Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

Placating Activist Groups and Mutilating our Military

Dec 20, 2010

The US Senate has just voted to overturn the 17-year-old Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy concerning homosexuals in the military. Obviously the bulk of Senators are far more concerned about promoting Political Correctness than they are in defending their nation.

The former policy allowed homosexuals in the military, but kept things in the closet, as it were. The repeal of DADT will mean complete open slather about homosexual openness in the military. Now there will be out and proud soldiers flaunting their lifestyle, while America seeks to defend itself.

This has nothing to do with “equal rights” and all the other usual slogans tossed around here. This has to do with the US military being in the best possible condition to serve on the frontlines, and defend America’s interests. I have written before about the DADT policy:

But now the radical homosexual lobby and the forces of PC have pushed their agenda, instead of considering the well-being of American security. But don’t take my word for it. Ask those in the military what they think about all this. Former Marine Tony Perkins put it this way:

“By making this change, and putting it as a priority over the actual funding of the troops, Congress is choosing to use the military, not as a tool for national defense, but as an instrument of social engineering.” The new Marine Corps Commandant James Amos agrees:

“There is nothing more intimate than combat. In the infantry, we are talking about young men laying out sleeping alongside one another and sharing death and fear and the loss of their brothers. There’s risk involved. I’m trying to determine how to measure that risk. This is not a social thing. This is combat effectiveness.”

He continues, “Mistakes and inattention or distractions cost Marines lives. That’s the currency of this fight. I don’t want to lose any Marines to the distraction. I don’t want to have any Marines that I’m visiting at Bethesda [National Naval Medical Center, in Maryland] with no legs be the result of any type of distraction.”

And the ordinary soldier is not thrilled about such changes either. Consider the Pentagon’s Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) on this issue. Peter Sprigg has analysed the data found in the study, and has shown that only a minority of troops say repeal would have no negative effects on the military.

The study shows that 29.6 percent said repeal would be negative, while 32.1 percent said repeal would affect units ‘equally positively and negatively’. All up, says Sprigg, close to 62 percent of troops believe repeal will have some kind of negative effect on the military and its culture: “The results of the survey are dramatically clear—those who foresee a negative consequence from repeal outnumber those who foresee a positive consequence on virtually every question.”

As one report says, “Sprigg’s analysis also shows that losing a handful of homosexual specialists and military personnel is pretty slight compared to the effect that DADT repeal would have on the military’s ability to recruit and retain their current personnel. The number of those who would consider leaving the military earlier than they planned or immediately on DADT repeal was ‘more than six times higher than the number who would stay longer or consider doing so’.”

Others are equally concerned. The American Legion is one such group. A news item says this: “The leader of the nation’s largest veterans’ service organization expressed alarm over this latest effort to swiftly overturn the controversial law. ‘One must ask, what’s the rush?’ said Jimmie L. Foster, national commander of The American Legion, ‘and why should this matter of social policy take precedence over the far more critical matter of national security?’

“‘The American Legion remains convinced a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell cannot be easily implemented and could compromise the effectiveness of crucially needed fighting forces. Political expediency should not take precedence over providing adequate time for debate. There is no reason this must be decided in the next two weeks when it has been in place for seventeen years,’ concluded Foster.”

Ann Coulter offers some telling commentary on this: “Who cares if the Pentagon’s sexual harassment task force supports gays in the military? The combat units don’t, and they’re the ones who do the job. The rest of us shouldn’t get to vote on gays in the military any more than we get to vote on the choreography of ‘Chicago’.

“Military combat is a very specialized field comparable to nothing in civilian life. There has to be a special bond among warriors – and only one kind of bond. The soldierly bond gets confused if some guys think their comrades are hot or if they suspect their superior is having a relationship with a fellow soldier. It’s the same confusion that results from putting girls in the military. When an officer makes a decision, nothing should enter into it except his views on the best military strategy.

“The military part of the military has valid reasons for wanting to separate the idea of martial ardor and sexual attraction. Combat units can’t have anything that interferes with unit cohesion, such as, for example, platoon members who are dating one another. Racial prejudice is not the same thing as sexual attraction, so please stop telling us this is just like integrating blacks in the military.

“A Military Times survey in 2005 found that nearly half of all women in the military claim to have been the victim of sexual harassment – ludicrously more than women in civilian life. By contrast, two-thirds of minorities said they were treated better in the military than in society at large….

“Most people have no clue what military life is like, least of all the opinion makers in New York, Los Angeles and the nation’s capital. The military is not representative of the country at large. It is disproportionately rural, small-town, Southern and Hispanic. We ask our troops to do a lot for very little money. Sometimes they die for us. The least Democrats could do is not pass grandstanding bills while self-righteously denouncing our servicemen as homophobes.”

I conclude with the words of Cal Thomas: “Why are we witnessing so many challenges to what used to be considered a shared sense of right and wrong? It is because we no longer regard the Author of what is right. Loosed from that anchor, we drift in a sea of personal ‘morality,’ deciding for ourselves what we want and ought to do and defying anyone who shouts ‘wrong way’ as a fascist imposer of their personal beliefs.

“The military is one of our primary national underpinnings. So is marriage. No wonder the gay rights movement seeks to undermine both. There are consequences when foundations are destroyed. The Congress has a duty to save us from the pursuit of our lower nature if we won’t listen to that other voice.”,_dont_tell,_dont_call_our_troops_homophobes,_dont_tell,_dont_care/page/1

[1150 words]

11 Responses to Placating Activist Groups and Mutilating our Military

  • Another notch on Obama’s belt for his Presidential Library in the future – Obamacare and Homocare – big victory’s for the Harvard professor? Not! To give you a taste of what will come with this new enlightenment, I used to be a policeman in another Australian state. I was in and out twice over a 15 year period. My first time in, the issue of gays & lesbians would be best described as ‘homophobic’ – there was a very strong resistance & rejection of the gay lifestyles. I left and returned 7 years later and boy had things changed – it was a full on gay celebration! My boss was gay and I witnessed reverse discrimination, as gays & lesbians were promoted rapidly up the ranks ( of course to readdress the horrid discrimination that had taken place) – in talking to new police with under 10 years experience, PC ruled, not a negative or derogatory word was said against homosexuality or lesbianism – I actually witnessed more overt racism, than any homophobia the second time around. To see social engineering work so QUICKLY did shock me – but I suppose that secular people just think it is ‘normal’ to do what animals do (although, I dont think there are homosexual animals – but who knows). The Americans, who support Obama just want to ‘do what is right in their own eyes’ and be like the surrounding nations, especially the Europeans. I say this with a heavy heart, but whatever the Government & MSM deem important and PC can and most likely will be pushed through in the West.
    Neil Innes, NT

  • Thanks Neil for the inside perspective. Great stuff.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CUltureWatch

  • One survey supposedly supporting the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, suggested that a large portion of military personnel were not concerned about the inclusion of homosexuals in their barracks. The vote excluded troops in the field of battle in their report, because they were overwhelmingly opposed to the idea of gays in the field while they were in action. The troops they asked were those who were housed in private accommodation. They replied it didn’t affect them because of the special arrangements they had, which didn’t have them in contact in the barracks with homosexuals. Also the vote was taken in a lame duck session in Congress. The new breed of Republicans, just swept into power in the mid term election, won’t be in Congress until the new year. Many of those Leftist Democrats, who had the cheek to vote for it were kicked out by the voters, but they wouldn’t be leaving until the new year. What a hide they have.
    Frank Bellet, Petrie Qld

  • This was one of the main reasons I sought for (and got) an early discharge from the Australian Navy. First they put women on combat ships and really messed with the dynamics of a military unit. (It was really quite sickening the number of wannabe sugar daddies that came out of the woodwork in the early days). Next they removed the ban on homosexuals in the military which unleashed the lesbians from hell who made a practice of targeting young vulnerable girls (many of whom had been ill treated by fellow male sailors while trainees). There was no good reason to do any of this apart from fulfilling the purposes of those using the Australian military to drive through an agenda under the radar since the change in regulation did not require any sort of legislation or public scrutiny.

    Sadly for many of these feminists and homosexuals they can never know a properly bounded and close relationship with a member of their same sex. The military relies on this since a man must be prepared to lay down his life for his fellow solder, sailor, etc – an abstract sense of national pride rarely is sufficient. Instead these poor, deluded people seem to read sexuality and sexual politics into everything misconstruing genuine love for one’s brother or sister as latent desire that must be brought to its perverted fruition lest psychological angst ensue. Time I think for the big Freudian and Marxian smackdown before it messes up too many more generations.

    Phil Twiss

  • Frank Bellet, I wish to encourage you to keep writing letters to the editor and responding to these posts. Thanks Bill for your sterling work.
    Stan Fishley

  • Thank you Stan.
    kindest regards
    Frank Bellet, Petrie Qld

  • Chuck Colson has a great commentary on this:

    Here is part of it:

    “The inevitable consequence of that is clear: People will die. Anybody who has served in an infantry platoon will tell you, as I know well, the vital importance of unit cohesion. You work together; you love one another as brothers because your lives are going to depend on it. There can be no favoritism—it’s one for all and all for one. If a couple of men were to ‘hook up’ in that platoon, it would destroy that bond.

    “Well, if gender or so-called sexual preferences don’t matter in the military (and please, don’t give me that hogwash hatched in academia that we simply “choose” our gender), then it shouldn’t matter anywhere else. If we’re forcing our troops to live with no distinction, why should we back home continue to enjoy the nicety of separate toilet facilities for men and women? We’re hypocrites.”

    Bill Muehlenberg

  • And Pat Buchanan on this issue:

    “Can anyone believe that mixing small-town and rural 18-, 19- and 20-year-old Christian kids, aspiring Marines, in with men sexually attracted to them is not going to cause hellish problems? The Marines have been sacrificed by the Democratic Party and Barack Obama to the homosexual lobby, with the collusion of no fewer than eight Republican senators. This is a victory in the culture war for the new morality of the social revolution of the 1960s and a defeat for traditional Judeo-Christian values. For only in secularist ideology is it an article of faith that all sexual relations are morally equal and that to declare homosexual acts immoral is bigotry.”

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • As a U.S. military reservist, I had a thought yesterday about what “homophobia” really means, considering how the term is tossed around today and used as a “reverse hate” word against those who do not believe homosexuality is normal or valid. Homophobia is used rather loosely these days to pertain to any action or thought which pits one against the complete normalization and acceptance of homosexuality. That is not what the word originally meant. First of all, “ophidiophobia” is the irrational fear of snakes. The sufferer is not only afraid to go near snakes, but also has an excessive preoccupation with the thought of snakes. Say someone is pronounced a “homophobe” because he is a Christian and stands against homosexuality on moral grounds, or a conservative who stands against it on social activist grounds. Is he afraid to go near gays? Not necessarily, unless he is an actual homophobe. Is he excessively preoccupied with the thought of gays? Not necessarily, unless he is an actual homophobe or is politically engaged against the liberal agenda to bring complete normalization and acceptance to homosexuality, upon which he sees the obvious disasters which will come about to the culture.

    You see, what the word “homophobe” originally was meant was a person who has an excessive preoccupation with not appearing “gay” to his fellows, and excessively scrutinizes his fellows for signs that they are gay. That is the actual, original definition of the term, and in my book what the word still means today. But liberals have commandeered the term homophobe to use as a political weapon. Extremist liberals are very fond of altering the definition of words to push their radical agenda. However, it is still possible for people who have not been completely taken in by liberalism to remind others of what the words actually mean. We wish that the world would wise up and not be subject to the thought-engineering of the radical left.

    Richard Carter, US

  • I was in the US marine infantry in Vietnam during a monsoon season when we were carrying stuff all day and then unable to sleep because of the constant rain. That seemingly mystical thing called “unit cohesion” is what got me through one day into the next. If we had the distraction of women out there or any other situation where people are attracted to one another sexually, there would have been rivalries, distractions, and inappropriate behavior that would have weakened that cohesion, probably with lethal consequences.
    John Hughes

  • Hi Bill,

    Thought you may want to take a look at this:

    Looks like promoting the pro-gay agenda is of more importance to local government than even our own nation’s interests.

    Mario Del Giudice

Leave a Reply