Frontlines: The Latest from OutServe-SLDN

As a retired naval officer, I was looking for a more coherent defense of the proven ability of military personnel to work with people who were previously denied access to military service; namely people of color and women. In both cases, “evidence” was vigorously presented to prove that it would be impossible for America’s fighting forces to maintain their effectiveness in the presence of such disruptive influences. Yet we managed to survive…

During my career, I had to put up with sexual harrassment; comments, jokes, and undisguised disgust that I was allowed equal status with the men. I had a choice - ignore it, stand up for myself, and/or report it up the chain of command. I fail to see how anyone who might feel themselves the “victim” of unwanted sexual interest or comments from another servicemember would somehow be unable to handle it the same way.

I certainly hope that in the future testimony that is presented, someone points out to the bigots screaming about Queer Fear that current military regulations address inappropriate conduct between servicemembers. If those regulations have been sufficient to address racism and sexism, they should continue to protect those poor, helpless white male heterosexuals from the evil intentions of those of us who were not born WMH but who still wish to serve our country.

I also wish someone would point out the idiocy of the repeatedly referenced assumption that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would somehow unleash a flood of wildly disruptive “gay” behavior; that somehow the basic rules of military conduct would suddenly be ignored once the “protection” of DADT was lifted. Did something change since I retired? Did enlisted and officer training suddenly eliminate an emphasis on teamwork and putting the mission first? The only “protection” created by DADT is for bigotry and fear; to state that “unit cohesion” is promoted by a policy that encourages servicemembers to spy and report on each other is ridiculous. That’s like saying McCarthyism made America more unified and patriotic.

Yes, we are fighting two wars…that makes it even more important to stop wasting time with removing working military troops from their units, and wasting the military budget on legal proceedings. We need those people and that money for more important things, like keeping our troops alive and bringing them home.

Rich: You are right on target. I share your disappointment that the administration and Pentagon want to kick the can down the road for another year. This issue has been studied to death. We could save them plenty of money by providing a copy of Nathanial Frank’s definitive study, “Unfriendly Fire.” Having said that, we have waited 17 years for repeal of this law and we need to be patient for another 12 months. In the interim, Congress should at least pass a law with a moritorium on discharges while the working group concludes its assignment.
Gen.  Ham has a great reputaton for fairness and I am confident he will handle this mission with great skill. Mr. Johnson is a fair minded Obama appointee who understands discrimination. We could not have gotten a better team leading the working group. This is not 1993.
Admiral Mullen is a courageous and smart officer. He would not have made such a simple and profound statement that this is all about integrety unless he had his Chiefs lined up. He and Secretary Gate would not have selected Gen Ham unless they were confident that he would carry out the stated goals of the Commander and Chief.
The President has spoken. It is now up to Congress. We must keep the pressure on members to enact effective legislation in this session. How do we do that? By contacting your Senator and Representative and telling your friends and family members to do the same. By writing letters to the editor of your local paper. By writing to the Pentagon leadership. If you are a veteran taking the time to write to VSOs and particularly your service chiefs and senior enlisted leadership. Pontificating on this blog gets us nowhere because we are likely preaching to the choir.

WOW, it’s a veritable poppyfield of Sallys. Gee, do you remember 8-track tapes, too?

Let’s recap:

Yesterday: discharges.

Today: discharges.

Tomorrow: discharges.

Next week: discharges.

Next month: discharges.

For AT LEAST ANOTHER YEAR: discharges.

At which point they’ll TALK SOME MORE about whether or not they’ll be more what?

Discharges.

Yes, your glasses are half full.

Of Kool Aid.

Anyone who believes that today’s testimony by the SECDEF and JCS Chairman is “baby steps” has developed complete amnesia about how this unfolded back in 1993.

When President Clinton tried to allow open service 17 years ago, he found an obstructionist and outright hostile JCS to stand in the way of him and Congress.  Gen. Powell testified to the same Senate committee that gays and lesbians could not possibly serve alongside their heterosexual counterparts without disrupting the force.  Without the generals, and with a timid and conservative Congress, President Clinton was doomed to a compromise solution.

Today, President Obama delivered to the Senate a unified SECDEF and JCS Chairman who both voiced support in plans to repeal the ban on open service.  ADM Mullen, in particular, voiced a strong personal opinion on the immorality of the DADT policy.  When pressed by conservative senators on the panel, ADM Mullen pushed back strongly with repeated emphasis on his convictions that DADT undermines the integrity of the armed services.  I’ve watched many hours of military testimony on CSPAN and I was shocked when I saw the Chairman contradict the GOP senators in direct response to their questions—those sorts of exchanges are rare in the world of military testimony.  When the hearing was through, ADM Mullen used his social networking accounts to reinforce that DADT repeal is the right thing to do.  He did not back away from his testimony.

The statements today are a giant leap forward towards DADT repeal.  ADM Mullen and Secretary Gates could have ended the discussion today.  They chose to execute the policy guidance of President Obama.

I expect that there are a number of Senators and Representatives who were waiting to see what fireworks would unfold from the JCS—whether we would have another revolt of the general and flag officers.  We did not see that today, and it would not surprise me if this encourages Democratic leaders in Congress to move forward more aggressively on the issue now that they have key military support in the matter.

Time will tell.  Is the JCS really united?  Will Gen. Conway voice dissent when he is brought before the committee?  What tricks does the GOP have up its sleave for future committee hearings?  Will we have grandstanding on submarines again ala 1993?  Those are critical questions.  The Chairman’s strong statements today lead me to believe that he has the full support of the service chiefts.  I don’t think he would have spoken as confidently if he thought there would be contradictory messages from the other general and flag officers.

I am not pleased with the lengthy timeline presented to “study” the issue or the prospect that we may not see a vote until after mid-terms when Democrats risk losing control.  It is foolish, however, to predict this issue will somehow fade away after it got such an envigorating endorsement from our top uniformed officer.  Today, the issue got momentum.  It was not halted.  The opposition didn’t score any points.  We are clear to move the process forward.  We need to be very aggressive and vocal about getting repeal language in this year’s defense authorization.  Strong repeal language, even if it provides for delayed implementation, is important to accomplish in 2010—before mid-terms and while we have the winds in our sails to get this done!

Unlike you, Dino, many of us didn’t wake up channeling Sally Field this morning so we don’t give a flying f—- that Gates and Mullen like us any more that Obama being “our friend” means anything in the absence of ACTION.

You may think Valentine’s Day came early this year, but all I heard was TALK about another year of TALKING after which they MAY actually DO something.

Gates and Mullens’ statements against DADT are admirable [no pun intended] and a baby step forward but, despite the premeditated honking from the Obamamobile clown car transporting you and the other Sallys around the Net today, they took two giant steps back to 1993 in an amazing mix of logical contradictions from which they built no case to justify up to TWO MORE YEARS OF CONTINUING DISCHARGES.

Their noble bleating about what they personally believe when placed next to that fact made all the sense of the famous Bette Davis movie line:

“I’d love to kiss ya, but I just washed mah hair!”

We then switched to a Nick At Night rerun in which Sheriff Andy Gates and Deputy Barney Mullen have apparently been sneaking sips from Otis’s bottle. For despite testifying that they believe all the suspects are innocent, they insist they’ve got to keep them in jail while they spend months looking for possible ways to get them out while all the time the key is in Sheriff Gates pocket next to Barney’s bullet. BURP!!!

But, wait, some may get sprung early. Despite Gate’s comments re the WAPO article, he conceded that its focus was valid which, if there is ANY sanity and integrity left in mainstream media will blow up in the face of his self-contradiction.

DADT is predicated on the black and white assertion that ALL gays are BY DEFINITION bad for the military. How can they effectively suggest that that’s suddenly not true for people like Victor Fehrenbach who was viciously outed by a third party but STILL true for people like Dan Choi who outed themselves but no less want to nor are no less fully capable of continuing to serve than “victims” of third parties.

If DADT is built upon a fallacy for a SINGLE gay servicemember, how can they justify continuing it another second affecting thousands?

And how can they simultaneously acknowledge with the proverbial straight face the 1993 Rand study which unequivocally concluded there would be NO problems with lifting the ban entirely IF LEADERSHIP FROM THE TOP [i.e., people like them and the President] was clear and forceful AND call for yet ANOTHER study?

Do they imagine that attitudes among the rank and file have gotten MORE homophobic over SEVENTEEN YEARS or in the 35 years since Leonard Matlovich first fought the ban?

And Gates’ insistence that they need to decide how to deal with issues of “fraternization and misconduct” is both absurd and an insult as it effectively posits that there WOULD BE more of such problems with gays and that they have to consider some new Super Sized version of the Uniform Code of Military Justice because out gay servicemembers will be otherwise uncontrollably sex-crazed.

Further, if the Pentagon General Counsel sharing responsibility for this needless study is the same one who wrongly told him last year there was nothing in DADT policy that would allow him to “be more humane” he’s empowered either an incompetent or a fox to decide what to do about the chickens.

And what’s to prevent this report from coming back with any different “conclusions” that the six-month Military Working Group that Clinton set up. What if Rent-a-Lawyer claims a year from now: “We talked to everybody and the sky WILL fall if we end DADT”? Gates and Mullen have already empowered the tail to wag the dog.

Their Caesar’s Legion salad of logical and legal contradictions prove again that DADT is just a game of charades and the only way to save America’s Constitutional integrity and strengthen our national security is not to just tweak one of the rules but to stop the game entirely NOW by freezing discharges as both the President and SOD have the legal authority to do and fast tracking repeal simply to technically mop up this legislative mess.