Marine Corps chief: I don’t want my men losing any limbs if we repeal DADT

posted at 9:34 pm on December 14, 2010 by Allahpundit

In fairness, fully 60 percent of Marines deployed in combat zones think performance would be negatively affected by letting gays serve openly. Amos’s point, I take it, is that under those circumstances any added distraction — doesn’t matter what it is — is capable of getting someone killed. I understand his concern, but he seems to have no theory of how the distraction might work in practice; beyond that, it’s hard to fathom how the most famously tough-minded troops in the world, the tip of the American spear, would be so thrown by serving alongside an occasional gay solider that it might lead to one of them getting his legs blown off. Marines cope daily with the “distraction” of seeing their best friends shot to pieces, and yet … this is going to bother them to the point of absent-minded recklessness?

“Mistakes and inattention or distractions cost Marines lives,” he said on Tuesday, explaining how he came to his decision. “That’s the currency of this fight.

“I don’t want to lose any Marines to the distraction. I don’t want to have any Marines that I’m visiting at Bethesda [National Naval Medical Center, in Maryland] with no legs be the result of any type of distraction.”…

When pressed to explain exactly what a breakdown of “unit cohesion” could look like and why it would endanger Marines in combat, or the larger war effort, Amos said he was unsure but that the significant concern of breakdown was good enough for him.

“I can’t explain what the expectations are. I can’t explain what they think might happen,” Amos said…

But with so many Marines engaged in Afghanistan, he thought about what could happen to small units like those in Sangin, where fighting is the heaviest by many accounts. When a firefight breaks out, he said, lives depend on “intuitive behavior” free from distraction.

“Intuitive behavior” is an issue in combat situations, but U.S. allies manage to do fine with gay troops and, again, Amos seems to have no theory of how troops’ intuition might be affected. Is he suggesting that gay soldiers wouldn’t rush to the aid of a wounded straight comrade, or vice versa? If the objection is that a RINO civvie like me can’t possibly understand, well, plenty of milbloggers have been on record for awhile now in favor of repealing DADT. I assume not a single one of them would take that position if they thought it would seriously risk American lives. And in fact, according to the Pentagon survey, 84 percent of Marines (overall, not just combat troops) who’ve worked with someone gay said it hadn’t affected unit morale.

Just as I’m writing this, ABC is out with a new poll finding that 77 percent of the public supports letting gay troops serve openly. I haven’t gotten here into the question of gays’ right to serve versus the military’s interest in unit readiness (Gates’s big worry is that that question will end up being decided by courts instead of Congress), but here’s an interesting data point from the American Prospect from the last time the military was grappling with questions about integration. It’s an imperfect analogy, obviously, but the Pentagon did survey troops — including “combat crews” — in 1945 about how they’d feel training in racially mixed units. Turns out that was quite a distraction at the time, too.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5

Is Gates concerned that the Court might say NO?

OldEnglish on December 14, 2010 at 9:39 PM

Just as I’m writing this, ABC is out with a new poll finding that 77 percent of the public supports letting gay troops serve openly.
…..

Imagine that.

Dems control both houses by big margins and yet, they couldn’t find the time to pass this overwhelmingly popular reform.

How long before CBS shows 95% support repeal?

artist on December 14, 2010 at 9:40 PM

Just as I’m writing this, ABC is out with a new poll finding that 77 percent of the public supports letting gay troops serve openly.

This poll is completely irrelevant. They are not the ones in the military.

Also, why such a rush to repeal DADT?

Gabe on December 14, 2010 at 9:41 PM

Is Gates concerned that the Court might say NO?

OldEnglish on December 14, 2010 at 9:39 PM

Nope.
He’s concerned that Congress will say NO…again.
And I hope and pray they do.

Keep DADT: it works just fine.

Jenfidel on December 14, 2010 at 9:41 PM

Ugh,this is a Distracting Distraction!(sarc).

canopfor on December 14, 2010 at 9:41 PM

I doubt a Marine will be clutching his pearls, adjusting the ball gag, or smackin’ the assless leather chaps in the middle of a shoot out.

SouthernGent on December 14, 2010 at 9:42 PM

This poll is completely irrelevant. They are not the ones in the military.

If we’re a democracy and we have a civilian-run military, it’s relevant. I’m shocked that you’d suggest otherwise.

Allahpundit on December 14, 2010 at 9:43 PM

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

We are at war.

Not a wise time to play such social experimental games.

And not with our national security.

Fiddle in peacetime, gender activists, not when we’re fighting for our survival.

profitsbeard on December 14, 2010 at 9:43 PM

It matters little what ABC respondents think about DADT, it matters what the people serving our country think. I personally couldn’t care less about whether gays serve openly or not, but if soldiers feel uncomfortable with openly gay people in their fox-hole then that’s what’s important.

anXdem on December 14, 2010 at 9:44 PM

I understand his concern, but he seems to have no theory of how the distraction might work in practice; beyond that, it’s hard to fathom how the most famously tough-minded troops in the world, the tip of the American spear, would be so thrown by serving alongside an occasional gay solider that it might lead to one of them getting his legs blown off. Marines cope daily with the “distraction” of seeing their best friends shot to pieces, and yet … this is going to bother them to the point of absent-minded recklessness?

A bit of advice, Allah:

I would suggest you avoid this minefield. I don’t know if you’ve ever been on a battlefield, or even in the military, but here’s something you obviously do not know.

A combat unit survives because they trust each other. They may not like each other, but they develop a bond that is nearly unbreakable in good times, and grows stronger as the danger increases.

It’s not the fear of troops losing the fighting spirit because of openly serving gays, he’s worried about the degradation of trust at the platoon level, and that will lead to a breakdown in disciplne and the chain of command. In other words, they won’t fight for each other. That’s how you lose a war.

BobMbx on December 14, 2010 at 9:44 PM

the last bastion of American Masculinity. If they do repeal DADT, they need to segregate them from the straight troops to minimize sexual fraternizing the way the Corps does men and women.

abobo on December 14, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Also, why such a rush to repeal DADT?

Gabe on December 14, 2010 at 9:41 PM

Same reason the Dems are rushing DREAM, START, etc. Next year they won’t have the votes.

Wethal on December 14, 2010 at 9:45 PM

And the Marines are the one and only military force who would detain a corrupt individual posing as President in the White House and/or Congress if not Congress should that body ever attempt a coup of this nation.

Long may this “chief” command the Marines. He’s looking like the one and only guy among the Chiefs who has any stones left.

Lourdes on December 14, 2010 at 9:46 PM

Jenfidel on December 14, 2010 at 9:41 PM

Thanks. Sometimes it’s hard to tell whether a permanent solution is being sought, or not.

OldEnglish on December 14, 2010 at 9:46 PM

A combat unit survives because they trust each other. They may not like each other, but they develop a bond that is nearly unbreakable in good times, and grows stronger as the danger increases.

It’s not the fear of troops losing the fighting spirit because of openly serving gays, he’s worried about the degradation of trust at the platoon level, and that will lead to a breakdown in disciplne and the chain of command. In other words, they won’t fight for each other. That’s how you lose a war.

BobMbx on December 14, 2010 at 9:44 PM

Well said, BobMbx. Many of us understand this and it’s horrifying to me to read how little the Joint Chiefs do.

Lourdes on December 14, 2010 at 9:47 PM

The Marines deal in reality.

Hening on December 14, 2010 at 9:48 PM

How long before CBS shows 95% support repeal?

artist on December 14, 2010 at 9:40 PM

It’s CBS! THAT’s why they’re “reporting 77%” because it’s CBS, their readers are already in the pot.

The American public, however, don’t support by high majority the repeal of DADT.

Lourdes on December 14, 2010 at 9:49 PM

Here are a couple of points to ponder:

You state in the first section of the article that the Marines are “the most famously tough-minded troops in the world”. Then later you try to spin the issue by stating that “U.S. allies manage to do fine with gay troops”

There is some reason that those U.S. allies are not “the most famously tough-minded troops in the world”. There is also a reason why the phrase “United States Marine” has a meaning that is clear to the entire world, including those allies who have some of the second, third and fouth tougest troops in the world.

If the Marines don’t want this, the Marines should not be forced to have this, period. Nothing, not one damed thing else matters. Opinons other than that of the United States Marines do not count.

MikeA on December 14, 2010 at 9:50 PM

I have a solution that will address all concerns of those opposed to open queerness in the ranks and those that think it’s not an issue.

My suggestion is if a trooper is offended and upset to serve with gay troopers then they can resign honorably without penalty when open queerness is allowed and protected in the services. If the trooper is in the service academy and feels betrayed, then they too can quit without cost or obligation.

Those who think open queerness is not a problem shouldn’t be troubled by this proposal since few would avail themselves of the option. Those that are offended get an early out with no emotional trauma.

Solves everyone’s problems except in the itty bitty case that thousands of combat troops quit….in the middle of war. But whats a lost war or battle when it’s gay rights we’re defending?

richardb on December 14, 2010 at 9:50 PM

DADT revision along with spending sprees, Dream Acts, Nannynism and ObamasCare is just another nail in America’s coffin which the progressions want to foist on this once-great country before they lose the House majority.

MaiDee on December 14, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Also, why such a rush to repeal DADT?

Gabe on December 14, 2010 at 9:41 PM

Gabe:Liberals want to make sure,that they can stir the pot
in the Militarty,just like denying Military Recruitment
in Universities campus’s!!!

Like class-warfare,they want all segments of American
society fighting against each other!!!!

canopfor on December 14, 2010 at 9:50 PM

THAT’S MY COMMANDANT!!!!

AP, I can’t believe you think American Prospect is a worthy publication to quote. Let’s take their pulse on taxes and illegal immigration, too, huh??

Come on Republican Senators, restore my faith in you. Now is the time to hang tough. Gird your loins. Repealing DADT is BAD for the military. And in your heads and hearts you know this.

Don’t bow down to gods of political correctness. They care not about American Military might. Only about pushing petty social agendas.

And AP, no, Justice Anthony Kennedy WILL NOT agree to dictate DOD personnel policy. Ain’t going to happen!!

HDFOB on December 14, 2010 at 9:51 PM

Allahpundit on December 14, 2010 at 9:43 PM

Believe it or not, I feel the same way Jenfidel does on this point. If the majority of our Republic thinks gays should serve openly, I understand that the issue should be raised, which it has been. The troops perspective is the most “relevant,” though. If most of them really do feel uncomfortable enough that gays serving openly could affect performance, then it’s not all that salient what ABC respondents think.

anXdem on December 14, 2010 at 9:51 PM

but U.S. allies manage to do fine with gay troops

And many of those allies do great with women in combat too… repeal DADT and we will join them within 15 years.

ninjapirate on December 14, 2010 at 9:51 PM

but U.S. allies manage to do fine with gay troops

apples oranges

Jason Coleman on December 14, 2010 at 9:51 PM

If we’re a democracy and we have a civilian-run military, it’s relevant. I’m shocked that you’d suggest otherwise.

Allahpundit on December 14, 2010 at 9:43 PM

We’re a Republic.

And, there’s no “right” for anyone anywhere as to serving in the military. The military has criteria for service, and sound reasons why they do and that’s the substance of what’s important and should be, to all citizens. In our Republic.

Lourdes on December 14, 2010 at 9:52 PM

There are many ‘rights’ one gives up on joining the military. And all this fuss and bother because ONE LITTLE MINORITY wants everything their way.

And it’s just getting the camel’s nose in the tent. Next up, military housing and recognition of/for a gay spouse, AND the allotment check that comes with it.

This has nothing to do with “wanting to serve”.

GarandFan on December 14, 2010 at 9:52 PM

and yet … this is going to bother them to the point of absent-minded recklessness?

You never know when some future Democratic congressman is going to start snorkeling or giving Massa-massages when out in the field.

malclave on December 14, 2010 at 9:52 PM

Is he Rapture ready for the Repeal of DADT when the gay invade?

LOL

Spathi on December 14, 2010 at 9:53 PM

Oops. I meant to say I feel the same way Gabe does.

anXdem on December 14, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Thanks. Sometimes it’s hard to tell whether a permanent solution is being sought, or not.

OldEnglish on December 14, 2010 at 9:46 PM

Gates is trying to push Congress, using the court decision.

And AP, yes, we’re a democracy with a civilian-run military, but the entity making decisions over that military is neither the courts nor public opinion polls, but Congress.
And they’ve tabled this at least once and maybe twice, but I think Harry Reid is threatening to bring it up again.

Jenfidel on December 14, 2010 at 9:54 PM

but U.S. allies manage to do fine with gay troops
apples oranges

Jason Coleman on December 14, 2010 at 9:51 PM

Well, maybe allah is proposing that everyone be required to serve in the military, like Israel.

malclave on December 14, 2010 at 9:54 PM

AP, I can’t believe you think American Prospect is a worthy publication to quote.

Also, I can’t believe he thought to quote ABC News… really, there is no news organization that is as obnoxious with their gay advocacy than ABC News… just look through their twitter account… what’s sad is they repeat a lot of stories.

CNN is also up there because their live interview poll artificially scales support for gay marriage by 5-10 points. NBC is up there because of MSNBC.

ninjapirate on December 14, 2010 at 9:55 PM

If we’re a democracy and we have a civilian-run military, it’s relevant. I’m shocked that you’d suggest otherwise.

Allahpundit on December 14, 2010 at 9:43 PM

Sorry I am not buying that arguement.

Even our elected leaders should defer to what military members think.

The military knows how to get the job done when they are tasked, our elected leaders tend to F things up when it comes to the military.

That said of course the military will accept any decision made by the elected leaders (they are professional that way) however that does not mean that their input should be ignored. If a military leader says “hold on a sec” I think it is worth some consideration…

That is this Vets view with no real dog in this fight.

F15Mech on December 14, 2010 at 9:55 PM

but U.S. allies manage to do fine with gay troops

I’d be pretty brave too, knowing the USMC was on its way to save my ass…again.

“Devil Dogs Wear Prada”

BobMbx on December 14, 2010 at 9:56 PM

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/12/military-women-combat-120710w/

ninjapirate on December 14, 2010 at 9:52 PM

When is the Army going to start advocating for the blind to drive the tanks? Paraplegics to staff the airborne?

Lourdes on December 14, 2010 at 9:56 PM

Bottom line: If the Marines aren’t happy, I’m not happy.
End of story.
I love those guys!

Jenfidel on December 14, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Speaking of Marines,from GnuBreeds link!
Its too long to post,exerpts will work,and
a MUST READ!
==========================================

December 12, 2010
An Extraordinary Speech

What follows is a transcript of an extraordinary speech given by Lieutenant General John F. Kelly USMC on November 13, 2010. What renders it so is that General Kelly’s son, First Lieutenant Robert Michael Kelly, was killed in action in Sangin, Afghanistan only four days before Lt. Gen. Kelly gave this speech. Lt. Gen. Kelly’s eldest child is also A U.S. Marine.

SEMPER FI SOCIETY OF ST LOUIS SPEECH
LTGEN KELLY on 13 NOV 2010
=========================

The protected can’t begin to understand the price paid so they and their families can sleep safe and free at night. No, they are not victims, but are warriors, your warriors, and warriors are never victims regardless of how and where they fall. Death, or fear of death, has no power over them. Their paths are paved by sacrifice, sacrifices they gladly make…for you. They prove themselves everyday on the field of battle…for you. They fight in every corner of the globe…for you. They live to fight…for you, and they never rest because there is always another battle to be won in the defense of America.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/an_extraordinary_speech.html

canopfor on December 14, 2010 at 9:57 PM

In my experience, one can poll from any Leftwing media site or source otherwise, and the results will always be something advocating more gay all the time. It’s the Left’s obsession.

Which ISN’T what the military is about, I add.

Lourdes on December 14, 2010 at 9:58 PM

If we’re a democracy and we have a civilian-run military, it’s relevant. I’m shocked that you’d suggest otherwise.

Allahpundit on December 14, 2010 at 9:43 PM

It is more relevant what the troops think, not what a bunch of PC government bureaucrats and civilians who would never serve in the military decide. From the VFW:

“We are very much aware that the push to repeal is coming from outside the military, not from within,” said Richard L. Eubank, the national commander of the 2.1 million-member Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. and its Auxiliaries. “So our problem is why would DOD listen to outside opinion polls from a society who, for the most part, would never consider military service, but not ask their own troops what they think?”

Gabe on December 14, 2010 at 9:58 PM

Allah -

Betcha the closest you’ve ever been to the Marines is watching Gomer Pyle USMC reruns on TV.

bw222 on December 14, 2010 at 9:59 PM

I keep reading articles that state other countries have gays in their military with no problem. Excuse me, which country has a military as good as the USA?

Oleta on December 14, 2010 at 10:00 PM

but U.S. allies manage to do fine with gay troops

And many of those allies do great with women in combat too… repeal DADT and we will join them within 15 years.

ninjapirate on December 14, 2010 at 9:51 PM

Oh, riigght, Sweden really won the Second World War and Isreal’s the fighting force that the world calls in at times of invasion.

There’s no comparison, seriously, with the functional capacity and abilities of the military of others with that of the U.S.

Lourdes on December 14, 2010 at 10:01 PM

Marine Commandant James Amos is an outstanding, strong Marine. His stated concern is well founded.

This business of seeking the repeal of DADT is utter nonsense, particularly when we have two wars going. The U.S. Marines are the finest in the world because of the responsibilities and discipline that individual Marines accept to be Marines; open expression of being gay is contrary to acceptance of those responsibilities and discipline and contrary to the maintenance of unit cohesion necesary for an effective fighting force. Those seeking the repeal of DADT don’t care why combat arms Marines and soldiers oppose the repeal of DADT.

Who cares if allies are O.K. with gay troops. Today, you want the U.S. Marines, not anybody else’s military protecting you.

Phil Byler on December 14, 2010 at 10:02 PM

AP, I can’t believe you’re again trying to compare DADT with integration.

LaShawn Barber:

One thing has changed since I last blogged about this issue. I’m even more disgusted when people equate skin color with deviant sexual behavior, comparing the crusade for racial equality with trying to force people into accepting homosexual behavior as normal.

INC on December 14, 2010 at 10:02 PM

We are at war.

profitsbeard on December 14, 2010 at 9:43 PM

profitsbeard:Amen,and the WOT should trump the experiments!
============================================================

December 12, 2010
An Extraordinary Speech

It is a fact that our country today is in a life and death struggle against an evil enemy, but America as a whole is certainly not at war. Not as a country. Not as a people. Today, only a tiny fraction-less than a percent-shoulder the burden of fear and sacrifice, and they shoulder it for the rest of us. Their sons and daughters who serve are men and women of character who continue to believe in this country enough to put life and limb on the line without qualification, and without thought of personal gain, and they serve so that the sons and daughters of the other 99% don’t have to. No big deal, though, as Marines have always been “the first to fight” paying in full the bill that comes with being free…for everyone else.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/an_extraordinary_speech.html

canopfor on December 14, 2010 at 10:06 PM

Well, maybe allah is proposing that everyone be required to serve in the military, like Israel.

And the well connected get waivers. Do we really need to make the same mistakes over and over again?

mossberg500 on December 14, 2010 at 10:07 PM

Anyone in support of repealing DADT, better man up and support reinstating the draft.

Because it’s guaranteed that enough serving military will quit or not reenlist, that it will be necessary to go to that extreme.

Leave it alone, or gays and draft – choose.

Rebar on December 14, 2010 at 10:08 PM

extraordinary speech given by Lieutenant General John F. Kelly

canopfor on December 14, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Did anyone else misread that to be LT John F Kerry?

I think I just lost a few years of my life, my blood pressure went that high before I noticed my mistake.

F15Mech on December 14, 2010 at 10:10 PM

AP, time for Star Trek‘s Dr. McCoy:”It’s dead, Jim.”

Jenfidel on December 14, 2010 at 10:13 PM

This poll is completely irrelevant. They are not the ones in the military.
If we’re a democracy and we have a civilian-run military, it’s relevant. I’m shocked that you’d suggest otherwise.

Allahpundit on December 14, 2010 at 9:43 PM

The poll itself is gay so that is what makes it irrelevant/
You want the truth? You cant’t handle the truth
They use words like honor, code and country and don’t repeal DADT. You use these words as a punchline or something.
Just go watch the movie and see what Jack Nicholson has to say I don’t want top write a damn novel about it.
Are you a communist or something?
Marines don’t want gays in there units/ are we clear?

kangjie on December 14, 2010 at 10:14 PM

This poll is completely irrelevant. They are not the ones in the military.
If we’re a democracy and we have a civilian-run military, it’s relevant. I’m shocked that you’d suggest otherwise.

Allahpundit on December 14, 2010 at 9:43 PM

Allah, I beg your pardon but I’m shocked that so many who don’t have an iota of first hand knowledge, hold such strong convictions of that should be done and what will be good for the military. If you have not served under the conditions that we express our concerns over, I’m not sure how you even offer an opinion. Your arguments are rhetorical.

Sorry, but it’s true. What happened to the BS, let the military decide. Is that “only” when one of us expresses an opinion sympathetic to repealing DADT.

It will not work to repeal it. The logistics of housing and separate facilities is too great.

hawkdriver on December 14, 2010 at 10:15 PM

Well, maybe allah is proposing that everyone be required to serve in the military, like Israel.

And the well connected get waivers. Do we really need to make the same mistakes over and over again?

mossberg500 on December 14, 2010 at 10:07 PM

I would have hoped we learned from the Vietnam era…

Dark-Star on December 14, 2010 at 10:16 PM

It’s an imperfect analogy, obviously, but the Pentagon did survey troops — including “combat crews” — in 1945 about how they’d feel training in racially mixed units. Turns out that was quite a distraction at the time, too.

This argument is bullcrap.

The Marines and all US units were integrated prior to WWI and (guess the president before I say it) Woodrow Wilson.

It was social engineering that led to segregation.

Gays shouldn’t be openly in the military. Those who serve closeted are known by their friends/coworkers who accept them, and it’s not an issue. They keep up the facade, and it keeps them safe, and it keeps discipline up, and it keeps people from being nervous around them.

It applies to straights, too: Captain Horndog may really dig PFC Hotchick, but Captain Horndog has rules that prevent him from messing around with PFC Hotchick. Same principle, just a different set of rules. If PFC Horndog makes PFC Hotchick feel uncomfortable, he’s under the same kinds of rules as Captain Horndog.

The military has laws against adultery as well. There are elements of discipline that exist within the US military that are there for a reason. If they slowly degrade and fade away, it’s no big deal. If they are repealed by social do-gooders, it’s bullsh!t.

There already exist social paths for men and women who have one-way attraction to deal with it. For male to male or female to female in the military, there aren’t social paths to deal with that. It introduces a totally unnecessary issue that only degrades morale and unit efficiency.

The only reason this is being pushed is so democrats at cocktail parties can brag about how they forced gays on the military – quite literally. It makes them feel like big social progressives and if people are hurt, die, or the military’s fighting capacity is decreased because of new sensitivity rules – they don’t care. They live in the cocktail circuit of limo liberals.

DADT left alone would allow the military to integrate slowly, or as is acceptable to the needs of warfighting, if it ever happens. And gays can serve.

The military is not a social experiment. It is a self-defense tool for nations. That is its purpose. If you want social experiments… try … not doing them the f*ck at all. Why the f*ck do leftists insist on “perfecting humankind” by forcing things that just don’t work? Square pegs, round holes. STOP.

CPL 310 on December 14, 2010 at 10:16 PM

canopfor on December 14, 2010 at 9:57 PM
===================
Did anyone else misread that to be LT John F Kerry?

I think I just lost a few years of my life, my blood pressure went that high before I noticed my mistake.

F15Mech on December 14, 2010 at 10:10 PM

F-15 Mech:You had ne going for a minute,had to double-
check the American Thinker piece,at a quick
glance,its close:)

canopfor on December 14, 2010 at 10:16 PM

but U.S. allies manage to do fine with gay troops
And many of those allies do great with women in combat too… repeal DADT and we will join them within 15 years.
ninjapirate on December 14, 2010 at 9:51 PM

Their last fight will be their first

I wonder if the gays understand they are merely pawns for the commies to diminish our fighting ability and increase the cost there of?

Or even consider that their ardent supporters are not the least bit interested in what gays get but how they can foul a system with their cause

Sonosam on December 14, 2010 at 10:17 PM

Oops,sorry Mech,that F15,not F-15:)

canopfor on December 14, 2010 at 10:17 PM

This whole debate is simple- when the vast majority of the US military wishes to repeal DADT then repeal it. Even do it by service if so required- if the Marines want to keep DADT let them, if the Air Force wants to repeal it let them.

This is a decision that will affect the lives of men and women who daily place themselves in harms way. It’s not up to a civilian in NY or SF or wherever to decide whether or not it’s best for openly gay men to serve in combat units in Afghanistan. That’s a decision best left to those who it will primarily affect- the men and women fighting, dying and being wounded for their country. If they don’t like it, if they think it will have a negative impact on combat effectiveness then the USA should LISTEN TO THEM.

No one should be trying to force their opinion of how society as a whole should function on a tight knit unit involved in daily life and death decisions. The military is not the civilian world, different rules apply when your job is to kill an enemy trying to kill you.

Jay Mac on December 14, 2010 at 10:18 PM

I’ve a friend that’s USMCR, and he thinks DADT should NOT be repealed. But hey, what’s he know? He’s only been to Iraq twice, and is scheduled for a 2012 deployment to Afghanistan.

tgharris on December 14, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Just a point about comparing US Marines to allied forces.

If the criticisms of the British Army’s performance, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, are justified, then they aren’t doing too well, are they?

If this failure had anything to do with PC, then that is a good indication to leave well alone.

OldEnglish on December 14, 2010 at 10:19 PM

It’s an imperfect analogy, obviously, but the Pentagon did survey troops — including “combat crews” — in 1945 about how they’d feel training in racially mixed units. Turns out that was quite a distraction at the time, too.

That is as erroneous an argument as claiming the Obamacare mandate is constitutional because, “people gotta buy car insurance!”

Apples and Oranges.

darclon on December 14, 2010 at 10:20 PM

But with so many Marines engaged in Afghanistan

There was a story a few years ago of our or Brit troops in Afghanistan, with a bunch of tribesmen coming onto troops, blowing them kisses, kind of thing. This was incredible to me, as I thought the Afghan culture prohibited such conduct. Anyway, the recorded reaction of the troops was of very deep discomfort. You can say “women deal with unwanted advances all the time, it’s time you grew up”. Or you can say there’s a deep visceral (look it up, per Aaron Sorkin) disgust engendered in many when one man comes onto another, especially in a combat situation. That sounds like a valid complaint. Why allow the chance that being touched by another marine in combat has any kind of ambiguous meaning. Even a touch on the shoulder or pat on the back.

Paul-Cincy on December 14, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Sonosam on December 14, 2010 at 10:17 PM

They’re setting up their lawn chairs to watch the trainwreck.

hawkdriver on December 14, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Well said, BobMbx. Many of us understand this and it’s horrifying to me to read how little the Joint Chiefs do.

Lourdes on December 14, 2010 at 9:47 PM

How many of the men on the JCS have EVER seen combat?

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Admiral Michael Mullen United States Navy-NOPE

Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
General James Cartwright United States Marine Corps-Unknown

Chief of Staff of the Army
General George W. Casey, Jr.-Unknown but possibly Vietnam due to year of commission (1970)

Commandant of the Marine Corps
General James F. Amos-Unknown but possibly Vietnam again (commissioned in 1970, Aviator wings in 1971). He has however earned the Bronze Star so some combat experience is probable.

Chief of Naval Operations
Admiral Gary Roughead-Nope

Chief of Staff of the Air Force
General Norton A. Schwartz-Unknown but did serve as a crewman during the 1975 Siagon evacuation

Please correct me if I am wrong here folks but only…….ZERO members of the JCS have CONFIRMED combat experience-3 are possible but from more than 30 years ago.

SgtSVJones on December 14, 2010 at 10:22 PM

Allahpundit on December 14, 2010 at 9:43 PM

Well, if it’s an analogy you’re a-seeking, how about people who don’t produce and/or pay taxes demanding that those who do, pay more? Although it’s been a few years, I DID have problem with sodomites in one of the units in which I served. Was it just those two? Damned if I knew, but when lead flies and hostile locals are attempting to put an end to life, trust me, you have enough to worry about with adding unnecessary “distractions”. I never had a concern with a black man, or with my Mexican roommate (in the 1960′s) or with American Indians. But then, we were all pointed in the same direction. Your argument about what our allies policies are also fails to make the cut. Many of our allies have no problem with weed being used by their troops either, but whether my large carcass was on a flight deck or ashore, I didn’t what to have to worry about the man on whom my life often depended being able to discern reality from hallucination. The military has a specific task. Not every one who wants to serve is fit to serve. In my opinion, none of this is about homosexuals serving in the military, any more than “homosexual marriage” is about rights. This is more of the militant homosexual crowd attempting to legitimize their behavior. Nothing else matters to them.

oldleprechaun on December 14, 2010 at 10:23 PM

In fairness, fully 60 percent of Marines deployed in combat zones think performance would be negatively affected by letting gays serve openly. Amos’s point, I take it, is that under those circumstances any added distraction — doesn’t matter what it is — is capable of getting someone killed.

END OF STORY! PERIOD.

Is one life more important than this frikken social experiment? Is there one politician who’s willing to sacrifice that life for this??? Stop this fu**in nonsense until the war is over.

Amos wasn’t the only General that said this was a mistake. But it sure is getting ignored by the media.

Rovin on December 14, 2010 at 10:23 PM

Ok Allahpundit and the rest of the gay mafia:

Which of you will have the courage to go on the record as supporting DADT repeal even if it means (and it will) reinstatement of the draft?

Rebar on December 14, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Keep DADT: it works just fine.

Jenfidel on December 14, 2010 at 9:41 PM

Predictable take from HA’s resident bigot.

dakine on December 14, 2010 at 10:24 PM

CPL 310 on December 14, 2010 at 10:16 PM

Brilliantly and eloquently stated. DADT is not a broken policy. QUIT TRYING TO FIX IT!!!

CantCureStupid on December 14, 2010 at 10:25 PM

Predictable take from HA’s resident bigot.

dakine on December 14, 2010 at 10:24 PM

I guess I’m a bigot too.

hawkdriver on December 14, 2010 at 10:27 PM

Predictable take from HA’s resident bigot.

dakine on December 14, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Rather unpredictably, the resident bigoted theocratic screwball actually gets one right, and you get it wrong.

The military is not the place for PC crapola nor a playground for homos.

Dark-Star on December 14, 2010 at 10:27 PM

The left has no problemmputting soldiers in additional risk at any given time

from the fat slob Ted Kennedy crying aloud that we reopened a Hussein torture chamber in the US name enraging Muslims to any of the other numerous stories of Koran flushing, torture, carpet bombing innocent women and children ( straight from obamas pos ass ), endless supplies of enemy reenforcement from the commies that care

consider that

Sonosam on December 14, 2010 at 10:28 PM

bigot.

dakine on December 14, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Wow you just destroyed her point.

/

CWforFreedom on December 14, 2010 at 10:29 PM

Predictable take from HA’s resident bigot.

dakine on December 14, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Thank you, dakine.

I’m sure I’m only one of many who appreciate you just writing that you’re expressing your “predictable take”, rather than expecting us to wallow through it.

malclave on December 14, 2010 at 10:31 PM

with that of the U.S.

Lourdes on December 14, 2010 at 10:01 PM

Actually I would give the Norwegians a huge credit for winning WW2.

Read “Skis Against The Atom” for a history of what they accomplished.

F15Mech on December 14, 2010 at 10:32 PM

The Marines deal in reality.

Hening on December 14, 2010 at 9:48 P

M

H.U.R.A.!!

Indian Outlaw on December 14, 2010 at 10:34 PM

bigot.

dakine on December 14, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Punk bitch
See anybody can play this came no ?

kangjie on December 14, 2010 at 10:37 PM

Oops,sorry Mech,that F15,not F-15:)

canopfor on December 14, 2010 at 10:17 PM

No worries both are acceptable to me.

F15Mech on December 14, 2010 at 10:40 PM

There will be a big difference between gays serving who have to keep a low profile and gays serving openly with the ACLU protecting them from any slight, real or imagined. The ACLU messes up everything.

Rose on December 14, 2010 at 10:42 PM

I guess I’m a bigot too.

hawkdriver on December 14, 2010 at 10:27 PM

Maybe you are, in this respect. Many otherwise good, decent people can have blind spots.

crr6 on December 14, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Having killed and been shot at more times in combat than I can recall,
I could care less how the President or the Joint Chiefs feel about this issue. And certainly not how any Congesscowards feel.

I’m with my fellow point-of-the-spear warriors. They say repealing DADT is okay, it’s okay by me. They say otherwise, then you guys with AF1 under your ass or brass on your shoulders, you better listen. This ain’t volleyball.

TXUS on December 14, 2010 at 10:43 PM

guess I’m a bigot too.

hawkdriver on December 14, 2010 at 10:27 PM

I like you hawk and respect your service to this country. I served as well. Honestly though, if your ability to do your job in service of your country is adversely impacted by some sort of irrational fear that the guy next to you wants to give it to you up the ass, then you’re the one with the problem my man. Sorry to have to say that, but there it is.

dakine on December 14, 2010 at 10:47 PM

canopfor on December 14, 2010 at 10:17 PM
============================
No worries both are acceptable to me.

F15Mech on December 14, 2010 at 10:40 PM

F15Mech:)

canopfor on December 14, 2010 at 10:48 PM

decent people can have blind spots.

crr6 on December 14, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Or principles. (Eye of the beholder).

OldEnglish on December 14, 2010 at 10:48 PM

Predictable take from HA’s resident bigot
(Jenfidel).

dakine on December 14, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Jenfidel…not only are you a bigot but I am going to call you a racist and while I am at it a homophobe while I have the chance.

If possible I would nominate you for worst person of the world.

/sarc

F15Mech on December 14, 2010 at 10:51 PM

dakine on December 14, 2010 at 10:47 PM

Will you go on record as supporting the draft, as it will be necessary after DADT is repealed?

Rebar on December 14, 2010 at 10:51 PM

Jenfidel…not only are you a bigot but I am going to call you a racist and while I am at it a homophobe while I have the chance.

If possible I would nominate you for worst person of the world.

/sarc

F15Mech on December 14, 2010 at 10:51 PM

She’s pretty clearly a homophobe, but I don’t think she’s a racist per se. You, I got pegged as a latent homosexual.

dakine on December 14, 2010 at 10:53 PM

Keep DADT: it works just fine.
Jenfidel on December 14, 2010 at 9:41 PM
Predictable take from HA’s resident bigot.
dakine on December 14, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Still smokin the seeds

Sonosam on December 14, 2010 at 10:54 PM

Will you go on record as supporting the draft, as it will be necessary after DADT is repealed?

Rebar on December 14, 2010 at 10:51 PM

Somebody who has clearly never served. Gay dudes and dudettes in the service are obvious to everybody. DADT is a joke. Talk of mass departures from the military if DADT is repealed is demagoguery at its worst.

dakine on December 14, 2010 at 10:56 PM

I got pegged as a latent homosexual.

dakine on December 14, 2010 at 10:53 PM

You pegged me wrong…I however got you pegged as another liberal that just “feels” and has no real world experience in the topics you decide to yap about.

F15Mech on December 14, 2010 at 10:57 PM

Maybe you are, in this respect. Many otherwise good, decent people can have blind spots.

crr6 on December 14, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Maybe sticking someone in the ass while getting some one’s head blown off is fine with you CRR-ruptible, but it’s you that is blind to the conflict at hand.

then you’re the one with the problem my man. Sorry to have to say that, but there it is.

dakine on December 14, 2010 at 10:47 PM

No, it’s you with the problem dakine, your a typical moron who thinks 80% of the country’s got a problem, when it’s the perverted sickness that makes most of this country and its military want to puke. Get over your sickness.

Rovin on December 14, 2010 at 11:00 PM

dakine on December 14, 2010 at 10:56 PM

I served in the Cold War army, and stood post on the inter German border when things looked really bad. So go screw yourself.

If even 5% left because they won’t deal with the homosexual agenda, that would cripple America’s military. The only way to fix it would be to reinstate the draft. Have the courage of your convictions and answer the question.

Rebar on December 14, 2010 at 11:01 PM

You pegged me wrong…I however got you pegged as another liberal that just “feels” and has no real world experience in the topics you decide to yap about.

F15Mech on December 14, 2010 at 10:57 PM

Far from it dipshit. You have no idea what you’re taking about.

dakine on December 14, 2010 at 11:01 PM

You (F15mech) I got pegged as a latent homosexual.

dakine on December 14, 2010 at 10:53 PM

Damn I messed up dakine’s meaning but not my response.

F15Mech on December 14, 2010 at 11:02 PM

once the military takes over, we can finally invade and annex mexico.

good times.

sesquipedalian on December 14, 2010 at 11:04 PM

Far from it dipshit. You have no idea what you’re taking about.

dakine on December 14, 2010 at 11:01 PM

So I go from latent homosexual to dipshit. Yep you are a liberal and can not discuss issues instead you just attack.

F15Mech on December 14, 2010 at 11:04 PM

served in the Cold War army, and stood post on the inter German border when things looked really bad. So go screw yourself.

If even 5% left because they won’t deal with the homosexual agenda, that would cripple America’s military. The only way to fix it would be to reinstate the draft. Have the courage of your convictions and answer the question.

Rebar on December 14, 2010 at 11:01 PM

Meaning you never saw combat, so no, you go screw yourself. The reality is that folks in the service know who is gay and who is straight under DADT. It’s a joke. If you can’t do your job because you’re worried that the guy next to you wants to suck your d*ck, then that’s your problem not his.

dakine on December 14, 2010 at 11:04 PM

liberal Senators Harry Reid, Joe Lieberman, Susan Collins and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are dead set on ramming through a bill at the 11th hour that will allow open homosexuals into the armed services, which will do severe damage to readiness, recruitment and retention.

If pro-homosexual lawmakers are successful, our military will change forever and our national security will be compromised
Passing a bill that
allows open homosexuality in our military would be a
tremendous coup for the discredited, last-gasp 111th
Congress. It would be a painful blow to the resurgent
conservative movement, and radical liberals know it.

Social engineering at it’s best-this bill needs to be defeated.

Bullhead on December 14, 2010 at 11:05 PM

dakine on December 14, 2010 at 11:04 PM

Answer the question.

Rebar on December 14, 2010 at 11:06 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5