Defense secretary Ash Carter announced a new policy last week to lift the ban on transgender people openly serving in the military. The chairman of the House Armed Services committee blasted the decision Thursday, calling it the “latest example of the Pentagon and the President prioritizing politics over policy.”
“Our military readiness—and hence, our national security—is dependent on our troops being medically ready and deployable,” said Mac Thornberry, a Republican from Texas.
Last July, after the Pentagon had opened all combat roles to women, tightened policies against LGBT discrimination, and floated the idea of officially lifting the ban on transgendered people serving, Thornberry sent a letter to Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey seeking “an honest and balanced assessment of the impact any policy change would have on military readiness, cohesion, morale, and good order and discipline.” Thornberry’s letter included a list of fifteen questions the Defense Department should answer before making any more major policy changes in the name of socially progressive politics. Here are a couple of his questions:
And in lieu of answers within 30 days, which the Thornberry’s letter requested, the department formed a “trans working group.” Eric Pohan, the working group’s spokesman, offered conflicting assessments of the group’s fulfillment of Thornberry’s request.
As Pohan told THE WEEKLY STANDARD in a phone interview (emphasis added), “We received Chairman Thornberry’s letter and we did send him a response. [His letter is] the reason we formed the entire trans working group. Most of his questions had to do with readiness—the reason we formed the transgender working group was to study exactly that, was to study readiness. The reason we were unable to respond up until this point was because, essentially, we were studying readiness. The working group just quit meeting, and finally had their conclusions. I believe we are responding to Congressman Thornberry, but I’m not one hundred percent sure of that or what the status of the response is.” Rather than answering legitimate concerns with honest assessment of costs and consequences, the Department of Defense’s official statement on the policy rollout gives each of the armed services 90 days to determine its own plan for receiving transgender servicemen and women.
Thornberry’s yet unanswered questions raise important concerns about the Obama administration and the Pentagon’s priorities, many from military leaders themselves. Putting each of the armed services on notice to accommodate transgender troops medically and otherwise diverts time and resources from the military’s readiness. For years under this administration, leaders in the armed forces community have voiced concern over a “readiness crisis.” The services are not ready to deploy combat troops to the front lines in modern conflict if the need arose, they say. A House aide close on the Armed Services Committee cited the example of an under-resourced Marine Corps in South Carolina having to raid museum relics for plane parts. “We’re in a readiness crisis,” said the aide. “A squadron that was getting ready to deploy within 30 days could not get enough of its airplanes into the air and was cannibalizing parts for those planes off of museum aircraft.”
Last month, Thornberry challenged the extension of mandatory draft registration to women also on the grounds of military readiness. He proposed a study to assess what it would take to prepare for a large-scale gender integration. If and when the draft was reinstated, would we have the time and resources to spare for the unforeseen challenges of such a change?
As the Pentagon prepares to integrate trans soldiers into the military ranks, that and other important questions of readiness remain unanswered.
