Repealing DADT = end of all-volunteer military


America has had only one large, peacetime military build-up in our history.  This occurred under Presidents Reagan and H.W. Bush from 1981-1991.  That generation of military peronnel began serving in 1981 and retiring 20 years later, in 2001.  Do the math. By 2011, our country will experience the incredible loss of Reagan's and Bush Sr.'s historic U.S. military build-up – and the subsequent effects of a severe eight-year recruiting drought we had under President Clinton.  These two facts are now having an effect on our current all-volunteer force and will through 2020.  Add in an openly gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender manning policy, and it is clear how abruptly and diversely changes in the Department of Defense's policy will affect military recruiting and retention.

We are also losing a large number of DoD civilian employees who came in under Reagan in 1981 and are beginning to process out with their 30-year retirements.  We are at a critical point in manning our Armed Forces. Our military branches have also been increasing the number of military retirees called back to serve again.  All this is occurring while DoD is moving to significantly increase the size of our Armed Forces while vastly reducing our reliance on thousands of civilian defense contractors. We're aging our military and stretching the capabilities of our national defense strength.  This is not the way forward for our country. National leadership, judgment and policy will greatly influence our road ahead – leading us on a healthy path or one hard to navigate.

With these facts in mind, it is clear now is not the time to tinker with instituting a controversial DoD manning policy.  If don't ask, don't tell (DADT) is repealed, fewer parents will sign parental consents for the thousands of 17-year-olds who join the military each year.  Many servicemembers who are eligible to retire probably won't serve much over 20 years – historically, a healthy number of leaders stay in for 24-30 years. A large percentage of DoD is comprised of civilians, and a major policy shift may result in losing more of our civilian personnel to the private sector. We are also seeing an increase in voluntary officer separations due to continuous war deployments and family separations. If we add in a very dysfunctional leadership environment, the combined effects will cause even greater stress. We will most likely see more officers resign their commissions and get out. The negative impact of a pro-GLBT manning policy can, and most likely will, cause a broad-range of difficulties across our Armed Forces.

We are mistaken to believe GLBT volunteers will flood into the military if they can openly serve there.  Remember that recruiting severely declined under President Clinton even after he signed law mandating DoD no longer inquire into enlistees' sexual preferences.  If DoD becomes openly GLBT, it is highly likely many current servicemembers will depart the military, and new recruiting numbers will diminish nationwide.

Is the purpose of our military to showcase people's sexual preferences or gender identification journeys? Do we as a nation really want to begin honoring and celebrating our first openly lesbian West Point honor graduate? The first transsexual Marine Corps drill instructor?  The first male bisexual 82nd Airborne commanding general? The first gay chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Does anyone question that this will not justifiably occur at times if DADT is repealed?

TRENDING: Athlete files lawsuit alleging she was forced off team for refusing to kneel

Do people who involve themselves in GLBT behavior serve in the U.S. military?  Sure.  Are some outstanding soldiers?  Yes.  Does GLBT lifestyle make you a better soldier?  No. Will being openly GLBT affect one's ability at junior and senior levels to lead a wide range of people serving in our U.S. Armed Forces and interact with foreign governments and militaries – especially in the Islamic Middle East, Africa and Asia?  Absolutely.

If DADT were repealed, leaders would still be forced to discriminate against GLBT servicemembers due to mission requirements. Politicians and senior military commanders would weigh U.S. and international public perception, soldier morale and mission importance every time an openly GLBT has opportunity to serve in vital, public positions. We may find discrimination avoidance unachievable in the midst of such an intangible and changing platform of discrimination. The Joint chairman bases his argument for repealing DADT on "who people are." Who people "are" can change at any frequency. National security laws founded on each individual's decision, feelings, or self-perceptions introduces substantial instability and change. DoD's human resource, medical and religious staffs would enter a quagmire of policies and procedures we will find unmanageable and most likely morally confusing to most Americans. If such a law is enacted, how much confidence will parents and veterans have in recommending their children enter our Armed Forces? Our DoD all-volunteer manning programs could also be jeopardized as more GLBT servicemembers openly serve at the public forefront as military recruiters.

Let's remember, millions of Americans are denied the right to ever serve in our military for valid disqualifications: age, health, number of dependents, education, ability to communicate in English, etc. – far greater percentages having nothing to do with sexual orientation. Additionally, many GLBT servicemembers would probably choose not to disclose their orientation because the need to disclose is not an issue for them, and in consideration of some assignment and promotion opportunities.

People and servicemembers who live GLBT lifestyles are our loved ones, friends, battle buddies and neighbors. Military leaders have legitimate care and concern to correct a wrong and to assist GLBT servicemembers in feeling respected, significant and confident in making valuable contributions in their military service for the nation's well-being. However, by repealing DADT, we would be continuing a journey confirming and approving this behavior across our society. Do we want to go there? On a larger scale, where is the wise, reasonable voice of opposition to introducing any and every idea into our culture? How can we turn a blind eye to 50 years of free-style living, growing divorce, broken homes, absentee fathers and powerful suggestive media … and then question why we are addressing social issues like this today?

DADT is the best law for our country.  It allows every American who is academically, physically and legally fit to serve in our Armed Forces the chance to serve – without identifying, accepting and promoting various alternate sexual lifestyles.  DADT is a good law and should be retained.  Repealing it will accelerate us toward some form of future mandatory selective service and deteriorate the strength of our national defense.

Herman Welch is a 28-year veteran of the U.S. Army. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and are not the official views of the Department of Defense.