Gen. James F. Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps, suggested in an interview yesterday that allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military could not only harm unit cohesion, but could actually increase casualties. Here are the opening paragraphs of the Washington Post report on the subject:

Marine general suggests repeal of ‘don’t ask’ could result in casualties

The Marine Corps’ top general suggested Tuesday that allowing gays to serve openly in the military could result in more casualties because their presence on the battlefield would pose “a distraction.”

“When your life hangs on the line,” said Gen. James F. Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps, “you don’t want anything distracting. . . . Mistakes and inattention or distractions cost Marines’ lives.”

In an interview with newspaper and wire service reporters at the Pentagon, Amos was vague when pressed to clarify how the presence of gays would distract Marines during a firefight. But he cited a recent Defense Department survey in which a large percentage of Marine combat veterans predicted that repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law would harm “unit cohesion” and their tight-knit training for war.

“So the Marines came back and they said, ‘Look, anything that’s going to break or potentially break that focus and cause any kind of distraction may have an effect on cohesion,’ ” he said. “I don’t want to permit that opportunity to happen. And I’ll tell you why. If you go up to Bethesda [Naval] Hospital . . . Marines are up there with no legs, none. We’ve got Marines at Walter Reed [Army Medical Center] with no limbs.”

Amos had said previously that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly could cause “distractions” and “risks” for combat units. But his remarks Tuesday were the first time that he or any other senior military leader has suggested that repealing the 17-year-old “don’t ask, don’t tell” law could directly endanger troops and cost lives.

Advocates for repeal of the current law against homosexuality in the military are scoffing at Gen. Amos’ remarks, insisting there is no conceivable scenario under which the presence of homosexual troops could lead to casualties.

However, retired Marine Gen. John J. Sheehan gave a specific example of how this could happen in his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee last March—an example drawn from his own personal experience in combat in Vietnam. Here is his description of the incident, from the transcript of the March 18 hearing (bottom of p. 16 to p. 17 in the link):

General SHEEHAN. Senator, in my experience, homosexual marines create problems on the battlefield. Let me give you a case and point.

Early years of Vietnam, 9th Marines, West of Da Nang, rifle company on a ridgeline combat outpost, the intelligence was that the North Vietnamese were going to attack, that night. The unit was put on 50-percent alert, which meant one slept, one stood on watch. About 1 o’clock in the morning, a fight broke out in a foxhole because the young marine was being molested by his squad leader. To the right of that foxhole, there was a machinegun section that opened up and almost killed a combat patrol that was out in the front.

Now, the natural question is, ‘‘Okay. Well, fine, don’t you have rules that deal with assault?’’ and the answer to that’s yes.

The real issue, though, was that, after we sorted this whole thing out, the sergeant—the squad leader essentially said, ‘‘Look, I was just adjusting his equipment, waking him up because the—I thought there was something out to the front.’’ He denied it happened. The young PFC, who was new to the organization, said, ‘‘Wait a minute. This really happened to me. He was molesting me.’’ The unit took sides, naturally. The squad leader was a popular person, been around for a while. The PFC was a new kid. For about 3 days, that unit divided down the middle—those that supported the popular squad leader, those that kind of thought the new kid might be believable.

The only reason we sorted the issue out was because the sergeant committed the offense about 3 days later. But, the real tragedy of this story is, the young PFC continually insisted, for a long period of time, that nobody in his organization believed it happened. He lost faith in his chain of command.

So, I would argue the case that, if you look at—and you can say that I’m some old guy that’s been around for a while, and been—probably been around for too long. But, I read——

Senator MCCAIN. You’re not the only one that——

General SHEEHAN. Well—but, I read the Defense Department’s recently released sexual assault report. And the thing that really bothers me about this issue is that the report says—and this is last year’s report—there’s been an overall 11-percent rise in sexual assaults in the military; 16-percent rise in Afghanistan and Iraq; 32—over 3200 cases of sexual—we’re not talking about sexual harassment, we’re talking about sexual assault. Seven percent of those— that’s about 226—male on male assaults, where rape and sodomy took place. And the Department of Defense will clearly indicate that that’s an underreporting.

I would stipulate that, from my days in Vietnam in the early ’60s, when I had this sergeant that almost got a combat patrol killed, that a—226 male soldiers and marines who are molested—that there’s something wrong with our sexual behavior policy.

Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell, Homosexuals, Military

Comments: - |

On December 3, 2010, Military Service Chiefs from five branches of America’s Armed Forces testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the possible repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

For more, visit Mission Compromised.

Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell, Military, U.S. Senate

Comments: - |

There are numerous arguments pro and con on the issue of homosexuality in the military, but the survey of Service members released by the Pentagon on Tuesday has decisively proved at least one argument against the current push to overturn existing law, and decisively refuted at least one argument in favor of that effort.

The Comprehensive Review Working Group report actually identified these arguments in their summary of “What We Heard” about the issue. One argument against repeal was described as: “Why now? We are at war.” Many have argued that with our armed forces stretched by the demands of two wars, this is not the time to impose further strain by implementing a radical change in personnel policy to appease a political interest group. (FRC does not believe there would ever be a “good” time for such a change—but the immediate circumstances are nevertheless a legitimate concern for lawmakers facing an immediate legislative vote).

It has been widely reported that soldiers and Marines in combat arms units were more likely to predict negative impacts from repeal of current law than were other Service members. While 62% of all Service members expected at least some negative results if current law were overturned, the same was true of 74% of all Marines and of Army combat arms soldiers, and 82% of Marines in combat arms units. An outright majority of the latter group, 57.5%, declared bluntly that it would affect their “task cohesion” either negatively or “very negatively,” while a minuscule 9% foresaw a positive impact.

The people on the front lines of our wars are the most concerned about repeal—a compelling argument against it.

On the other hand, the CRWG described the advocates of repeal as arguing, “We need everyone willing and able to serve.” In other words, the military simply cannot afford to lose the skills of existing or potential homosexual Service members. This is an issue of recruiting and retention—what policy will provide the military with the personnel that it needs.

Here again, the results are overwhelming. The surveys showed that the number who would be less willing to recommend a military career if open homosexuality is permitted is four times higher than the number who would be more willing to recommend it. In addition, the percentage who would themselves leave the military sooner than planned or consider doing so if current law is repealed, was more than six times higher than the number who would stay longer or consider doing so.

It’s clear—the personnel losses to the military as a result of repeal would vastly outnumber any gains from allowing homosexuals in the ranks.

These are two strong points against the effort to overturn current law, even in a report designed to support that effort.

Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell, Homosexuality, Military

Comments: 1 |

Mark Thompson has posted a piece on Time magazine’s “Swampland” blog regarding the possible overturning (which he considers “inevitable”) of the current law against homosexual conduct in the military.

Such a radical change in military policy is hardly “inevitable.” Legislation to repeal the law is on life support following last month’s Senate vote to block it, and Judge Virginia Phillips’ muddled ruling that the law is unconstitutional ignored so much existing precedent that it is unlikely to be upheld.

Thompson, however, has delved into the archives of military history and relates findings about how African Americans were integrated within the armed forces without major difficulty. He concludes that the “integration” of homosexuals would take place just as smoothly.

One key difference, of course, is that blacks had long been eligible to serve in the military, but had served in segregated units. In contrast, homosexuals have always been considered ineligible for military service at all. (The popular misnomer “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” misleads many into believing that active homosexuals are currently welcomed by the military as long as they stay in the closet. The truth is the opposite—the 1993 law mandates, with very limited exceptions, the discharge of any servicemember who “has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts.”)

Furthermore, Thompson simply assumes the answer to two critical threshold questions:

1)      Is being “gay” like being black?

2)      Is sexual conduct relevant to military effectiveness?

The logical answer to #1 is no. Homosexuality is a behavioral characteristic; being black is a superficial matter of skin color. The racial integration of the military was successful precisely because it proved that the behavior of black soldiers did not differ from that of whites. But with homosexuality, a difference in behavior is what defines the issue. Do not be fooled by vague references to “sexual orientation” as though it were an innate characteristic—what homosexual activists now seek is the right to continue engaging in homosexual acts while in the military .

Homosexual activists compare “sexual orientation” to race in order to obscure the important differences between sexual attractions, behavior, and self-identification. Only the attractions are, like race, involuntary; but none of these elements of “sexual orientation” are (like race) inborn, immutable, innocuous, and in the Constitution.  The 1993 law which homosexual activists seek to overturn is focused on homosexual conduct, and treats attractions or self-identification as relevant only because they are evidence of “a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.”

So does the military have a legitimate interest in regulating the sexual conduct of its members? The answer has always been yes, with respect to heterosexual conduct as well as homosexual. Adultery, for instance, remains a crime in the military, at a time when the civil law has long since become indifferent to it. As Congress found in 1993, “high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion . . . are the essence of military capability,” and there is no doubt that sexual conduct can threaten those standards and harm that capability.

Sexual tension, sexual harassment, and sexual assault are problems that exist among heterosexuals in the military—but those problems would increase if homosexuals were allowed to serve, because it would be impossible to separate homosexuals the way that men and women are separated in their most intimate settings (showers, sleeping quarters, etc.). Increased health problems among homosexuals (in particular, dramatically higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV among men who have sex with men) would pose a direct challenge to military readiness.

The analogy to the racial integration of the military, even if it had any validity, would apply only to the concern that homosexuality in the military would damage recruiting and retention of personnel. But those are only two out of the nine likely negative consequences of repealing the current law that were identified by Col. Robert Maginnis in the FRC booklet Mission Compromised.  The others are:

• Damage to unit effectiveness.
• Health consequences with high cost.

• Threats to freedom of those who morally object to homosexuality.
• Special protections for homosexuals.
• Taxpayer-funded benefits to homosexual partners of servicemembers.
• Possibility of costly new living arrangements to protect privacy.
• Changes to military law and regulations regarding sexual offenses.

The argument that, as the “gay” newsmagazine The Advocate recently declared on its cover, “Gay is the New Black,” is one that most blacks resent, and that simply cannot stand up to serious scrutiny.

Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell, Homosexuality, Mark Thompson, Military, Virginia Phillips

Comments: 1 |

It’s another classic bureaucratic report from the Pentagon. In the wake of the murders of 14 persons by Nidal Hasan last November, the Secretary of Defense demanded a full report. [Yes, there were fourteen victims. One of those killed was a pregnant woman.] Well, the Secretary got his report. It’s another doorstop of a document replete with all the usual verbiage when it comes to pop psychology and busy-work buzz words. Here’s what the Department of Defense press release tells us:

Continue reading »

Tags: Defense, Fort Hood, Military

Comments: - |