Thursday, December 16, 2010

Is Repealing DADT Really All That Important Right Now?

Just in case no one has noticed, our country is in deep trouble. We are spiraling ever downward into an economic depression that seems to have no end. We are borrowing more than ever before, national debt doubling in just 2 years, unemployment is approaching unheard of highs not seen since the 1930’s, jobs are drying up, states are going bankrupt, people’s homes are being foreclosed on, the government is taking over banks all of the time, bailing out large corporations on the brink of disaster and congresses major worry is letting Gays serve openly in the Military?

Why is this even being considered at this time? With all of the problems we are facing, will allowing Gays to openly declare their sexuality in the ranks improve anything in the country?

No!

It will appease a handful of people hell bent on forcing acceptance of their lifestyle upon others, but it will not curb overspending, cut taxes to a reasonable level, create jobs or feed hungry children. It will only appease those who feel their sexuality is so important that they must openly declare it to others within the ranks of the Military.

The so-called Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy was a compromise by former president Bill Clinton to allow gays to serve as long as they didn’t make an issue out of their sexuality. It was bad policy then and it is still bad policy today, reflected by combat Troops who overwhelmingly oppose repealing it.

Oh, I know the Pentagon has floated that poll of pencil pushing desk jockeys who have no problem with Gays openly serving, but the guys at the front of the battles, those in the thick of it who do all of the major fighting have come out against repeal by overwhelming numbers.

Their voices are ignored by activists and politicians who think the Military is nothing more than another social club for their social experimentation.

The Commandant of the United States Marine Corps, General James Amos has expressed opposition to repeal. He says,

“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 [Navy Hospital] with no legs be the result of any type of distraction.”

For expressing his expert Military Commander Opinion, Gay Activists and supporters are calling on him to “step down,” “to fall in line and salute or resign now,” as expressed by Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of pro-repeal advocacy group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

How wise it during war to change effective leaders solely to allow Gays to serve openly? Is it wise, during a war that we send our most experienced combat Troops the message that if they aren't willing to accept openly Gay Soldiers in their ranks, they should just get the hell out of the Military?

Last March, giving just one example of how combat Troops may be distracted by Gays, General John Sheehan, USMC, retired testified of an incident that happened in Viet Nam. He stated,
“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 is 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 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.

His testimony begins at Page 16 of the U.S. Senate, Committee On Armed Services Transcript.

What cost not only to our economy, but to families and the national psyche to lose combat Marines due to such actions of one?

Our Veterans Groups have expressed their opposition to repeal.

Back to the point, though. Is allowing Gays to openly serve so damned important that we risk losing Marines and ignoring our growing problems with the economy and families out of work that this one issue must be pushed to the fore right now?

What is so important to appease such a small block of people that we would push for their forced acceptance over managing the growing troubles facing the nation? To me, it is absolutely ludicrous that appeasing Homosexuals is more important to many Democrats in this lame duck congress than are jobs, economic recovery and facing the out of control debt.

If nothing else, this issue should be shelved until more important matters are dealt with and resolved.

Gay appeasement must not take precedence over more pressing National Issues.

Pressure is be mounted to have General Amos ousted as Commandant of the United Marine Corps, due to his expert testimony. Won't you please sign a petition being circulated in support of General Amos?

It is at Petition for Support of USMC Cmdt Gen. James Amos « Victory Institute

2 comments:

Pogue Mahogue said...

A notification of the petition in support of General Amos made its way around my circle of Vietnam Vet service mates and friends today. I signed it and then went back a few minutes ago to look at the roll and noticed that you've signed it too. Good man.

Lew Waters said...

I signed just as soon as I was notified and sent it out in email and posted it on facebook.

Thank you for signing too.