Normally, one wouldn't expect to find an opportunity to connect the comparative method to the US military's "Don't Tell, Don't Ask" policy, but a recent article in the military's academic journal, Joint Forces Quarterly, show us how comparative analysis can be used in the most unexpected places.
According to this article (which is discussed in a recent LA Times column by Megan Duam--I will post the link below), the author relies at least somewhat on comparative analysis to show that having openly gay soldiers in the military does not have demonstrably negative impact on unit cohesion (which is the primary argument against allowing gays to openly serve).
Col. Om Prakash, the author, points out that countries such as Australia, Britain, Canada and Israel, which have lifted bans on gays in the military, have seen "no impact on military performance, readiness, cohesion or ability to recruit or retain"; instead, the don't ask, don't tell policy "forces a compromise in integrity" that is ultimately "damaging to the unit cohesion its stated purpose is to preserve."
I have not read the original article, so I cannot say how well Prakash carries out his comparative analysis, but, clearly, a good part of his argument is premised on comparisons.
Here is a link to the article by Megan Daum: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-daum8-2009oct08,0,6727164.column
It is understandable that fro a civilian stand-point it would be the right thing to do to allow gay members to serve openly in the armed forces. However, the practical issues of this subject are a bit more complicated than people want to accept, especially those who haven’t served.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there are strong arguments against the existing status quo, such as members that are “outed” against their will and therefore have to pay the consequences. This is obviously unacceptably unfair.
Though I personally have a lot of issue with the die-hard support that gay men are receiving vs. the complete lack of attention to women’s restrictions and therefore advancement in the military.
… Why is one being treated with such much more importance than the other???
yeah,it is true no pains, no gains...
ReplyDeleteArizona Payroll Services AZ Payroll Services AZ Small Business Health Insurance AZ Workers Compensation Insurance
Patricia - in response to your comments the reason, I think, is due to fear. For some reason, just as some males were afraid the men of color would rise up and take over (just about everything) some similar male types are afraid of being 'saluted' by men who practice alternative lifestyles (and of course in some cases reporting to a woman). Here is where my argument falls apart: I'm still not sure about transvestites. People who actually change their gender from the birth sex. I just haven't been able to reconcile that. So, I guess you can count me among those that have a stilted fear....trying (a little) to get over it and just accept that it is hear, like we African-Americans are hear and women, etc. ain't goin' nowhwere!!
ReplyDeleteDr. Lim - I assume your interest in this article was basically a foray in testing the feasibility of a comparative study outside the realm of political science? I too should read the article to note the comparisons.
ReplyDelete