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: billmuehlenberg.com/2009/10/12/now-for-the-military-obamanation/
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.”