This seems reasonable:
One of the many reasons we keep (or at least try to keep) women out of combat is the potential effect on morale in the event that a female soldier is killed or captured. But women perform many other critical jobs in the Armed Forces with few problems (other than pregnancy and sexual assault, which are pervasive and deeply troubling and, one could argue, demonstrate the wisdom of keeping women out of the military entirely). A similar solution might be found for gays who pose a threat to unit cohesion on the front lines but could no doubt serve openly in any number of other functions. DADT is certainly an imperfect policy that would benefit from serious reform. It’s madness for the service to discharge gay translators and the like. But the military leadership still seems to believe that the core of the policy must be preserved in order to maintain the effectiveness of combat units — politicians from both parties are unlikely to question that assessment. If and when the military requests that the policy be repealed in its entirety for the sake of making the military more effective at its mission, I doubt anyone will object. But that day hasn’t come yet.
