Green Room

The Greatest Story Never Told—Ban on Homosexuals “Serving Openly” in Military Should Not Be Overturned in Wartime, Say Three of Five Service Chiefs

posted at 9:54 am on December 5, 2010 by

Political rule of thumb: When the NEWS is perceived to be damaging to your agenda, release it on Friday.

Despite the liberal media’s fawning over the repeal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” over the past week, and the “cherry-picked survey” they’ve depended on to drive the conversation, the Senate Armed Services Committee conveniently waited until Friday to depose our TOP GENERALS. Predictably, the Friday news dump, (the day when the fewest amount of the general public are informed), reveals a strong disagreement from top generals on the repeal of DADT:

Washington DC (CNSNews.com) – Given the U.S. involvement in the Afghanistan war, this is not the right time to repeal the law that bans homosexuals from serving in the military, Army, Air Force, and Marine chiefs told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Friday.

At the same time, heads of the Navy and U.S. Coast Guard, while expressing concerns about possible backlash, joined the vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs in telling the Senate panel that Congress should move to repeal the law.

The three who voiced opposition to abolishing the law did say they would comply if Congress moves to repeal the statue.

“Based on what I know about the very tough fight in Afghanistan, the almost singular focus as they train up and deploy into theater, the necessary tightly woven culture of those combat forces that we are asking so much of at this time, and finally the direct feedback from the [Pentagon] survey, my recommendation is that we should not implement repeal at this time,” said Gen. James Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps.  LINK

While the survey General Amos refers to was certainly interpreted differently by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the media, why Secretary Gates failed to mention three of his top generals expressed a serious concern in wartime remains a mystery. General Amos testified that these concerns were actually derived from the survey showing the front line Marines had negative perceptions of the repeal:

“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 told the panel. “We asked for their opinion and they gave it to us. Their message is that the potential exists for disruption to the successful execution of our current combat mission, should repeal be implemented at this time.”

Alluding to the survey, the Marine chief said, “Approximately 45 percent of Marines surveyed view the repeal negatively regarding unit effectiveness, unit readiness, and cohesion.”

He continued, “Of particular concern to me is that roughly 56 percent of combat arms Marines voiced negative concerns. Negative benchmarks for combat arms Marines ranged between 66 percent for unit effectiveness and 58 percent for cohesion.”

Army chief of staff Gen. George Casey Jr. and Air Force chief of staff Gen. Norton Schwartz agreed with General Amos on this consensus that the repeal would disruptive in a time of war:  The Pentagon survey “clearly states that over 40 percent of our combat arms soldiers believe that the presence of a gay service member in their unit would have a negative impact on the unit’s effectiveness, on the trust that the soldiers feel for each other and on their morale,” Casey added.

Air Force chief of staff Gen. Norton Schwartz, who agrees that the law should not be repealed at this time, was more specific as to when the statute should be overturned.

“It’s difficult for me as a member of the Joint Chiefs to recommend placing any additional discretionary demands on our leadership cadres in Afghanistan at this particularly demanding time,” Schwartz told the Senate panel.

General Schwartz recommended deferring this proposal to 2012.

While last week we were blasted with the ever reliable liberal media staking the claim that the military brass was ready to openly accept gays in the service, it appears this isn’t the case. One has to question why the still Democrat controlled Senate Armed Services Committee scheduled these generals to testify at the end of the week. Perhaps they knew in advance that the testimony would not be favorable to their agenda and found Friday to be “a convenient” time. Even our esteemed Allahpundit managed to “bury the lead” at the bottom of his post at 5:33 pm on Friday:

Oh my: Scott Brown and Susan Collins to vote yes on repealing DADT—posted at 5:33 pm on December 3, 2010 by Allahpundit

(Third paragraph)  “In the interest of equal time after last night’s post, here’s vid of Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos politely disagreeing with Gates and Mullen about repealing DADT right now. Emphasis on “right now”: He accepts repeal as a fait accompli, he just wants it on hold until the services aren’t under the strain of combat.”

In fairness to Allahpundit, his story was about Brown and Collins voting in the affirmative to repeal DADT, and he did mention in the same paragraph that the Army and Air Force generals agreed with Amos.   But, when three out of five of the branches of our Armed Services have serious concerns about repealing DADT while their troops are in combat, THIS SHOULD BE NEWS! Curiously, (I know I’ll catch some flak for this), only the “water-boys” of the Navy and Coast Guard gave their blessings to Congress to repeal the act.

But, like the global warming consensus that became “settled science” until the truth emerged that there was an agenda, the liberal media will proclaim DADT repeal a done deal.

Update:  lexhamfox makes an excellent point that must require a change in the title. For the record, I took the title directly from the CNS News report. The proper, and honest title has been amended to : Ban on Homosexuals “Serving Openly” in Military Should Not Be Overturned in Wartime, Say Three of Five Service Chiefs.

Thanks to lexhamfox for bringing this glaring oversight to my attention.

Recently in the Green Room:

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

From a Headlines story comment thread:

Following is the breakdown of the Service members who received the survey and responded by Service:

• Army – 19% of active duty personnel who received the survey responded, 22% for the Army National Guard, and 25% for U.S. Army Reserve
• Marine Corps – 29% of active duty personnel who received the survey responded and 20% for the Marine Corps Reserve
• Navy – 28% of active duty personnel who received the survey responded and 33% for the U.S. Navy Reserve
• Air Force – 39% of active duty personnel who received the survey responded, 38% for Air Force National Guard, and 39% for the Air Force Reserve
• Coast Guard – 54% of active duty personnel who received the survey responded and 39% for Coast Guard Reserve.

troops answered as follows:”

Q45. If you had a leader whom you believed was gay or lesbian…9% positive, 91% negative or mixed impact on unit’s performance.

Q68c. 85% of Marine Combat Arms, 75% of Army Combat Arms, 64% overall say Negative, Very Negative, or Mixed impact on unit trust if DADT is repealed.

Q90. 29% would take no action if assigned open showers with homosexuals. 71% would shower at other times, complain to leadership or chaplains, don’t know or do “something else” [including violence].

Q81. 24% will leave the military or think about leaving sooner than planned. (One half million troops will QUIT the service early, destroying our national security.)

Q80. 6% will positively recommend service to others after repeal. 94% feel negative, mixed, no effect, or don’t know about recommending military service to others. (Destroying recruiting efforts.)

Q66. If open homosexuality impacts combat performance, is the impact…9% positive, 91% negative or mixed impact.

Q71. 11% feel positive or very positive about permitting open homosexuality in field environment or out at sea. 60% negative or mixed. 19% no effect.

Q73. 5% say repeal would positively boost morale. 41% say negative or mixed impact morale. Rest no effect or don’t know.

sharrukin on December 4, 2010 at 8:36 PM

The survey is bunk. The return rate alone (what was it, 30%) should rule the survey out as relating anything positive about repealing DADT.

These three service chiefs should take Adm Mullens advice I guess and just quit.

catmman on December 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Because of their testimony, both Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen will have to deal with the secondary effects among the Chiefs. There will be trust issues to deal with. The good news is DADT is dead, at least for the next two years if not longer. This show is over folks.

flackcatcher on December 5, 2010 at 11:21 AM

I like what Tom Selleck said:

Men don’t like to take showers with men who like to take showers with men.

The same goes for rooming together.
I would not have joined the Air Force in the ’80s if homosexuals were allowed in. Since so many men have the same mindset as me, who are the services going get to replace the lack of men?
Men who like to shower with men.

itsnotaboutme on December 5, 2010 at 12:26 PM

Well, the service chief in the Navy, the CNO, and the CJCOS ADM Mullins, are from the surface-ship driving union in the Navy. As a former ship-driver, I personally saw how integration of women worked in the late 80′s.

Integration was not easy, and made mission accomplishment more nuanced. But it was made to work, for varying values of work. This making it work is where the Navy leadership is coming from, in their own history.

The CNO and the CJCOS have been getting a lot of abuse in other Navy-specific blogs for a number of issues besides DADT. The recommended dismissal of CAPT Holly Graf from the Navy for mistreating her crew draws a lot of comments on how she was promoted so far based on her sociopathic personality. Some claim quotas.

Many besides myself are saying, not now. We do not need to add potential problem children into the ranks, and we do not have a recruiting or a retention problem.

And I’ll recycle an old canard. On a sub, 100 submariners submerge, and 50 couples surface.

NaCly dog on December 5, 2010 at 1:16 PM

Everyday, AP shoves down our throats another gays and the military article. He should just come out of the closet, already.

Blake on December 5, 2010 at 1:46 PM

The same goes for rooming together.
I would not have joined the Air Force in the ’80s if homosexuals were allowed in. Since so many men have the same mindset as me, who are the services going get to replace the lack of men?
Men who like to shower with men.

1) Pick a percentage of the general population that is homosexual. Call this Percentage A.
2) Using whatever sources you like, determine the percentage of the total general population (which would include homosexuals) that enlist in the military. Call this Percentage B.
3) Calculate from Percentage B, the total number of homosexuals likely to enlist in the military from Percentage A. Call this Percentage C.

Now, with a straight face, do declare that if homosexuals were permitted to [openly] enlist in the military that you would not have enlisted in the Air Force yourself. It’s pretty easy to say that you wouldn’t have enlisted in the Air Force if gays were allowed to [openly] enlist, but I don’t believe that for a second.

=]

Jeddite on December 5, 2010 at 8:14 PM

Curiously, (I know I’ll catch some flak for this), only the “water-boys” of the Navy and Coast Guard gave their blessings to Congress to repeal the act.

There’s a reason that Churchill said that the Royal Navy ran on “rum, sodomy, and the lash.” They are faithfully upholding Navy tradition. 8-)

SDN on December 5, 2010 at 9:14 PM

SDN on December 5, 2010 at 9:14 PM

Yeah, the Royal Navy. The U.S. Navy does things a little different.

NaCly dog on December 5, 2010 at 1:16 PM

(Sigh) Poor bubbleheads, they can never catch a break.

Rightwingguy on December 5, 2010 at 11:43 PM

Curiously, (I know I’ll catch some flak for this), only the “water-boys” of the Navy and Coast Guard gave their blessings to Congress to repeal the ac

Consider this your “flak”.

“Water boys?” That’s it, that’s the best you can do? Not “Puddle Pirates” (Coasties) or “Squids” (Navy)? I mean at least come up with something better than that, shesh!
;)

Rightwingguy on December 5, 2010 at 11:47 PM

The Greatest Story Never Told—Ban on Homosexuals in Military Should Not Be Overturned in Wartime, Say Three of Five Service Chiefs

They aren’t banned. Gays have been serving for ages. They are told that they should lie and hide while defending their and our freedom.

lexhamfox on December 6, 2010 at 11:15 AM

I spent twenty-two years in the military. Not one time did I ever engage in a conversation with anyone at work about my sexual activities with my wife. I must have been hiding from my sexuality according to your logic?

I also was not aware that the military was in the business of justifying a persons sexual proclivities. Have you ever heard the phrase “If the (insert name of service here) wanted you to have a wife/girlfriend/significant other they would issue you one!”? Does that mean the military was being discriminatory towards my heterosexuality, my marriage?

I am sick and effing tired of gays and gay advocates spouting their crap about hiding and lying. Its been said before, but I’ll say it again – if military service were compulsory, then there would be a point to that argument. Since military service is voluntary, anyone going in knows the rules and standards up front – especially as it pertains to homosexuality – then who is responsible for any pain in having to ‘hide’ and ‘lie’ about who they are?

But, but, gays want to serve their country! Then join the Peace Corps or AmeriCorps. Get a job in the public sector which helps the government/country. Get a job for a military contractor. There are plenty of avenues to explore if you want to serve your country. If you want to serve in the military – then control yourself for a few years, keep your sexuality to yourself, and serve. DADT allows you to do that.

If you want to serve, shouldn’t your dedication to your country override any personal wants or needs? Isn’t that a particular part of military service – for everyone?

catmman on December 6, 2010 at 11:41 AM

The Greatest Story Never Told—Ban on Homosexuals in Military Should Not Be Overturned in Wartime, Say Three of Five Service Chiefs

They aren’t banned. Gays have been serving for ages. They are told that they should lie and hide while defending their and our freedom.

lexhamfox on December 6, 2010 at 11:15 AM

The post title has been changed, (along with an update at the bottom of the post) for an obvious “clarification”.

Thanks again lex.

Rovin on December 6, 2010 at 12:01 PM

They aren’t banned. Gays have been serving for ages. They are told that they should lie and hide while defending their and our freedom.

lexhamfox on December 6, 2010 at 11:15 AM

Living a lie is not quite as dishonorable as practicing homosexuality, but neither are bragging fodder, my friend.

itsnotaboutme on December 6, 2010 at 3:49 PM

catmman on December 6, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Brilliant!

itsnotaboutme on December 6, 2010 at 3:50 PM

catmman on December 6, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Agreed. This is the point I’ve made over and over myself: repealing DADT is not about gays serving, it’s about gays telling.

NaCly dog mentioned integrating women in front-line positions, and I know just what he means about that being the model for the thinking of many in the Navy. But there’s a key difference in the issues involved, when integrating women versus allowing open homosexuality.

Integrating women is about whether the women can do the job and whether their presence will be disruptive. There are valid issues in that regard, which only a feminist nitwit would pretend don’t exist. The bottom line is whether women can serve to the military standard.

But open homosexuality isn’t about whether gays can do the job or serve to the military standard. We already know they can. Gay men can do the jobs, and lesbians can do all the jobs open to women. What repealing DADT is about is making homosexuality an issue in military culture. It’s about demanding that the military culture adjust to homosexuality.

It’s disingenuous to the point of asinine to declare that there’s nothing to adjust to. If there were nothing to adjust to, people wouldn’t stay away from ballparks on Gay Pride Day because of what they don’t want their kids to see.

For people out in the civilian world, relative societal harmony is maintained by everyone having the freedom to get no closer than he prefers to, to things that make him uncomfortable. The people who proclaim themselves to be the most open-minded still pick and choose what they will live with — as they and everyone else should be able to.

But the military doesn’t give you that “space.” It has no ability to “tolerate.” It can only endorse, prohibit, and/or regulate. Lawsuits and fear of political backlash will keep the military from prohibiting things that make a majority of servicemembers uncomfortable — things that ought, by any measure of common sense, to be prohibited, to preserve morale, good order, and discipline.

Meanwhile, if DADT is repealed, the first spectacle we will be treated to is the Secretary of Defense solemnly greeting all the gay servicemembers during Gay Pride month, and commanders being required to commemorate it. Think of that: distinguishing soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines for special recognition because of who they have sex with. Now, that’s the very definition of a military mission.

J.E. Dyer on December 6, 2010 at 4:36 PM

catmman,

most poor and twisted logic. your attempt at equating discussion of details of sexual behavior with sexual preference is far from well thought out.

your

Since military service is voluntary, anyone going in knows the rules and standards up front

is hollow and doesn’t address the fact that standards can be changed or that this set of standards is little better than other standards which have been changed. I’m sure in your term of service you managed to survive serving in racially integrated units.

audiculous on December 6, 2010 at 8:17 PM

JED, you manage to remain bassackwards

What repealing DADT is about is making homosexuality an issue in military culture

the issue is all about removing homosexuality as an issue.

audiculous on December 6, 2010 at 8:21 PM

audiculous on December 6, 2010 at 8:21 PM

Audiculos, I disagree. JED has it correct.

Grasp this; mission effectiveness is the living core of the military. If needed, commanders send their subordinated to a certain doom to complete the assigned mission. Small group dynamics is the key to military effectiveness. It takes skill and effort to get all the groups working together.

I will aver that “diversity” as a goal in the military is an insidious rot that is overtaking the military. There are fissures appearing of different standards for “different” people. This is a killer for military effectiveness.

We need in-sensitive individuals that can work together without the extra divisive effects of in-group sexual tension. Gays serving today benefit from DADT because the focus is on job performance. Do your job, no problem.
Ask any one serving today if we need more diversity in promotions, awards or training. This is not a new problem, but we do not need to add to the level of problems for no gain.

NaCly dog on December 6, 2010 at 9:53 PM

audiculous on December 6, 2010 at 8:17 PM

So your argument is that homosexuality is like race? Really? A persons sexual preference is now on par with racial equality?

I do so enjoy a person who calls my logic into question without stating its flaws. You are correct that standards do change. Entrance and behavioral standards though change little over time.

There is a segment of the population which wants sex between adults and children to be legalized (I’m not drawing a comparison, settle down). Are you suggesting the military, if said movement were to someday gain steam or prominence, should embrace such behavior? Why not? Of course this is a ridiculous example, but do you see the point?

You say my statement:

Since military service is voluntary, anyone going in knows the rules and standards up front – especially as it pertains to homosexuality – then who is responsible for any pain in having to ‘hide’ and ‘lie’ about who they are?

Is hollow. How? It has the benefit of being the truth. An uncomfortable one for some, yes, but the truth nonetheless. Are you saying a gay person is incapable of knowing the standards before they go in? Of course you’re not. But knowing the standards and making a conscious decision to enter anyway, seems a bit stupid to me. You might say that some people might not know they are gay when they go in. OK, fine. But once they ‘realize’ they are gay, don’t they then have a duty to themselves to exit from a way of life (the military) which doesn’t embrace your personal proclivities and then to the service they profess to love by exiting, thereby adhering to the standards they swore to uphold?

A fat person wanting to go in the military will be refused entry – since they are fat and would fail the fitness test. But maybe they can pass the test, yet don’t fit the ‘image’. The military term is ‘dress and appearance’. A person can be fit as a fiddle, but if they don’t fit the image, they’ll pay for it. I saw a full bird colonel dress down a TSgt (E6) during a Wing ‘Fun Run’. Because the person “looked fat” in his PT gear. The guy was a big boy. Yet he had passed his AF PT test just the week before. According to the AF, he was fit, but he didn’t ‘appear’ the part, so he didn’t adhere to the standard. Was it fair of the Colonel to dress the guy down? No. But the Colonel was within his rights to do so under the ‘appearance’ standard the service had set. In essence the military can discriminate on the basis of appearance. So the big guy should get a class action lawsuit together and change the militaries culture because he got his feelings hurt? As a matter of fact, he was denied re-enlistment some months later – simply because he didn’t ‘look the part’.

If a person becomes fat while in the military, if they continue to fail to adhere to standards, they will be discharged Why? Isn’t that discriminatory? Maybe they even have a genetic predisposition to obesity (which I don’t buy, btw). Aren’t then the militaries fitness standards discriminatory? Why or why not?

You might say they cannot do the job the military needs them to do. Well, they don’t need to deploy, right? They may not be able to do combat duty, but we don’t allow females into combat, right? But we don’t discharge females. Females can get pregnant and are waived from most duties and can’t deploy at all while they are pregnant and for a time after, but we don’t discharge them. But just because a guy is overweight – though he can perform the same mission a female troop can – we discharge him? But that isn’t discrimination? Why?

I know some of this may seem hollow to someone who hasn’t spent a majority of their life in the military as I have, but that doesn’t make them hollow. I have the benefit of having lived in the real world and know what this type of PC garbage will do to the military.

Addendum: I can’t believe I wrote all of this stuff. But as I read it again, I decided to keep it and post it if for no other reason than to show how convoluted the DADT repeal advocates sound when they make their points too. The difference though is that my points, though convoluted, make sense.

catmman on December 6, 2010 at 9:58 PM

NaCly dog

if you can show that homosexuals serving in the military compromise “mission effectiveness” you’ll do all of us I service by writing it out, instead of simply stating that homosexuality mandates different standards.

Seriously and sincerely, tell us how there’s something about people not hiding their homosexuality that’s going to cause a long-term degradation of effectiveness.

audiculous on December 6, 2010 at 10:09 PM

Not one time did I ever engage in a conversation with anyone at work about my sexual activities with my wife.

I pointed out that” details of your sexual activities ” are not comparable to being open about sexual preference.

Did you mention to your colleagues that you had a wife and that you were heterosexual?

That would be comparable.

I clearly understand your point about homosexuals know that being openly homosexual is prohibited at present. What I tried to impress upon you is that there’s nothing that prevents people from working to change that rule.

The point isn’t in adhering to the rule, but whether the rule is worthwhile.
I’m not real big on “PC”, there’s as nearly as much stupidly and bigotry in that as there was in the crap that it overthrew, but I can’t understand how females in combat is a fair analogy, unless you know, which i don’t, that male homosexuals are overwhelmingly weaker and slower than other men.

audiculous on December 6, 2010 at 10:24 PM

audiculous on December 6, 2010 at 10:09 PM

The key phrase you omitted was “openly serving.” I’ll turn your question around. Which is more important, the individual with his very personal identity, or the unit and the mission?
If an individual is consumed with the importance of their identity, that could bring problems into group behavior. This statement is true, irrespective of the individual’s plumbing, body fat status, fitness standard, or cleanliness.

What does openly serving mean to you?

Audiculous, you said “The point isn’t in adhering to the rule, but whether the rule is worthwhile.” Does the military need more people today? No, retention and recruiting are fine. Are there special skills only openly serving homosexuals brig to the military? What does the military gain by changing the DADT rule?

NaCly dog on December 6, 2010 at 11:31 PM

NaCly dog, actually if were going to continue fighting the world-wide war on terror, we might need some more troops.

When Obama sent the 40,000 to Afghanistan, we were a bit stretched.

What does the military gain by changing the DADT rule?

Beside the entirely obvious, that it enlarges the pool of possible recruits, it’s entirely possible that ending a bad rule is a good thing.

audiculous on December 6, 2010 at 11:48 PM

Beside the entirely obvious, that it enlarges the pool of possible recruits, it’s entirely possible that ending a bad rule is a good thing.

audiculous on December 6, 2010 at 11:48 PM

Well “widens”, yes. Although I’m not expecting droves and droves of people to sign up should DADT be repealed.

Rightwingguy on December 9, 2010 at 12:49 AM

Rightwingguy,

that’s about correct. droves aren’t going to suddenly sign up. and droves of people currently serving aren’t going to be running away either.

the rules change and pretty much the same people do the same stuff as always and soon no one remembers what all the hollering was about.

audiculous on December 9, 2010 at 10:37 AM