Brothers in arms: American soldiers fight side by side with openly gay British troops--punching holes in the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

In touting the benefits of a military victory over Saddam Hussein's regime, President Bush has cited such things as the potential for democracy in the Middle East and the elimination of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. But there is one unintended outcome of the conflict that neither the White House nor the Pentagon has anticipated: undermining the rationale for "don't ask, don't tell," the Bush-supported military policy regarding gay and lesbian service members.

During Operation Iraqi Freedom, U.S. and British military forces have collaborated more closely than they have since World War II. Coalition troops have mounted air attacks, run joint special operations, coordinated aerial bombardments and troop movements--in short, lived and died together. And since the United Kingdom ended its ban on gay and lesbian service members in January 2000, American troops are serving alongside openly gay British troops--or at least know that they could be. (A third major coalition partner, Australia, also allows gays and lesbians to serve openly.)

"This historic British and American military integration has obvious implications for 'don't ask, don't tell,'" says Aaron Belkin, director of the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California, Santa Barbara. "The argument has always been that serving alongside gays and lesbians would cause military cohesion to fall apart and place a burden on trust in the field. Clearly that's not happening on the battlefields of Iraq.'

Adds Simon Langley, media spokesman for the Armed Forces Gay and Lesbian Association, a British lobbying and support group: "In some cases the two services are working incredibly closely. We don't have any specific examples yet, but it's inevitable that in the conversations between American and British troops it will come up. The American guys know there are gay guys in the British military and that it doesn't affect anything. They have much bigger things on their minds than sexual orientation."

When "don't ask, don't tell" was adopted in 1993, the power to overturn the policy was transferred from the Pentagon to Congress. And with Republicans in the majority in both the House and Senate, it is unlikely there will be a serious initiative to change the policy before the 2004 election. But when the subject is next debated, the glaring difference between the British and American policies could force proponents of "don't ask, don't tell" to resort to political arguments about homosexuality rather than military efficacy.

"The policy is locked in at the congressional level," Belkin says. "We will wage our battle in the court of public opinion, and this is a key point that can be made to the American people--that there is no risk in allowing people to serve openly."

But Charles Moskos, professor of military sociology at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., and an architect of "don't ask, don't tell," says he doubts the British-American collaboration will have any major effect on the policy. "In talking to the Brits and the Dutch about their decisions to allow gay service members, I've found that few people are actually out in combat units," he says. "It's unlikely that in a time of war anyone would be willing to talk about their sexual orientation. If there were a substantial number, it could indeed change American views. People would say, 'Robert here, he's gay and he's a great soldier. He would lay down his life for me.' But in a hostile combat situation, that strikes me as highly unlikely."

Belkin disagrees. "Charlie Moskos doesn't tell the truth about the evidence," he says. "He made the same argument about Israel, and then we went over there and found that 20% of its gay service members are out. We don't have the same data about Britain, but I suspect that the numbers will be similar. Can anyone say that Israel's military is not a serious one?"

The British experience also could help Belkin in the court of public opinion. The British defense ministry initially opposed the change, which was made to bring the U.K. military in line with the rest of the European Union. But the ministry today says there has been little trouble integrating openly gay and straight troops. In a 2000 study it reported that there had been "widespread acceptance of the new policy" and "no reported difficulties of note concerning homophobic behavior" among service personnel.

In fact, the reaction to the change has been so positive that the Armed Forces Gay and Lesbian Association is now pushing for domestic-partner benefits for same-sex partners of military enlistees. "We don't see why gay service members should be treated differently when it comes to benefits," Langley says. "If they are going to fight to get rid of Saddam Hussein and liberate Iraq, the least the military can do is provide the things everyone else takes for granted."