is made known to policy makers.

Lt Col Daniel Tulley is currently an Air Force Fellow attending the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy, Tufts University, Boston. The views expressed here are solely those of the author and may not reflect the policies of the US Air Force or the Department of Defense.