Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Serve
http://counterpunch.org/lucas02102010.html
By CECILIA LUCAS
February 10, 2010
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is bad policy. It encourages deceit and,
specifically, staying in the closet, which contributes to
internalized as well as public homophobia, thus perpetuating
discrimination and violence against LGBT people. Banning gay people
from serving in the military, however, is something I support. Not
because I'm anti-gay, nope, I'm one of those queer folks myself. I'm
also a woman and would support a law against women serving in the
military. Not because I think women are less capable. I would support
laws against any group of people serving in the military: people of
color, tall people, people between the ages of 25 and 53, white men,
poor people, people who have children, people who vote for Democrats
-- however you draw the boundaries of a group, I would support a law
banning them from military service. Because I support outlawing the
military. And until that has happened, I support downsizing it by any
means necessary, including, in this one particular arena, sacrificing
civil rights in the interest of human rights.
Civil rights would dictate that if a military exists, everyone,
regardless of race, gender, sexuality, class or religion, should have
an equal opportunity to serve in it. But human rights dictate
otherwise. Human rights do not support the equal right of everyone to
kill. They support the right of everyone NOT to be killed. (Or
occupied and exploited, another key function militaries carry out.)
As such, human rights are anti-military by nature.
I want to be clear that I'm not one of those knee-jerk anti-soldier
types. I grew up in a military family, spent many years bagging
groceries in an army commissary, lots of time on military bases – the
point is, as individuals, military personnel are as diverse a group
of people as are academics or artists, the other two groups of people
I've spent a lot of time around. Racism, sexism, homophobia,
poverty-by-design – these problems are institutionalized throughout
this country and you'll find people who accept the status quo as well
as those fighting the long slow battle against injustice in all
institutions, including the branches of the military. What makes the
military unique is not the individuals in uniform but the fact that
their job description, in the final instance, is to kill people.
Legally and explicitly. Killing is not the exclusive or even the most
frequent activity performed, but it is the ultimate threat, the
ultimate purpose of having armed forces.
It's sad that advocating for the outlawing of the military is widely
seen as naïve and utopian: after all, there are threats out there and
without a military we would be defenseless. It's ironic that many who
make that argument in support of the military also consider
themselves Christians. Even though, to my understanding, being a
Christian means "walking the Jesus path." And didn't Jesus refuse to
use arms (or to let family or friends do so on his behalf) even in
self-defense, even though that commitment resulted in his death? When
it comes down to it, though, I'm not as principled as Jesus. I
support the use of violence in slave uprisings and anti-colonial
movements. I imagine that I would kill someone who I witnessed in the
act of attempting to kill, torture or rape others or myself, if I had
the means and if that were the only way to stop that act from
happening. But what all of those situations have in common reflect a
way in which the U.S. military is rarely used: to stop brutality as
it is happening.
Queerness, broadly speaking, is a challenge to mainstream common
sense. Why should we buy into the mantra of it being necessary to
have a military? Or of American lives being so much more worthy than
the lives of others that "collateral damage" in the course of
preventing a possible attack on the U.S. is acceptable? Let's take
the Orwellian factor out of the term "defense" and restore that word
to its actual meaning: let's create a defense force that is ready to
respond and is only utilized when actual attacks are in-progress. Not
to enforce the unequal trade policies from which we benefit, not to
enforce the installment or removal of politicians to better serve
U.S. interests, not to prevent attacks on the U.S. And certainly not
to attack people who are not actively killing, enslaving, colonizing,
or torturing anyone. You can shoot down the plane as it is heading
for the World Trade Center, but not bomb targets you suspect of
harboring terrorists planning future attacks. Yes, that means risking
the possible death of innocent Americans in a future attack. But the
alternative is to guarantee the death of innocent non-Americans based
on conjecture.
There is a lot of talk about the military "protecting" Americans.
Frankly, a much better job of that will be done if the funds diverted
from scaling back the military to an actual defense force are
invested in universal health care, education, job-creation,
living-wage legislation, cancer research, and the like. Eradicating
poverty and ensuring health care will save far more lives every year
than so-called "national security." There are far too many Americans
who do, indeed, lead insecure lives. But terrorism is the least cause
of their condition – the more significant threats are domestic
policies that see their lives as acceptable collateral damage to an
increasingly unregulated capitalism of every man for himself. In
fact, the majority of young people who join the military do so out of
their own sense of insecurity and a desire to make a difference in
the world. They cite the military as the only option they see to
afford college and/or to receive a steady paycheck, and as a source
of meaningful work. Propaganda ensures that they can pursue this path
without going insane, by being led to believe that they are heroes,
nobly serving their country. But I believe that our country (not to
mention many other places in the world) is actually being done a
grave disservice by sacrificing such a large portion of our material
and human resources to the military. And it is a tragedy that so many
young people's desires to do good are preyed upon, manipulated
through fear-mongering nationalist ideology, and diverted into the
destruction of lives, the devastation of the planet, and the
perpetuation of inequality.
Instead of fighting for the right to serve in the military, let's
fight for the right of military service being prohibited. To increase
our national security. And for the protection of all our human
rights, globally.
***
Afterthought:
It is tricky to write an essay that accepts discrimination as a means
to an end. In what remains a homophobic, racist, sexist society, I
fear enabling a slippery slope of arguments for identity-based
discrimination. Although, of course, the entire notion of citizens
who are "protected" by a military discriminates against people based
on the identity factor of nationality. Hence my point about human
rights trumping civil rights. My argument that we should be fighting
against, not for, gay people's inclusion in the military is not
actually about gay people at all. Nor is it about wanting others to
do our dirty work for us. As I said, I think everyone should be
banned from military service. But if the goal is demilitarization,
fighting for even more people to have the right to join the military
makes no sense. There are plenty of other civil rights denied gay
people for which we still need to fight -- civil rights that do not
trample on others' human rights.
--
Cecilia Lucas lives in Oakland, California.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment