Unit cohesion in the United States military

Last updated

Unit cohesion in the United States military has been the subject of dispute and political debate since World War II as the United States military has expanded the categories of citizens it accepts as servicemembers. Unit cohesion is a military concept, defined by one former United States Chief of staff in the early 1980s as "the bonding together of soldiers in such a way as to sustain their will and commitment to each other, the unit, and mission accomplishment, despite combat or mission stress". [1] The concept lacks a consensus definition among military analysts, sociologists, and psychologists. [2]

Contents

Factors affecting unit cohesion

Henning 2009 , pp. 1–16 has identified some factors in unit cohesion:

Race

Prior to US Executive Order 9981, issued on July 26, 1948 by President Harry S. Truman, the American military was segregated. Opponents of racial integration frequently alleged that integrating the armed forces would have detrimental effects on unit cohesion. [4]

Women in combat

Brian Mitchell, in his article "Women Make Poor Soldiers" (excerpted from his 1989 book "Weak Link: The Feminization of the American Military"), expressed concern that placing women in combat lowers unit cohesion, either due to sexual relationships taking priority over group loyalty, or because men would feel obliged to be more protective of women than other men. [5] Mitchell's view was harshly criticized in a New York Times review, which stated the book was "spoiled by intemperate allegations and a supercilious tone" and lacked sourcing for statements. [6]

Fraternization

Air Force Instruction 36-2909 on Professional and Unprofessional Relationships says:

Dating, courtship, and close friendships between men and women are subject to the same policy considerations as are other relationships. Like any personal [*pg 1038] relationship, they become matters of official concern when they adversely affect morale, discipline, unit cohesion, respect for authority, or mission accomplishment. Members must recognize that these relationships can adversely affect morale and discipline, even when the members are not in the same chain of command or unit. The formation of such relationships between superiors and subordinates within the same chain of command or supervision is prohibited because such relationships invariably raise the perception of favoritism or misuse of position and erode morale, discipline and unit cohesion. [7]

Sexual orientation

Conservative commentary in the U.S. has taken the view that the service of gays in the military is deleterious to essential components of unit cohesion, such as moral and discipline. [8] Urvashi Vaid, criticizing the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in 1995, called unit cohesion a euphemism for "heterosexual male bonding" and wrote that "the essence of male bonding lay in the forcible suppression of undercurrents of homosexual desire." [9]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Don't ask, don't tell</span> 1994–2011 policy on LGBT in the US military

"Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) was the official United States policy on military service of non-heterosexual people. Instituted during the Clinton administration, the policy was issued under Department of Defense Directive 1304.26 on December 21, 1993, and was in effect from February 28, 1994, until September 20, 2011. The policy prohibited military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members or applicants, while barring openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons from military service. This relaxation of legal restrictions on service by gays and lesbians in the armed forces was mandated by Public Law 103–160, which was signed November 30, 1993. The policy prohibited people who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because their presence "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Urvashi Vaid</span> Indian-American LGBT rights activist, lawyer and writer (1958–2022)

Urvashi Vaid was an Indian-born American LGBT rights activist, lawyer, and writer. An expert in gender and sexuality law, she was a consultant in attaining specific goals of social justice. She held a series of roles at the National LGBTQ Task Force, serving as executive director from 1989-1992 — the first woman of color to lead a national gay-and-lesbian organization. She is the author of Virtual Equality: The Mainstreaming of Gay and Lesbian Liberation (1995) and Irresistible Revolution: Confronting Race, Class and the Assumptions of LGBT Politics (2012).

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) personnel are able to serve in the armed forces of some countries around the world: the vast majority of industrialized, Western countries including some South American countries, such as Argentina, Brazil and Chile in addition to other countries, such as the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, Mexico, France, Finland, Denmark and Israel. The rights concerning intersex people are more vague.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alan G. Rogers</span> United States Army officer

Alan Greg Rogers was an ordained pastor, a U.S. Army major and intelligence officer, a civil rights activist in the gay, lesbian and bisexual military community and the first-known gay combat fatality of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The subsequent coverage of his death in the media sparked a debate over the effect of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) policy and what information should be included in the biography of a gay military person killed in action.

<i>Unfriendly Fire</i> 2009 American political book

Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America is an American 2009 political book by Nathaniel Frank that argues that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy banning openly gay servicemen and women from the United States armed forces weakened military and national security. According to Frank, 12,000 people — 800 of whom had previously been deemed "mission critical" by the U.S. government — were discharged from the military between 1993 and 2008, based on policies that Frank describes as "rooted in denial, and deception, and repression."

The United States military formerly excluded gay men, bisexuals, and lesbians from service. In 1993, the United States Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, a law instituting the policy commonly referred to as "Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT), which allowed gay, lesbian, and bisexual people to serve as long as they did not reveal their sexual orientation. Although there were isolated instances in which service personnel were met with limited success through lawsuits, efforts to end the ban on openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual people serving either legislatively or through the courts initially proved unsuccessful.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010</span> 2011 US federal law allowing LGBT people to openly serve in the military

The Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 is a landmark United States federal statute enacted in December 2010 that established a process for ending the "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) policy, thus allowing gay, lesbian, and bisexual people to serve openly in the United States Armed Forces. It ended the policy in place since 1993 that allowed them to serve only if they kept their sexual orientation secret and the military did not learn of their sexual orientation, which was controversial.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Women in the Israel Defense Forces</span>

Israel is one of only a few countries where military service is compulsory for all able-bodied female citizens. Under Israeli conscription laws, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) may draft recruits from three communities: the Jews, the Druze, and the Circassians. As the latter two communities are less populous, their women are not required to serve. Women from the Jewish majority are not exempted from the conscription laws, but serve for slightly shorter terms than male conscripts. All women who are exempted from the conscription laws may still enlist voluntarily. Jewish women who are called up for military service may apply for an exemption on humanitarian, religious, or certain legal grounds. Those who claim such an exemption will typically be redirected to Sherut Leumi, the alternative means of national service.

Unit cohesion is a military concept, defined by one former United States Chief of staff in the early 1980s as "the bonding together of soldiers in such a way as to sustain their will and commitment to each other, the unit, and mission accomplishment, despite combat or mission stress". This concept lacks a consensus definition among military analysts, sociologists and psychologists, however.

The direct ground combat exclusion rule of the United States Armed Forces, commonly referred as Combat Exclusion Policy, dates back to 1948 when the Women's Armed Services Integration Act excluded women from combat positions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sexual orientation and gender identity in the Australian military</span>

Sexual orientation and gender identity in the Australian military are not considered disqualifying matters in the 21st century, with the Australian Defence Force (ADF) allowing LGBT people to serve openly and access the same entitlements as other personnel. The ban on gay and lesbian personnel was lifted by the Keating government in 1992, with a 2000 study finding no discernible negative impacts on troop morale. In 2009, the First Rudd government introduced equal entitlements to military retirement pensions and superannuation for the domestic partners of LGBTI personnel. Since 2010, transgender personnel may serve openly and may undergo gender transition with ADF support while continuing their military service. LGBTI personnel are also supported by the charity DEFGLIS, the Defence Force Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and Intersex Information Service.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Transgender people and military service</span>

Not all armed forces have policies explicitly permitting LGBT personnel. Generally speaking, Western European militaries show a greater tendency toward inclusion of LGBT individuals. As of 2022, more than 30 countries allow transgender military personnel to serve openly, such as Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine and the United States. Cuba and Thailand reportedly allowed transgender service in a limited capacity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Women in the United States Army</span>

There have been women in the United States Army since the Revolutionary War, and women continue to serve in it today. As of 2020, there were 74,592 total women on active duty in the US Army, with 16,987 serving as officers and 57,605 enlisted. While the Army has the highest number of total active duty members, the ratio of women-men is lower than the US Air Force and the US Navy, with women making up 15.5% of total active duty Army in 2020.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Women in the United States Marine Corps</span>

There have been women in the United States Marine Corps since 1918, and women continue to serve in the Corps today.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Women in the United States Air Force</span>

There have been women in the United States Air Force since 1948, and women continue to serve in it today.

The Army Equal Employment Opportunity Program (EEO) is a U.S. Army mandated program designed "to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, reprisal, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, status as a parent, or other impermissible basis, and to promote the full realization of EEO through a continuing diversity and inclusion program".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sexual orientation and gender identity in the United States military</span> LGBT in the US military

In the past most lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) personnel had major restrictions placed on them in terms of service in the United States military. As of 2010 sexual orientation and gender identity in the United States military varies greatly as the United States Armed Forces have become increasingly openly diverse in the regards of LGBTQ people and acceptance towards them.

The Israeli military consists of the Israel Defense Forces and the Israel Border Police, both of which engage in combat to further the nation's goals. Israel's military is one of the most accommodating in the world for LGBT individuals. The country allows homosexual, bisexual, and any other non-heterosexual men and women to participate openly, without policy-based discrimination. Transgender men and women can serve under their identified gender and receive gender affirming surgery. No official military policy prevents intersex individuals from serving, though they may be rejected based on medical concerns.

This overview shows the regulations regarding military service of non-heterosexuals around the world.

South Korean military laws and procedures discriminate against sexual minorities, or lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) individuals, who serve in the military. At the time of enlistment, recruits are categorized based on their physical and mental health. Sexual minorities can be marked as having a “mental handicap” or “personality disorder,” which determines their status and duties as personnel. They can also be institutionalized in a mental facility or be dishonorably discharged. Military personnel have reported experiencing harassment, violence, and forcible revealing of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

References

  1. "Morale and Cohesion in Military Psychiatry, Fred Manning, p.4 in Military Psychiatry: Preparing in Peace for War, ISBN   0160591325; Manning cites Meyer, EC, "The unit", Defense, 1982;82(February):1-9
  2. Brian Palmer (2010), "Pentagon Sees Little Risk in Allowing Gay Men and Women to Serve Openly" Slate , Dec. 1, 2010
  3. 1 2 3 4 Henning 2009
  4. Sexual orientation and U.S. military personnel policy: options and assessment. National Defense Research Institute (U.S.), United States. Dept. of Defense. Page 171, 'Racial Integration, Unit Cohesion, and Military Effectiveness.'
  5. Rooks, Sheri Crowley. "Looking at G.I. Jane through Lenses of Gender". According to Mitchell (1991), when women and men work under stressful conditions in close quarters, sexual liaisons may become likely. These liaisons may threaten the stability of military families, disrupt discipline, and distract personnel from the mission.
  6. Halloran, Richard (3 September 1989). "FIGHTING WOMEN". New York Times. Retrieved 13 May 2011.
  7. McSally (2007). "WOMEN IN COMBAT: IS THE CURRENT POLICY OBSOLETE?" . Retrieved 2013-11-02.
  8. North, Oliver (December 3, 2010). "Is Wrecking the Finest Military In the World the Price We'll Pay for 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'?". Fox News . Retrieved 2011-08-10.
  9. Urvashi Vaid, Virtual Equality: The Mainstreaming of Gay & Lesbian Liberation (NY: Doubleday, 1995), 176

Bibliography