Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Voting With Their Feet (Oliver North on DADT)
Creators Syndicate ^ | December 3, 2010 | Oliver North

Posted on 12/02/2010 6:33:23 PM PST by jazusamo

 

 

WASHINGTON — Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Hideki Tojo tried and failed. Mao Zedong, Nikita Khrushchev and Ho Chi Minh couldn't do it. But commander in chief Barack Obama may well succeed where others could not. If he has his way, he will demolish the finest force for good in the history of mankind — the U.S. armed forces. And he wants to make it all happen before the end of the year.

On Nov. 30, Defense Secretary Robert Gates released the much-leaked "Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'" Only the Pentagon could come up with a title like that.

The "report" — 266 pages long — purports to provide military and civilian leaders in Washington with "a comprehensive assessment" and "recommendations" on changes in Defense Department regulations if Section 654 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code is repealed. The 17-year-old law states: "The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." Importantly, the phrase "don't ask, don't tell" appears nowhere in the law.

Supposedly, the "conclusions" and "recommendations" proffered in the "report" are based on a "survey" of currently serving soldiers, sailors, airmen, guardsmen and Marines. Though nearly 400,000 questionnaires on changing the law were circulated, only 115,052 responded. Of those who did reply, 27 percent indicated that allowing open homosexuals into the ranks would adversely affect unit cohesion. Thirty-five percent of service members in deployed combat units said such a change would have a negative impact on combat effectiveness. Sixty-seven percent of Marines and more than 57 percent of soldiers in U.S. Army combat units believe changing the law would hurt combat efficiency, unit cohesion, readiness and retention. Notably, military chaplains — from all denominations — overwhelmingly oppose changing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

In a statement, Obama argued that for the first time, "both the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have publicly endorsed ending this policy." Yet the stunning numbers cited in the report substantiate the "military capability" clause in the current law and directly refute his claim that the law can be changed in the midst of a war "in a responsible manner that ensures our military strength and national security."

This week, in pressing Congress for urgent action to change the law, both Defense Secretary Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, once again raised the canard that Section 654 must be repealed immediately because it "forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens." In fact, current law does no such thing. The law simply says that those who commit certain acts should not be permitted to join the armed forces. It's not about "who they are." It's about what they do.

Apparently unmoved by the concern expressed by well over half of our soldiers, sailors and Marines deployed in war zones, Gates and Mullen now argue that Congress must repeal the law immediately or the courts will intervene. That, too, is a phony argument. Section 654 has withstood more than a dozen legal challenges since it has been on the books. The case now pending in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is but the most recent test. The Obama administration's "legal eagles" need only dust off old files going back to the Clinton administration to see how the law has been upheld in the past.

Obama's push to have the law repealed by this lame-duck session of Congress has been seconded by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. But the full-court press may yet produce the political equivalent of an elbow in the face for the O-Team.

In his testimony Dec. 2, while urging the Senate Armed Services Committee to act immediately on changing the law, Mullen told the solons that service in the military is a "meritocracy" based on "what you do, not who you are." That, of course, is the very argument many of us have been making against allowing active homosexuals into the ranks.

Concerns about repeal — on readiness, retention and recruitment in the brightest, best-educated and most combat-experienced military force in history — are not assuaged by the report. Nearly 25 percent of those now serving — and as many as 32 percent of Marines — said they are likely to leave the service rather than be assigned to live with and serve beside active homosexuals.

This potential attrition — while more than 150,000 troops are serving in harm's way — hasn't diminished the O-Team's zeal for repeal. When Sen. John McCain confronted Mullen with this consequence from allowing homosexuals into the military, the admiral replied, "We'll deal with that." Gates, ever sympathetic to the needs of our troops, observed, "They can't just up and leave."

No, they can't. But when they come home, they can vote with their feet. Is wrecking the world's finest military the price we have to pay for a campaign promise? Only this lame-duck Congress knows the answer.



TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: dadt; gates; homosexualagenda; mullen; obama; olivernorth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 last
To: jonrick46

Repealing DODT would open up a whole new level of opportunity for sexual harassment. Not that it’s not happening now to a degree, but to condone the behavior via legislation will open a hornet’s nest.


41 posted on 12/03/2010 9:27:08 AM PST by MayflowerMadam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo; P-Marlowe
To have a survey on an issue of this importance with less than a third of them filled out

Exactly. Moreover it appears that those who responded got to self-select. Therefore, those who responded were (1) interested enough to reply, (2) unconcerned with anonymity, (3) unconcerned with the "feelings" based questions.

All of the above means they got a skewed kind of respondant, and that a huge group of "kinds" of people were left out.

It's simply not a representative survey.

42 posted on 12/03/2010 9:58:01 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain & proud of it: Truly Supporting the Troops means praying for their Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Pollaganda.


43 posted on 12/03/2010 3:11:28 PM PST by WOSG (Carpe Diem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Have either man actually served with low-level combat troops (or even non-combat troops) or did they, as I imagine, serve in an officer corps, nor sleeping, showering and eating alongside dozens of troops in the field?


44 posted on 12/03/2010 3:48:39 PM PST by zerosix (native sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOSG

Great word!


45 posted on 12/03/2010 3:50:47 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain & proud of it: Truly Supporting the Troops means praying for their Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: zerosix

Gates didn’t serve in the military and Mullen has no combat ribbon. I would imagine it’s been many years since Mullen served along side Navy personnel that do the fighting.


46 posted on 12/03/2010 4:03:07 PM PST by jazusamo (His [Obama's] political base---the young, the left and the thoughtless: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

After my post, I googled Gates and a site stated that he got an Air Force commission. Nothing about him serving anywhere but merely having been commissioned.


47 posted on 12/03/2010 9:01:40 PM PST by zerosix (native sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Bob

“And many more good people won’t enlist at all.”

I think so, too.


48 posted on 12/03/2010 9:24:38 PM PST by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: zerosix

I stand corrected, he was commissioned in the AF. I believe little has been said about it.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/robert_gates.htm

excerpt:

“Shortly after joining the CIA in 1966, gates was commissioned into the Air Force as a second lieutenant, serving in the Strategic Air Command from 1967 to 1969.”


49 posted on 12/04/2010 10:36:42 AM PST by jazusamo (His [Obama's] political base---the young, the left and the thoughtless: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson