Posted on 06/02/2010 9:10:24 AM PDT by jazusamo
The debate over gays in the military has driven an extraordinary public wedge between the nation's highest-ranking military officer and the four service chiefs who collectively make up the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Adm. Mike Mullen, Joint Chiefs chairman, in February first broke with the chiefs of the Navy, Air Force, Army and Marine Corps by endorsing President Obama's campaign pledge to end the military's ban on open homosexuals.
The gap widened last week. Adm. Mullen approved a White House deal for Congress to go ahead with a vote on repeal of the law barring openly gay members from the military, rather than waiting for completion in December of a Pentagon study that is seeking the views of troops. Adm. Mullen's move brought an instant rebuttal from the four chiefs in the form of letters to Congress urging lawmakers not to hold the vote.
In fact, the service chiefs did not see the Pentagon-White House-congressional deal to rush a vote until after the administration announced it May 24, Pentagon officials said.
Retired Air Force Gen. Charles Horner, who opposes lifting the ban, said he has never seen such a significant public split between the chiefs and the chairman.
"The chairman is deeply beholden to the secretary of defense and the president," said the former four-star officer, who directed the 1991 air war against Iraq. "He is in a tougher position than the service chiefs. And also the service chiefs are more directly concerned with things like readiness and personnel policies. I can see where this split occurs, for understandable reasons."
Asked whether he had ever witnessed such public disagreement with the four-star officers who run the military, Mr. Horner answered, "No, I have not."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
There is no reason a person needs to be “openly gay” in the military. This whole emphasis on a political agenda involving some people’s sex habits is absurd and dangerous to our defense.
This is an excellent thing to have happen in the middle of two wars.
Yep, all too familiar with Powell and didn’t think we’d have another like him this soon.
The list, ping
You presume that this wasn't Mullen's intention all along. I don't. Mullen is a typical California progressive. Bush made a HUGE mistake elevating him to CJCS. Bush thought in his weakened state, he couldn't get Pace reconfirmed, so he went with Mullen. Of course, given what Laura Bush has said recently, it's also possible that Bush was more closely aligned with Mullen, rather than Pace.
This is just begging for internal sexual harassment.
The little fiddle is a-play over the uncommon situation of losing specialists of whom there is a critical shortage.
The question that was NEVER asked during the Senate hearings, was on the subject of cross-dressers & transvestites (or whatever they're calling themselves today).
What happens when the ship's Captain wants to step out in a cocktail dress and pumps? The possibilities are endless and NONE of them are good. This is going to be discipline and moral mess of EPIC proportions.
No backbone or 30 pieces of silver for his future.
You may be correct but if it was his intention it makes him a flat out liar.
The effects on the blood supply alone should trash this crap.
As far as I know Mullen has never demonstrated he even knows what integtity is. That said, The Joint Chiefs haven’t shown much either. I find it instructive that not one of them that I know of have objected to Onada-imposed ROE. But they raise their backs at the homosexual issue.
The chairman should be at least as concerned about readiness and major personnel policies as are the service chiefs. Social tinkering is hardly the minutiae that he shouldn't be bothered about.
My very thought on reading that. The service chiefs should be reporting that to the chairman on at least a weekly basis and he should be darned concerned with it.
What’s the rush? We all know why. The November mid-terms.
Exactly and the writer points that out. The RATS know they’ll be in the minority after it.
I don’t think the previous Chairman, usmc general Peter Pace, fits your mold.
Closest thing to it would probably be the Admirals revolt over the future of Naval Aviation back in the 1940's. Then several admirals including the CNO resigned rather than implement Truman Administration changes. The four service heads are in the same position now. Either they implement the administration policies on gays in the military or they resign. They don't have any other option anymore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.