The following is an e-mail exchange between David Horowitz and a FrontPage reader, regarding Horowitz’s article “ Issues That Dare Not Speak Their Name” (June 25, 2001)

David Horowitz Writes:

I APPRECIATE YOUR letter and its arguments. This is certainly a breath of fresh air. I don't think I've ever had the privilege of discussing a subject like this in print in such rational terms and without the usual political grandstanding. 

Here are my thoughts: In reference to your first point, which seems reasonable, I thinkyou are underestimating the damage that the left has done to the very idea of citizenship, which would underlie the enforcement of any military code once gays were accepted openly into the armed forces. Just look at what the feminists have done. There is a pervasive double standard now regarding women's service. Women are not subject to the same rules as men and there is no reason why a victim group like gays, backed by allthe legal forces that are now available to them, should be subject to the same rules as heterosexuals once they are accepted into the ranks. You could argue the black parallel here and say, over time this will change. I wouldn't know and would not argue against this possibility. 

On the matter of separation. This is only a slight because gay politics have chosen to regard it as such. Paraplegics and other physically handicapped Americans have no "right" to serve in the military and it does not consign them to second-class citizenship,although a case could be made that, with modern technology, they could serve. The issue is the cost versus the benefit.

 I disagree with you, in part, about politics. It is the fact that this is a politics driven issue, and that gay politics is dominated by the left that makes the resolution of these issues so problematic.  

As to Plato's point, I have nothing really to say. I am not a military person and have no qualifications or experience on which to judge whether Plato was right. 

  Original E-mail from Reader:

However, there are some flaws in the arguments you cogently presented. The first point you made was the "unit cohesion" issue. You rightly pointed out that having two lovers in the same unit would affect the dynamic of the unit. Two points:  Two soldiers in the same unit carrying on a sexual affair, gay or straight, would be in direct violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, what is desired is not the right for soldiers to date each other; what is desired is for soldiers not to be discharged for who they are. In other words, gays are not seeking license to act gay in the military. They are seeking the right to be part of a unit even when people knowwho they are, outside of the unit. This is why there is such a strong parallel to civil rights; gays are not asking for a waiver to act differently in the military, but for a chance to act professionally, even when others know what they do in their own time. The real parallel is religion, where soldiers with deeply conflicting views about religious practice are asked to put these aside in the name of unit cohesion. It would be closed-minded to assume that gays cannot take on the same manner of professionalism. Sex between soldiers is not an issue addressed by Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Being gay is. 

Secondly, conceding your point about gay soldiers affecting unit cohesion, I would point out that there is no real evidence that this would be a negative effect. You cite the analogy of the ban on family members serving together; I would point out that this is a very recent doctrine. There is in fact great historical evidence that units related by blood or other close bond work better together. Think of the British Navy  at its height, where captains often rated their sons as midshipmen, or the tough units of Lee's army, inevitably drawn from the same towns and filled with siblings or cousins. There is a current member of the Senate who was awarded the Medal of Honor after pulling his brother from a burning tank in Vietnam. In fact, if there is a real experiment in the military, it is the modern idea of a volunteer force of strangers mixed together from all walks of life to form cohesive units.

Finally, I would point out that your arguments, which are in many ways the arguments of the Pentagon, are not new. The same unit cohesiveness arguments were made for blacks, the idea being that racism, or the vast difference between the races, would destroy unit cohesion.

In many ways, they might have been right, those who argued against the integration of units. Racism is indeed a problem in the service, especially in the Army, the most Southern of forces. But the decision was made that the cohesion argument was not acceptable because it was, simply, un-American. Truman's integration plans were also driven by politics; his attempt to win re-election by separating himself from the Dixiecrats of his own party. But while there has certainly been a price for this integration, it was worth it.

Which brings us back to the original point. You argue that the decision on gays should not be driven by politics, but by military priorities. I disagree. We rejected racial separation in the military because it would have been un-American not to allow black citizens a chance to defend their nation in time of peril. This was a social, political decision opposed by the military brass. But it was the right thing to do. All Americans have a stake in our nation. All have a right for the opportunity to join in its vigorous defense. To gag gays and attempt to make them invisible in the military is to deny that they, indeed, also serve.

Thanks,

Spencer