Homosexuals in the military

“Despite differences, we are so close that
we anticipate each other’s next move in garrison and in combat.
Our ability to do our job is predicated on this kind of relationship.
If you were to add any element of sexual competition,
intra-unit sexuality or hesitance in trust,
it would unquestionably prevent those bonds from forming
or immediately destroy them if introduced.”
“If the law is changed,
successfully implementing repeal
and assimilating openly homosexual Marines
into the tightly woven fabric of our combat units
has strong potential for disruption at the small unit level,”

This document consists of a number of observations I have made
over a period of time, starting in early 2010.
The observations sometimes treat the same subject from different points of view,
in different ways, perhaps at different levels of abstraction.
I have not made the effort to reorganize material,
so there is some overlap between the observations.

Thought Experiments

A private
Suppose you were an Army private assigned to an infantry squad where
your squad leader and platoon leader were both openly gay.
They had each made comments
that you thought might be exploring a relation with you,
but were not so specific that you could definitively substantiate that.

Subsequently you received assignments that you viewed as
either more hazardous or more onerous than
those the other men in your squad received.
You suspected that this was retaliation
for your refusal of their possible advances,
but of course you couldn't prove that.

What would that do to your motivation level,
and your willingness to do
the arduous and dangerous tasks typically assigned to infantrymen?

[Published in original form on 2010-03-05 as
a response to an opinion column by Stephen Walt.]

A platoon leader
Suppose you are the platoon leader for an infantry platoon.
One of your men comes to you and claims that
his squad leader, who is openly gay, had propositioned him.
The private said he had turned the squad leader down,
and now the sergeant was retaliating by giving him punishment details,
ostensibly because the private was malingering,
but actually as retaliation.

You ask the sergeant about this.
He denies the accusation, saying that
the private had completely fabricated the tale of the proposition.
He agrees that the private has been given punitive details,
but they are not retaliation,
but because the private has indeed been malingering.

You ask various men in the squad about these accusations.
Some take the side of the private, saying he is being unduly punished.
Some take the side of the sergeant, saying the private deserves the added details.

The two men in conflict demand that you take appropriate action
(appropriate to their version of the story),
and each threatens to appeal to the company commander
if you do not do (what they view as) the right thing.

What do you do?
Under any of your alternative actions,
what does this do to the coherence of the squad and your platoon?

A homosexual squad leader

We are often told by
those who presume to speak for the homosexual community that
homosexuals are just like everyone else,
only they are sexually drawn to people of their sex
rather than the opposite sex.
Okay, for the sake of argument let’s accept that.
So let’s assume that homosexuals have
the same range of behaviors, drives, and thought processes
as heterosexuals.
Let’s see where that leads
if the U.S., as the homosexual lobby is so avidly seeking,
allows open homosexuals in all ranks and positions in the Army.

Suppose you are an unmarried, unattached homosexual squad leader
in an infantry platoon.
(FYI, a squad leader is nominally a Staff Sergeant, of pay-grade E-6.
I don’t have the exact figures, but I would guess
a typical squad leader has from five to ten years in service,
so is in his twenties.)

Let’s assume that one of the ten men in your squad,
someone a few years younger and lower in rank,
is sexually attractive to you.
You like how he looks, you like how he talks, you like how he walks.
(Hey, I’m just translating some classic ways in which
people have viewed people of the opposite sex
into the homosexual paradigm).
But he works for you,
you have power over him
which far exceeds anything customary in the civilian world,
to include, in a combat situation,
the power to expose him to exceptional risk
or to protect him from the risks
that you must assign to other men in your squad.

How do you reconcile your sexual attraction to him
with your overall duties to treat all your men fairly and exactly alike,
other than with regard to their range of abilities?

Now let’s make the situation more complex.
Let’s suppose that, while you are attracted to him,
he is attracted to one of the other men in your squad.
In other words, a classic triangle.
But with a not-so-classic twist:
You, as squad leader, have great power over each of them,
to make their lives more pleasant or less pleasant, more risky or less risky.
You even could play King David, and
send your romantic rival on a mission which is likely to result in his death.
Or perhaps you put him in an especially hazardous position.
In the infantry, there is the position called “Point”,
which is especially hazardous.

How do you deal with this situation?
Further, making the likely assumption that
all the men in your squad are acutely aware of what the situation is,
how do you maintain the appearance to your men of being scrupulously fair?

I think a key point is that
the Army has rarely had to deal with this situation before.
No doubt some soldiers, in the long history of the Army, were in fact gay,
and experienced these attractions.
But the very fact that
homosexuality was so disapproved, both by law and by custom, in the service
kept such situations from progressing very far.
If they did, the very fact that homosexuality was illegal
would have resulted in the parties being removed.

Some will say training is the answer,
but training can only go so far
when it conflicts with passion.

Command Authority and Sexual Desire

Historically, the command authority and sexual desire were two subjects
which were kept as far apart as possible.
The reasons for that should be obvious.

Perhaps the earliest known example where they came into conflict was
the triangle of King David, Bathsheba, and Uriah.
While that incident involved only heterosexuality,
it is all too easy to imagine similar episodes involving a homosexual triangle
involving a commander and his subordinates,
where the commander uses his control
of who is ordered to take the greatest risk
to advance, not the mission of his unit, but his own passions.

A discussion of the sort of problems
that arise from workplace romances in the civilian world is
When Cupid Strikes at the Cubicle”.
Do we really want to deal with
“When Cupid Strikes in the Foxhole” or “in the Barracks”?
God knows, I certainly don’t.
Apparently Admiral Mullen is either clueless or indifferent to these problems.

For a real-life example, see the case of Captain David Schnell, USN.
Only an idiot or a Democratic congressman would believe that
such cases will not explode if “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is repealed.
What say you, Senator Mark Warner?
Just how gay-friendly are you?
Does the inevitable increase in cases of sexual harassment if DADT is repealed
matter to you?

And if your answer to that question is
“We’ll just write regulations to prevent such from happening”,
are you aware of the problems of enforcing such regulations
and, in particular, of making the difficult judgment calls
as to where to draw the line between what is
acceptable versus unacceptable harassment, and
acceptable versus unacceptable friendliness,
when one of the two parties, in particular the superior one,
is sexually attracted to the other?

The bottom line is:

A vote to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is
a vote for sexual harassment,
and a vote for a weaker, more divided, less coherent military.

For more examples, see a 2010-09-17 Navy Times article.
I count six cases (Merrit, Weber, Reavey, Wilhelm, Schnell, Giese) of
Navy commanders being fired for “inappropriate personal behavior”, or equivalent,
in the first nine months of 2010 alone.
This is even without homosexuals serving openly.
If homosexuals are allowed to serve openly,
with the increase in the number of homosexuals that will certainly entail,
the number of such charges can only sharply increase.

A Sterile, Sexual-Desire-Free Environment

This is a relatively abstract approach to the subject.

The military traditionally has been a sterile, sexually-desire-free environment.
By that I mean an environment where
the possibility of sexual attraction between its members was virtually nil.
The reason for this was that, until feminists started pushing women into more and more parts of the military,
the military was composed mainly of heterosexual men,
who by definition would not find each other sexually attractive.
Of course, there always have been some women in the military,
as nurses and in some administrative positions
(secretaries, clerks, and in a well-known case, General Eisenhower’s driver).
But these women were generally outside of operational areas.
And so, in normal operations,
issues of intra-service sexual attraction would not arise.

The informal codes of conduct the military evolved
thoroughly reflected that fact.
Service members (heterosexual men) could
treat each other and speak to each other
without having to worry that
their actions and words might be misinterpreted.
This had both a positive and negative aspect.
Friendship, camaraderie, and bonding
could not be misinterpreted as leading to some sort of sexual relation.
(which in the military often amounts to a form of sanctioned harassment;
what else is it when a sergeant orders a recruit to
“Drop and give me ten”?)
could not be misinterpreted as retaliation for favors not granted.

[To be continued.]

Controlling the Debate, Muzzling the Military

Military personnel, in particular members of the officer corps,
heard that
they face reprimand or worse
if they go outside the official Pentagon review
of “don’t ask, don’t tell”
to publicly advocate maintaining the policy.
Gay rights groups [contend] that
most active-duty service members,
who are decades younger than many senior commanders,
do not passionately care one way or another
about overturning the ban or
serving with openly gay men and women.
“Military members simply are ready for
the repeal of the policy.

A new generation of members are leading the U.S. military forces
and that generation understands that
gay and lesbian military members are no different.”

What an un-American way to ensure that
the military can’t speak for themselves
about their concerns.
Instead, the gay lobbies tell the general public
what, supposedly, active duty service members think.
And if active duty service members dare to speak for themselves,
SecDef Robert “PC” Gates and JCS Chair “PC” Mullen lower the boom on them
telling them they are going outside of channels, advocating policy.
What an un-American conspiracy!

I guess this is the kind of info-war trick “PC” Gates learned well
back in his days as DCI.
No wonder so much of the world is pissed at Americans!

Continuing this line of concern,
consider the following paragraph,
excerpted from the news story 2010-03-26-NYT-Gates-Mullen-Mixon below:

The Pentagon study, expected by the end of the year,
will assess the views of service members, families and other relevant groups
on how lifting the ban should be carried out.
Mr. Gates said

the study was not to determine whether to repeal the law,
only how best to institute any repeal voted by Congress.

Where is the study to determine what the effects, both positive and negative,
of repealing the ban will be?
Does DoD leadership not care about what those effects will be?
Evidently not.

A good place to organize and coordinate such a study would be
the Army’s human relations organization.
I don’t know its current official title,
but I do know, from the time I was in the service in the 1970s,
that the Army cares very much about the human factors
which either make it or break it as an effective force,
and has devoted much attention to evaluating what effects that.
They really do care.
That is not to say that the Army is any bed of roses,
but when it is unpleasant, there is a good reason for that.

It is not at all clear how much of that Army-specific knowledge
is known at the level of Gates and Mullen.
It would appear that they care far more about pleasing the White House,
which in turn has been reported to be under heavy pressure from the homosexual community
which provided considerable support to its 2008 electoral victory,
than about the long-range effects of repealing this ban will be on the military.
After all, the problems repealing the ban will produce
will not become impossible to avoid noticing
until after Gates and Mullen have both moved on.

What seems fairly evident is that
Gates and Mullen are carefully trying to manage
what passes for a national debate,
to make sure that the views of
the soldiers who will be most affected by repealing the ban
do not become known, unfiltered, to the public at large.

What they should be doing is demanding a study, without political pressure,
to evaluate the effects of repealing the ban,
and then make the findings of that study available to Congress and the public,
without censorship,
so that the best decision can be made on what should be done.

Civilian/Military Differences

A frequent argument
from those advocating integration of homosexuals into the military is:

Why should the military be any different from mainstream society?
Homosexuals are everywhere, from schools to the civilian workforce.
Why not the military too?

Actually there are several good answers to this question
which rarely seem to get articulated.
Here are some that are readily apparent:

  • Supervisors in the military
    have far greater control over their subordinates

    than any situation in the civilian world I can think of,
    outside of prison.
    This control is part of the deliberate attempt to ensure
    unthinking obedience by subordinates
    to orders by their supervisors.
    The rationale for this, of course, is that in combat,
    which after all is the raison d’être for much of the military,
    that is necessary for effective action.
  • To reinforce this control,
    military supervisors have great power
    to impose punishment on their subordinates,

    often for reasons that less than crystal clear.
    Thus it may be difficult to distinguish
    punishment imposed for general insubordination
    from punishment imposed for
    not being sufficiently receptive to romantic or sexual overtures.
  • Orders imposed by supervisors may lead to
    consequences that are not merely unpleasant, but in fact fatal.
    Few civilian occupations of which I am aware
    involve the workforce placing itself at
    the risk of death that is present in combat.
  • The military is, for most, an inescapable, 24/7 environment,
    where work and non-work blur together.
    You are never far from your fellow servicemen,
    whether you are deployed in an Army unit or onboard a Navy ship.
  • The consequences of distraction.
    The possibility of romantic or even sexual relationships
    certainly can have a powerful effect on one’s thought processes,
    either positive, if it is a relation one desires, or negative, if not.
    In other words, it is a distraction from the routine of school or work.
    If one succumbs to this distraction (and who hasn’t?)
    one’s school or work performance will be affected.
    At school or work, the effect of that distraction
    will generally only be felt by the individual:
    a test not studied for,
    a work assignment not completed or inadequately completed
    will, in general, hurt no one but the individual.
    In the military, however, in many cases the entire unit is dependent on
    each person carrying out their assignments.
    Of course, in the military like everywhere else, there are goldbricks.
    But expanding the military to people who, by definition,
    are subject to being sexually attracted to each other,
    will only increase the amount of such poor performance,
    and thus reduce the effectiveness of the entire force.

A Stronger Military?

The argument is frequently made (e.g.) that
allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military
would lead to “a stronger military.”
The argument for this is dubious,
mainly that it would increase the pool of willing recruits.

On that issue, there is certainly room for argument.
While surely it would increase the number of homosexual servicepeople,
it ignores the number of people who would decline to serve
if the onerous conditions of military servitude were combined with
the possibility of having their working conditions defined by
people of the same sex whose motivations might be questioned.
In other words, the net effect on
the size of the able and willing pool for recruitment might be negative.
But let’s leave that issue aside.

There is another issue that
those claiming “homosexuals would make the military stronger” ignore.
The management issue.
Having open homosexuals serving with, often superior to,
servicepeople of the same sex
will open up a whole new range of issues to be dealt with.

For one, how to manage
the inevitable romances and assignations that will occur.
How much time will superiors have to spend
policing/chaperoning their subordinates?

Secondly, when things go bad,
sorting through charges of sexual harassment—
adjudicating and deciding whether such charges are valid.
(Several examples of such situations were given in
the section on “Thought Experiments.”)
How much management time will be spent on those issues?

Officers and senior NCOs have enough on their plate now,
enough mission-related things to worry about.
The last thing they need is
having to worry about the love lives of the people in their unit.
Yet this point the editors of the New York Times totally ignore.
Which just goes to prove what an unreliable and biased opinion page
is that of the Times.

Politicizing the Military

'Don't ask, don't tell' law's expected repeal
creates strange state of limbo

By Greg Jaffe
Washington Post, 2010-06-13


President Obama,
set to name a new Marine Corps commandant in the coming weeks,
is likely to face significant pressure to select someone
who is not too outspoken in his opposition to repealing the law.
All of the candidates being considered for the job
have expressed reservations about repeal during wartime,

according to senior U.S. officials familiar with the process.

[What a travesty!
The job of commandant of the Marine Corps
should not be held hostage to political litmus tests.
If it is, what a filthy Democratic Party we have.

And think of what that implies:
If the top job is politicized in that fashion,
so that only people judged “homo-friendly” are eligible,
then it is inevitable that the same politicization
will spread down through the whole chain of command.
The commandant will only select “homo-friendly” generals for the key positions,
the same will apply to promotion boards, and so forth.
The criteria will no longer be who has the best warrior spirit,
who can most effectively lead an effective fighting force,
but rather,
who will be acceptable to the homos.

What a disgrace to the nation.

And don’t give me that hackneyed line that
“Whatever Israel does is good for America too.”]

Countering the arguments of the homosexual lobby

“Gay and lesbian military members are no different.”

According to Wikipedia,
homosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction or behavior
among members of the same sex/gender.

What that means is that when a male homosexual
becomes fireteam leader, squad leader, or platoon leader,
or assumes any higher-level infantry command,
he will be subject to romantic or sexual attraction
towards the members of his unit,
whereas a heterosexual male would not.
Of course homosexuals are not attracted to all men,
just as heterosexuals are not attracted to all women.
But a 24-year-old platoon leader, for example, is almost sure to find
some of the 40 or so men in his platoon attractive to him,
simply by the law of averages.

This is a big difference,
for him and for all the men in his platoon,
both those to whom he is attracted and those who have no effect on him.

“The military successfully integrated blacks
into a segregated service;
integrating gays will be no harder.”

One of the main tools to accomplish the integration of blacks
was driving in the message
The only color in the Army is green”.
The message was that color didn’t matter,
that all were equal in the Army.
This was, I think, a quite successful technique.

How can that be imitated with homosexuals?
“We’re all hermaphrodites”?
“We’re all transsexuals”?
“We’re all unisexuals”?
“We’re all asexual”?
Sorry, homos, I don’t think anyone is going to forget
who they are attracted to.

The difference is this:
The fact that
some servicemembers are white and some are black
makes no difference whatsoever to anything military.
The fact that
an increasing number of servicemembers will be sexually attracted to each other
is going to make a big difference.

Cupid at West Point

In April 2010 I pointed out that the issues mentioned in
the New York Times article “When Cupid Strikes at the Cubicle
would no doubt also apply to the military.
Now comes the August 2010 New York Times article
At West Point, Hidden Gay Cadets Put in Spotlight”.

This article can be read in two ways, from two different perspectives.

One may suspect that most liberal, PC readers will read it as
yet another tale of the
clueless, backward, reactionary, Neanderthal, patriarchal, homophobic
power structure
standing in the way of progress, rationality, true love, self-actualization,
and all the other trendy concepts of the day.
Oh those backward generals!
Why don’t they just come into the twenty-first century!

On the other hand, some readers who have familiarity with
the unique goals and problems of getting a group of people on the same page
to carry out the awfully difficult and stressful
(have you read how many combat troops have been committing suicide?)
tasks people who enter into combat must perform
will observe how the relationships described in the article
will make that far more difficult.

In other words, people who have absolutely zero knowledge
of what the military has to do to accomplish its mission
will naturally generalize from their own individual experience,
and thus quite rightly see the opposition to letting homosexuals in
as being purely reactionary.
On the other hand, most (but not all) of those who do have knowledge
will be aware of the problems it will introduce,
and thus oppose letting homosexuals in,
with passion about equal to their opponents,
but with far fewer supporters in the media.
It is this imbalance in how the media presents the issue
that explains most of the discrepancy when polling the general public.

Some excerpts from the article:
Trying to divine other lesbians takes “really finely tuned gaydar,”
said another lesbian cadet....
There are code words and test phrases:
“Are you family?” refers to inclusion in the lesbian sisterhood.
Or cadets might throw out references to the television show “The L Word”
to gauge the response.
Let’s be clear:
One of the prime goals in developing an effective military is to avoid
the development of cliques within the military.
Such cliques are corrosive to morale
for, among other reasons, they may, and often will,
work to advance members of the clique.
Will a lesbian rating officer give higher ratings to lesbians she rates
as opposed to ordinary officers,
not to mention deliberately downgrading
those she suspects of being anti-lesbian?
Of course.
In other words, the whole rating scheme, at both officer and enlisted grades,
will be skewed by membership or non-membership in the clique.
And, of course, the same can be expected for male homosexuals.

The regulatory quagmire

No doubt the “elite” will attempt
to forestall problems with intra-service sexual activity
by writing a slew of regulations.

These regulations will be impossible to enforce in practice,
and will drive those attempting to implement them nuts
by the range of gray areas in terms of what actually is proscribed.

The result will be nothing but frustration
for those attempting to keep sexual activity from
interfering with good order and discipline.
And the “elite”, rather than blaming themselves for
imposing this unworkable arrangement on an unwilling military
(aside from the great advocate of political correctness, Admiral Mullen),
will blame the resulting fiasco on poor implementation.

The inadequacy of regulations

Whatever regulations get written, they won’t address the most basic issue.
Regulations can only address conduct, not thought, and not desire.

The overwhelming bias of editorial boards

Five myths about 'don't ask, don't tell'
By Aaron Belkin [director of the Palm Center !]
Washington Post Outlook, 2010-09-19

Why are the Marines the military's biggest backers of 'don't ask, don't tell'?
By Tammy S. Schultz [an open lesbian]
Washington Post Outlook, 2010-11-21

Sexuality doesn't matter on the battlefield
By Nathan Cox
Washington Post Op-Ed, 2010-12-16

[Another example of loading the op-ed pages.
A sample:]

In my experience, the things that separate Marines in civilian life fade into obscurity on the battlefield. There, only one thing matters: Can you do your job?
[How about how much you fellow Marines trust you?]
People care much more about whom you voted for or what city you're from while on the huge airbase with five Burger Kings, or back in the States, than they do when they're walking down a dusty road full of improvised explosive devices in Haditha or Sangin.

In the end, Marines in combat will treat sexual orientation the same way they treat race, religion and one's stance on the likelihood of the Patriots winning another Super Bowl.

Don’t Stay the ‘Don’t Ask’ Ruling
New York Times Editorial, 2010-10-17

Congress must repeal 'don't ask, don't tell'
Washington Post Editorial, 2010-10-16

[A sentence from the editorial:]

The country cannot afford to turn away
qualified individuals who are willing to serve,

especially in the midst of two wars.

[A reasonable response would be as follows:]

The country cannot afford to have its front-line troops,
carrying out the most dangerous possible assignments
under the most difficult conditions,
wondering whether the orders and discipline
imposed on them by a homosexual commander
are mission essential
or intended to influence them into a relationship.

[The media has ceaselessly made us aware of the following:
Heterosexual men having power over women
are a constant threat to abuse that power for sexual advantage.
But they go totally silent on the possibility of homosexual men
doing the same to other men.

Here are two more recent examples of overwhelming editorial board bias:
A Last Chance to Make History
New York Times Editorial, 2010-12-14

[A sample of the NYT’s dissembling on this subject:]

“Any lawmakers still on the fence should listen closely to
all of the military leaders who say
this discriminatory policy drives out far too many talented,
and expensively trained service members.”

[All of the military leaders?????
The response to military surveys shows that
many of the nation’s combat forces will leave in droves
if they have to worry about the motives of their superiors and colleagues.
The last thing they want is to worry about the motives for that superiors orders.
What intellectual trash the editorial boards, and the homosexual activists, are
that they cannot recognize the legitimacy of that reason
for supporting the continuation of DADT.]

Senate: Repeal 'don't ask, don't tell' before adjourning
Washington Post, 2010-12-10

The prison rape report and the DOJ reaction

“A tolerance of rape
Why is the Justice Department dragging its feet?”
Washington Post Editorial, 2010-08-30

“THIS IS SOMETHING that I think needs to be done,
not tomorrow, but yesterday.”

Those were the words of Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in March
to a House subcommittee on the subject of preventing sexual abuse in prison.
Five months have passed since then,
and two have passed since the June 23 deadline for Mr. Holder to approve
the guidelines set forth by the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission.
His “yesterday” is long past.

A report released Thursday by the Bureau of Justice Statistics
found that the situation remains grim.
The bureau estimates that
at least 88,500 adults were sexually abused in U.S. prisons and jails
in the past year.
This number represents 4.4 percent of prison inmates
and 3.1 percent of those in jail
but fails to include assaults on minors,
which a January survey suggested was more than 12 percent -- one in eight.
And the statistics fail to portray the human toll of each day
that standards are not enacted to prevent sexual assault behind bars.

Kendell Spruce testified that, when he went to jail,
“I was 28 years old, I weighed 123 pounds and I was scared to death.”
The next nine months of prison were a nightmare:
He was brutally beaten, raped at knifepoint and sexually victimized by
at least 27 inmates.
“I went through nine months of torture -- nine months of hell --
that could have been avoided,” Mr. Spruce said.
In the midst of his ordeal, he discovered that he had become HIV-positive.
“I felt ashamed, embarrassed, degraded and humiliated.
I haven’t forgotten those feelings. You never forget.”

Since 95 percent of those behind bars
will eventually return to their communities,
this is not an isolated problem.
Those who suffer sexual assault while incarcerated emerge with lasting traumas
that make an already rocky transition to civil life even more difficult,
taxing families and support structures.

So what has happened to Mr. Holder’s sense of urgency?

The Justice Department insists that it wants to take the time to do this right.
But after a point, additional time results in only additional harm. The congressionally mandated National Prison Rape Elimination Commission spent multiple years looking into this issue, listening to expert testimony, examining best practices and producing a limited array of common-sense recommendations. It is difficult to understand why none of these recommendations are in place.

Such standards are badly needed. In the continuation of a prior trend, more prison and jail inmates experienced sexual misconduct by staff -- 2.8 percent and 2.0 percent, respectively -- than inmate-on-inmate sexual assaults -- 2.1 percent and 1.5 percent. That those charged with protecting the safety of men and women behind bars should be the ones to violate their dignity is especially heinous. And without standards, those corrections officers who are doing the right thing and seek to halt or punish this behavior have a far harder task.

We are sympathetic to the challenges of overcrowding and lack of funds that confront corrections facilities. But the commission took these financial straits into account. And some of its recommendations are so basic that the fact that they still have not been implemented is nothing short of a travesty, including taking risk factors into account when deciding where to place inmates and instituting a zero-tolerance policy for rape. During its research, the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission found that the key to reducing the incidence of sexual assault behind bars was committed management. Where this is present, creative solutions can be found and financial challenges overcome. Where it is not, no amount of funding will fix the problem.

The otherwise grim report offered a bright spot: Twenty-eight of the nation’s 286 jails and six of its 167 prisons had no reported incidents of sexual victimization. It is possible: Rape is not part of the penalty those behind bars must pay to society. In the time that the Justice Department is wasting in rehashing the commission’s work, more incarcerated men, women and juveniles will become victims of sexual assault. They shouldn’t have to.

[As the Post asked,
what has happened to Mr. Holder’s sense of urgency?
My brief scan of the news on Google gives no answer
to that very pertinent question.
So let me, purely speculatively, propose a possible answer.

Publicizing the problem of same-sex sexual aggression
among people deprived of their normal access to people of the opposite sex
is perhaps not the right thought to be put before the public
before Congress votes on
whether to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military.
Doesn’t help the image of all homosexuals as choir boys or angels (in America).
Better, for those favoring repeal of DADT,
to put this issue in the public view
after Congress makes a decision.

I have absolutely no evidence that that is the reason for DOJ’s delay.
But it certainly is plausible,
considering how many like to stage-manage atmospherics.]

Other militaries

The argument is frequently made by the homo lobby that
other militaries succeed with gays in them, so why not the United States?
The example frequently given is the Israeli military, the IDF,
no doubt because so many of those advocating for homosexuals in the military
idolize that particular nation and its military.

Well, my opinion, for whatever it is worth
(and I am definitely not the reincarnation of Martin van Crevald :-),
is that the IDF has not faced a serious peer challenger
except in the 1973 Yom Kippur War,
when it indeed was surprised and almost defeated,
but saved by President Nixon's (you know, the president the Jews love to hate)
last minute arms shipments to Israel.
In particular, its constabulary duties in Lebanon and the West Bank
seem little different from what Britain faced in Northern Ireland:
suppressing a rebellious but unequipped and untrained population separated by religion and culture from the occupying authority.
But that's just my opinion, from an observer but not a professional.

There is one professional soldier and veteran Middle East analyst
who has made a similar, I believe, observation, viz;
“The IDF is not a first rate army.
What they do is irrelevant.
They have no expeditionary or power projection capability
and very little ability to sustain themselves in the field
for more than a couple of weeks.
They are a militia army that has no professional NCO corps.
They have never fought anyone serious except Jordan
and in 1967 only the IAF enabled their victory.”

-- Patrick Lang

I believe Col Lang misspoke
when he described Jordan as their principal opponent in 1967;
surely that was Egypt.
Also in omitting the 1973 war.
But the thrust of his observation seems sound.


On the thought experiments

There is no end to the variations on
the situations described in those thought experiments.
An endless array of challenges and contradictions will be generated
if homosexuals are allowed to serve openly.
There are endless stories, in both fact and fiction,
where men and women have been torn between doing
what was good for their organization or family and
what their passions commanded them to do.
Both literature and movie and television plots are full of such conflicts
(they are a mainstay, for example, of the soap operas).
As long as the military consisted only of heterosexual men,
such conflicts could never strike military leaders.
But if homosexuals become leaders,
it is inevitable (they are only human, after all)
that such conflicts will arise.
Do we really want for the military to be liable to become
a subject for a soap opera?
(“The Young and The Aggressive”, say?
“As The War Turns”? (watch how you pronounce that next to last word :-)
“The Bold and the Libidinous”?).
God know, I certainly don’t.

That Gates and Mullen are plowing ahead without regard for such dangers
only proves their fecklessness and willingness to put their personal careers
(success in politically correct Washington)
ahead of the well-being of the military.

Flag and General Officers Speak Out

Flag and General Officers for the Military go on record on this subject:

This is a list of
1,152 distinguished retired military leaders from all branches of the service
who have shown their support for the 1993 law
with personal signatures requested and received by regular mail.
The list includes
two former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
several Service Chiefs,
a number of combatant command, theater,
and other major U.S. and allied force commanders,
together with two Medal of Honor recipients and
hundreds of retired flag and general officers
who have led the men and women of our armed services
at every echelon, in both peace and war, past and present.”

Sounds like a group of people whose views should be well-publicized.
notice how the articles, columns, and editorials in our homo-dominated media,
while they report the views and one-sided presentations
of the homo advocacy groups ad nauseum,
manage to almost totally ignore the views of
these patriotic, knowledgeable, and distinguished men and women
who have given much of their lives in the service of their country.
How disgusting! (But how typical of the media’s PC distortion machine.)

The flag and general officers write:

“Our past experience as military leaders
leads us to be greatly concerned about the impact of repeal [of the law]
on morale, discipline, unit cohesion, and overall military readiness.
We believe that imposing this burden on our men and women in uniform
would undermine recruiting and retention,
impact leadership at all levels,
have adverse effects on the willingness of parents
who lend their sons and daughters to military service,
and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force.”

Note also the very helpful Issue Overview they have written,
raising detailed concerns to which the media normally give short shrift.


For some reason the most powerful arguments
for maintaining a ban on homosexuals in the military,
rarely seem to be explicitly made in the MSM.
I’d like to give here some reasons, such as they are, for continuing that ban.

They stem from my personal experience and knowledge of how the military,
more specifically the Army, works,
or at least did work when I went through Army ROTC in the mid 1960s
and served on active duty in the mid 1970s
(the intervening years were (conveniently) spent in graduate school).

At least back then, the pillar of the Army,
at least that part of it prepared to engage in combat,
was instilling in all its members the absolute willingness to obey orders.
The Army is, or at least was,
the ultimate authoritarian, top-down, hierarchical organization.
It was instilled in you that

“The CO (commanding officer) might be
the sorriest son-of-a-bitch that ever walked the face of the earth,
but, by God, you did what he said.”

At least in combat, obeying orders, without question, was a requirement.

In such a work environment,
it is important that the commander’s motives be beyond question.
He may be less than brilliant (some always will be),
but at least soldiers should have the right (I believe) to know that
his motives are not tainted by personal desires.

But what if your superior (say fireteam leader, squad leader, platoon leader)
is openly homosexual?
What are his motives?

Here is a hypothetical example, drawn from small-unit infantry tactics.
The basic tactic for infantry assault is, or at least was, called
Fire and Maneuver.”
To illustrate, note that an infantry squad consists of eleven men:
one squad leader and two five-man fireteams.
In an assault, one fireteam will normally take a covered position
and lay down a base of fire on the enemy position,
hoping that will force the defenders to keep their heads down.
While this covering fire is going on,
the other fireteam will advance to a new position,
from which they can in turn lay down a base of fire
to permit the other fireteam to advance.
That’s how it’s supposed to work, in theory.
(Cf. FM 7-8.)

Now, suppose that you are the leader of one fireteam,
working for a homosexual squad leader.
Let us suppose that the leader of the other fireteam
is an exceptionally attractive male,
in whom the squad leader, in social settings, has shown an obvious interest
(nothing specific, nothing reportable, just an interest).
Let us further suppose that in combat situations,
it appears to you that the squad leader
places you and your fireteam in more vulnerable situations
than the other fireteam.
It is almost as if he is trying to protect the other leader.
What will that do to your willingness to take risks?
The word some would use for that situation is “corrosive.”

Yes, I know that the opportunity for leaders and commanders
to play favorites, to exhibit favoritism, has always existed.
I know further that there is a big difference between
perceived favoritism and real favoritism.
But my point is that having homosexual leaders or commanders
simply, and unarguably opens the door, admits the possibility, of
new motivations for favoritism
that simply did not exist in a totally heterosexual unisex environment.


Comment added on 2015-05-10 to Stephen M. Walt post

The person who doesn't know what he is talking about is clearly Professor Walt.
Making the military more accessible to homosexuals clearly increases
the very real and significant concerns that the military must have
about preventing the predations of people like Joey Poindexter, the "Beer Pong rapist."
When the mere fact of homosexuality kept homosexuals from serving in the military,
the threat of same-sex predation was nil.
With homosexuals all but welcomed by today's military (Gay Pride in the military ?),
the military now must be distracted by the need to protect troops from the threat of predation.
A colossal distraction; note various service chiefs of staff have said preventing sexual abuse in their services
is now their number one priority, not having the most effective military.
Homosexuals and women (in greatly expanded numbers and areas) may very well create more problems than they solve.

A question

How much has the military officer corps been influenced by
the behind-the-scene manipulations of Rumsfeld’s Stephen F. Herbits?

News Coverage


Outrage Grows Over Pace's Anti-Gay Remark
by Guy Raz
NPR, 2007-03-13

Congressional Democrats and gay advocacy groups
are calling for an apology from the military’s top officer, Gen. Peter Pace,
who said homosexuality is “immoral”
and that the behavior should not be condoned by the military.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff made his comments
while speaking to The Chicago Tribune editorial board.

There has been a lot of talk recently,
in both military and civilian circles,
over whether the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy
is anachronistic, or out of step with the times.

In audiotapes released by the Tribune,
Pace said he didn’t think so.

“From that standpoint,” he said,
“saying gays should serve openly in the military, to me, says that,
by policy, we’d be condoning what I believe to be immoral activity.”

In an interview with the Pentagon’s own television channel Tuesday,
Defense Secretary Robert Gates distanced himself from Pace’s comments.

“I think personal opinion doesn’t really have a place here,” Gates said.

Senior Pentagon officials privately said
the defense secretary summoned Pace to his office
after the comments came to light,
and demanded he put out a statement.

Pace released a statement — not an apology, but regret, he said,
for expressing his personal views on morality.

No Apology From Gen. Pace for Gay Stance
The Associated Press, The Washington Post, 2007-03-14

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon’s top general said Tuesday he should not have voiced his personal view that homosexuality is immoral and should have just stated his support for the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in an interview that has drawn criticism from lawmakers and gay-rights groups.

The written statement by Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not apologize for his stance on homosexuality. In a newspaper interview Monday, Pace likened homosexual acts to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces.

After a flurry of condemnation Tuesday, Pace issued a statement acknowledging that the Defense Department’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays is a sensitive subject and said: “I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views.”

“We need the most talented people; we need the language skills.
We need patriotic Americans who exist across the board in our population,”
said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
“We don’t need moral judgment from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.”

[Note that Pelosi does not mention the fact that
having homosexual superiors
introduces not only the possibility, but given knowledge of other situations,
the certainty that
the change she advocates will result in
heterosexual subordinates being subjected to sexual harassment, or worse,
from homosexual superiors.]

Gen. Pace to Step Down as Chairman of Joint Chiefs
NPR, 2007-06-08


CMR Charts Results of Proposed “LGBT Law” for the Military
Center for Military Readiness, 2010-01-18

This is an excellent exposition of some of the likely consequences
which are, naturally, ignored by the pro-homo MSM.

President Obama and "Don't Ask, Don't tell."
by Patrick Lang
Sic Semper Tyrannis, 2010-02-02

[Emphasis is added.]

I wonder if Obama realized how difficult it will be
to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the US military
and to legalize their sexual practices in the context of the US armed forces.

A few observations:


- Gates and his sidekick Mullen announced today before the senate that
they will collect data over the next year to inform them of
the impact that the legalization of homosexual behavior
will have on the armed forces.
At the same time they announced as had the president
their unequivocal support for the legalization.
Senators asked how they thought that they would collect valid data
after they and Obama have announced
their own decisions to achieve this change.
Clearly the data should be
collected and analysed by Congress on an anonymous basis.

- A senator asked what kinds of relationships and behavior
would be accepted by DoD under this new policy.
For example, if a group of homosexual service members
want a set of military married quarters in which to live as a “community”
(perhaps with civilians),
would that be acceptable?
Would the former lovers of service members be entitled to
permanent family member benefits paid for by the services
as are heterosexual married survivors today?
How about participation in uniform or some costume in Gay Pride Day parades?

- Present American military law (UCMJ)
establishes restrictions on sexual behavior for service members.
Adultery, for example, is illegal.
So is polygamy or polyandry.
If legal restrictions on
unmarried (or married) homosexual behaviors and relationships are removed,
will it not be necessary in fairness to remove all such restrictions.
Will “anything go?”

Many will say that is all to the good. Perhaps it is. Perhaps it is not.
I am representative of my generation.
There were then, as there are now, many homosexuals in the military.
It was expected that they would keep their sex lives a private matter.
I have no idea what the actual attitudes are now towards homosexuals
in the population from which our soldiers are actually recruited
as opposed to Obama’s “supporter world.”
Will this change lead to a falling off of recruiting
among those actually willing to serve?
Will the armed forces become heavily homosexual
as a result of the creation of a “protected minority” status for them?
Those who have served know that in the past
homosexuals have tended to “colonize” units and ships that they favored.

It is a mistake to think of armies as
analogs of communities like college campuses.

Obama will learn that.

Top Defense Officials Seek to End ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
New York Times, 2010-02-03


The nation’s top two defense officials called Tuesday for an end to the 16-year-old “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, a major step toward allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the United States military for the first time.

“No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens,” Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

As a murmur swept through a hearing room packed with gay rights leaders, Admiral Mullen said it was his personal belief that “allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do.”

He is the first sitting chairman of the Joint Chiefs to support a repeal of the policy, and his forceful expression of his views seemed to catch not only gay rights leaders but also Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is the committee’s chairman, by surprise.

Mr. Levin, who has long supported ending the law, told Admiral Mullen that his testimony was “eloquent” and praised him for leading on the issue.


Mullen deserves medal for Senate testimony backing open military service by gays
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Opinion, 2010-02-03

Mike Mullen’s 42 years in the military earned him a chest full of ribbons,
but never did he do something braver
than what he did on Capitol Hill on Tuesday.

[That may well be true.
But if so, it only shows how Admiral Mullen never confronted a fearful situation.]

In a packed committee room, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff looked hostile Republican senators in the eye and told them unwelcome news: He thinks gays should be allowed to serve openly in the armed forces he commands.


Gay Troops and the Trouble With Polls
by Nathanial Frank
palmcenter.org, 2010-02-13


[S]o long as rightwing obstructionists try anything
to revive the unit cohesion argument,
the question of whether straight troops can serve effectively with known gays
will remain in play.
If we have to face that question, let’s do it right:
the issue is not the personal preferences of enlisted men and women-
as we’ve been told for years (usually by homophobes implying that
gays are the very essence of personal pleasure run amok),
the military is not about individual desires,
but about what’s good for the mission.
And firing badly-needed Arabic translators because they’re gay while we’re fighting two wars
is not good for the mission.
The relevant questions, if they have to be asked,
are not whether the troops want to serve with gays, but
whether they are capable of doing so;
whether they know gays in their units;
whether such knowledge has ever impaired overall cohesion; and
whether they are in need of specific training to help them get over themselves
if they have trouble working with people who are different from them
(this would not be sensitivity training,
which research has shown to backfire;
it would be simple training guidelines that communicate
the nature and purpose of any new policy that’s implemented).


Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Change
By General (ret.) MERRILL A. McPEAK
New York Times, 2010-03-05

[I would like to thank
the New York Times
for publishing this on their op-ed page
(especially in such a prominent position).]


The second major argument for allowing openly gay service is that
it’s a matter of civil rights, akin to racial integration.
This view must rest on
the notion that serving in the armed forces is a job like any other,
and therefore civilian anti-discrimination laws should apply.
While it may seem hopelessly idealistic,
my view is that serving in uniform amounts to a calling,
different in many ways from other jobs.
(One of the ways is that your employer can order you to risk your life.)

But let’s limit ourselves to practical considerations.
The services exclude, without challenge,
many categories of prospective entrants.
People cannot serve in uniform if they are
too old or too young, too fat or too thin, too tall or too short,
disabled, not sufficiently educated and so on.
This, too, might be illegal in the civil sector.
So why should exclusion of gay people rise to the status of a civil-rights issue,
when denying entry to, say,
unmarried individuals with sole custody of dependents under 18,
does not?

There is also some misunderstanding about
President Harry Truman’s executive order of 1948,
calling for equality in the armed forces,
which is often cited as a model that President Obama should follow.
No doubt Truman’s action was a landmark in the civil rights struggle.
However, the order was not actually sufficient inducement
for the armed forces to do the right thing.

At the time, the Air Force had prepared itself for racial integration
and its leadership pushed hard to make it work.
As a consequence, the integration of blacks in the Air Force
is one of the great success stories of the civil rights movement.

The Army and Navy, however, were models of passive resistance.
The Air Force had nearly completed integration before the Army really started.
Technically, Truman’s order made no reference to ending segregation,
speaking only of equality of opportunity and treatment
regardless of “race, color, religion or national origin.”
And the Army, at first, argued it was in full compliance.
Its subsequent integration was largely forced on it
by combat losses in all-white units during the first months of the Korean War.
The Navy continued much of its policy of tokenism into the 1960s,
with a black steward corps still waiting tables 10 years after the executive order.

Harry Truman did not simply pass his hand over the Pentagon
and bring about racial justice.
Only after the leaders of each service committed their institutions
did we make real progress.

Thus allowing an openly gay presence in ranks will be very difficult
until we have committed leadership for it.
I certainly had trouble figuring out how to provide such leadership in 1993.
While I believed all people are created equal,
I did not believe such equality extended to all ideas or all cultures.
And since I didn’t know how to advocate
the assimilation of this particular form of diversity,
I saw no way to prevent it from undermining unit cohesion.

LAST, and most frequently heard, is the seemingly businesslike argument that
what’s important is an individual’s performance.
Hundreds of service members are mustered out annually
for failing to stay closeted,
regardless of job performance.
Indeed, we seem to have here an odd exception to the American idea that
people should be judged by their actions rather than their makeup.

But it would be a serious mistake to imagine that
personal performance is what matters in combat.

Combat is not a contest between individuals,
like poker or tennis;
it is a team event
whose success depends on group cooperation and morale.
the behavior that concerns us is not individual achievement
but the social dynamics of relationships and groups.

The issue is whether and how
the presence of openly declared homosexuals in the ranks
affects the solidarity of the unit.

We have already seen the fault lines form in the current debate:
the individual service chiefs have expressed
reservations about Admiral Mullen’s views.
This lack of cohesion will likely make the Joint Chiefs less effective
in the latest round of this debate.

Armies have to care about what succeeds in war.
Sometimes they win or lose because of material factors,
because one side has the greater numbers or better equipment.
But armies are sure to lose if they pay no attention to
the ideas that succeed in battle.
Unit cohesion is one such idea.
We know, or ought to, that warriors are inspired
by male bonding, by comradeship,
by the knowledge that they survive only through relying on each other.
To undermine cohesion is to endanger everyone.

I know some will see these ingredients of the military lifestyle
as a sort of absurd, tough-guy game played by overgrown boys.
But to prepare warriors for a life of hardship,
the military must remain a kind of adventure,
apart from the civilian world and full of strange customs.
To be a fighter pilot or a paratrooper or a submariner
is to join a self-contained, resolutely idealistic society,
largely unnoticed and surprisingly uncorrupted by the world at large.

I do not see how permitting open homosexuality in these communities
enhances their prospects of success in battle.
Indeed, I believe
repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” will weaken the warrior culture
at a time when we have a fight on our hands.

Merrill A. McPeak was the Air Force chief of staff from 1990 to 1994.

Benedict’s Fragile Church
New York Times Op-Ed, 2010-03-23

[This essay is not directly about homosexuals serving in the military,
but it most certainly points out the types of problems that will be introduced.]


So far the church is benefiting from the breadth of sexual abuse scandals.
Victims are also coming forward
from Protestant institutions,
from secular boarding schools and elite academies,
from children’s homes.
Many critics argue that

any closed institution
where male educators have charge of male children
runs the risk of sexual abuse.

Conservative Catholic bishops go further, saying that
the sexual abuse committed by their priests is a general social problem,
traceable not to the church but to the sexualization of society,
to the zeitgeist, to the sins of the 1968 generation.
The truth, they suggest, was that
the evil had struck in all sectors of society.
Others have warned of the dangers of a witch hunt,
and some have even highlighted a new form of political correctness.

But the figures available so far show that
the problem is especially severe in the Catholic Church.
Alois Glück, president of the Central Committee of German Catholics,
has urged consideration of
the “church-specific conditions that favor sexual abuse,”
which many have taken as a call for the church to reconsider
the matter of its priests’ celibacy.


[It seems nothing but a dereliction of duty that
our most senior military officer did not even mention this issue
when he first informed Congress that he favored repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
(And don’t fool yourself, or let the homosexual lobby deceive you,
into thinking that
male-on-male sexual aggression only occurs between adults and children.)
Is he oblivious to it?
He said:
“No matter how I look at the issue,
I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place
a policy which forces young men and women
to lie about who they are
in order to defend their fellow citizens.”
How touching.
What about the heterosexuals who will suffer abuse due to his decision?]

Pentagon restricts evidence that can be used against gays in military
By Craig Whitlock
Washington Post, 2010-03-26


Gates and Mullen
“have been very clear to folks up and down the chain of command that
the focus is on ending ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ ”
said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which represents gays facing expulsion.


Gates asked Pentagon lawyers last summer
to review whether the Defense Department
had the legal discretion to enforce “don’t ask, don’t tell” more loosely.
The process stalled until President Obama urged Congress to repeal the law
in his Jan. 27 State of the Union address.

Afterward, Gates asked his lawyers to reexamine the issue,
and that culminated in Thursday’s announcement.


Gates has assigned
Gen. Carter F. Ham, the commander of the U.S. Army Europe, and
Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon’s chief legal counsel,
to come up with a plan by Dec. 1 for integrating gays into the armed services.
The issues they will have to sort out include
same-sex marriage and barracks co-habitation


The issue remains sensitive among the military brass.
Some generals and admirals have said they are against any changes.
But few have been willing to openly contradict Mullen,
the nation’s highest-ranking military officer,
who told the Senate in February that
repealing the law would be “the right thing to do.”

An exception has been
Lt. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon
[Google, news.google],
the commander of the U.S. Army Pacific.
In a letter this month
to Stars and Stripes,
a newspaper that covers military affairs,
he said that
ending “don’t ask, don’t tell”
would be “ill-advised.”
He urged service members
and their families
to lobby their elected officials
against any changes.

That last part apparently crossed the line with Mullen, who said Thursday that
if officers feel so strongly that they cannot abide by policy changes,
“the answer is not advocacy. It is in fact to vote with your feet.”

Asked if he thought Mixon should resign, Mullen told reporters,
“That’s a decision that would certainly be up to him.”

A Military Downgrading of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
New York Times, 2010-03-26

Two distinct messages could be heard after Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced new measures on Thursday
to make it more difficult for the military
to discharge openly gay men and lesbians.

Political activists who support
President Obama’s call for Congress to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy
heard of the interim steps and offered full support —
even though they criticized the administration as having taken too long.

Military personnel, in particular members of the officer corps,
heard that they face reprimand or worse
if they go outside the official Pentagon review of “don’t ask, don’t tell”
to publicly advocate maintaining the policy.

Both Mr. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
criticized a three-star general in command of Army forces in the Pacific
for urging those who support the ban
to write their elected officials and lobby their unit’s leaders.


“If those of us who are in favor of retaining the current policy
do not speak up,
there is no chance to retain the current policy,”

the commander, Lt. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon,
wrote in a letter published March 8 in Stars and Stripes.

Mr. Gates made his frustration clear.
“I think that for an active-duty officer to comment on an issue like this
is inappropriate,”
he said at a news conference.

Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen have said that
all service members who wish to express an opinion on the ban
will have an opportunity through channels during the Pentagon review.

[Wait a minute.
Just below Gates is quoted as saying that the study is not on
whether to ban should be repealed.
If that is so, when do servicemen get to point out,
to both their superiors and to the general public
what they think will be the problems if the ban does get repealed?
Does not the public have the right to know what servicemen think?
I, if nothing else, am certainly a part of the general public.
And I would very much like to know what servicemen think on this subject.

Further, about this “going through channels” bit.
Can we really trust an administration so dominated by political correctness
to report accurately their findings on what the military really thinks?
Will “the fix be in” before the survey results even are tabulated?
And are the survey questions the right ones,
to raise the concerns that should be raised?
Probably not:
the homo lobby has expressed concerns about raising those issues,
arguing that even to ask such questions is to promote “homophobia.”
In the mind of the homo lobby,
legitimate concerns about homosexuals in the military are off-limits,
even talking about such things is “hate speech.”]

Admiral Mullen said he had spoken with the Army chief of staff
about General Mixon’s letter.

The developments that played out
at the Pentagon, across the military and among gay rights groups
served as more evidence of the deep disagreements over the current policy,
adopted in 1993,
which allows gay men and lesbians to serve in the military
if they keep their sexual orientation a secret.
Only Congress can repeal the law, a step Mr. Obama is urging.

The Pentagon study, expected by the end of the year,
will assess the views of service members, families and other relevant groups
on how lifting the ban should be carried out.
Mr. Gates said

the study was not to determine whether to repeal the law,
only how best to institute any repeal voted by Congress.

“Doing it hastily is very risky,” Mr. Gates said.


Loosening the ‘Don’t Ask’ Shackles
New York Times Editorial, 2010-03-26

Mr. Gates promised
“special scrutiny on third parties
who may be motivated to harm the service member.”
This signaled a welcome retreat from
the aggressive pursuit of discharge cases against
people whose sexuality is disclosed by
jilted romantic partners and others with some secret barracks agenda.

Failed Attack on Flag & General Officers for the Military
Center for Military Readiness, 2010-04-01

New DoD Policy: “Don’t Report, Don’t Act”
Center for Military Readiness, 2010-04-18

Deal Reached for Ending Law on Gays in Military
New York Times, 2010-05-25

[This article is an example of the total bias of the MSM media in general,
and the NYT in particular,
on issues related to homosexuality in general,
and to homos in the military in particular:
In this article,
there are several quotes from
organizations pushing for open homosexuals serving in the military,
but NO quotes from organizations opposing it, notable,
the Center for Military Readiness.

That, pure and simple, is a primary reason
why polls show a majority of people in the country support homos in the military.
Most people view the NYT as a prestigious and reliable source of information and the “right”, or at least “elite” way to view things.
It provides a window into the thinking of the East Coast liberal “elite.”
(Of course, it is owned by Jews,
a point which many Jews think is inappropriate even to mention.)

So when it presents only one side of the story,
or favors only one side of the story,
naturally opinion of all those who look up to and rely upon the NYT will be influenced.

Here is a brief quote from the article, with my response:]

Mr. Obama has been under intense pressure from gay rights groups
to live up to his campaign promise to work with Congress to repeal the law.

[It is not clear to me exactly how, after the president is elected,
groups such as those for gay rights can actually pressure the president.
He then holds the cards, they, it would seem, do not.
Take, for example,
the many groups seeking a drawdown in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
In Afghanistan, Obama certainly disappointed those groups,
and, so far as I can see, has suffered no adverse consequences
for his blowing off that segment of his coalition.
So why does he do what the gays demand, but not what the peaceniks demand?

(The conventional answer to that question involves both
the relative political power and intensity of the groups.
A more controversial, but unproveable, answer
involves Jews as a, perhaps the, crucial swing vote,
and surely a very politically powerful one.
The longer American and Islam are in conflict,
the longer that reduces the pressure on Israel
as Islamic ire is redirected towards America.
I don’t think too many Jews would ever admit that,
but it is clearly true.)]

Obama backs 'don't ask, don't tell' compromise
that could pave way for repeal

By Michael D. Shear and Ed O'Keefe
Washington Post, 2010-05-25

Murphy: We have votes to repeal DADT
by Greg Sargent
Washington Post Blog, 2010-05-25

[An unabashed tragedy for America.
The American military will literally take it in the butt from this.]

A Stronger Military
New York Times Editorial, 2010-05-26

After months of unnecessary hand-wringing and delay,
the White House and Congressional leaders appear to have reached an agreement
on ending the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy
that forced thousands of gay and lesbian service members to stay in the closet
in order to serve their country.
Although the agreement would postpone full repeal for a few months
to await a Pentagon study on implementing the change,
finally it creates a path to the full integration of the military.
That is not just a matter of justice.
It would make the military stronger.


There are also several issues that need to be resolved during the study period
regarding the implementation of the new policy...

The study should deal with
how to make the repeal happen,
not whether to do so.


[This, to be blunt, makes me angry.
Just why, Times editors, should the study ignore whether to repeal DADT?
What are you afraid of?
This is so typical of the Jewish community, as I’ve learned over the years:
To make sure that only one side of an issue is presented to the public,
only the side which leads to the conclusion they desire.

In this document, up above, there are numerous examples of
the harm that allowing homosexuals to serve openly will cause the military.
In particular, the certainty that it will increase
the amount of sexual harassment in the military,
of homosexual superiors on same-sex subordinates.
As long as homosexuals are kept out of the military
that is impossible to occur.
As long as homosexuals may not reveal their homosexuality,
the possible ways for
a superior to coerce a subordinate into an unwanted relationship
are roughly nada.
In other words, proscribing homosexuals from the service
is a virtually sure-fire way to eliminate the threat of
intra-service sexual harassment.
But you’d never know from the Times coverage
that such a downside to their favored policy even exists!

An interesting comparison is the attitude of the Times towards
sexual harassment in the Catholic Church.
They have virtually fallen all over themselves to publicize
the misdeeds of some Catholic priests against the people in their pastoral care.
As a matter of statistical fact,
the majority of those incidents consisted of
same-sex molestations of male priests against male parishioners,
in the worst cases, children.
So why is the Times so sensitive to sexual harassment in the Catholic Church,
while it literally totally ignores the excruciating and inevitable reality
that the integration of open homosexuals in the military will make inevitable
a number of the same incidents?

The only answer I can see is that the argument of many Catholics is exactly right,
that the real interest of the Times is to tear down and defame the Catholic Church;
while the Times views
the inevitable rise in same-sex sexual harassment incidents in the military
caused by the policy it advocates
as merely “collateral damage”.

Some further serious problems with the Times editorial appear in
the section “A Stronger Military?.”

But enough with the substantive issue of whether to repeal DADT.
Let me return to the remarkable injunction of the Times's editors:

“The study should deal with
how to make the repeal happen,
not whether to do so.”

What is the message here?
It seems to me the message is:

“We great Jewish minds have spoken.
We have analyzed the situation,
using our great intelligence and sublime moral sense,
and come up with the optimum solution for society as a whole.

“Do you, mere goyim, think you can challenge us?
Do you dare to bring up the harm our solution will pose to you,
who are the predominant element in the military?
You don’t count.

“Please, don’t confuse the debate with your point of view,
which no doubt is a product of your inferior and primitive state of development,
not to mention
your fundamentally racist, sexist, homophobic and anti-Semitic tendencies.
Your views are dated and reactionary.
Get with the program or get out of the way!
Don’t stand in the way of progress and the revolution!”

And if you think I am making this up, nyet.
It is a standard point of view among the Jewish “vanguard of the revolution.”

Note, by the way, this little gem from Elena Kagan’s Princeton thesis:

“American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies.
In unity lies their only hope.”

You troglodytes and reactionaries all ready for this point of view on the SC?]

The logistical implications of openly gay soldiers
by Patrick Lang
Sic Semper Tyrannis, 2010-05-28

The farcical process of authorizing the open military service of gay people
is yet to play out, but the outcome of that process is foreordained.
The Gay Movement has powerful friends
in government and the media.

In a year or so, the force will begin to be somewhat different
and that difference will grow greater
as time passes and
gay soldiers become more confident of the security of their position.

[This post goes on to bring up a number of issues
that have not been touched on in the media's mass propaganda campaign (e.g.)
to change military policy to benefit the homosexuals (and the Jews).]

Kevin Ricks' career as teacher, tutor shows pattern of abuse
that goes back decades

By Josh White, Blaine Harden and Jennifer Buske
Washington Post, 2010-07-25

[This is really a giant article, covering half of the front page of the Sunday Post,
then continuing over four full (no ads, only editorial content) pages inside.
When I cut and paste the text into Microsoft Word,
it covers 21 pages and counts 9,262 words.

Although Mr. Ricks was married, evidently all of his victims were also male, generally post-pubescent men.
Why is our “elite” not concerned about the effect of allowing open homosexuality in the military, why that will not make it harder to keep people like Mr. Ricks out?

Gen. Pace's somber Pentagon portrait evokes the struggles of warfare
By Greg Jaffe
Washington Post, 2010-07-30

[Marine Corps General Peter] Pace
was not the kind of chairman who made waves
during his relatively short tenure as the military’s top officer.
Congressional critics blasted him as too docile
and unwilling to stand up to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
They persuaded Robert M. Gates, Rumsfeld’s successor,
not to nominate Pace for a customary second term as chairman in late 2007.

[With absolutely zero inside knowledge,
but based on years of observing
those who are politically incorrect pushed down and moved out
so their politically incorrect views cannot have a major impact,
I firmly believe that the real reason
Congress refused to confirm General Pace
for his second two-year term as chairman of the JCS
was his publicized view of opposition to homosexuality,
which meant that he,
unlike the docile stooge of political correctness Michael Mullen,
would have stood up to SecDef Gates
over the issue of homosexuals in the military,
and would never have, as Admiral of Political Correctness Mullen did,
placed the interests of homosexuals over
those who stand to suffer under their command.]

Pentagon surveys military spouses on 'don't ask, don't tell'
By Ed O'Keefe
Washington Post, 2010-08-24

OutServe co-director Ty Walrod said in an e-mail
[M]ilitary members simply are ready for the repeal of the policy.
A new generation of members are leading the U.S. military forces
and that generation understands that
gay and lesbian military members are no different.”

The surveys will be incorporated into the final recommendations of a Pentagon working group studying the potential impact of repealing the policy.
The group’s report is due to President Obama by Dec. 1.
The results of the surveys are expected to remain confidential,
making it difficult for outsiders to determine
how military families feel about a potential repeal.
Nationally, three-quarters of Americans said
they support openly gay people serving in the military,
according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted in February.

Top Marine Says Afghan Deadline May Help Taliban
New York Times, 2010-08-25

Based on his information from Marines,
[Marine Corps Commandant General James T. Conway] said,
“I can tell you that
an overwhelming majority would like
not to be roomed with
a person who is openly homosexual.”

[Remember the “Support the troops” crowd?
The crowd that always cries loudly “Support the troops”
whenever the possibility arises
of pulling our forces out of their battlezones in the Middle East?
Where are they now, when the issue is
mixing open homosexuals with heterosexuals throughout the military,
including combat,
and “the troops” clearly favor retaining DADT?
AWOL, that’s where.
They really aren’t in favor of “supporting the troops”,
they’re really just in favor of
perpetual war between American and (some) Muslims.
They’re really just stooges of Israel.

What a bunch of f****** hypocrites!

Continuing the NYT story:]

Gay rights groups counter that most active-duty service members,
who are decades younger than many senior commanders,
do not passionately care one way or another
about overturning the ban
or serving with openly gay men and women.

[For a comparison, see this.]

Move to End ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Stalls in Senate
New York Times, 2010-09-22

Senate fails in attempt to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell'
By Ed O'Keefe and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post, 2010-09-22

Obama's 'long view' on gays in the military
by Jonathan Capehart
Washington Post PostPartisan Blog, 2010-09-28

[One] thing I want to highlight from [President Obama’s Rolling Stone interview]
is Obama’s comments on ending the ban on gay men and lesbians
serving openly in the military.

“[O]ne of the things that I constantly want to counsel my friends
is to keep the long view in mind,” the president said.
“On social issues, something like ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’
I’ve got the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff
both committed to changing the policy.

That’s a big deal.”

[How informative.
That suggests, to me anyhow, that
the allegiance Gates and Mullen have shown to repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell”
represents not their own feelings,
but rather persuasion from their boss and the nation’s commander in chief,
President Obama.]

2010-10-22 Status Update:

Public Opinion on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
New York Times FiveThirtyEight Blog, 2010-11-30

Pentagon Sees Little Risk in Allowing Gay Men and Women to Serve Openly
New York Times, 2010-12-01


The service chiefs have all expressed reluctance in the recent past
about repeal,
and it is unclear how they will present themselves on Friday.
Mr. Obama summoned them to the White House on Monday
to talk exclusively about “don’t ask, don’t tell”

and afterward told aides he would not discuss the specifics of what was said.

[When an Army general encouraged those in his command
to tell the media their views on this subject,
he was reprimanded by Gates, Mullen, and the media
because what he did might be viewed as command influence.
So what was Obama doing when he called in the chiefs?
Was he trying to influence what they would say before Congress?
Is he trying to limit and control their views to only what is politically correct,
as opposed to what is in the best interests of having an effective fighting force?]

'Don't ask, don't tell' report:
Little risk to allowing gays to serve openly

By Ed O'Keefe and Craig Whitlock
Washington Post, 2010-12-01

Voices from the 'don't ask, don't tell' report of troops who oppose repeal
By Sandhya Somashekhar
Washington Post, 2010-12-01

'Don't ask, don't tell' report authors speak out
By Ed O'Keefe
Washington Post, 2010-12-01

Pentagon “Gays-in-the-Military Show” Lets Down the Troops
Center for Military Readiness, 2010-12-01

'Don't ask, don't tell' dismissed by McCain
By Ed O'Keefe
Washington Post Federal Eye Blog, 2010-12-02


Mullen acknowledged some of McCain’s concerns,
noting that some troops quoted in the report worry about
having to bunk or shower with openly gay troops.

“We’ll deal with that,” Mullen said.
“But I believe and history tells us that most of them
will put aside personal proclivities
for something larger than themselves and for each other.”

[What an ass.
The only issue he can see here is “personal proclivities.”]

“There are some for whom this debate is all about gray areas,” Mullen said.
“There is no gray area here.
We treat each other with respect, or we find another place to work. Period.
That’s why I also believe leadership will prove vital.”

Emerging as
the Pentagon’s most forceful, emotional proponent for ending the law,
Mullen said current policy “doesn’t make any sense to me,”
because it requires troops to lie about their identity
while serving for a military that values integrity.

McCain Questions Pentagon on Repeal of Gay Ban
New York Times, 2010-12-03

[This is from the 12-02 web version.]


Senator John McCain stuck to his position against
repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law,
telling the military’s leaders that
many combat troops foresaw problems
if gay men and women are allowed to serve openly.

Citing the results of a Pentagon survey
of 115,000 active duty and reserve service members,
Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, said that
58 percent of Marines in combat units and
48 percent of Army combat troops
thought repealing the 17-year-old law would have
either a negative or a very negative impact
on the ability of their units to work together.

“I remain concerned, as I have in the past,
and as demonstrated in this study,
that the closer we get to service members in combat,
the more we encounter concerns about
whether ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ should be repealed,”
Mr. McCain said at a Senate hearing.
“These views should not be considered lightly,
especially considering how much combat our forces face.”

Mr. McCain’s views were in striking contrast to those expressed
by an array of the nation’s top defense and military officials,
who appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee
to urge repeal of the law,
which requires gay men and women in the military
to keep their sexual orientation secret or face discharge.
The officials also pressed on the committee
the larger conclusions of the survey,
which found that 70 percent of all service members responded
that allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the military
“would be positive, mixed or of no consequence at all.”.

[Yeah, right.
Who cares about the grunts who are putting their lives on the line?
What does their opinion matter?
Why should their concerns be weighted more heavily than those of the REMFs?
That’s Washington all right.]

At one point,
Mr. McCain sharply asked Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates,
whose testimony led off the Pentagon’s position,
if he was not concerned that so many combat forces
were concerned about repeal of the law.
Mr. Gates replied that
many of those in combat are in their early 20s,
have also never served with women
and have a focused, limited experience in the military.

“With time and adequate preparation, we can mitigate their concerns,”
Mr. Gates said.

[Gates is spewing bullshit.
The only way that the troops concerns over whether
their homosexual superiors will misuse
their positions of command authority over their subordinates
will require giving the subordinate troops
more reasons to distrust their superiors.
That will diminish the superior/subordinate relation
that is so important for unit effectiveness.]

“I couldn’t disagree more,” Mr. McCain shot back.
“We send these young people into combat,
we think they’re mature enough to fight and die.
I think they’re mature enough to make a judgment on
who they want to serve with and
the impact on their battle effectiveness.”
Mr. McCain, a naval aviator in the Vietnam War
who was shot down and imprisoned in Hanoi, then added:
“Mr. Secretary, I speak from personal experience.”

Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
appeared alongside Mr. Gates and made a personal appeal to the panel.
“I’ve been serving with gays and lesbians my whole career,” he said.
“I went to war with them aboard a destroyer off the coast of Vietnam.
I knew they were there. They knew I knew it.
We never missed a mission, never failed to deliver ordnance on target.”

[That, my friends, is a Navy officer’s view of combat.
There was about zero chance that the VC or NV
would threaten Mullen and his comrades sitting in their ship safely off shore.
How many personnel of the blue-water Navy
had their names engraved on that wall on the Mall?
(An upper bound--I doubt very many of those were from the blue-water Navy.)
What a joke.
Too bad he, and the American media, can’t see that.
Shame, shame on his fat ass and even more fatuous head
for comparing his little cruise
to what the infantry troops went through then, and are going through now.
Talk about delusions:
not being able to distinguish between leadership of a technocratic enterprise
and one where people actually have to place
their lives and future health on the line,
with all that implies to not only themselves
but also to those who love them and are dependent on them.
What a tragic shame it is that Michael Mullen is not able to see
the relevance of that distinction to his remarks, and to the issue at hand.]

Admiral Mullen added:
“Should repeal occur,
some soldiers and Marines may want separate shower facilities.
Some may ask for different berthing.
Some may even quit the service.
We’ll deal with that.”

[All hail political correctness!
All hail the homos!
What the homos want, the homos get!
Damn the consequences, full speed ahead!]

Pentagon worried Congress won't end 'don't ask, don't tell'
By Ed O'Keefe and Craig Whitlock
Washington Post, 2010-12-03


Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)
strongly criticized the Pentagon’s new report Thursday.

“At this time,
we should be inherently cautious about making any changes
that would affect our military,
and what changes we do make should be
the product of careful and deliberate consideration,”
said the senator, a leading critic of ending the ban.

McCain also faulted the study because
it did not examine whether the law should be repealed
and said he worried that the survey accounts for the opinions of
just 6 percent of the total armed forces.

In his testimony, Mullen acknowledged McCain’s concerns,
noting that some troops quoted in the report worry about
having to bunk or shower with openly gay troops.

“We’ll deal with that,” the admiral said.
“But I believe, and history tells us,
that most of them will put aside personal proclivities
for something larger than themselves and for each other.”

He added:
“There are some for whom this debate is all about gray areas.
There is no gray area here.
We treat each other with respect, or we find another place to work. Period.
That’s why I also believe leadership will prove vital.”

[No gray areas for Admiral Mullen.
If you read the “Thought Experiments” at the top of this post,
there were gray areas aplenty pointed out
that admitting open homosexuals into the command structure will bring,
and which “education, training and regulations” can never unambiguously resolve,
any more than the classic “he said, she said” controversies
(here transposed into “he said, he said” or “she said, she said”)
can ever be unambiguously resolved.
What does it say about Admiral Mullen that he is unable or unwilling
to discern those gray areas?]

Emerging as a forceful, impassioned proponent for repealing the law,
Mullen said current policy “doesn’t make any sense to me,”
because it requires troops to lie about their identity
while serving for a military that values integrity.

'Don’t ask, don’t tell' repeal loses momentum
by Gordon Lubold
Politico.com, 2010-12-03

Service Chiefs Tell Panel of Risks to Repeal of Gay Ban
New York Times, 2010-12-04

[This is the internet version of 2010-12-03 1841Z.]

WASHINGTON — The commandant of the Marine Corps and the chiefs of staff of the Army and Air Force sternly warned a Senate panel this morning about the consequences of allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the armed forces.

But inthe hearing about whether to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the 17-year-old law that requires gay military men and women to keep their sexual orientation secret or face discharge, enough nuance emerged in their positions to affect the course of debate on Capitol Hill.

Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the chief of staff of the Army, appeared to have moved from an earlier position of serious concern about repeal to one of reluctant willingness. Although he told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he believed repeal would add stress to the force and be more difficult in combat arms units, “properly implemented, I do not envision that it would keep us from accomplishing our worldwide missions, including combat operations.”

Because he heads the largest branch of the military, General Casey’s words carry considerable weight. He concluded that he believed the military could handle repeal with “moderate risk” to military effectiveness. A Pentagon study on the impact of implementation has concluded that the risk would be “low,” an assessment shared by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

As expected, Gen. James F. Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps, remained the most opposed to repeal among the service chiefs, and he took a hard line at the hearing against altering the policy. “If the law is changed, successfully implementing repeal and assimilating openly homosexual Marines into the tightly woven fabric of our combat units has strong potential for disruption at the small unit level,” he told the panel.

General Amos added: “I cannot reconcile, nor turn my back, on the negative perceptions held by our Marines who are most engaged in the hard work of day-to-day operations in Afghanistan.” He concluded that although repeal could be implemented, and the Marine Corps would support it, “my recommendation is that we should not implement repeal at this time.”

Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, the chief of staff of the Air Force, recommended delaying repeal until 2012 because of the strain the military is bearing now. “I do not agree with the study assessment that the short-term risk to military effectiveness is low,” he said. “It is an inescapable fact that our officer and non-commissioned officer leaders in Afghanistan, in particular, are carrying a heavy load.”

General Schwartz concluded that “it is difficult for me, as a member of the Joint Chiefs, to recommend placing any additional discretionary demands on our leadership cadres at this particularly challenging time.”

Both Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen have called on the Congress to repeal the law, which would fulfill a campaign promise of President Obama. The House of Representatives has already voted to do so and although there appear to be enough “yes” votes in the current Senate, it is unclear if there is enough time left before the end of the year for the measure to advance.

[Here is a short excerpt from the final version of the story:]

Both sides cited comments from active-duty service members
to make their cases.
General Amos, for example,
read aloud comments that a Marine platoon commander made
about his unit in an online survey:
“Despite differences, we are so close that
we anticipate each other’s next move in garrison and in combat.
Our ability to do our job is predicated on this kind of relationship.
If you were to add any element of sexual competition,
intra-unit sexuality or hesitance in trust,
it would unquestionably prevent those bonds from forming
or immediately destroy them if introduced.”

But a short time later,
Mr. Levin looked at General Amos and read aloud
a quote in the Pentagon’s report from a Special Operations commando:
“We have a gay guy in the unit,” Mr. Levin read.
“He’s big, he’s mean and he kills lots of bad guys.
No one cared that he was gay.”

Military service chiefs wary of ending 'don't ask, don't tell' policy on gays
By Ed O'Keefe
Washington Post, 2010-12-04

Listen to the Marines
by Tony Perkins
Washington Times, 2010-12-09

Senators to Offer New Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask’ Following Senate Defeat
New York Times thecaucus.blogs, 2010-12-09

Senate Stalls Bill to Repeal Gay Policy in Military
New York Times, 2010-12-10


In a blaze of unusual bipartisan fury,
a military policy bill that would repeal
the ban on gay and lesbian soldiers serving openly in the military
stalled in the Senate on Thursday,
severely diminishing the chances of ending the Clinton-era policy this year.

On a vote of 57 to 40, Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader,
found himself 3 votes short of the 60 needed to clear a procedural hurdle
that would have opened the way for passage of the measure.


Marine commandant repeats his opposition to scrapping DADT
From Charley Keyes
CNN, 2010-12-14


“I don’t want to lose any Marines to a distraction,”
Amos said in a roundtable discussion with journalists at the Pentagon.

“I don’t want to have any Marines I’m visiting at Bethesda (Naval Hospital)
with no legs
as a result of any type of distraction.
So that’s where I come down on this.”


Amos, took over as commandant in October,
said the Marines in Afghanistan faced the demands of intense firefights.
“That is a unique experience.
And when that happens there is no margin for distraction ...
There’s no margin for thinking about anything other than
working as a cohesive unit”

And he said Marines, whether in a small fire team or squad,
must function as a single “living cell”
to survive the hard fighting in Afghanistan.

“When your life hangs on a line on the intuitive behavior of the young man,
and this is predominately what we are talking about,
a young man who sits to your right and your left,
you don’t want anything distracting them.”
Amos said.
“So when I say they are like an amoeba
it means they flow and they think alike.
I mean that in the most positive sense.
They live and breathe with one another to the point
where they know precisely what the other is going to do.
They don’t have to ask. They don’t say ‘cover me.’
They don’t say do this, do that, it just happens.”


Thomas summary

That gives the crucial Senate as this,
but the meaning of that is less than clear.

Senate Repeals Ban Against Openly Gay Military Personnel
New York Times, 2010-12-19


The Senate on Saturday struck down the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military, bringing to a close a 17-year struggle over a policy that forced thousands of Americans from the ranks and caused others to keep secret their sexual orientation.

By a vote of 65 to 31, with eight Republicans joining Democrats, the Senate approved and sent to President Obama a repeal of the Clinton-era law, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” ...

Backing ‘Don’t Ask’ Repeal, With Reservations
New York Times, 2010-12-20

[Note they run this story,
with interviews of actual Marines assigned to combat units
(enough with the concerns of linguists,
whose exposure to real risk is far more limited),
and discussing the reasons for their concerns,
after the Senate vote.
Why confuse the public with the views of actual combat troops before the vote,
as opposed to presenting practically only the views of the homo lobby,
as actually occurred.]


Naval Academy case exposes a backward America
By Petula Dvorak
Washington Post Opinion, 2013-09-02


[There is] a recent Pentagon report,
which stated that while as many as 26,000 service members said
they were the targets of unwanted sexual contact last year,
only 3,374 incidents of sexual assault were reported.

Those who believe women should be kept out of the military
will point to the report and the Naval Academy case as proof.
But hold your horses there, Internet Rousseaus.

The Pentagon report also said that the majority — 53 percent —
of the people who said they were assaulted were men.
And they were assaulted by other men.

Take the case of Greg Jeloudov,
who told Newsweek that two weeks after he joined the military in 2009,
he was gang-raped in the barracks by men
who said they were showing him who was in charge.

“It must have been your fault.
You must have provoked them,”
is what he said commanders told him.

Imagine the grilling he would have faced
if they took his report seriously.

“Did you ever walk out of the showers with your shirt off?”
“Did you ever talk about sex with your bunkmates?”
“Did you ever watch porn with other men?”

Nope, at least 10,000 men wouldn’t go there, wouldn’t report a sexual assault.


[In the first place,
I find it hard to believe that any Army officer
would dismiss a report of such a serious offense so cavalierly.
And even if one would,
I find it extremely hard to believe several would.
There has to be more going on here
than what Dvorak is claiming Jeloudov said his superiors said.
But it would seem that these days
many in the media and in Congress
treat any sex-based charge against the military as the God-given truth,
and evidence of a scandal.
What does the Army say about this shocking accusation?
What do the commanders of whom Jeloudov speaks
say about this accusation?
This really is a shocking accusation,
and one would hope that,
since Jeloudov has publicly made it,
the Army will investigate and issue a report.

As to my opinion, not based on any inside knowledge,
but just based on the story as given above:

Between Jeloudov, the supposed men who supposedly gang-raped him,
and the supposed commanders who dismissed his claim,
there must be some homosexuals involved in this situation going on.
I find it absolutely impossible to believe that
the situation Jeloudov describes could happen
unless at least some of the above were homosexuals.
Absolutely impossible.
But let's face it:
Both the Washington Post and the New York Times
are nothing but conduits for homosexual propaganda.]


Defense Department Orders Acceptance of Gender Identity Delusion
Center for Military Readiness, 2016-10-28

[The above is a link to CMR's web page on this subject;
a link to the PDF report on it they issued is below:]

Defense Department Orders Acceptance of Gender Identity Delusions (16 page PDF report)

[From the webpage:]

Retired Army Colonel William J. Gregor,
who has written extensively on the subject,
notes that

LGBT directives turn sound priorities upside down.
Instead of putting the needs of the military first,
officials are promoting recruitment and retention of
a small cohort of persons suffering from gender dysphoria.

Labels: ,