‘Don’t ask, don?t tell? is basically against the American political ideals of honesty and transparency, by asking someone who devotes their life to serving our country to lie about who they are from the day they begin to serve. Not only is it morally wrong to force a soldier to lie, but it is detrimental to the armed forces to limit who can serve to people who fit the extraordinarily limited ?traditional? definition of who should serve be allowed in the military.
Lt. Dan Choi, whose fluency in Arabic makes him an asset to the military, was discharged from the military for being gay after an appearance on The Rachel Maddow Show where he came out. His discharge papers read, ?this is to inform you that sufficient basis exists to initiate action for withdrawal of federal recognition […]. Specifically, you admitted publicly that you are a homosexual, which constitutes homosexual conduct. Your actions negatively affected the good order and discipline of the New York Army National Guard.? The skills and experience Choi brought to the armed forces were essential, and without loyal service men like him, our army will crumble.
The Don?t Ask, Don?t Tell policy made some sense in the early nineties, when the social climate in America was decisively anti-homosexual, and the military is, in general, more conservative in its policies than mainstream America. However, although it may not be true for everyone, America is becoming more tolerant. It is time to change an old policy that weakens our military, divides our troops, and causes our soldiers to lie.
Top-level military commanders have spoken out in support of changing Don?t Ask, Don?t Tell in order to retain the 12,500 competent soldiers who have been discharged since the beginning of Don?t Ask, Don?t Tell.
Sen. John McCain (R-Az), however, said that he was not supportive of changing the Don?t Ask, Don?t Tell policy, even though in the past McCain said his opinion on the policy was directly related to military leaders? opinions. The Republican opposition to the potential policy change seems social-issue based, and not at all reflective of the foreign affairs issues at hand.