Besides Afghanistan and Iraq, there is perhaps no military policy that raises as much controversy within the public domain as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

President Obama’s pledge to end D.A.D.T. has generated discussion not only outside of the military but also within military circles.

A West Point graduate who is a friend of mine is being forced out of the Army because of his sexual orientation. This soldier, who has deployed to Afghanistan and twice to Iraq, is heavily decorated. Here are some thoughts he relayed to me:

I have always believed the armed services makes everyone in it better in some way, and that it is committed to taking care of every aspect of service members’ health and improvement. Ironically, in this area the D.A.D.T. policy actually has a detrimental impact on the psychological health of its service members, forcing paranoia about being found out, cover-ups of the truth and a forced level of disingenuousness in the name of unit cohesion. When a soldier has been found to be homosexual, in an unfortunate number of cases the investigation leads to other service members covering up their own sexuality by claiming sexual relations were nonconsensual to evade being evicted from the service. Statistics have shown that anyone who personally knows someone who is gay is more likely to support equal rights for them…. This type of gift of understanding grows out of seeing the truth, as opposed to demonizing the gay minority from a distance. Take away that distance, and those who are uncomfortable with gay people — usually without ever truly engaging them — may come to find the truth … that gay soldiers are committed Americans who may not share sexual orientation with all of their counterparts, but who share everything else that matters: a skill set required to do the job, a dedication to our country’s values, and a willingness to give their lives if necessary to defend those values, and their brothers and sisters serving to their left and right.

My own feelings toward D.A.D.T. have changed drastically now that a close friend has been “outed” and is being kicked out of the Army. I always felt that this individual — who has a stellar military record — was sure to achieve every imaginable success in terms of rank and position. I know other soldiers felt the same.

Before this event I had no convictions one way or the other about D.A.D.T.; it was a nonfactor in my life. But seeing firsthand a capable soldier be forced out of the military when the Army struggles with retaining junior to mid-level officers seems to fly in the face of logic. When competent professionals are being forced to leave the service because of their sexual orientation it is an enormous waste of government resources. Taxpayers and the military reap little to no return on the investment that has been made them, especially if they have undergone specialized training such as language skills or flight school.

The common stereotype of the military is that it is a paleolithic organization a step behind on social movements. This is a faulty notion. For instance, the United States military integrated African-Americans well before American society as a whole. Today the United States military is one of the most colorblind institutions in the entire world, and soldiers today do not think of one another in terms of race, gender or the religion they follow.

American society has changed since D.A.D.T. was instituted. The majority of Americans have moved beyond debating whether it is socially acceptable for homosexuals to be open about their sexuality in the workplace. Moreover, a majority of Americans now support allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military. In a RAND study, sexual orientation was shown not to be a hindrance in civilian organizations most analogous to the military, such as police and fire departments.

Eliminating D.A.D.T. would have immediate practical benefits to the military. It would stanch the number of service personnel members released from the military during a time of war. (There have been roughly 12,500 service personnel released under D.A.D.T.) It would also increase the pool of eligible able-bodied applicants.

Several Ivy League schools have sought to prevent military recruiters and Reserve Officers Training Corps from operating on their campuses because of D.A.D.T. I wonder, if the military does end D.A.D.T., will students in these schools join the military in larger numbers or was D.A.D.T. an easy cover for individuals who are simply opposed to military service?

The main argument used against allowing homosexuals to serve in the military was that it would negatively affect unit cohesion. If this were true, then perhaps it could be argued that there is a diminishing of military cohesion with our allies (Great Britain, Canada, and Germany) in Afghanistan and other missions around the world because of the fact that sexual orientation is not a barrier to serve in those militaries.

Another argument is that service members opposed to open homosexuality would leave the service in large numbers. In response to this, the current Army Secretary John McHugh stated: “Anytime you have a broad-based policy change, there are challenges to that … The Army has a big history of taking on similar issues [with] predictions of doom and gloom that did not play out.”

Although my sentiments on D.A.D.T. are not in line with the military’s current policy, they are nonetheless in accordance with the commander in chief’s stated policy. There have also been other officers who have published their thoughts on why D.A.D.T. should be abolished, most notably an Air Force colonel whose essay on ending D.A.D.T. won the 2009 Secretary of Defense National Security Essay Competition (PDF of the essay).

There are also many retired generals, most notably Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who are for eliminating D.A.D.T.

With so much political debate centered on numerous issues ranging from health care, financial regulatory overhaul, campaign finance reform, and the wars overseas there may not be enough working days in Congress to deal with the issue of D.A.D.T. Additionally, Congressman Ike Skelton, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has outright stated that he is against ending D.A.D.T. As a result, President Obama will perhaps be reluctant about pushing to end D.A.D.T. too quickly, lest he follow in President Clinton’s path of publicly proclaiming his intention to allow homosexuals to serve openly, but failing to do so.

Until D.A.D.T. is ended, the military will be doing its homosexual service members an injustice. Perhaps the most eloquent remark made by advocates against D.A.D.T. was made by a Republican senator, Barry Goldwater, who said: “You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.”

Capt. Tim Hsia is an active duty infantry captain serving in the United States Army. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the United States government. We welcome your comments.