Skip navigation.

SHAFR Opinion

Visions of War

by Susan Brewer

On December 15th President Barack Obama welcomed home U.S. troops from a war he once had called “dumb.” His speech avoided the reasons why the Iraq War was fought and focused instead on honoring the American servicemen and women who fought it.  Inspiring words–“extraordinary achievement,” “honor,” “sacrifice,” “finest fighting force,” “unbroken line of heroes,” “progress [...]

Newt Gingrich and the (ab)Uses of History

by Andrew Johnstone

It is an honor to join the SHAFR blogging team for 2011-12.  While SHAFR is (as the name makes perfectly clear) a society that focuses on the history of American foreign relations, there is no doubt that we are as well placed as anyone to make connections between historical events and contemporary issues in American [...]

Issues for the 2012 Presidential Election

by Nick Sarantakes

The United States of America is about to enter a presidential election year.  Actually, it already has entered the political season.  The election of 2012 will most likely turn on economics, but as Andy Johns pointed out in his blog, foreign policy is always important and next year’s contest will be no different.  In addition, [...]

W(h)ither the Bilateral Study?: what of the History of U.S. Foreign Policy can tell us about the Emergent Multilateral World

by James Siekmeier

Back during the Cold War, bilateral studies were common. Indeed the proliferation of bilateral studies seemed to be almost a natural process—it was thought that we humans were seemingly biologically hard-wired to separate things in to this/that, either/or,  good/evil, etc.
Recently, however, the genre of “United States and …[insert country name here] “ studies seem to [...]

Rising Isolationism, A Renewed Danger?

by Christopher McKnight Nichols

It is an honor to be kicking off the blog for the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations for the fall of 2011. I thank Andrew Johns, Brian Etheridge, and the officers of SHAFR for the invitation, and I look forward to an excellent year of diverse debates and dynamic discussions.
For this column, which [...]

A Note from Europe: The End of the World is Nigh

by Michaela Hoenicke Moore

The mid-July headline of the German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) commenting on the two debt crises in Europe and the United States reads “The End of the World Is Near – But Only for You.” The article cleverly illustrates the deepening transatlantic gap when it comes to political and economic frames of reference. Americans are [...]

Moving Beyond (and Before) the Cold War

by David Ekbladh

I’ll take up the point raised by Shane Maddock’s recent post on moving beyond the Cold War.  I share his feeling that the focus on the conflict has imposed its own “interpretive framework” on scholarship in U.S. foreign relations and international history generally and that this scaffolding can limit our understanding of a slew of [...]

« View Older Posts

Is Wartime a Time to End Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?

February 16th, 2010

As the Obama Administration moves (slowly) toward repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, one argument in opposition is that the nation is at war, and significant changes in the military should not take place during wartime. One response to that point is that all hands are needed during heightened military deployments, and it harms American national security to dismiss trained soldiers. But there is a more fundamental reason that the argument against change during wartime doesn’t work: there is no end in sight to the war on terror. And endless war cannot be a reason for permanent stasis in military policy.

The no-change-during-wartime argument is an example of conventional thinking about war and American society. “Wartime” is imagined to be a temporary condition. It is a special kind of time. Wartime, by definition, is preceded and followed by “peacetime.” American history is thought to consist of the movement from peacetime to wartime and back again. In this conceptualization, wartimes always comes to an end.

This idea that wartime is by definition a temporary time is an essential ingredient of the argument that social change shouldn’t happen in wartime. This is presented as an argument that does not challenge change itself, but simply asks advocates of change to be patient. Change can come after the war is over.

But what if there is no end to war?

United States military deployment has been on-going, at least since World War II. There is a disconnect between persistent American military engagement and the idea that “peacetimes” continue to exist, reflected in an awkward literature on war in “postwar” America. David Halberstam, for example, gave his book about war during the first Bush and the Clinton administrations the ironic title War in a Time of Peace.

Desegregation of the armed services is an example of social change during a time of military engagement, not during “peacetime.” Although V-E and V-J days had long passed by the time President Truman issued an executive order calling for military desegregation in 1948, World War II itself had not formally come to a close. The U.S. occupied Germany, Japan and other nations, and the Supreme Court continued to uphold exercises of Congress’s war power. World War II slid into the Cold War, which included the use of the Air Force during the 1948 Berlin Airlift. And as has been widely noted, desegregation was accomplished in the Army in the context of the need for ground troops in the Korean War.

Even if we could find ways to bound previous wars in time, the “war on terror” has been defined in a way that confounds the idea of an end point. It is not a war against a nation-state but against an ideology, suggesting that this state of war might only end when we reach an end of ideas themselves.

The Supreme Court has acknowledged the difficulty of our current war era’s temporality. Guantánamo detainees might be held for the duration of the conflict. But as Justice Kennedy suggested in Boumediene v. Bush, the present conflict “if measured from September 11, 2001, to the present, is already among the longest wars in American history.”

In the context of endless war, an argument that change must wait for peacetime is not an argument for patience. It should be understood for what it is: an argument to keep discrimination against gays and lesbians in the military in place. Scholars have often argued, however, that wartime has been the context for the expansion of equality rights. In that sense, expanding equality for gays and lesbians during wartime would not be an aberration, but instead would be in keeping with American tradition.
Cross-posted from Balkinization.

Tags: , , , ,

About Mary Dudziak
Mary L. Dudziak is a legal historian whose research focuses on international approaches to legal history and the impact of war on American democracy. She has written extensively about the impact of foreign affairs on civil rights policy during the Cold War and other topics in 20th-century American legal history. She teaches at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>