What do you think?
Rate this book
Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America
When the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy emerged as a political compromise under Bill Clinton in 1993, it only ended up worsening the destructive gay ban that had been on the books since World War II. Drawing on more than a decade of research and hundreds of interviews, Nathaniel Frank exposes the military’s policy toward gays and lesbians as damaging and demonstrates that “don’t ask, don’t tell” must be replaced with an outright reversal of the gay ban.
Frank is one of the nation’s leading experts on gays in the military, and in his evenhanded and always scrupulously documented chronicle, he reveals how the ban on open gays and lesbians in the U.S. military has greatly increased discharges, hampered recruitment, and—contrary to the rationale offered by proponents of the ban—led to lower morale and cohesion within military ranks.
Frank does not shy away from tackling controversial issues, and he presents indisputable evidence showing that gays already serve openly without causing problems, and that the policy itself is weakening the military it was supposed to protect. In addition to the moral pitfalls of the gay ban, Frank shows the practical damage it has wrought. Most recently, the discharge of valuable Arabic translators (who happen to be gay) under the current policy has left U.S. forces ill-equipped in the fight against terrorism.
Part history, part exposé, and fully revealing, Unfriendly Fire is poised to become the definitive story of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” This lively and compelling narrative is sure to make the blood boil of any American who cares about national security, the right to speak the truth, or just plain common sense and fairness.
Frank is one of the nation’s leading experts on gays in the military, and in his evenhanded and always scrupulously documented chronicle, he reveals how the ban on open gays and lesbians in the U.S. military has greatly increased discharges, hampered recruitment, and—contrary to the rationale offered by proponents of the ban—led to lower morale and cohesion within military ranks.
Frank does not shy away from tackling controversial issues, and he presents indisputable evidence showing that gays already serve openly without causing problems, and that the policy itself is weakening the military it was supposed to protect. In addition to the moral pitfalls of the gay ban, Frank shows the practical damage it has wrought. Most recently, the discharge of valuable Arabic translators (who happen to be gay) under the current policy has left U.S. forces ill-equipped in the fight against terrorism.
Part history, part exposé, and fully revealing, Unfriendly Fire is poised to become the definitive story of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” This lively and compelling narrative is sure to make the blood boil of any American who cares about national security, the right to speak the truth, or just plain common sense and fairness.
368 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2009
3 people are currently reading
345 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
June 6, 2015
As someone who was involved in the 1993 battle over gays in the military, albeit in a minor way, and who was in the military, I was curious how the story would read, 15 years on. This book rings true. Mr. Frank tells the story of how the U.S. got to that point, how Congress skewed its hearings on the issue, and how Bill Clinton ultimately, under duress, signed on to Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
He doesn't neglect the corollary issues: the mindset of both sides, the experience of gays in the military prior to 1993, and the experience of other militaries who lifted the ban. He helpfully lists the evidence for and against the ban, so far. (He may be one of the few to have actually _read_ the 1993 RAND study on the issue). And, he shows the anti-gay policy's contribution to pervasive male-on-female sexual harassment in the military.
He follows DADT in subsequent years, and it's a complicated story: I knew how "Don't Ask" became "Search and Destroy" in some commands, but hadn't heard, till now, of how many gay soldiers stayed on and continued serving well.
Mr. Frank could have, I suppose, made more of the impact this had on Bill Clinton's ability to act as Commander in Chief. This spat may have had something to do with his weak initial response to the Balkan wars from 1993 on. Certainly, the RAND study said that the gay ban would have fallen if the military thought Bill Clinton meant it. But, this a minor quibble.
Indeed, Mr. Frank does show how, with the military wearing out its active and Reserve forces with second, third, and fourth tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. He not only shows how personnel needs got so dire that the military was recruiting poor-quality, even ex-felon, soldiers, but shows the mayhem that would cause. (He does allude to the shortage being a factor in hiring the "contractors," Blackwater et al). All this while the military got rid of thousands of personnel under DADT, including Arabic-language specialists who might've been useful after 9/11.
This was a definitive study, up to early 2009 and the start of a new administration. It's worth re-reading now that Don't Ask has been repealed and the military has moved on, decisively. The presence of military LGBT personnel may very well be taken for granted in future: this work is a good bookmark of what was, and very recently.
He doesn't neglect the corollary issues: the mindset of both sides, the experience of gays in the military prior to 1993, and the experience of other militaries who lifted the ban. He helpfully lists the evidence for and against the ban, so far. (He may be one of the few to have actually _read_ the 1993 RAND study on the issue). And, he shows the anti-gay policy's contribution to pervasive male-on-female sexual harassment in the military.
He follows DADT in subsequent years, and it's a complicated story: I knew how "Don't Ask" became "Search and Destroy" in some commands, but hadn't heard, till now, of how many gay soldiers stayed on and continued serving well.
Mr. Frank could have, I suppose, made more of the impact this had on Bill Clinton's ability to act as Commander in Chief. This spat may have had something to do with his weak initial response to the Balkan wars from 1993 on. Certainly, the RAND study said that the gay ban would have fallen if the military thought Bill Clinton meant it. But, this a minor quibble.
Indeed, Mr. Frank does show how, with the military wearing out its active and Reserve forces with second, third, and fourth tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. He not only shows how personnel needs got so dire that the military was recruiting poor-quality, even ex-felon, soldiers, but shows the mayhem that would cause. (He does allude to the shortage being a factor in hiring the "contractors," Blackwater et al). All this while the military got rid of thousands of personnel under DADT, including Arabic-language specialists who might've been useful after 9/11.
This was a definitive study, up to early 2009 and the start of a new administration. It's worth re-reading now that Don't Ask has been repealed and the military has moved on, decisively. The presence of military LGBT personnel may very well be taken for granted in future: this work is a good bookmark of what was, and very recently.
January 20, 2010
This was an excellent book, and provided me with a lot of information behind the pros and cons of gay men and women serving in the military. That said, it was as dense as a redwood tree. It read like a legal brief, and while some of the historical anecdotes were interesting, it was rather difficult to get through. I certainly suggest it though for anyone with a legal mind who's interested in the history of gay rights.
July 8, 2009
I saw this book on the new non-fiction shelf at the library, and checked it out on a whim--curious, but mostly not having thought much about gays in the military, and not holding any strong opinions about the issues. Nathaniel Frank, however, extensively documents the history of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and makes a persuasive case against it based on (the military's own) research regarding the competency of gay men and women for service (and the competency of heterosexuals for service with openly gay men and women), the positive effects of lifting bans against allowing open gays to serve in other nations (such as the United Kingdom, Australia, the Netherlands, and Canada, key allies for the United States in the Iraq-Afghanistan conflict), and how the policy has, in innumerable documented cases, caused and worsened an atmosphere of prejudice and persecution that has led to violence and cost the U.S. military some of its best and most desperately needed service members. After reading this book, I understand much better why "don't ask, don't tell" is a flawed policy that should be ended.
June 29, 2024
This book covers a really interesting topic in great depth, all while providing a unique perspective that can no longer be obtained, seeing as it was published before the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and therefore has a sense of despair baked into the text that is no longer seen. I am quite grateful to have read this book, as it taught me a lot, and would recommend it to all others on that alone.
However.
The writing is awful. This book is monotonous, repetitive, and unwieldy. (Though, I must acknowledge this was worse for me as I am not the presumed target audience, being that I am queer myself and already aware of the failing of DADT through the powers of hindsight.) It would have honestly been better as a very long paper, as that's what it already felt like. It seems that the author is skilled in in-depth analysis but less so skilled in the turning of that analysis into something digestible. Or even, in some instances, comprehensible, as I found myself having to repeatedly go over the same text again and again to get the information. Furthermore, I felt that the poor writing also sometimes weakened the arguments given in the book. The author was arguing for the right, sensible things (DADT being a spectacular failure that hurt both people and the military) but was structuring the points in a way that left some holes, or at least didn't fill in the holes until 50 pages later when you've already forgotten about them.
For the poor writing, and the poor writing alone, I can not rate this book any higher than three stars. The quality of information is absolutely five stars, but the text is so hard to get through I can hardly recommend it to others.
However.
The writing is awful. This book is monotonous, repetitive, and unwieldy. (Though, I must acknowledge this was worse for me as I am not the presumed target audience, being that I am queer myself and already aware of the failing of DADT through the powers of hindsight.) It would have honestly been better as a very long paper, as that's what it already felt like. It seems that the author is skilled in in-depth analysis but less so skilled in the turning of that analysis into something digestible. Or even, in some instances, comprehensible, as I found myself having to repeatedly go over the same text again and again to get the information. Furthermore, I felt that the poor writing also sometimes weakened the arguments given in the book. The author was arguing for the right, sensible things (DADT being a spectacular failure that hurt both people and the military) but was structuring the points in a way that left some holes, or at least didn't fill in the holes until 50 pages later when you've already forgotten about them.
For the poor writing, and the poor writing alone, I can not rate this book any higher than three stars. The quality of information is absolutely five stars, but the text is so hard to get through I can hardly recommend it to others.
August 23, 2011
'Unfriendly Fire' first caught my attention during Dr. Frank's appearances on the various media outlets to debate the issues. I wanted to read the book to get a clear understanding of the justifications for such a discriminatory policy and why it had been in place for so long, unchallenged. I was surprised to learn that during the creation of this policy, no facts, case studies, or scientific research were presented as justification for banning gays from serving openly. That's right. Lawmakers and politicians were convinced purely on the 'common sense' notion that open homosexuality would interfere with unit cohesion. Who needs facts in the face of such 'common sense'?
Today, this supposed wisdom is clearly laughable. During the early debates of this policy, and through the years the real facts were presented which disproved this common sense and even argued that the ban significantly harmed cohesion, hindered recruiting efforts, and wasted millions of dollars in related administrative costs. But the policy remained to appease high ranking military officials unwilling to put their prejudices aside in the face of overwhelming evidence that this policy was ill conceived and detrimental to the military's overall effectiveness.
I was pleasantly surprised that Dr. Frank chose to include the personal story of my dear friend, Brian Muller, in another example of how the policy has wasted invaluable talent in it's dismissal of almost 12,000 service members to date.
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is viewed as one of the great failures of the Clinton administration. His efforts to triangulate opposing viewpoints on the issue left gay rights activists outraged, and social conservatives satisfied in their efforts to oppress homosexuals.The Obama administration has recently stated that it intends to repeal the policy, and it has the support of Congress who tried in 2005 & 2007 to repeal it only to be overridden by Bush's veto. But the inevitability of it's repeal does not make the arguments in this book moot. Dr. Frank exposes supporters of the ban as the bigoted, hypocritical, homophobes that they are. He does this through a compete and categorical debunking of their shallow arguments which they continue to use in their defense of this policy and various other forms of anti-gay legislation. This analysis is crucial in understanding and fighting the continued attempts of the religious right and others to find ways to discriminate against what has become the most hated minority group in America: Homosexuals. 'Unfriendly Fire' is a must read for any human rights activist, and anyone unsure about the gay ban's effect on military readiness.
Today, this supposed wisdom is clearly laughable. During the early debates of this policy, and through the years the real facts were presented which disproved this common sense and even argued that the ban significantly harmed cohesion, hindered recruiting efforts, and wasted millions of dollars in related administrative costs. But the policy remained to appease high ranking military officials unwilling to put their prejudices aside in the face of overwhelming evidence that this policy was ill conceived and detrimental to the military's overall effectiveness.
I was pleasantly surprised that Dr. Frank chose to include the personal story of my dear friend, Brian Muller, in another example of how the policy has wasted invaluable talent in it's dismissal of almost 12,000 service members to date.
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is viewed as one of the great failures of the Clinton administration. His efforts to triangulate opposing viewpoints on the issue left gay rights activists outraged, and social conservatives satisfied in their efforts to oppress homosexuals.The Obama administration has recently stated that it intends to repeal the policy, and it has the support of Congress who tried in 2005 & 2007 to repeal it only to be overridden by Bush's veto. But the inevitability of it's repeal does not make the arguments in this book moot. Dr. Frank exposes supporters of the ban as the bigoted, hypocritical, homophobes that they are. He does this through a compete and categorical debunking of their shallow arguments which they continue to use in their defense of this policy and various other forms of anti-gay legislation. This analysis is crucial in understanding and fighting the continued attempts of the religious right and others to find ways to discriminate against what has become the most hated minority group in America: Homosexuals. 'Unfriendly Fire' is a must read for any human rights activist, and anyone unsure about the gay ban's effect on military readiness.
September 1, 2009
This is a detailed, almost pedantic, examination of the development and consequences of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue" policy enacted by President Clinton and Congress in 1993. Clinton entered the presidency with a firm commitment to end, via executive order, a ban on gays serving in the US Military. After months of relentless pressure by conservative political, social and military groups, he put forth a compromise that came to be known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
Frank demonstrates with an astonishing breadth of research that includes Congressional testimony, polls, surveys, memos, court cases, op-eds and interviews that this policy is a farce, a joke, weakens our military, compromises our national security, and violates the civil rights of our citizens. He also shows how, in the sixteen years since the enactment of the ban, public, political and military sentiment has changed - that the overturn of this ban is inevitable. Let us hope his optimism is proved right, soon.
The similarities between the early stages of this debate and the current battle of health care reform really struck me. Those advocating reform had public opinion firmly on their side, yet they completely failed to anticipate the vehement, well-organized and virulent opposition of the conservative political and religious right. They allowed the opportunity for change to be snatched from their grasp by a fear mongering, truth distorting political machine. Clinton, Powell, Cheney (yes, that Cheney who has a gay daughter) - those who could have brought on real change- caved to pressure based on fear and prejudice.
The narrative style is pretty dense and fact laden - it reads like a Master's thesis - so is was a chore to work through, at times. The upside of this is to have a premise, which is so fraught with moral subjectivity, held up by exhaustive research and incontrovertible fact.
Frank demonstrates with an astonishing breadth of research that includes Congressional testimony, polls, surveys, memos, court cases, op-eds and interviews that this policy is a farce, a joke, weakens our military, compromises our national security, and violates the civil rights of our citizens. He also shows how, in the sixteen years since the enactment of the ban, public, political and military sentiment has changed - that the overturn of this ban is inevitable. Let us hope his optimism is proved right, soon.
The similarities between the early stages of this debate and the current battle of health care reform really struck me. Those advocating reform had public opinion firmly on their side, yet they completely failed to anticipate the vehement, well-organized and virulent opposition of the conservative political and religious right. They allowed the opportunity for change to be snatched from their grasp by a fear mongering, truth distorting political machine. Clinton, Powell, Cheney (yes, that Cheney who has a gay daughter) - those who could have brought on real change- caved to pressure based on fear and prejudice.
The narrative style is pretty dense and fact laden - it reads like a Master's thesis - so is was a chore to work through, at times. The upside of this is to have a premise, which is so fraught with moral subjectivity, held up by exhaustive research and incontrovertible fact.
August 28, 2010
As someone who joined before DADT, lived through its implementation and then left the Army because I decided I wanted a personal life free of worry, concern and fear, I found this book interesting and informative of how the policy came out. I also know that cost first hand when two friends were kicked out because they dared love each other yet more than once I tried to remove a problem soldier and ran into brickwalls.
The first third of the book is a little on the dry side as the author discusses and dissects the origin/debate of DADT. The book takes a more human tone to it when he starts including stories of the impact that this policy had both on individuals and the military itself. The telling impact is towards the end when he starts comparing numbers: the number of gays removed from service verses the number of waivers granted for criminal conduct, drug usage, lower education, etc. Then one truly understands the impact.
The policy would have made a nice tranistion but when example after example is given how the branches themselves did not even bother with pretense of following the law and continued to kick people out, it is time to join the rest of the civilized world and relegate this to the history archives.
I highly recommend this one for anyone that has not served but need to understand the cost. I especially recommend this book for those that would oppose lifting the ban so that they truly understand.
The first third of the book is a little on the dry side as the author discusses and dissects the origin/debate of DADT. The book takes a more human tone to it when he starts including stories of the impact that this policy had both on individuals and the military itself. The telling impact is towards the end when he starts comparing numbers: the number of gays removed from service verses the number of waivers granted for criminal conduct, drug usage, lower education, etc. Then one truly understands the impact.
The policy would have made a nice tranistion but when example after example is given how the branches themselves did not even bother with pretense of following the law and continued to kick people out, it is time to join the rest of the civilized world and relegate this to the history archives.
I highly recommend this one for anyone that has not served but need to understand the cost. I especially recommend this book for those that would oppose lifting the ban so that they truly understand.
May 17, 2010
I'd heard good things about this book, and as far as the research and overall organization, it's a fantastic book. I was already opposed to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and this book gave me tons of hard data to back up my beliefs. That said, this is a biased book. About halfway through the book, it hit me that this book is great for preaching to the choir but is unlikely to convert many supporters of the ban. And that's a shame, because this book does make a strong case for the problems with the ban. The problem is that the author doesn't trust the facts and information presented to instill outrage. Rather, he follows up facts with his opinion of why something is outrageous. On the flip side, he rushed by some damning evidence without little hard analysis. This is a book that would have been well-served by some tough love editing as fewer opinions and adjectives and more trust in his audience to understand the facts presented would have made this a phenomenal book.
April 15, 2009
Was looking forward to reading this but found it heavy going. Reads more like a legal document. Was looking for more anecdotes. But still I would recommend it as it covers the issue and the injustice thoroughly.
June 8, 2010
I thought this was an important book. Don't ask/don't tell is a terrible policy and needs to be rescinded and this book provides a clear and convincing argument how it has hurt our military. My only real problem is that it gets pretty repetitive in places which slows it down.
May 2, 2009
Passionate, well written, heartbreaking at times, and filled with excellent rebuttals to direct towards opponents of gays in the military.
April 5, 2011
A fascinating and incredibly thorough history of the discriminatory law of DADT.
May 21, 2010
Well, it was informative almost to a fault. A bit too long and thus less powerful than it might have been.Make your point thoroughly but concisely.
July 5, 2010
A clear, thoughtful, rational argument against Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews