CMR Sitrep

This blog has moved

2010-04-28T10:25:00.001-04:00

This blog is now located at http://sitrep.cmrlink.org/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://sitrep.cmrlink.org/feeds/posts/default.

Marine General Re-Affirms: U.S. Military Should Not Follow European Model

2010-04-19T09:47:00.005-04:00

There is more to say about the testimony of Gen. John Sheehan, USMC (Ret.) who was invited to speak before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 18 in support of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible for military service. Among other things, Gen. Sheehan confronted the constantly-repeated, thinly-reasoned claim that the American military should adopt liberal social policies in our military:

Senate Testimony: European Militaries are Not Role Models for U.S

The general made unequivocal observations about cultural change in the aftermath of the Cold War, which had the effect of weakening European militaries that he served with as the Army's Atlantic NATO Commander from 1994-1997. His comments were a direct challenge to the credibility of gay activists who keep citing 25 mostly-European militaries as examples that the United States should emulate.

The counter-attack began almost immediately, starting with Senate Armed Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI). Under questioning, Gen. Sheehan discussed the consequences of cultural change in some European militaries, including the Netherlands, which decided to adopt different priorities because the Soviet threat no longer existed. The introduction of labor unions and socially liberal goals, including the inclusion of professed homosexuals in the ranks, changed the mission of the armed forces to something less than combat-ready military forces.

Gen. Sheehan cited as an example the 1995 Serb attack on Srebrenica, in which the Serb attackers tied up soldiers of a small Dutch force before taking away and murdering 8,000 Muslim men. Liberal media accounts wrongly accused Gen. Sheehan of placing the blame for the Srebrenica massacre on individual gay soldiers in the Dutch Army. This was not what he said-the force was dangerously undermanned due to cultural change that miscalculated future threats. An apparently defensive Dutch ministry protested and claimed that Gen. Sheehan had disparaged gay soldiers and misrepresented the views of a retired Dutch general in support of his point.

On March 29 Gen. Sheehan sent a personal note to retired Dutch General Henk van den Breeman, a former colleague when Sheehan was the Army's Atlantic NATO Commander. In his note, linked here, Sheehan confirmed that his statements at the hearing, in answer to questions from Chairman Levin, were made in good faith. He apologized, however, for using the Dutch general's name when Sen. Levin demanded to know whether NATO colleagues agreed that radical cultural change in post-Cold War European militaries had contributed to the tragedy at Srebrenica.

Gen. Sheehan wrote, "[T]he failure on the ground in Srebrenica was in no way the fault of the individual soldiers." Instead, the tragedy occurred due to "rules of engagement [that] were developed by a political system with conflicting priorities and ambivalent understanding of how to use the military. As we know, the consequences of those compromises were devastating."

The general's private note was released to the media, causing another wave of criticism in an Associated Press report that misinterpreted Gen. Sheehan's attempt to clarify his remarks:

US Ex-General Apologizes for Dutch Gay Remarks

Contrary to the AP headline, General Sheehan did not retract or apologize for the substantive point of his testimony. As he stated, individual soldiers in the undermanned Dutch military force that the Serbs overwhelmed at Srebrenica were not responsible for decisions made by superiors. The point remains that inverted priorities can result in the loss of lives, both military and civilian.

Gen. Sheehan did concede that his understanding of a long-ago conversation may have been in error, and he apologized for that. This happens between honest people all the time. It is important to note, however, that his position on the issue remains unchanged and would have been the same even if he had not conversed with the Dutch general in 1993, right after the hearings on Clinton's push for gays in the military.

Gen. Sheehan's testimony as a former military leader is far more credible than reports from civilian gay-activist "experts" that essentially quote only their own "research" and testimonials from like-minded friends in Europe. Once a military force puts liberalization above military effectiveness, hallmarks of "success" only relate to social goals, not military effectiveness.

By this inadequate standard, all foreign militaries will continue to declare their experience with homosexuals to be completely successful. This is why the U.S. military should not emulate the example of foreign, largely-European militaries with priorities skewed by social goals.

Gen. Sheehan's note was gracious, but private. It should not have been released by the Dutch general and the ministry within hours of its receipt. Still, his testimony and follow-up note made solid points that needed to be heard: Cultural change in a military force has consequences, and European militaries should not be considered role models for America's armed forces.

CMR Press Release: Continued Confusion About 1993 Gays-in-Military Law

2010-03-25T22:27:00.003-04:00

In response to an announcement by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates regarding the results of a 45-day review of the so-called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy, Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, issued the following statement:

"Secretary Gates has sent a confusing message to the troops. By applying new regulations applying only to the small number of discharges that occur for homosexuality, he has invited noncompliance with the extant 1993 law, Section 654, Title 10, in future cases and those that are still pending."

"Instead of taking the opportunity to clarify the meaning and intent of the law, Secretary Gates seems to be condoning unwarranted delays. Local commanders who are trying to do their duty by enforcing the law deserve support, not second-guessing by higher-level officials who seem more concerned about President Obama's views than they are about the terms and intent of the law."

Donnelly continued, "Whether intended or not, regulation changes announced today could create an incentive for 'third parties' to 'out' someone who is not eligible for military service. This will undermine respect for the law and perpetuate the institutional dishonesty that Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen complained of in February."

She added, "It is unfortunate that Adm. Mullen has mischaracterized the views of active-duty subordinates who are not truly free to express their own opinions, due to the Chairman's inappropriate personal statement prematurely calling for repeal of the law. Admiral Mullen has disingenuously claimed little disagreement with his personal view among active-duty troops. But junior personnel will not disagree with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs during focus group meetings, and those who do agree with Mullen should not be used as props in the presence of the media."

She added, "It is also ironic that Adm. Mullen has criticized a three-star general for expressing a personal view in support of the 1993 law, even after Mullen himself expressed a personal opinion favoring repeal of the same law before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 2. This appears to be a double standard that is not helpful.

"Furthermore, Secretary Gates has once again insisted that the Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) that he has established should limit its report only to 'how' and 'when' to repeal the law---not 'if' the law should be repealed. This posture effectively cuts out Congress and the American people, who will oppose any attempt to impose a European-style LGBT Law and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered policies on our military by what Sen. John McCain described as a 'fiat'."

She continued, "If Secretary Gates really wants to make enforcement of the law 'more humane,' he should follow the legal mandate to explain the purpose and meaning of the law more accurately, and exercise his legally-authorized option to reinstate 'the question' about homosexuality that used to appear on induction forms. All of the personal stories about servicemembers discharged for homosexuality could have been avoided if the Bush and Obama Administrations had taken steps to more fully explain and enforce the actual law.

"Despite the unnecessary and unfortunate confusion caused by Secretary Gates today, I remain confident that members of Congress ultimately will retain current law, which is important to protect recruiting, retention, and readiness in the All-Volunteer Force."

Background: Why Exceptions in Enforcement Are Not Justified

With regard to the matter of "third party outings" generally, Finding #15 in the statute clearly states that "the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." Because there is no constitutional right to serve, the creation of an unjustified exemption for persons revealed to be gay by others would contradict the plain meaning and intent of the law.

In a prominent case that sparked the discussion of "third parties" last year, Air Force Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, a former weapons systems officer, continues to claim that he should be spared discharge. An investigation by Fehrenbach's local newspaper, the Boise Statesman, found that he was accused of sexual assault by a "third party" he solicited for consensual sex on a gay website. A police report ensued, but Fehrenbach was cleared when he proved the incident was consensual.

Defining Discipline Down

It is unclear whether new regulations will allow Fehrenbach to remain in the Air Force. Nothing in cases involving "third parties" justifies a suspension of enforcement, since the law clearly states that homosexuals are not eligible to serve.

Former Marine General Challenges NATO Military Myths

2010-03-22T16:18:00.004-04:00

Now that we are about to get a European-style health-care system, do we want a European-style military too? This was the underlying question discussed at a March 18 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on legislation to repeal the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military.

The Center for Military Readiness has posted a detailed article reporting on the strong testimony of retired Marine General John Sheehan, who had served as Atlantic Commander of NATO and American forces during a time when the consequences of harmful social change became evident in European militaries.

Senate Testimony: European Militaries Are Not Role Models for U.S.

CMR appreciates Gen. Sheehan for stepping up to defend the 1993 law in a difficult two-against-one situation. He drew upon 35 years of experience as a Marine Corps infantry officer who has served in combat, led a platoon, three companies, an infantry battalion, and an infantry regiment. And because his career also included command of units from 26 different nations, Gen. Sheehan was well-qualified to refute the notion that European militaries should be role models for ours. The general also noted that the British military capitulated to a 1999 European Court order to include gays in their military-something that America's military would never do.

The apparent agitation of SASC Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) indicated that Gen. Sheehan had presented his points effectively. Gen. Sheehan's colloquy with Sen. McCain about the male-on-male sexual assault incident in Vietnam exposed the folly of depending on judicial proceedings after the fact to "handle" disruptions in the ranks.

Major media missed some unintended humor from Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL), who tried to play the race card. When Sen. Burris asked Gen. Sheehan whether he had ever commanded minority troops, the general replied that he had never commanded troops that were not fully integrated with blacks, whites, Hispanics, Orientals, etc. Then Burris reminded the general about minority role models such as the tennis champion Williams sisters and golfer Tiger Woods. Tiger Woods in a discussion about sexual misconduct? Score that one as a gaffe.

Raunchy red-headed entertainer Kathy Griffin caused a minor disruption when she left the hearing room for a rally on Freedom Square organized by the Human Rights Campaign. The rally was upstaged by Lt. Daniel Choi, a West Point graduate and professed homosexual who thanked Army officials for their inexplicable forbearance by violating uniform regulations and getting arrested for chaining himself to the White House gate. Many gay activists who were trying to stay focused on Congress were outraged by Choi's stunt. His antics suggested that Choi knows little about team cohesion, even in his campaign to repeal the 1993 law.

Sen. McCain effectively countered the notion that the Pentagon's Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) should only discuss "how" and "when" to repeal the law, but not key questions of "whether" and "why." Showing his LGBT rainbow colors, Sen. Levin asked General Sheehan, "If you could be satisfied that there would be no harm to combat cohesion or effectiveness, would that be satisfactory to you?" Gen. Sheehan said no, members of Congress need to demonstrate how repeal of the law would actually improve military effectiveness.

If Sen. Levin prevails, America's armed forces could start to resemble European militaries-boasting about liberal "equal opportunity" policies that have little to do with military deterrence or effectiveness. Is this what we want? For the sake of national security, America's military must remain the best in the world.

Op-Eds and Commentaries of Interest on Gays in the Military

2010-03-15T15:31:00.003-04:00

We appreciate the efforts and support of all commentators who have stepped up to write and speak for active-duty troops whose voices otherwise would not be heard on the issue of gays in the military:

-Retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, former Air Force Chief of Staff, surprised us with his article, which makes excellent points even though he endorses the de facto policy "Don't Ask, Don't Tell": Don't Ask, Don't Change

-Peter Sprigg, Family Research Council: Sex Matters in the Military

-Robert Knight of Coral Ridge Ministries: Don't Ask Who They Are But What They Do

-Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy: Hail to the Chiefs

-Bob Maginnis: Gay Review and Combat Effectiveness

-Jane Chastain: Our Military Needs Your Help

-Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, USA (Ret.): Don't Stress the Military With Quad-Sexual Units (Maj. Gen. Brady was awarded the Medal of Honor for his service in Vietnam.)

-John Guardino, Part IV: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and Don't Even Pretend to Be Fair---Unbalanced, Inaccurate, and Unfair, and

-John Guardino, Part V: Lies, Damn Lies, and Polls

-The Optimistic Conservative: And So It Begins

Former Rep. Eric Massa: Military Record Shows Inappropriate Conduct

2010-03-15T11:29:00.003-04:00

The story of recently-resigned Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) is reminding members of Congress why it would be unwise to recruit professed homosexuals and bisexuals for our military. Former Navy Lt. Cmdr. Massa reportedly had a history of inappropriate sexual approaches against male subordinates while he was in the Navy.

-The Atlantic: Massa's Navy Files

-New York Daily News: Former Navy Officers Who Served with Rep. Eric Massa Say He 'Groped' Subordinates on Ship

Massa's alleged record demonstrates a point we have made many times. Subordinate personnel in the military are unlikely to file complaints when confronted with inappropriate sexual approaches from their own superiors. Congress should not elevate the risk of new types of sexual misconduct, which would make military life more difficult and more dangerous.

Lieberman, Levin Can't Explain Terms of Repeal Legislation

2010-03-09T11:17:00.000-05:00

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has introduced legislation to repeal the 1993 Eligibility Law. His bill, S. 3065, is nearly identical to H.R. 1283, a bill sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA). Lieberman has several liberal co-sponsors, but it is significant that he did not get the support of a single Republican co-sponsor.

-Jen Mascio, Politico: Lieberman Bill Would End "Don't Ask"

-The Hill: Lieberman, Levin Take Lead on Measure to Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy

CNS News Video Reporter Nicholas Ballasy did a fine job trying to pin down Senators Lieberman and Carl Levin (D-MI) on the terms of their own bill. Senator Levin was particularly inept in trying to discuss the meaning of the Lieberman bill, of which he is a co-sponsor. Take a look at the video, and watch the body language of both:

-Sen. Lieberman Proposed Legalizing Bisexual Behavior in the U.S. Military

-Sen. Armed Services Committee Chairman Did Not Know That Bill He is Sponsoring Would Legalize Bisexual Behavior in the Military

Obama Proposes, Congress Disposes, and the Military Opposes

2010-02-25T17:30:00.006-05:00

As with a lot of things coming out of the Obama Administration these days, the more questions that are asked, the worse its ideas look.

A month ago, in his State of the Union address, the President said, "This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are."

The President did not, however, offer any repeal legislation of his own. Not unlike another issue you may have heard about lately, health care, in which case only until today did the President provide his own legislative proposal. But Congress did not complain, and has gone to "work" to "repeal the law," to quote the President.

The early results cannot be impressive to the White House. After a week of annual defense budget hearings featuring the leaders of the four military services, Congress' idea for repealing the law making homosexuals ineligible for military service, (usually mislabeled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell") has been met with a resounding thud. The proposal, spearheaded by Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) Chairman Carl Levin, for a "moratorium" on discharges of gay personnel, met with considerable skepticism from the Committee's ranking member, Senator John McCain. Senator McCain led the way in strongly criticizing a "'moratorium'...before any decision is made. ...[I]t [a moratorium on homosexual discharges] flies in the face of what the Secretary of Defense committed to."

When asked his position on a moratorium by Chairman Levin, Army Chief of Staff General George Casey, Jr., answered:

Senator, I would recommend against it. Aside from the legal issues that the [Secretary of the Army John McHugh] mentioned, it would complicate the whole process that Secretary Gates had laid out. We would be put in a position of actually implementing it while we were studying implementation.

The "process" Casey cites refers to a so-called "study" or "review" by the Pentagon, proposed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates before SASC on February 2, 2010, on "implementation" of repeal. What General Casey came all around saying, but could not say directly as a leading official appearing before a co-equal branch of government, is that this "moratorium" proposal amounts to de facto repeal. As CMR President Elaine Donnelly has said, "by definition, a Defense Department task force producing a pre-determined paper on 'how' and not 'if' Congress should repeal the [law making homosexuals ineligible for military service] will not be an objective 'study.' And a 45-day search for excuses to suspend enforcement of the...law suggests that the Executive Branch can pick and choose which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore. This is worse than pointless-it is irresponsible." And a moratorium, or suspension, of discharges while the so-called study proceeds has the same effect.

General Casey went on to say to Levin: "Chairman, this process is going to be difficult and -- and complicated enough. Anything that complicates it more I think I would be opposed to." He said much the same thing today to the House Armed Services Committee.

At that same hearing today, Army Secretary John McHugh said he was "strongly opposed to a moratorium," and noted that Secretary Gates had informed him of the Defense Department's opposition to a moratorium as well.

The House fared no better with the Department of the Navy. Yesterday, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead gave his personal view that he was in agreement in going forward with the review ordered by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. He added that the review would survey "the force and families," and emphasized the importance of doing so. He also noted that focus should be on the United States military, "not another country's force---our force." He stated his view that a moratorium would be "confusing" to the force, concluding that he did not support it.

Marine Corps Commandant General James Conway said any review needs to focus on readiness, and stated that the "current construct [the law making homosexuals ineligible] supports that purpose," and that any consideration of the issue now should do the same. He agreed with the CNO on the moratorium, saying either "change the law or not, ...half measures will only be confusing in the end." In testimony before the Senate today, Gen. Conway stated that "unless we can strip away the emotion, the agenda, and the politics...and ask...do we somehow enhance the warfighting capabilities of the United States Marine Corps by allowing homosexuals to openly serve, then we haven't addressed it from the correct perspective. At this point...my best military advice to this committee, to the Secretary, and to the President would be to keep the law such as it is."

The Air Force brass has had less to say, but only because it has been under less pressure. Their only appearance thus far in the annual congressional defense budget process has been before the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), whose Chairman, Rep. Ike Skelton, opposes repeal. Under questioning from HASC Ranking Member Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-CA), who asked General Norton Schwarz if he thought the law should be repealed, the Air Force Chief of Staff offered that with two wars going on, now is "not the time to perturb the force," and echoed CNO Roughead that information on military families was necessary before deciding on repeal.

As with the year-long efforts to close Gitmo and reform health care, this Administration seems to have a nasty habit of making big promises with no plan on how to deliver. In this case, lucky for the United States military. While people of good conscience may disagree on any array of other issues, the unity of our military experts opposing a moratorium on discharges of homosexuals, which amounts to de facto repeal of the law, cannot be ignored. These leaders have devoted lifetimes to the service of our nation and are ultimately responsible for lives affected by the policies they impose or Congress enacts. We ignore their sage wisdom at our national security peril.

--Tommy Sears

Military Secretaries, Chiefs Oppose "Moratorium" on Discharges of Gays

2010-02-25T09:23:00.006-05:00

In testimony before Congress this week, leaders of the four military services were questioned on their personal and professional views regarding President Barack Obama's plan to repeal the law making homosexuals ineligible for military service. Their answers to questions from congressional leaders showed that they have not been persuaded by gay activists' arguments for open homosexuality in the United States armed forces. These leaders bear the ultimate responsibility for the consequences of such misguided proposals, giving their insights preponderant weight.

Senate

In a hearing with Army Secretary John McHugh and Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey, Jr., Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin of Michigan raised the prospect of a "moratorium," which would in effect halt discharges pending a so-called Pentagon "review" of how to repeal the law. Senator John McCain led the way in strongly criticizing a "'moratorium'"...before any decision is made. ...[I]t [a moratorium on homosexual discharges] flies in the face of what the Secretary of Defense committed to."

When questioned on their position on a moratorium on homosexual discharges, Secretary McHugh and General Casey offered serious reservations.

Secretary McHugh: "...[T]he preference would be we would not enact a moratorium."

General Casey was even more assertive in an exchange with Chairman Levin:

CASEY:
Senator, I would recommend against it [a moratorium]. Aside from the legal issues that the secretary mentioned, it would complicate the whole process that Secretary Gates had laid out. We would be put in a position of actually implementing it while we were studying implementation. And I don't think that would be prudent.

LEVIN:
If the moratorium were simply a moratorium---in other words, you're not implementing anything. You're just withholding discharges until that study is completed.

CASEY:
Chairman, this process is going to be difficult and---and complicated enough. Anything that complicates it more I think I would be opposed to.

House

While the Senate hearing was underway, the House was conducting its annual budget authorization hearing with Air Force leaders. Secretary Michael B. Donley and Chief of Staff General Norton A. Schwartz testified before the House Armed Services Committee (HASC).

Under questioning from HASC Ranking Member Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-CA), who asked Gen. Schwarz if he thought the law should be repealed, the Air Force chief offered that with two wars going on, now is "not the time to perturb the force," and that information on military families was necessary before deciding on repeal.

Yesterday, the HASC held a similar hearing with Navy and Marine Corps leadership; Secretary Ray Mabus, Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Admiral Gary Roughead, and Marine Corps Commandant General James Conway.

McKeon asked the Navy and USMC chiefs if the law should be repealed and
their views on a moratorium. Roughead gave his personal view that he was in agreement in going forward with the review ordered by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. He added that the review would survey "the force and families," and emphasized the importance of doing so. He also noted that focus should be on the United States military, "not another country's force---our force." He stated his view that a moratorium would be "confusing" to the force, concluding that he did not support it.

Gen. Conway said any review needs to focus on readiness, and stated that the
"current construct [the law making homosexuals ineligible] supports that purpose," and that any consideration of the issue now should do the same. He agreed with the CNO on the moratorium, saying either "change the law or not,...half measures will only be confusing in the end."

In effect, the opposition to repeal from our country's top military leaders, the individual Service Secretaries and Chiefs of Staff, illustrates that a "moratorium" would be nothing less than a thinly-veiled, de facto repeal. Senator McCain and Representative McKeon deserve high praise for exposing this back-door effort to make repeal a fait accompli, as well as do the Chiefs for their steadfast opposition in the face of congressional pressure to accept such a proposal.

Expert push-back on repeal of gays in military law

2010-02-04T14:24:00.005-05:00

A wave of contrary analysis has emerged in opposition to the misguided plan proposed to Congress this week on the issue of gays in the military. On Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates revealed a proposal before the Senate Armed Services Committee that would weaken enforcement of existing law, Sec. 654, Title 10, which makes homosexuals ineligible for military service, while also undertaking an internal Pentagon "study" aimed at implementing repeal of that law. Problem: The Pentagon doesn't get to make laws. That's Congress job, and Sec. 654, Title 10 is still on the books, as Senator McCain forcefully reminded the Secretary and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, during the hearing. (You can see the video here. Use the video player's progress bar to fast forward to the approximately 204-minute mark). Senator McCain voiced his strong objection that their plan would not consider "whether the military prepares to [repeal the law], but how." Senator Sessions, another member of the Committee, strongly suggested that Gates' and Mullen's endorsement of repeal in effect compromised any study or review that their subordinates at the Pentagon might undertake.

With these events as backdrop, commentary from various sources was offered throughout the week:

Colonel David Bedey (US Army, ret.), a veteran of 30 years experience, explains in specific detail the problems with open homosexuality in the military and the broader gay-activist agenda behind it:

Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell": A Clear and Present Danger

Frank Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy and frequent national security issues commentator explains in the Washington Times why the Obama Administration effort to repeal the law will ultimately fail:

Obama Versus the All-Volunteer Military

Former Army Criminal Law Division chief and Virginia Assemblyman Richard Black exposes the fallacies of the gay-activists' arguments that open homosexuality in the military would not hurt discipline, and thereby overall readiness:

Danger to Discipline

William Kristol of the Weekly Standard asks why, of all the institutions that Americans question right now, is the Obama Administration targeting the one it trusts most, the United States military:

Don't Mess With Success

In this video, Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council goes head-to-head with the executive director of the gay-activist Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an organization whose primary mission is repeal of the law, on MSNBC's Hardball:

Peter Sprigg on MSNBC's Hardball

DoD Plan Would Violate 1993 Eligibility Law and Demoralize Troops

2010-02-02T11:48:00.002-05:00

In their testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee today, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should not compromise principle by proposing an unworkable plan to undermine the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military (Section 654, Title 10). As reported by the Washington Post, the testimony that Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen are expected to deliver suggests an irresponsible plan that would incrementally eviscerate the law by unilaterally suspending its enforcement for specious reasons.

Such a plan would create an incentive for "third parties" to guarantee retention of gay partners in the military simply by identifying their partner as gay. Homosexuals would become a protected class under standards different from everyone else. This would constitute a clear violation of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible for military service, and establish a double standard that, in the name of "consistency," weakens discipline across the board.

Finding #9 in the law could not be more clear: "The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member's life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces." Finding #10 reads, "Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty."

Furthermore, Finding #13 clearly asserts: "The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service." There is nothing in the actual law that authorizes the institutional dishonesty inherent in Secretary Gates' and Adm. Mullen's reported plan to establish a double standard for homosexuals who are not eligible to serve in the military.

The Secretary of Defense does not get to choose which laws he will enforce and which ones he will not. Nor does he have the power to issue regulations that contradict the law, creating confusion and demoralizing the troops in order to help President Obama deliver on a political promise.

If the Defense Department excuses the behavior of personnel who show poor judgment by engaging in homosexual conduct revealed by others, there will be more misconduct, not less. This is a plan for officially condoned indiscipline, in violation of the clear language and intent of the law.

Background:

This article provides background on the genesis of Secretary Gates' peculiar comment about more "humane" ways to enforce the 1993 law:

Defining Discipline Down

In most cases, homosexuals reveal themselves to be gay, and they are honorably discharged. If credible information comes to the attention of military authorities, and there are no unusual circumstances that rebut the reasonable "presumption" of homosexual conduct, the person in question is subject to discharge, usually honorable. Anyone who engages in homosexual conduct is, by definition, not eligible to be in the armed forces.

President Obama is promoting a new "LGBT Law" for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders in the armed forces. A bill co-sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) and more than 180 others, H.R. 1283, would forbid discrimination based on "homosexuality or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived." If passed, the law would be retroactive-allowing re-entry and restored promotions for anyone previously discharged. The LGBT Law would apply to all units, including infantry battalions, Special Operations Forces, Navy SEALS and submarines, on a 24/7 basis.

As stated in the statute itself, "There is no constitutional right to serve in the military." Many groups of people who are patriotic are not eligible to serve in uniform, but everyone can serve our country in some way.

There is no way that a Pentagon panel of any size can come up with a plan to make the LGBT agenda work with no negative effects on recruiting and retention, morale, and readiness in the military. CMR has prepared charts illustrating just how radical the new LGBT Law for the Military would be:

Consequences of the Proposed New "LGBT Law" for the Military

More than 1,160 retired Flag & General Officers for the Military have personally signed a statement supporting the 1993 law, and expressing concerns about consequences of repeal that would "break the All-Volunteer Force."

Lessons for Backers of Murphy's LGBT Law

2010-01-21T10:11:00.004-05:00

The political earthquake that occurred on Tuesday, electing Massachusetts State Senator Scott Brown to replace the late Ted Kennedy in the United States Senate, was more than the first election of a Republican senator from that state since 1972. At his victory party Senator-elect Brown drew national applause when he declared,

"Our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation. They do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax money should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them."

This was not a "populist" sentiment. It was one of the clearest statements in support of a strong national defense that we have heard from a Republican candidate in a long time.

An obvious exception is retired Army Colonel Alan West, who is creating a sensation in his second run for Congress from the 22nd District in Florida. If you haven't seen this video of West in action, check it out:

Congressional Candidate Lieutenant Colonel Allen West

The Massachusetts voters who calmly and cheerfully secured the "People's Seat" for Scott Brown are concerned about national security, and they don't want America's military to be used for any purpose other than national defense. In an article titled "It's the Enemy, Stupid," Andrew McCarthy of NRO quoted Scott Brown's top strategist, Eric Fehrnstrom, who said that the campaign's internal polling showed "terrorism and the treatment of enemy combatants" to be an even bigger issue than health care.

Will pro-defense members of Congress, both Democrat and Republican, learn from this lesson?

It is a dangerous temptation to assume, that liberals and gay activists will retreat from the effort to repeal the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are ineligible for military service. The signs are encouraging, including post-election comments from U. S. Senate Democrats Evan Bayh (IN) and Jim Webb (VA), essentially warning their colleagues against continued political over-reaching. But the activists are not letting up.

CMR is nonpartisan and we don't endorse candidates, but voters and politically-active groups should ask every candidate for the Congress and U.S. Senate questions about their position on repeal of the 1993 law, which is constantly mislabeled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." This includes every co-sponsor of HR 1283, Rep. Patrick Murphy's bill to impose a new LGBT Law on the military.

According to a survey done by the Massachusetts Family Institute, Scott Brown said that he supports "current armed forces policy that prevents homosexuals from serving openly in the military," while his rival Martha Coakley took the opposite position. (Brown and Coakley also disagreed on two more LGBT causes, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA.)

As the 2010 elections approach, questions of all candidates should focus on the Congress' findings regarding homosexuals in the military, as contained in the 1993 law and highlighted last week in a Washington Times op-ed by a respected former Commandant of the United States Marine Corps, General Carl E. Mundy, Jr.

Maintain Military Gay Ban

As Gen. Mundy wrote, the law's findings remain valid and important for good order and high morale in the military. Our servicemen and women should not be forced to carry the burdens of a controversial, unprecedented social experiment that would weaken recruiting, retention, and readiness in the All-Volunteer force.

CMR issues such as this are essential elements in two legs of Ronald Reagan's famous three-legged stool. We look forward to working with candidates, elected officials, voters, opinion leaders, media, researchers, and members of the armed forces to build support for sound policies and priorities for the best military in the world.

Roadmaps for Railroading the Military

2010-01-18T13:03:00.003-05:00

Gay activists who are trying to impose their radical agenda on the military are floating several "trial balloon" proposals to get their way despite strong opposition from military leaders and personnel, members of Congress, and the general public. The following are some of the most egregious bad ideas that media reports have revealed since October 2009:

1. Stifling Testimony from Military Leaders

The AP and the Washington Post reported on January 13 that Department of Defense lawyers are having second thoughts about the wisdom of repealing the 1993 law this year:

Lawyers Advise Wait to Lift Gay Ban

The article reported for the first time that House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) opposes repeal of the 1993 law, and The Hill reported additional details on January 15:

Skelton Opposes Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

On October 10, 2009, President Barack Obama spoke at a dinner sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the largest (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) LGBT Left group in the country. Marching outside were even more radical homosexualists who demand that the president impose their San Francisco agenda on the men and women of our military. This article in the American Thinker analyzed the homosexualists' two-step plan to box-in military leaders with a pre-emptive presidential executive order suspending enforcement of the 1993 Eligibility Law:

Roadmap for Railroading the Military

2. Updated RAND Report: More Advocacy, Not Evidence

Given the Pentagon resistance noted above, it is not surprising that AP also reported that SASC Chairman Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) is pursuing an alternative plan. In order to repeat and reinforce false arguments for gays in the military, Levin has asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to "task" the RAND Corporation to update the report on this subject that they did in 1993. This proposal is irresponsible for several reasons:

- Retired Army Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis, now a Fox News contributor, completely discredited the 1993 RAND report at that time it was released because it was a typically biased, pre-determined pro-gays-in-the-military paper. Updating that polemic would be tantamount to bestowing defense dollars directly on gay activist groups, including the University of California-based Michael D. Palm Center.

- RAND demonstrated its liberal bias as recently as November 2009, when it made a significant "in-kind" contribution to the cause by issuing a news release promoting a paper that the Palm Center had solicited from RAND employee Dr. Laura Miller. As we reported in the CMR SITREP, the news release noted that it was not an official RAND report, much less an objective "study," but the Boston Globe and other major newspapers publicized it as if it were.

3. Delayed-Effective-Date Ploy

Another very speculative idea heard through the grapevine suggests that legislation to repeal the 1993 law might postpone its effective date for a few years, going into effect whenever the troops come home from the war or the Secretary of Defense determines that it is "safe" to impose the LGBT Left agenda on our military men and women.

- This would be another cynical attempt to circumvent and incrementally repeal current law by refusing to enforce it. Such a plan would require the troops to be part of a social experiment in the midst of a war, while blurring responsibility for that action and postponing accountability until after the 2010 and 2012 elections.

- The Flag & General Officers for the Military statement opposes "any legislative, judicial, or administrative effort to repeal or invalidate the law." The delayed-effective-date ploy certainly would be as bad, and perhaps worse, than repealing the law with immediate effect. There is no "good time" to weaken the culture of the military, and no one should fall into the trap of arguing that repeal safely can come later.

4. Short-Sighted Incrementalism

The new Secretary of the Army, former New York Congressman John McHugh, thoughtlessly suggested a completely unworkable way to manage results, not "if" the law is repealed, but "when" it is. Speaking in an interview on multiple topics with Army Times, McHugh suggested that homosexuals could be allowed into some occupations or units, but barred from others.

- Secretary McHugh's absurd comment demonstrates Mr. Magoo-like short-sightedness. It also calls into question the judgment of Mr. McHugh, who previously served as Ranking Member of the House Armed Service Committee. Secretary McHugh (or unnamed others he was quoting) apparently has not thought of the reaction if gays in the military are not eligible for deployment in close combat units, Special Operations Forces, SEALS, and submarines, in the same way that HIV+ troops must be retained but cannot be deployed in any unit overseas.

- This tentative plan, a recipe for constant chaos and demoralizing resentment in the ranks, contradicts claims that the new LGBT Law will "enhance readiness" in the military.

For more information that discredits every flawed argument that has been made for passage of the proposed LGBT Law, please review the comprehensive array of articles posted elsewhere on this website, www.cmrlink.org.

Activist Groups Dissemble on Mislabeled "RAND Report"

2009-12-01T10:19:00.008-05:00

On November 9 the Boston Globe and other major media misrepresented a private paper commissioned by the gay-activist Michael D. Palm Center as if it were a genuine research report of the RAND Corporation. This was not a RAND study; it was done by a RAND employee on her own time, together with an academic associate. The authors were Laura Miller, Ph.D., who is employed as a researcher at RAND, and Bonnie Moradi, Ph.D. of the University of Florida.

As noted in RAND's November 9 news release, the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, commissioned the paper, which "was the product of a contract directly with the researchers and not through RAND." Survey results used for the study were from a four-year-old 2006 Zogby International Poll that also was commissioned by the Palm Center, a gay activist group formerly known as the "Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military." It remains unclear what the Palm Center's involvement, described as a "contract," was.

The Palm Center and the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) nevertheless misdescribed the Miller/Moradi paper as a RAND report:

-Statement on Rep. Frank's Remarks to The Advocate on 2010 Repeal

Both organizations exaggerated "findings" that CMR analyzed in this article:

-RAND Lends Brand to Palm Center Polemic

CMR Executive Director Tommy Sears asked questions of the RAND Media Relations department, which tried to correct the situation. On RAND's request, the Palm Center changed the headline on their article promoting the Miller/Moradi paper slightly. But in an interview with National Public Radio in Connecticut, Nathaniel Frank of the Palm Center misrepresented the paper as "a new RAND Report."

RAND also contacted the SLDN, which replaced their original characterization of the Miller/Moradi paper as "a new survey by the RAND Corp." with a revision that remains misleading. The SLDN now describes the paper as "a new study by researchers from the RAND Corporation and the University of Florida and commissioned by the Palm Center."

This version still dissembles. Using the plural word "researchers" suggests a typical RAND team "study" rather than what the Miller/Moradi paper really is. The document was written by a single RAND employee, working without compensation on her own time, together with an associate at the University of Florida, reinterpreting four-year-old (not "new") information from a Zogby Poll paid for by the Palm Center.

Understanding that RAND was not professionally "commissioned" and their employee was not compensated, the SLDN's new iteration obfuscates nearly as much as before. The extent and nature of the Palm Center's involvement still is not clear. And as of this posting, the SLDN continues to refer to a non-existent "RAND study" in their website article linked above.

RAND is very careful about the use of its copyright and logo, and rightly so. Certainly the corporation does not want its name and reputation to be "borrowed" and misused to exaggerate the credibility of a private paper done for an outside activist group---especially one that is likely to misrepresent the document in congressional testimony and other public statements. Regardless of intent, the Palm Center benefited greatly from the RAND news release, which helped them to promote their cause under false pretenses.

This episode in the ongoing Gays in the Military Campaign, known as the GIMC, goes beyond public relations, or PR. When ideologues fabricate information to change public attitudes toward an issue, the proper term is "perception management," or PM, for short. Palm Center/SLDN Polemics continue to undermine the credibility of homosexualist groups that demand government power to impose their gay agenda on the military.

This is not the first time that the Palm Center has misrepresented "research" that cannot withstand close scrutiny. PM tactics such as this will not be enough to persuade Congress to repeal the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military.

Dangers of Political Correctness in the Military

2009-11-16T13:47:00.005-05:00

As Elaine Donnelly wrote in her article featured in "National Review Online Hot" last week, the Army has been making compromises in apparently small matters, such as uniform standards for religious minorities, in order to advance "diversity" as a primary goal. In larger matters, reported "diversity" groupthink and reluctance to give offense apparently led some Walter Reed officials to "tolerate" the intolerable. According to NPR, their official inaction when Capt. Nidal Hassan displayed jihadist attitudes inadvertently led to the vicious attack at Fort Hood that took fourteen lives. Now the news media and a number of respected commentators are starting to stress the same theme: Officials who are responsible for the dangerous pursuit of "diversity" at all costs must be held accountable. These are recent examples:

1. The Christian Science Monitor quoted CMR on the importance of equal treatment in response to President Barack Obama's comments on Saturday:

Fort Hood Review May Challenge Political Correctness Up the Ranks

"'In the military everybody has to be treated the same, it's what holds everybody together,' says Elaine Donnelly, the president of the Center for Military Readiness, a non-partisan group that focuses primarily on military personnel. 'You have horizontal cohesion among the troops and you have vertical cohesion between the commander in chief and the troops that he leads. The vertical cohesion is now at risk, and the President should restore it, and realize this was not a breach, as he says, but a consequence of skewed priorities.'"

2. With his usual insight and wit, columnist Mark Steyn has noticed that unlike the response to the 9/11 attacks, when the American people quickly recognized and organized to meet the threat, the killings of military personnel at Fort Hood have not been recognized as a jihadist attack that began with the misguided pursuit of "diversity" as a primary goal:

Jihad and the Scandal of "Brain-Dead Diversity"

"The truth is we're not prepared to draw a line even after he's gone ahead and committed mass murder. 'What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy,' said General Casey, the US Army's Chief of Staff, 'but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here.' A "greater tragedy" than 14 dead and dozens of wounded? Translating from the original brain-addled multiculit-speak, the Army Chief of Staff is saying that the same fatuous prostration before marshmallow illusions that led to the 'tragedy' must remain in place. If it leads to occasional mass murder, well, hopefully it can be held to what cynical British civil servants used to call, during the Northern Irish 'Troubles', 'an acceptable level of violence.' Fourteen dead is evidently acceptable. A hundred and forty? Fourteen hundred? I guess we'll find out. 'Diversity' is one of those words designed to absolve you of the need to think. Likewise, a belief in 'multiculturalism' doesn't require you to know anything at all about other cultures, just to feel generally warm and fluffy about them."

3. Human Events editor Jed Babbin touches on several indictors of misplaced priorities and fecklessness in the conduct of our foreign policy and war in the Middle East:

Mr. Obama's War

"His [Gen. Casey's] comment on the Fort Hood massacre is well beyond political correctness: it is despicable. He now believes that 'diversity' is more important than protecting the lives of our troops at home and abroad. Anyone who cares more about diversity than protecting the force from internal threats cannot be trusted to lead. Casey should be removed forthwith."

4. Reacting to the stated priorities of Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey, Linda Chavez has zeroed in on the horrors that "diversity at any cost" can lead to:

Fire General Casey

"The biggest question that remains is not Hasan's motivation, but the government's. Why is it that counterterrorism investigators and the Army were so eager to dismiss suspicion of Hasan when his actions clearly warranted a high-priority, full-fledged investigation? Were Hasan's colleagues discouraged from reporting his suspect activities because they feared retaliation from military brass in the name of protecting "diversity"? Surely, Casey's own words are fair warning to anyone in the military that they should tread lightly in ever questioning the activities of any Muslim in uniform. But Casey's outrageous statements are more likely to encourage prejudice than quell it...If we can't be assured that the military is doing its job to ensure that extremists do not infiltrate our armed forces, then every Muslim automatically comes under suspicion."

Additional worthwhile commentaries reflecting growing awareness of this subject have been written by:

-Dorothy Rabinowitz, Wall Street Journal, "Dr. Phil and the Fort Hood Killer"
-Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney, "It's the Jihad, Stupid"
-David Limbaugh, Townhall.com, "Suicidal Political Correctness"

Cogent Commentaries Counter GIMC

2009-10-23T16:51:00.004-04:00

In recent weeks several influential, pro-military writers have published excellent articles countering the multi-million dollar Gays in the Military Campaign (GIMC):

Cal Thomas revealed the social-engineering agenda behind the Navy's effort to put women in the submarine service and to repeal the 1993 Homosexual Ineligibility Law:

TownHall: "Don't Ask, Tell, or Legitimize"

In a cover story for the Edmund Burke Institute's magazine Reflections, Dr. Grace Vuoto described the gay-activist agenda to transform the culture of the military, and showed that polls of current and former servicemembers have indicated strong support for the 1993 Eligibility Law:

Reflections: "The Next Frontier: Gays in the Military"

In this article, retired Army Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis in no uncertain terms dispelled the myth of a "national security" necessity to allow open homosexuality in the military:

Human Events: "Obama's Gay Speech"

Robert Knight discussed the strategy of the Michael D. Palm Center, a gay-ctivist "think tank" at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The Palm two-step plan is to "eliminate opportunities for [the Joint Chiefs of Staff] to resist" the push to impose open homosexuality on the military. Knight joined Bob Maginnis in countering overblown claims about discharges of gays. The proportion of discharges due to homosexuality, compared to personnel losses for all reasons over the period he cites, is even more insignificant, totaling only .37 percent.

Town Hall: "Lifting the Ban Would Do a Rank Disservice"

Unbecoming Conduct of Gay Activist Lt. Daniel Choi

2009-10-12T17:11:00.009-04:00

During an appearance on CNN's "AC 360" program with Anderson Cooper on Tuesday, October 6, Army National Guard 1st Lt. Daniel Choi aggressively attacked both Elaine Donnelly and more than 1,000 Flag & General Officers for the Military. Lt. Choi, who is fighting a discharge due to professed homosexual conduct, displayed a side of his personality unlike the sympathetic figure that he has been trying to portray as a former Arabic linguist who graduated from West Point in 2003.

With the help of Anderson Cooper, who conducted the interview as an unabashed advocate of repealing the law, Daniel Choi made a statement that was simply untrue. When Elaine mentioned that more than 1,150 high-ranking officers had personally signed a formal statement in support of the 1993 Eligibility Law, Daniel Choi falsely described the Flags & General Officers for the Military (FGOM) as being "in their seventies and eighties," and living in "senior citizen centers" where Elaine "collected" their signatures.

Choi also claimed that most had not served under the current law, which he misdescribed as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." On the contrary, of the Army generals whose retirement dates are known, a clear majority retired since 1994, when current law went into effect. Some were in leadership roles during the post-9/11 and still-current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. To state the obvious, it takes many years to earn the respect of peers and four-star rank in the military, building on decades of decision-making experience that 20-somethings do not have.

The intemperate attack on former military leaders who had served our country with distinction--51 of them having retired in four-star rank--said more about Daniel Choi than it did about anyone else. Choi's comment was ironic in view of the fact that many of the retired flags and generals are very involved in second careers, running businesses, volunteering time, raising money for military charitable organizations, consulting with the Department of Defense, and traveling frequently.

The Flag & General Officers for the Military are accomplished, highly-respected individuals who know how to get things done. As stated on the website of the Flag & General Officers for the Military, seven generals and admirals serving on the FGOM Steering Committee asked colleagues in all four services to join them in signing the formal Statement to the President and Members of Congress. By March 2009, more than 1,000 had sent their signatures via regular mail, not e-mail. The number has risen to1,152 since then, and all signatures remain on file with CMR, which provided administrative support for the FGOM project. None of these distinguished leaders had anything to gain by stepping up in defense of sound values and priorities for the All-Volunteer Force.

When Army Times asked Daniel Choi why he was still a lieutenant after graduating from West Point in 2003, Choi said the question was not relevant to the interview. (July 13, 2009) The military needs skilled linguists, and CMR always assumes the good faith of anyone who wants to serve in uniform. The fact remains that West Point graduate Daniel Choi, who has now revealed himself to be a homosexual, took the place of someone else who was eligible to serve.

Many people who are patriots and willing to serve are not eligible for reasons such as age, health, personal violations of law, and the like. It makes no sense to recruit, train, and deploy people who are not eligible for military service. This is the problem with Bill Clinton's convoluted "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which has created human interest problems that members of Congress predicted and tried to avoid by rejecting it. Criticism of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," however, does not justify repeal of the 1993 Eligibility Law.

Administration Sets Back Plans for Missile Defense

2009-09-21T15:37:00.002-04:00

The Center for Military Readiness is pleased to join with the leaders of many respected pro-defense groups in expressing concern about current decisions that are weakening our defenses against long- and short-range ballistic missiles.

Conservative Leaders Speak Out on Obama Missile Defense Decision

The announcement that the Obama Administration will abandon plans for ground-based missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic suggests a surrender of influence, betrayal of two of our closest friends in the region, a posture of appeasement towards Russia, and a misunderstanding of the seriousness of the potential nuclear capability of Iran. Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN), head of the Republican Study Committee, issued this statement:

"The first nine months of the Obama administration have emboldened rogue dictators across the globe, and now an increasingly antagonistic Russia has been rewarded for bullying and threatening its neighbors. Not since the Carter administration has America looked so weak on the international stage."

More information is provided in this "Web Memo" by Nile Gardiner, Ph.D, and Sally McNamara of the Heritage Foundation, titled "President Obama Must Not Surrender to Russia on Missile Defense." In an article titled "The Obama Doctrine," Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy writes that current policies will "Undermine our allies. Embolden our enemies. [and] Diminish our country."

CMR agrees that last week's announced suspension of missile defense plans with the Czech Republic and Poland will have the effect of increasing the risks of both long- and short-range attacks from Iran, with little or no sign of expected "help" from Russia. We should not be practicing appeasement with other nations that want to interfere with the security interests of the United States. Americans who are concerned about this issue should contact elected officials in Washington, DC, who can be reached easily through this link: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

Media Bias on Military Social Issues

2009-09-04T12:45:00.004-04:00

CMR has been wondering for some time why it is that the Washington Times, thought to be a conservative newspaper, more often than not covers the gays in the military story from the standpoint of those pushing for repeal of the law. This article, for example, quotes Elaine Donnelly briefly but primarily focuses on the perspective of the "LGBT Left."

-Obama Faces Growing Anger on the Left

One of the gay activists quoted in the article claimed on his blog that he had "played a small part in generating this story."

* * * * * *

On August 15 the New York Times published the first of two major articles in a series promoting the idea of women in land combat, complete with a color photograph, several videos, and the results of a poll conducted in July. The photo, dated April 2004, raised more than a few eyebrows and sparked inquiries to CMR.

The featured female soldier is shown charging an unseen enemy with her rifle, but the background doesn't seem to support the warlike image. Behind her, next to a wall, are five male soldiers lounging with guns and bottled water, one of them inspecting a large camera. There is no apparent urgency to help the female soldier to charge the unseen enemy, but the casual reader might miss the illusion substituting for reality. The image fits the template of the article, but it is no help to military women who are well aware of resentment that arises when the media pretends that special treatment equals equality.

The New York Times also published the results of a poll of civilians on the issue of women combat:

-"Support for Women on the Battlefield"

The poll, indicating that 83% of respondents favor women in combat, is highly misleading. The 83% reading resulted from a question essentially asking whether women should be in the military and be deployed to danger zones-on a voluntary basis, of course. This is the current situation, which news reports have consistently portrayed both as a fait accompli and a policy that is working almost perfectly well. Professional pollsters know that questions about issues that people believe to be settled usually generate a positive response. In this case, the conditional nature of the question virtually guaranteed an 83% approval rating that fit in nicely with the two front-page articles pushing women in land combat.

The poll question did not seek opinions on women being ordered into direct ground combat on the same basis as men-a situation that is already happening, in violation of regulation and law, but most people don't believe to be happening. Still, responses to the New York Times' follow-up questions were not a hearty endorsement of women in the infantry, even though the word "join" suggested that such units are like a social club, and the question did not even hint that the definition of "combat" involves far more than being "in harm's way."

Direct ground combat is defined as deliberate offensive action against the enemy while under fire. In infantry battalions where physical requirements and missions have not changed, female soldiers do not have an equal opportunity to survive, or to help fellow soldiers survive.

The New York Times PR blitz followed the usual "perception management" template, and the Boston Globe followed the Times' lead with an op-ed that inaccurately described the position of CMR on this issue. Elaine Donnelly's Letter to the Editor in response, titled "Army's 'Anything Goes' Policies Are Unwise for Women and Men," was published in the Globe on September 2.

"Thoughtcrime" and National Security

2009-08-27T10:40:00.003-04:00

The Tuesday, August 25 announcement of the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate CIA interrogation methods by US Attorney General Eric Holder demonstrates once again the contempt liberals hold for dissent. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid labels town hall attendees "evil mongers." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi denigrates Americans who oppose health care legislation as "Astroturf" (a political insider euphemism describing "protesters for hire"). The Speaker goes on to allege that said "Astroturf" brandishes signs with "swastikas."

The Obama Administration advises website visitors to refer the senders of "fishy" emails to the White House. Hate crimes legislation currently under consideration by Congress institutes criminal penalties for acts motivated by "the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person" (language codified in Public Law 103-322 in 1994). Never mind that violent acts addressed by the hate crimes legislation already are criminal in their own right. This new legislation proposes to punish not only the criminal acts, but the thoughts behind the acts.

The criminalization of thought, and thereby, dissent, should be a frightening prospect to Americans. Essentially, those opposing government policies, or proposals or ideas preferred by elected officials, may soon find their disagreement punishable by law.

Go back and dust off George Orwell's 1984. Or if you haven't read it, get a copy. The totalitarian state personified by Big Brother in that dark parable punished expression unsanctioned by the government and called it thoughtcrime. The job of the book's main character consisted of continually updating and revising news reports. The state pervaded the lives of its subjects, coercing them into perpetuating its infallibility and constantly revising history to suit the state's ends.

Attorney General Holder, whose boss, President Barack Obama, came to office opposing the Iraq war and the previous Bush Administration policies that accompanied it, proposes to pursue criminally those who carried out the policy prerogatives of a political opponent. Such an enterprise can not be dismissed as petty partisan reprisal, especially when it concerns activities of intelligence services at the heart of the nation's security. It amounts to terrorizing political opponents by putting them and those in their service in legal jeopardy.

Similarly, the so-called "Military Readiness Enhancement Act," proposed legislation that would impose open homosexuality on the military, would bring with it its own policing of thought under "zero tolerance" policies. Any dissent regarding "real or perceived sexuality or sexual orientation" would become a form of expression punishable in the armed forces by reprimands, denied promotions, and ended careers. Those who do not share the military's new official perspective on homosexuality need not apply, and those currently serving in disagreement with the new law may find their careers at an abrupt end.

The political left has warned for years against "police state" tactics, allegedly employed by their political opponents on the right. Americans should become especially wary of "thought police" tactics, employed against them by their government.

-Tommy Sears

Sophistry about Submarines

2009-08-20T11:45:00.004-04:00

In a July 22, 2009 article, Stars & Stripes newspaper reported some alarming attitudes and perspectives on the issue of women on submarines. (Thanks to the USNA At-Large network for bringing it to our attention):

Breaking into the Underwater Boys' Club - Sailor One of 12 Women to be Submarine-Qualified

The unserious headline and the tone of some of the people interviewed is disappointing. The Silent Service is not a "boys' club," and this is a serious matter.

The article quotes Lt. Cmdr. Marilisa Elrod, a doctor and undersea medical officer who likes to wear her husband's dolphins because she is qualified to ride on the submarines. Dr. Elrod points to countries such as Australia, Canada, Spain, and Norway as examples that justify women being on submarines. She appears unaware of obvious realities that set the American submarine service apart from those of all other countries she mentioned. None of those countries deploy subs for months at a time in oceans worldwide.

And her cavalier attitude toward quality of life problems that would ensue if subs were gender-integrated is not a credit to her as a naval officer. (The article is unclear whether she shares a stateroom with a male officer when she rides on a submarine or whether he is displaced and sent to hot-rack with enlisted sailors.)

Lt. Cmdr. Elrod appears appallingly ignorant of biological realities that pose a real threat to all crew members, and an unborn child, if a pregnancy is discovered while on an undersea mission. The same comments apply to Petty Officer Jim Grisham, who equated the issue of women on submarines with "homosexuals in small units." That's a pretty ridiculous analysis, but as a medical doctor, Cmdr. Elrod should understand certain realities better than he.

In addition to our own Navy in recent years, Britain and Canada have resisted pressures to put women on submarines because of health risks associated with the constantly-recycled atmosphere that is safe for adults but a likely cause of birth defects in the earliest weeks of fetal development. Significant risks of ectopic pregnancy, including the possibility of death, would create the need for immediate evacuations. It is extremely hazardous to dangle a rescue basket from a helicopter in the middle of the ocean.

A comment on this story posted by a member of the USNA At-Large network provided a vivid example of real-world risks:

"A point of interest. As a station HH-46 helo pilot at Rota Spain circa 1980, I was awakened by the shore patrol at my home in the wee hours of the morning. I had standby SAR duty and was told to report to air ops immediately for an emergency medivac mission. Upon arriving at air ops I was told that I needed to medivac a sailor with severe abdominal pain off a ship operating in the western Med. Plotting the coordinates of the ship I recommended that the ship close to at least within 100 nautical miles off the eastern shore of Spain, as the HH-46 only had a round trip range of about 250 nautical miles. The ship had a deck capable of landing an HH-46 but no refueling capability. Assembling my crew including a corpsman, we launched for the eastern shore to refuel and await the estimated time of arrival of the ship at the designated coordinates. Despite poor visual conditions we located the ship and made the medivac of a young female sailor back to Rota via refueling on the eastern shore. We were met at Rota by an ambulance who took her to the hospital. The entire evolution took about 10 hours. Later that evening I went to the hospital to check on the young sailor. The diagnosis - PMS." (Posted by Peter Zuidema)

Such operations would put everyone in peril and compromise long-term stealth deployments that are fundamentally different from surface ship missions.

The Submarine Group spokesman quoted by Stars & Stripes, Lt. Cmdr. Greg Kuntz, needs to get his priorities straight and think this through with logic uncolored by political correctness. Take the question of "how" to accommodate female sailors on submarines, which is huge in itself. As explained in the SAIC Report posted below, even if the Navy could justify the enormous cost, cramped submarines cannot be "stretched" like Town Car limousines to accommodate gender-separated officers and enlisted sailors.

Career paths must include deployments on all subs, not larger, nuclear-powered boomers only. Concerns about sexual privacy in berthing areas well below the minimum habitability standards of surface ships cannot be ignored. It is difficult enough to serve in any type of submarine.

The more important question is "why." What justification is there for creating irresolvable operational hazards in undersea missions, while introducing social issues and tensions that could have a serious negative effect on morale, recruiting, retention, and readiness in the Silent Service?

A law exists that requires official advance notice to Congress before DoD money is spent to gender-integrate submarines. The Navy may be skirting that law, and Congress should hold the Navy accountable. If there is a need for more male doctors and sailors for submarines, more male doctors and sailors should be recruited and trained. Unneeded gender quotas at the US Naval Academy create pressures to gender integrate submarines, despite the potential health risks to women, which usually are not discussed, plus the negative impact on missions and crews as a whole.

Rather than straining to accommodate politically-correct social agendas, the US Navy should concentrate on maintaining and strengthening policies and standards that best meet the mission requirements of the Submarine Service and its sailors.

The following links provide further information on the issue:

The SAIC report on the subject, "Submarine Assignment Policy Assessment," considered to be definitive:

http://cmrlink.org/CMRNotes/SAPA%20020195.pdf

The medical aspects of the issue are discussed in this letter to Congress from retired Rear Adm. Hugh Scott, USN, an expert in undersea medicine:

http://cmrlink.org/CMRNotes/HPScott%20061200.pdf

Finally, the concerns expressed to the former DACOWITS (Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services) some time ago remain equally true today:

http://cmrlink.org/CMRNotes/NAVY-DACOWITS_0295.pdf

The undersea environment in which our submariners live and defend America is as dangerous as outer space. There is no compelling reason for social experiments that make our sailors' lives more difficult and more dangerous.

Summer in the Capitol City

2009-08-13T15:48:00.003-04:00

President Barack Obama's proclaimed LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered) Equality month in June extended into July, causing major liberal media to follow the traveling "Gays in the Military Campaign" (GIMC), led by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) and his new BFFs at the Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay activist group in the nation.

Liberal media keep following the road show, which is planning to visit at least seven cities with an entourage of former servicemembers who tell their stories about honorable discharges for homosexuality under the 1993 law. On July 8, CMR Executive Director Tommy Sears appeared on CNN's "Situation Room," with the network's Pentagon correspondent, Chris Lawrence. (Sorry, no video link is available. The performance must have been so powerful and persuasive that activists at the network just had to remove it from the website.) However, a partial transcript and analysis of the report is available from the Media Research Center, which highlighted it as one of its "Bias Alerts," pointing out the disparity in time allotted to repeal proponents and our opposing view

Meanwhile, in response to a USA Today editorial pushing gays in the military, retired Admiral Jerome Johnson and Lt. Gen. E.G. Shuler, USAF (Ret.), two of 1,148 Flag & General Officers for the Military, signed this "Opposing View" op-ed titled A Matter of National Security.

Elaine Donnelly wrote this column for US News & World Report, which ran with one by Aubrey Sarvis of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). Elaine analyzed the latest flawed idea from the California-based Michael D. Palm Center, an activist group that used to call itself the "Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military." In May the Palm Center issued a report advocating suspension of discharges currently required by law. Elaine explained the breaking of faith with the troops that such an action by President Obama would represent:

-Allowing Gays in the Military Would be Unfair and Hurt Troop Morale

LGBT Month was supposed to culminate with the suspension order from President Obama-a constitutionally ridiculous idea on many levels, starting with its violation of the oath of office requiring the president to uphold the laws of the land. "Not so fast," warns this commentary in (of all places) the Washington Post:

-Do Tell

Sometimes the opposition helps to make our case with unintended absurdity. Witness Richard Cohen, who made one of the more inane arguments we have read in a June 30 Washington Post column:

-Open the Military Closet

"Of course, there will be resistance to changing 'don't ask, don't tell.' So what? It's the right thing to do and the military, of all institutions, knows how to enforce discipline. Will there be incidents? You bet. Will a gay man hit on one who is not? Again, you bet. But does this happen all the time with heterosexual women and heterosexual men? Of course. Come-ons are part of life. Same sex or opposite sex, they are not fatal."

Pardon us, Mr. Cohen, but the consequences of indiscipline in the military can be fatal-to individuals and to national security. Your elitist racial analogy breaks down in comparison with certain realities involving human sexuality. In order to encourage good order and discipline, the military continues to separate men and women to the greatest degree practicable in close quarters involving little or no privacy. It is, as you say, the right thing to do.

Audie Murphy (Not)

This review of Patrick Murphy's book Taking the Hill, posted on Military.com, analyzed the 2008 autobiography of the Army veteran from Pennsylvania who has become a hero to gay activists demanding repeal of the 1993 law regarding gays in the military. CMR President Elaine Donnelly, who has read Murphy's book, concludes that even the full title is a bit overstated:

-Taking the Hill - From Philly to Baghdad to the United States Congress

It didn't take long for Aubrey Sarvis of the SLDN to accuse Donnelly of disparaging Rep. Murphy's military record, even though she did not. It seems that anyone who quotes from Rep. Murphy's book, or from his own Bronze Star citation for seven months of honorable service with an Army Brigade Operational Law Team (BOLT) in Iraq, risks being accused of "swiftboating."

Sarvis falsely accused Elaine on a liberal blog because he cannot dispute her primary point, as stated in her article for Human Events:

-Murphy's (LGBT) Law for the Military

"[There is] every reason to expect that under Murphy's New LGBT Law -- just like the original Murphy's Law -- everything that can go wrong likely will go wrong. America's military is the best in the world, but various types of sexual misconduct still occur. Men and women are human, and therefore imperfect. Homosexuals are no more perfect than anyone else. Sound military personnel policies encourage discipline rather than indiscipline, but Murphy's New LGBT Law would have the opposite effect."

Now It Can Be Told

So - former Rep. John McHugh of New York, the former Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, really is a closet gays-in-the-military supporter. Who knew?

McHugh Says View Has Changed on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

At a hearing on his confirmation to be the new Secretary of the Army before the Senate Armed Services Committee on July 30, McHugh stated his views as follows:

"It is a serious issue and it is an issue that has not been before me as a Member of Congress since 1993. The reality is the President has made very clear...I have no doubt the President is going to press forward with his intent to change that policy. To whatever degree remains to be seen. I think he would like a full reversal. It is also without question that Secretary Gates has begun a process of what he describes as softening that policy. Whatever that may mean remains to be seen.

"My view, as Secretary of the Army, if confirmed, would be to do the most effective job I could garnering the military input and information that I think any Secretary and any President would like as they go forward in finalizing the determination. That is how I described my envisioned role to the administration. They seemed content with that.

But having said that, two other factors. Whatever the decision of the President and the Secretary of Defense, it would be my responsibility, if confirmed...to best describe...the rationale, and the justification for whatever policy evolves. That is the responsibility of a service Secretary, as I see it, under title 10. And at the end of the day, I think it is worth noting, of course, this is a policy embedded in law, and there will be no overturning of it without the agreement of this Congress, the House, the Senate, and of course, the President."

Funny how Mr. McHugh has forgotten that the issue of gays in the military was right there before him not 16 years ago-but only twelve months ago. His promise to seek full information and "military input" rings hollow to anyone who remembers his sorry performance as Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee last July. During a hearing staged by Personnel Subcommittee Chairman Susan Davis (D-CA), McHugh just sat there and watched his HASC colleagues bully Elaine Donnelly and her fellow witness Sgt. Maj. Brian Jones, a former Delta Force soldier who was otherwise occupied in 1993. As a Special Operations Forces Ranger, Jones was there to rescue his buddies when the Black Hawk went down in Mogadishu, Somalia.

Ranking Member McHugh did nothing to intervene when HASC Democrats (and one since-defeated RINO, Rep. Chris Shays of Connecticut, who was not even a member of the committee) tried to intimidate Donnelly with a series of absurd or insulting questions. McHugh failed in his responsibility as a legislator to defend the 1993 law, but it sounds like he will be more eager to do the bidding of President Obama if the law is repealed.

Memo to John McHugh: the 1993 law will not be repealed if pro-defense Republicans and Democrats ensure that future hearings are conducted with more courtesy than you provided as HASC Ranking Member in July 2008. With the chairman of both the HASC and SASC having committed to hearings, members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have the responsibility to take the issue seriously, and to consider the extreme and harmful consequences of repealing the law. Our troops deserve no less.

Letdown for the LGBT Left

2009-07-07T11:08:00.007-04:00

The White House

In an attempt to placate his lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered constituency groups, President Barack Obama issued a proclamation declaring June 2009 to be "LGBT Pride Month." But after a full month of relentless activism and media support, the LGBT Equality Caucus remains frustrated by President Obama, the Congress, and the courts.

There was little to get excited about on Wednesday, June 24, when the Center for American Progress (CAP), a far-left think tank closely associated with the Obama Administration, released a report titled "Ending 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'" Authored by Lawrence J. Korb, a liberal who likes to describe himself as a Reagan Pentagon appointee, the report is yet another collection of misinformation from gay-activist groups such as the University of California-based Michael D. Palm Center and the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN).

The CAP, SLDN, and other activist organizations have publicized the human interest stories of several young men and women who were trained and served in the military for a number of years, but received an honorable discharge when they disclosed they were homosexuals. One of them is Air Force Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, who was revealed to be homosexual and received a notice of discharge in 2008.

Articles and reports from the SLDN and the CAP have claimed that the training Fehrenbach received cost the Air Force what he estimated as $25 million dollars. (See Lawrence J. Korb, Sean E. Duggan, Laura Conley, the Center for American Progress, Ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," June 2009, p. 3.)

Really? In 1992, the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces requested and received from the Air Force information on the cost of training military pilots. The average cost to train an Air Force pilot was pegged at $2.5 million; $3.1 million for fighter and bomber pilots. (Commission Report Finding #2.61GH, p. C-93) Assuming inflation to $4 million or so, the $25 million estimate is wildly over-stated. Why?

Secondly, the SLDN and CAP Reports have described Fehrenbach as a former "pilot," even though he was a weapons systems officer. WSO's are trained to fly missions in the back seat of an aircraft. Fehrenbach has received decorations for his service as a weapons systems officer. Why are the activists describing him as a pilot?

Congressional Action/Inaction

-On June 25, openly-gay Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) attempted to offer amendments to this year's House Defense Authorization bill: one would have repealed the present homosexual ineligibility law; the other would have 'suspended" ongoing enforcement of that law, in effect having the same result as repeal (i. e., allowing open homosexuality in the military). Polis withdrew the amendments before they could be considered by the House, probably due to opposition from House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO), and the ongoing recognition by the House Democratic leadership that it cannot muster the votes to repeal (or "suspend") the law. Despite its present political advantages and a liberal media complicit in advancing its agenda, the failure of Polis' amendments represents another major defeat for the LGBT Left.

-According to Stars & Stripes, there is a three-sided stalemate going on: Congress says President Obama needs to offer his own repeal plan, the White House says "the repeal is just one of numerous goals," and the Pentagon maintains that "Congress must act first on 'don't ask' before service leaders will make any changes."

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in Limbo for Now

-Meanwhile, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) is tap-dancing but not really saying that a repeal bill is ready to be announced. Apparently, Senate Democrats are still waiting for a RINO to sign up as a co-sponsor with the bill's planned original sponsor, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) According to the Palm Center, Sen. Reid previously had called for President Obama to sign an Executive Order to stop enforcement of the law. This makes no sense, since the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate should be defending the prerogatives of Congress in writing laws, instead of encouraging the Executive Branch to circumvent one of them.

The Supreme Court

-Last month the Supreme Court declined to hear the latest challenge to the homosexual ineligibility law. Stephen Dinan reported on more LGBT advocates' dissatisfaction.

Justices Decline "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Case

Dinan noted at the end of his article that the gay activists intend to keep counting the number of discharges occurring when servicemembers reveal themselves to be homosexual. For perspective, the media should report the number of discharges that occur for other reasons. Personnel losses for pregnancy/family hardship and weight standard violations occur at far greater rates, and the number of discharges for homosexuality could be reduced to near-zero if the convoluted "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" administrative policy were dropped.

Paranoia in the LGBT Left?

2009-06-19T15:51:00.003-04:00

Last week, the House Armed Services Committee approved its annual bill authorizing operations and policies for the Defense Department. Despite high frustration among gay activist groups, the Committee approved the 2010 National Defense Authorization bill without any action in support of legislation to repeal current law stating that homosexuals are not eligible for military service.

As reported by the local Washington, DC gay publication, the Washington Blade, consternation with Democrats' inaction on the military's homosexual ineligibility law has reached the point of paranoia. In the Blade report, titled "HRC Accused of Secret Deal to Repeal 'Don't Ask' Repeal," Aaron Belkin, director of the University of California-based Michael D. Palm Center, accuses the Human Rights Campaign and other prominent LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) groups of conspiring against repeal efforts:

"'It would be one thing to say nothing, but there is pro-active lobbying on the Hill for Congress not to consider [the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'] issue'," Belkin is quoted as saying. "'And so the community has been appalling on this issue.'"

When asked about the work of HRC, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, and other groups, Belkin reportedly turned on his own side, saying he feels "'very confident in saying'" that "'not only are they not doing anything but they're pro-actively lobbying against consideration of the issue.'"

Over on the Senate side, Majority Leader Harry Reid issued a statement on June 16 (the same day the House Armed Services Committee was considering its defense authorization bill) declaring that the Senate "would welcome a legislative proposal from the White House on repeal so as to provide clear guidance on what the president would like to see and when. With presidential leadership and direction, I believe we can find the time to get repeal done in this Congress."

Previously, Sen. Reid had called for President Obama to issue an Executive Order to stop enforcement of the 1993 law. Such an action would be an affront to Congress and a breach of faith with the troops he leads. Instead of encouraging President Obama to create a conflict with Congress, Sen. Reid should be defending the legislative prerogatives of Congress.

The Senate is preparing to take up its version of the Department of Defense authorization bill this week. After the House declined to address the issue, any abrupt action in the Senate could only be explained as pure pandering to homosexual activists. Senators in both parties should stand up for the law that protects the high standards and culture of the world's greatest military.

In an interview with NewsMax, Elaine Donnelly summed up the current situation: "Donnelly: Obama's Gay Military Agenda Isn't Dead."