During the neo-conservative ascendancy, the effects of which we are still struggling to shake off, we were consistently confronted by its apostles with appeals to "empiricism,""facts,""objectivity," and "reality." It was a temporarily successful strategy, until more and more Americans began to see through this polemic and face the failures wrought by these invocations of spurious evidence.  This past April, in response to indications that President Obama would seek repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell "compromise," four retired flag officers argued in the Washington Post that this repeal would harm morale and troop levels in the US Armed Forces (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2009/04/14/AR2009041402704. html).  Yet once again a conservative position has been presented with fear-mongering masquerading as fact.  In today's edition of the same paper, retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili answers the call.  Not only does refute them by pointing out their lack of evidence for this position, he suggests two responsible courses of action: that we look at other western military organizations where gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly, and that we actually listen to gay soldiers and those who have served with them.

excerpts after the jump...  

Where his fellow retired commanders invoked "tradition" and the fear of losing crucial personnel, Shalikashvili points out the weakness of both arguments:

Tradition is a critical military value, and the armed forces have a long-standing tradition of banning gay men and lesbians. Equally important military traditions, however, are learning and adapting -- and my colleagues made claims as if no new knowledge has been acquired over past decades, during which time Israel and Britain joined more than 20 other nations to allow openly gay individuals to serve without overall problems. In Britain and Canada, polls had indicated that thousands would resign if gays were allowed to serve, but when the bans were lifted, almost no one left. The British Defense Ministry conducted several assessments of the policy change and called it a "solid achievement."

AS his former colleagues dismissed the applicability of examples drawn from other societies, Shalikashvili invokes domestic precedents and studies as well.

The U.S. military itself has had successful experiences. Enforcement of the ban was suspended without problems during the Persian Gulf War, and there were no reports of angry departures. A majority of U.S. service members say they know or believe that someone in their unit is gay, according to a 2006 Zogby International poll, and most of those who know of openly gay peers report no detriment to morale or cohesion. A recent study co-authored by Laura Miller of Rand Corp. found no correlation between a unit's readiness and whether known gays serve in it.

But Shalikashvili is not content to let this disagreement pass without questioning the responsibility of those who opposed lifting the ban so publicly.  Suggesting that ultimate lifting of the DADT policy is inevitable, he points out the importance of leadership to ensure a successful transition:

Every general officer knows that mixed signals undermine leadership. Indeed, studies show that when organizations implement controversial change, signals from the top must be clear. For such a large group of retired senior officers to oppose the inevitable could cause the very disruptions they predict.

In his compelling peroration, he points out that not only is there evidence that potential loss of personnel is mere hysteria lacking in precedent, Shalikashvili points out those whose service we have already lost and those that we might gain when we lift this ban:

Under current policy, we have lost more than 13,000 of those people, such as the Arabic language speaker featured in the new film "Ask Not." In addition, researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles have found that nearly 4,000 people leave voluntarily each year because of the ban, and that more than 40,000 recruits might join if the ban is ended.

Shalikashvili's arguments are not unique, but the source is significant.  He frames his essay in the tone of a responsible commander whose authority to address these issues in unparalleled.  The entire piece may be read at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061803497. html.

Let's flood the Washington Post with messages of support and salutes for this leader who truly cares about basing policy on evidence and facts.