Anothny Woods earned a Bronze Star for serving our nation in Iraq during two long deployments. He was born on Travis Air Force base in Fairfield. Despite his honor and courage, Mr. Woods was also dismissed from the Army due to his violation of the same policy.
The Vanguard was allowed to sit down with these two men who had served their country with honor up until the point that both of them in their own way and own time decided they could no longer continue to live a lie and serve in silence.
Vanguard: Was this a conscious decision and something that you thought out?
Lt. Dan Choi: Sure you have to think of all the risks and you can’t think of all of them, but one thing that I was surprised with was the amount of support from my unit. I wonder if I would have known that if it would have gone any different. But no it was you make your decision based on those values. We will not lie anymore, we will not hide, the Army didn’t teach us that. No family would teach us that. No church, mosque, or synagogue would teach us that. That’s what it was and we’re putting out the message as far as our group that the soldiers out there in Iraq, nobody needs to tell them that they’re alone. Nobody needs to let them know that they’re isolated. We need to tell them that they’re not alone, we need to tell that they are worthwhile, that they are honorable, that’s the message. As long as someone can hear that, someone is listening to this, they’re reading the blog and they find that because their a gay soldier, now they have hope all working.
Vanguard: The argument made when the policy was implemented back in 1993 that soldiers would be uncomfortable knowing that a gay man was among them, but you tell me that your unit is supportive of you and don’t really care that you are gay.
Lt. Dan Choi: Yeah it’s funny the way that they put that. The people that purport that idiotic ideal, they treat our soldiers as though they are little children. That they’re not comfortable. We want them to be comfortable. We want them to feel snug. They’re men and women. They get uncomfortable because IEDs are exploding their legs off and you don’t know if you’re going to come back alive. They wade through the blood and the guts of war. And you treat them like little kids, no they’re men and women of character. It’s time to stop disrespecting them. And seeing them for what they really are.
Vanguard: What are you facing now on Tuesday?
Lt. Dan Choi: It’s basically called a discharge board or a retention board. Whatever, you call it, I’m going to get fired. I think people have to realize that. They are firing people from their units in a time of war when you need people to serve in their country and these people are able, capable, willing and trained. You’re firing them for the sole basis of who they are. And the sole basis of their honesty.
Vanguard: And you have an invaluable skill, right?
Lt. Dan Choi: I can speak Arabic. [Speaking Arabic]. Can you even write that in your story? Put a little squigglies and dots. [Laughing]. I speak Arabic, one of the things that we told anybody in the council meeting, the Sheiks meeting, [speaking more Arabic], ‘he who whips the donkey from the rear has to deal with the smell.’ That’s the G-rated version. It’s an issue of responsibility. I love that proverb because it reminds us that if you take on any kind of position of responsibility whether you are a platoon leader, a congressman, any kind of government leader, if your job is to outfit the army or the navy, then you are not doing your duty when you strip soldiers away, when you rip apart units and then you send them to war. That’s not supporting our troops. It’s a disservice to every single one of our soldiers that your sending oversees whether you voted for the war or not.
Vanguard: have you received mostly support from the public or has it been mixed?
Lt. Dan Choi: From the public, it’s been extremely supportive. I think the American people are realizing that this is a chance for us to do the right thing. There might not be another chance in the future for us to stand up. I mean it’s our time to be courageous. It’s our time to stand up.
Vanguard: Tony, you had a similar experience?
Anthony Woods: My situation was almost the same as Dan’s. I came to terms of who I am and I decided I’m sick and tiring of lying about who I am. The military is an organization that prides itself on values and then it asks gay and lesbian soldiers to lie about who they are which is completely contradictory and it makes absolutely no sense to us. So if this policy is to go away, people have to stand up and fight against it. I wanted to make it clear to them look, I love serving my country, I’m looking forward to going back to a third deployment in Iraq, using the skills that I learned in my first two deployments, but I want to be honest about who I am. You have to accept me for who I am and then I’ll be happy to continue serving for as long as I possibly can.
Vanguard: Was this the impetus for your run for Congress?
Anthony Woods: No it actually was not. I made this decision a year before anything about (Congresswoman) Ellen Tauscher leaving the seat. The reason I want to run is because I am sick and tired of us always sending people to Washington DC who served in politics for decade after decade, but have not really solved these problems that our country’s facing. We need people who have first-hand experience suffering under broken policies to go to Washington DC to actually stand up for the people who continue to suffer under broken policies. So it could be anything from universal health care to education to the war in Iraq in general or policies like “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” which create inequality in our country.
Vanguard: Why are we even having to think about this in the year 2009?
Anthony Woods: That’s an amazing amazing question that I ask myself all the time. It was disgusting if you see the way my discharge papers were written up. It was terrible, you couldn’t believe this was happening in modern America. The reason it happens is because we send people to Washington DC, we don’t have a sense of urgency about getting rid of these things. It was a lot easier to buckle under political pressure if you’ve never dealt with these things first hand. That’s why we need people who can say, I know what it feels like. I know the sting of these policies and these failures and I want to fix it.
Vanguard: Don’t you find this amazing as we are looking for more people to serve this country that we continue this policy?
Anthony Woods: That’s a question that I often bring up. We’re doing a disservice to straight soldiers by getting rid of experienced, competent, highly talented gay soldiers. Dan speaks Arabic, I’ve done hundreds of missions without a translator and they were worthless. You cannot effectively build relationships with the Iraqis who you serve with every single day if you cannot speak to them. It’s a fundamental truth. So now Dan’s platoon has to go back overseas without him. They are less effective as a result of it.
One of the statistics I bring up that most folks don’t know about is that forty thousand gay and lesbian soldiers decided not to rejoin the military or continue serving in the military because of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” So they weren’t forced out, they just said, I’m not going to reenlist because this policy is in place. Then you add the 13,000 or so that were kicked our because of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” that’s about 55,000 soldiers who could serving in overseas today. That’s a good third to half that are serving in Iraq right now.
Vanguard: At a time when the military is so stretched thin…
Anthony Woods: They are giving character waivers, folks that are less educated, less able to serve effectively are being brought up to the military–it’s hollowing out our military right now.
Vanguard: And you both went to West Point…
Lt. Dan Choi: Tony actually graduated from the Harvard JFK school of government. Which I mean, I was afraid to go to that school. There are so many people that are just way too smart at that school. The kind of character and the kind of abilities that we have, that we’re throwing out people like Tony now, whose also continued to serve his country running for Congress and putting it all on the line to serve his country again. These are the kinds of people that we’re getting.
Anthony Woods: That was one of the things that was really tough when I was making my final decision was that I was going to go back and teach at West Point. I was accepted to go teach economics. I was going to have to stand in front of cadets who were living under that honor code and living under that honor system, and I was going to have to essentially lie–why are you single? You have to lie about who you are to these people who are learning about integrity and honor. It didn’t make any sense to me.
Vanguard: Have you also had strong support as Dan has?
Anthony Woods: Yeah almost all of my peers have just expressed disappointment and outrage over the fact that I could no longer serve beside them. That’s been almost universal across the board.
Vanguard: What is keeping this policy going?
Anthony Woods: I think it’s a broken political system and a broken legislative system, Congress created this mess and they don’t have the will or the courage to stand up and say that this needs to be solved right now. They’d rather kick it down the road or find a convenient opportunity or play political games with it. We need people to step up and say no, we need to fix these problems right now, they’re hurting our country.
Vanguard: And how will you change things if elected?
Anthony Woods: One of the things, there are very few people in Congress who served in the military who understand the military culture. I’m looking forward to educating my congressional peers and saying look, the military is more than capable of handling this and this is how this policy actually hurts military readiness, something that you don’t actually understand from first-hand experience.
Lt. Dan Choi: If you at that, Tony is the only person out there that’s actually doing that right now. Just the fact that he’s running is educating people on this topic. I haven’t seen any other candidate that’s doing that or that has the ability to do that. One of the reasons why it’s not being repealed right is because people are still afraid of what happened in 1993. They’re afraid because they don’t have the people who have been and done that. And when you don’t have those voices, you find that Congress is suffering under their own “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” or “Don’t research, Don’t try to understand, Don’t Act, and Don’t Lead.” So really what we need to do is put out there people who can lead, that can act, that have that understanding, that have that research, that knowledge and that first hand, that’s what I see in Tony.
Vanguard: You were both critics of the Iraq war?
Lt. Dan Choi: No, I’m a critic of anybody who’s not allowed to serve their country. I think that’s the main issue here.
Anthony Woods: I was concerned with how we created a foregone conclusion and then rushed into the situation. I understand that there are times when you have to make tough decisions about using military force, but we need people in the Congress who can ask the tough questions. What’s the plan? How many soldiers are we sending? What are we going to do when these soldiers come home and we’re inundated with this broken VA system which has almost a million backed up claims. We need people who can actually ask those tough questions even when the other side of the aisle wants to stand up and say, no keep your mouth shut because you’re not being patriotic or your being weak on terrorism, you need people who can stand up in their face and say no. I’ve done this first hand, I understand how challenging it is to accomplish these kinds of things. We need to plan this a lot.
Vanguard: you mentioned lack of commitment to veterans, what are your thoughts on that?
Anthony Woods: I have and I’m sure Dan does to, we have classmates from West Point who are counted among those almost one million people who desperately need the psychological care because they’re suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder or the very real and complicated care for traumatic brain injury. It’s pretty tragic the injuries that they’re coming home with. They are a lot more complicated than we ever expected–although if we had asked the right questions we would have realized some of these things were possible. The whole system needs to be revamped.
Vanguard: Dan, how does the process work on Tuesday, is it a trial?
Lt. Dan Choi: It’s a trial. I am guilty until proven innocent. Guilty until proven capable. The charge against me is my admission, my saying saying three words honestly that has translated to conduct which is translated to immorality which is translated to unprofessionalism which is translated into discharge which is translated again into firing. So I think right now, my opportunity here–I see this as a positive thing, I can educate those six or seven officers that would stand up there, colonels, that would judge. I would explain to them, no, gentlemen, I went to West Point, I learned honor code, I lived those army values. And army values are not going to allow me to come up for personal gain or personal agenda and say, oh I was kidding. Some people said that would be a plausible defense. If you said you were actually straight and those were just misspoken lies, or I was drunk, or incapacitated, you could do that.
So really what you see with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” it’s not really something to do with conduct, it has nothing to do with actions. It has everything to do with discrimination based on sole identity. If I’m actually gay, then I’m kicked out. If I’m straight and I’ve conducted some of this conduct, I could very easily stay in. It is bald-faced discrimination.
Anthony Woods: To add to that, the thing that I think is so disappointing, is Dan’s going to go there and he’s going to make an amazing case and he’s going to speak truth to power, but those folks who are sitting on that jury potentially, they’re bound by a stupid law. Congress needs to step up to the plate and recognize that it’s time to get rid of this. It’s going to take legislative action. Even the President technically cannot just end this on his own. He can do some things to prevent these sorts of investigations from occurring, but Congress needs to wipe this from the books.
Vanguard: What does say about our country that we’re even discussing this?
Anthony Woods: Like I said, I mentioned before, we have a broken legislative system and a broken political system that we send legislators to Washington, DC, who just don’t get it. They don’t have the same priorities as the rest of our country. Seventy percent of Americans think this policy should go away. Yet Congress is sitting on its hands and not getting this thing done while thousands of soldiers have left this military. $400 million have been wasted on these sorts of inquiries and investigations. That’s money that would be a lot better spent on body armor, on Humvies, on taking care of soldiers when they come home from war. There are very clear priorities that we should be focusing on. But if people are just focused on reelection, and getting money.
Lt. Dan Choi: Look at what we’re doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, we’re telling these other countries and these other people that the rule of law and not stripping away one minority’s rights at the expense of another that’s not right. That’s not the way we do business. Then when we come home, look how we treat our soldiers that have double paid to fight terror but they are terrorized at home. They sign up to protect these freedoms, but they don’t have the freedoms at home. This double-standard is something that’s a very toxic message. I think it’s something that our country cannot afford to put out, especially to the countries that we’re trying to partner with in the Middle East, in all countries around the world. That kind of hypocrisy is nothing some that our American values should tolerate.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
This policy is like the old military tradition of facing your enemy in a line twenty yards apart and shooting at each other – it does not make any sense. Truth and honesty is more important than an outdated tradition that requires deception. How do you build trust if you know there are policies requiring fellow soldiers to be dishonest?
Wow! Greenwald, you dip yourself into a myriad of subjects and topics.
Speaking as a military retiree, I will state that it is essential to maintain morale and discipline, particularly in deployed overseas units.
Do you have any ideas how many haters there are in the U.S. Army? Trust me on this one, many! Legions of skin heads have infiltrated the ranks, of particularly the Army which traditionally has the lowest enlistment standards. Many standards that have been compromised by shady and fraudulent recruiting practices. I have personal first hand knowledge of this.
With some of that said: Mr. Choi & Woods are dreaming if they felt they had the support of there troops.
They would be the first to get “fragged” (correct spelling) when fecal matter hit the fan. Perhaps the Army is sparing them?
Anthony Woods: I was concerned with how we created a foregone conclusion and then rushed into the situation. I understand that there are times when you have to make tough decisions about using military force, but we need people in the Congress who can ask the tough questions. What’s the plan? How many soldiers are we sending? What are we going to do when these soldiers come home and we’re inundated with this broken VA system which has almost a million backed up claims. We need people who can actually ask those tough questions even when the other side of the aisle wants to stand up and say, no keep your mouth shut because you’re not being patriotic or your being weak on terrorism, you need people who can stand up in their face and say no. I’ve done this first hand, I understand how challenging it is to accomplish these kinds of things. We need to plan this a lot.
I’m sorry, but this particular statment sounds too much like it is coming from the mouths of moveon.org, greenpeace, and the ACLU. Who is giving this man his script?
will the real puppet master, please stand up?
Old School Davis: elaborate on “fragging” please. Are you saying homosexual soldiers would be “fragged” by skinhead soldiers for being openly homosexual? I seem to remember reading somewhere the slang verb “fragging” derives from the adjective in the phrase “fragmentation grenade.”
What a waste, if true.
To Old Skool: How old are you? I have noticed frequently a huge change in attitudes towards gays among people under 35 versus over 50. Obviously just look at exit pools on Prop 8. I have talked to many younger military people, and not one of them, and many are quite conservative, care about sexual orientation. So I question your basis for statement.
To hmm…: I understand and respect your right to disagree with Lt. Choi and Sgt Woods. I don’t understand your need to be a prick. Can you not disagree more respectfully, your post is quite insulting.
Two comments:
Obviously you were querrying Air Force personnel!! LOL!
Mr. Old School Davis, Does the above comment to “Two Comments” mean you don’t know the the definition of “fragging” or won’t tell?
Description
A hand grenade was often used[citation needed] because it would not leave any fingerprints, and because a ballistics test could not be performed (as it could to match a bullet with a firearm). The grenade would often be thrown into the officer’s tent while he slept.[citation needed]
Sometimes the intended victim would be ‘warned’ by first having a smoke grenade thrown into his tent. If he persisted in antagonizing his men, this would be followed by a stun grenade, and finally by a fragmentation grenade.[citation needed]
A fragging victim could also be killed by intentional “friendly fire” during combat.[citation needed] In this case, the death would be blamed on the enemy, and, because of the dead man’s unpopularity, the perpetrator could assume that no one would contradict the story.[citation needed]
[edit] Reasons
Fragging most often involved the murder of a commanding officer (C.O.) or a senior noncommissioned officer[citation needed] perceived as unpopular, harsh, inept, or overzealous. Many soldiers were not overly keen to go into harm’s way, and preferred leaders with a similar sense of self-preservation. If a C.O. was incompetent, fragging the officer was considered a means to the end of self preservation for the men serving under him. Fragging might also occur if a commander freely took on dangerous or suicidal missions, especially if he was deemed to be seeking glory for himself.
The very idea of fragging served to warn junior officers to avoid the ire of their enlisted men through recklessness, cowardice, or lack of leadership. Junior officers in turn could arrange the murder of senior officers when finding them incompetent or wasting their men’s lives needlessly. Underground GI newspapers sometimes listed bounties offered by units for the fragging of unpopular commanding officers.[citation needed]
During the Vietnam War, fragging was reportedly common. There are documented cases of at least 230 American officers killed by their own troops, and as many as 1,400 other officers’ deaths could not be explained.[2] Incidents of fragging have been recorded as far back as the 18th century Battle of Blenheim.
The above conforms to my recollection of how the term is used…
Sexual orientation and military service
From Wikipedia
The militaries of the world have a variety of responses to gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Most Western military forces have now removed policies excluding sexual minority members; of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 20 permit open lesbians, gays, or bisexuals to serve; of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, two (United Kingdom and France) do so. The other three generally do not: China bans gays and lesbians outright, Russia excludes all gays and lesbians during peacetime but allows some gay men to serve in wartime, and the United States (see Don’t ask, don’t tell) technically permits gays and lesbians to serve, but only in secrecy and celibacy.
Policies and attitudes toward gay and lesbian personnel in the military vary widely internationally. Several countries allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly and have granted them the same rights and privileges as their heterosexual counterparts. Many countries neither ban nor support gay and lesbian service members, and a small group continue to ban homosexual personnel outright.
For example:
Israel Defense Forces policies allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly and without discrimination or harassment due to actual or perceived sexual orientation. This was put into effect in 1993 after an IDF reserves officer testified before the Knesset claiming that his rank had been revoked, and that he had been barred from researching sensitive topics in military intelligence, solely because of his sexual identity. Homosexuals serve openly in the military, including special units, without any discrimination. According to a University of California, Santa Barbara study, a brigadier general stated that Israelis show a “great tolerance” for gay soldiers. Consul David Saranga at the Israeli Consulate in New York, who was interviewed by the St. Petersburg Times, said, “It’s a non-issue. You can be a very good officer, a creative one, a brave one, and be gay at the same time.”
“….of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 20 permit open lesbians, gays, or bisexuals to serve….”
For example: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Greece, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Spain, The Netherlands have permitted for decades homosexuals to serve openly in their armed services.
Interesting too, that Israel which is essentially under a constant insecurity and the threat of war has no fear of homosexuals serving in their military.
Gays and Lesbians serving in the military has become a non-issue in most western countries. America needs to catch up with the rest of our allies.
To me, this is just more of the gay agenda being pushed down the throats of the public (e.g. gay marriage), to “legitimize” the gay lifestyle as perfectly normal (to me it is a normal genetic anomoly, much as being blonde or blue eyed or albino).
My guess is that if gays are allowed to enter the military with all the same rights and privileges as anyone else, and find themselves the subject of “fraggings”, they will be the first to demand all sorts of special investigations, above and beyond what the normal soldier would receive. And because it is politically correct to be gay these days, fragged gays (or their estate) will probably be granted the requested special treatment.
Be careful what you wish for…”fragging” is a very real possibility in relation to being gay in the military, which has gang elements/skinheads being recruited…remember the killing on the Aegis ship, where a gun exploded killing a gay soldier, believed to be the result of some quarrel?
Another interesting point I thought of is the policy that military enlisted are not allowed to fraternize with officers. I assume the same rule will apply to gay soldiers?
Frankly, I don’t really see what all the fuss is about, other than gay soldiers wishing to “out” themselves because either they are 1) looking for their 15 minutes of fame; and/or 2) want to openly practice homosexuality, and are tired of having to hide their sexual conduct. Well last time I looked, most people would prefer heterosexuals as well as homosexuals to find a motel room somewhere, than engage in sexual activity out in the open, including passionate kissing. Honestly, this whole discussion is so-o-o-o tiresome. Can’t we keep bedroom activities in the bedroom, no matter the sexual orientation of the couples involved?
So my next question is this – if a gay person keeps his/her sexual orientation to himself/herself, saving romantic conduct for the bedroom where it belongs, is the military seeking to ferret out noncelibate gays? Somehow I very much doubt it. I think this entire controversy is more in the minds of the far left/gays, to further their socialistic agenda, that promoting the gay agenda is in the best interests of everyone.
Oh yes, and by the way, heard on the television in a documentary the other day, how young gay students want gay sex taught in sex ed classes in the elementary school grades – so they won’t feel “singled out” or “different” or “abnormal”. How about we teach abstinence as the only true form of “safe sex”? Now that is my idea of sex education in the elementary grades.
Well, why don’t Democrats go ask President Wonderful if he’s going to change the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy then??? I have a feeling he’s not going to be too receptive to that plan. I don’t see it changing, no matter who is president. You wouldn’t want to be the president who says: if you are gay, it is ok to say so while serving in the military- and then have a bunch of violence ensue. Why do we need to know ANYONE’S sexual preferences in the military? The US doesn’t ban gays from serving, they just don’t ask for this information.
Dear Mr. Old Skool Davis,
you are a pompous old fart, the likes of which is a dying entity. You and your ideology, your hate, your bigotry, your desperate clinging to backwards hypocritical, holier than thou thinking is dying. Face it man, you and your cohort is a dinasour. Time to lay ignorance and idiocracy to rest. astalavista baby.
Lt. Dan Choi is a hero, and you Mr. David Greenwald is on the precipice of something grand and amazing. Thanks Goddess for the vanguard and people like you. Thank Goddess we are witnesssing the death of ignorance.
It is truly a new day. A time for CHANGE!!!!!
To: Sara Lee,
I truly sympathize with your fogged view of the world. I am here to protect people like you. I appreciate the fact that you can spew your whinage with great veracity. I am not even 50 yrs. old and I really appreciate your contribution to my monthly pension on the 1st of every month. Thanks again.
Oh! And how about recalling some written rules and decorum of this blog site! Where in the f— do you get of callin me a “bigot”
It’s all “Dark Green” to me. Get a life!
Discrimination based on anything, especially sexual orientation is such an antiquated view of the world. It’s time for change.
If you don’t like gay people then don’t have them as friends. If you don’t like someone because they are Russian, Black, Asian, Mexican, etc. then don’t have them as friends. You should also realize though that your view of the world is very shallow and you are really confining yourself to live in a bubble.
My point is that we live in a free world and we should let people live their lives as they wish and not exclude them due to their sexual orientation. Who cares!
Don’t ask don’t tell is Old Skool world view! It’s time for change.
I know it may sound unusual – but everyone is missing one small point. I don’t know who wants to take the step – so I will. As a 20 plus veteran of the military with multiple deployments I know the military. The military requires Soldiers to live in confined quarters – we sleep together, we eat together, we shower together. We cannot ignore the fact that the reason we do not have coed shower’s or sleeping quarters is simply because men will be men and women will be women. Hetro sexual men get aroused when they see nude women – hence we don’t have coed showers. I can only assume that homosexual men get aroused when they see a man that they feel is attractive (likewise with women). Do we honestly think that this would be ignored in a shower, or sleeping quarters and no violence would insue..please lets not bury our heads in the sand and ignore the most primitive instinct..that is why there is a don’t ask don’t tell policy..
Your point would argue against any gays serving in the military, would it not? I mean, what’s the difference?
“Do we honestly think that this would be ignored in a shower”
I understand the concern, but isn’t it true the same people shared the showers throughout high school. Did anything happen there?
I don’t know about your high school, but we never had NAKED showers. We had showers only when there was swimming that day, and with swimsuits on.
I also don’t recall there being an uprising to annouce your sexuality at high school….
“Your point would argue against any gays serving in the military, would it not? I mean, what’s the difference?”
The argument is not against gays in the military, but, rather, for continuing the policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” This policy keeps violence to a minimum, artic argued quite plainly. Any other conclusion is adding information not in artic’s argument.
Reread artic’s argument and you may “get his point,” “Don’t Get Your Point.”