In the U.S. Army there is an act that bans any homosexual from being openly gay within the ranks (Don’t Ask Don’t Tell or DADT). The United States military has approximately one homosexual soldier for every 25 non-homosexual soldiers. The way that the army is split up is like so: A squad, which consists of 9-10 soldiers, platoon which consists of 14-44 soldiers, company which consists of 62-192 soldiers, battalion which consists of 300-1000 soldiers, and so on. If a homosexual is placed with multiple homosexuals in the same section, it may have fatal consequences. “ Open homosexuality is incompatible with military service becausee it undermines the military ethos upon which success in war ultimately depends on.”-Said Vietnam War veteran Thomas Owens. This quote explains that if gays are openly allowed into the military, the objectives that need to be carried out will not be finished.

The biggest reason why the DADT law should not be repealed is becausee if it is, the cohesion within the soldiers will be destroyed. Cohesion is the special bond between soldiers that is what really makes a military strong. If homosexuals are openly allowed to express themselves within the ranks, it will lower morale and cause many problems. The homosexuals will face discrimination, injustice and hatred even more then they already are. If they are allowed to be open, there can’t be a law that says you can’t express how you feel. The constitution states as its first amendment, freedom of speech, you cannot punish someone for saying what he or she thinks about someone unless it’s a threat towards his or her health.
DADT can be viewed as discrimination and homophobic to some, but that is not why it is in place. The DADT is in place not to discriminate the homosexuals, but to keep the cohesion of soldiers up and to prevent problems. According to Charles Mclean, who is a lieutenant colonel in the U.S marine’s corps, when the British Royal Navy made the transition to an open service, things “swiftly” returned to normal. The key word within that statement is “swiftly”. That word shows that there were problems with having an open military, and yet he uses the word swiftly to try and cover it up. What were the problems? Mclean does not say if there were any problems with the transition, but he expresses all the good that came out of it. It seems strange that so many good things can come out of the transition but not one bad thing came out of it. What I believe is that he is holding something back and not telling us in his article. There could have been riots, murders, protests and even un-honorable discharges, but from what he says, everything worked out. Him not telling the truth about the transaction will cause all of the things that may have happened to the British military to happen here in the USA.
“Open service doesn’t disrupt this foundation… becausee the band of brothers’ mythos is based less on heterosexual backslapping than a shared sense of mission, honor and duty.”-Mclean said. Who is he to say that a slap on the back is an act of sexuality? A slap on the back shows the brotherly bond within the soldiers that homosexuals will crush if let into the military openly. Not all soldiers are homophobic, but we can all assume they don’t want another males giving them looks of affection. Not to say necessarily that if homosexuals are allowed into the army they will be flirting with other soldiers, but that the thought of having homosexuals around non homosexuals will have a mental impact on all the soldiers.

The repealing of the DADT will cause the USA military to fall into oblivion. As with any change in life, there are going to be people against it and people for it. The people who are for it may out number the ones who against it, yet they don’t understand what could come from such a big decision. We are in a war right now, so it’s not the best time to be changing things so dramatically as repealing an act that’s been in place for over a decade. Keep the DADT in effect and save the United States Military from becoming what we always feared it would. From a group of brothers that stand side by side with heads held high, to a group of men who stand side by side becausee they were told to.