HuffPo: Three Generals Put New Twist on March Madness
"Three Generals Put New Twist on March Madness"
Huffington Post
March 27, 2010
I know it's March Madness but really, what were Generals Sheehan, Mixon, and Conway thinking when they shot an air ball that went flying out of bounds. If the generals want to make the team, they might want to ask their Commander in Chief for a lesson or two.
One likely possibility is that the generals weren't thinking at all. That's a pretty alarming possibility when one considers that they have been or are commanders of men and women. Even freshly minted second lieutenants know about the chain of command, about following orders, about who gives the orders, and who's their Commander in Chief. They teach that at West Point and Annapolis. They taught it at Fort Jackson, S.C., where I underwent my basic and advanced infantry training. They teach it in high school civics classes.
Over the last month all three of these presumably seasoned generals loaded with enough silver stars to start their own constellation forgot what every service member learns in basic training.
First it was retired Marine General John J. Sheehan testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee March 18 suggesting the Dutch military had gone berserk and made possible the massacre at Srebrenika because of all those gays in the barracks. Watch his testimony here. They were a distraction or something, so nobody noticed all those bodies being tossed into trenches. Their streets may look clean, even the windows, but deep down the Netherlands is capital D Decadent. The incontrovertible proof is that they welcome gays and lesbians into their military.
So don't say General Sheehan didn't warn you, Senators. Let them in and they'll bring down the neighborhood faster than you can say "March Madness." The same is sure to happen here if the Senate repeals "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
That nonsense was news to a lot of people including the Dutch, who are still steaming. The general's facts were, umm, more factoid than factual. They wouldn't have passed a fact checker at the New Yorker, that's for sure. But he's pretty good at laying his prejudices on the table. An incredulous Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, pointed out there was no evidence whatsoever, on or off the record, to support the former NATO Commander's assertions.
Another general to leave the bench and run to the court to miss the ball was active duty Army Lieutenant General Benjamin Mixon, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Pacific. In a March 8 letter to Stars and Stripes he described the doomsday vision he saw on the horizon should Congress repeal DADT. General Mixon could have been reading from Elaine Donnelly's apocalyptic script.
I wonder why the general thought Stars and Stripes was the proper forum to lobby Congress and men and women in uniform. Even more, I wonder why the active-duty general thought it would be cool to lobby Congress on issues being debated within the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill. Lobbying isn't in his job description. General of the Army Douglas MacArthur found that out when he pulled a similar stunt and President Truman fired him.
The third general caught up in near fatal March Madness (something like swine flu but affecting mostly the head) is none other than the Commandant of the Marine Corps James G. Conway, who told his Marines and Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, as well as his Commander in Chief that if Congress and the President were to be so foolish as to repeal DADT and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, then his straight macho Marines would require separate barracks from the gay Marines.
Retired Army Brigadier General John Adams got to the nub of it: "General Conway's comments undermine the ongoing DoD review process on how to implement the repeal of DADT. As Commandant, he is charged with ensuring that the United States Marine Corps portion of that review is thorough, focused, and professional. Unfortunately, his comments prejudice the outcome of the review. His remarks--and perhaps most disturbing, his demeanor--in his March 25 interview with Military.com indicate that he is not only resistant to the possibility of change, but petulant. Marines deserve better from their Commandant."
Now I understand General Conway is slated for retirement later in the year, but in light of his challenge to those above him in the chain of command does anyone seriously think he can or should last until Thanksgiving? Just substitute "African American" where General Conway uses "homosexual" and "gay" and one sees not only how outrageous his statements are but how out of touch the man is.
Thankfully, Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen are taking the repeal of DADT very seriously. They understand and enforce the chain of command. They know the separate roles civilians and generals play in our political process. Admiral Mullen, referring to General Mixon, said, ""If there's a policy direction that someone in uniform disagrees with ... the answer is not advocacy, it is in fact to vote with your feet." I wonder if General Conway heard that.
Retired Army Major General Dennis Laich suggested today that "perhaps General Conway should ask a fourth question in his town hall meetings: 'Do young Marines want to be led by a bigot who allows his personal biases to override his professional obligations?'"
It's time for these Generals to get over March Madness and start playing "Follow the Leader." First they'd have to learn who the leader is.
03-27-10 By Aubrey Sarvis, SLDN Executive Director |






6 Comments
Comments for this entry are closed.Dino in Washington, D.C. on March 29, 2010 at 11.28 am
@Michael, you are exactly right. Many other flag and general officers felt the same way that USMC Commandant Major General Holcomb did in 1941 but would just articluate their views in a more finesse way. General Omar Bradley, who was one of the most respected military leaders of the day, openly opposed President Truman’s 1948 Executive Order to desegreate the military and accussed the president of “social engineering”. Anyone who completely discounts the parallels between the two issues should read “The Desegreation of the US Military 1940-1965” by James McGregor. You will see EXACTLY some of the same justifications for segreation such as “morale, unit cohesion, readiness, good order and discipline.” By the way proximity, I think it is notworthy that the word “bigot” was assigned to General Conway not by Aubrey Sarvis but my a individual who was a general officer himself, Major General Dennis Laich.
Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com on March 29, 2010 at 11.01 am
Unfortunately, this is not the first ignominious moment in the history of commandants of the Marine Corps besmirching Marines who are either not similarly bigoted or know that one’s personal feelings must be secondary to completing the mission.
In April of 1941, the 17th Marine Commandant Maj. Gen. Thomas Holcomb said, “If it were a question of having a Marine Corps of 5,000 whites or 250,000 Negroes, I would rather have the whites,” adding later that the Marine Corps was then simply too small to form racially separate units.
That was nearly seventy years ago this month. What followed was a world war during which civil rights groups protested what they called the “Jim Crow Draft,” with segregated units whose end would not begin until a courageous President went against military leaders like Holcomb, Congress, the public, close friends, and members of his own family and ordered America’s armed forces integrated.
It is said that during a dinner party in October 1942, a photo of 5th Commandant of the Marine Corps, Archibald Henderson, fell from the wall when someone asked Holcomb, “What do you think of having women in the Marine Corps?”
While some women had served in clerical positions during WWI, Holcomb had fought against admitting women again and in bigger numbers at least as hard as he had “Negroes,” but by the fall of 1942, having already lowered their admission standards, with losses to Corps strength in the Guadalcanal campaign, and more expected, the writing, if not Henderson’s picture, was on the wall, and he could no longer resist creatin of a women’s reserve to relieve male Marines “for essential combat duty” established in a bill in Congress sponsored by legendary Congresswoman Edith Nourse Rogers [who also would create the GI Bill] and mentored by Eleanor Roosevelt.
We certainly have some great advocates in Congress, particularly in Representatives Murphy and Davis and Senators Levin and Lieberman, but, sadly, our current First Lady, while doing some outstanding work on behalf of military families has expressed no concern I’m aware of for the extraordinary burden DADT puts upon the families of gay servicemen and women.
kudo451 in Cherry Valley, CA on March 28, 2010 at 09.22 pm
Obama would save the DoD, The Marine Corps. and the a lot of gay military personnel a lot of trouble if he would just have Commandant Conway either muzzled or fired early. Let him feel what its like to be a dadt Marine. That would shut down a lot of drama at the flag office level and tell everyone that he is serious about seeing this change. Sure it would put the right up in arms but it’s not like they have any ammunition for this cause with 70% of Americans Supporting dadt repeal.
IraqVet on March 28, 2010 at 10.30 am
Proximity, you’re falling into the same trap as so many others. Hint: Gays are already in the Marines. The debate is not WILL gay and lesbian Marines serve, but will they serve openly.
DADT serves one purpose and one purpose only, to allow the Military to “pretend” everyone’s straight. Well, guess what, we’re not. I AM NOT. And I’ve never had a sexual or other inappropriate relationship with a roommate or bunkmate or anyone else in my unit.
Proximity on March 28, 2010 at 03.26 am
Also, all of the other services already have single rooms, so this would only be bringing the corps in line with her sister services.
Proximity on March 28, 2010 at 03.23 am
I might say that inferring that Gen. Conway is a bigot for one comment on the mechanics of the implementation of a repel of DADT is excessive.
Why do you think Males and Females have separate quarters? Maybe it is to ya know, decrease the awkwardness that arises when people who may be sexually attracted are forced into close quarters? Maybe an attempt to limit counter productive sexual encounters?
Now personally, I think Marines can tough it the F**k up and deal with yet one more uncomfortable thing, but I certainly understand not imposing it if you don’t have to. I also think that if needs must, male and female marines could Gird their respective loins and bunk up, but really, if you don’t have to, why?