"Major Dick Waud reporting, sir! And may I say you look super fabulous today, sergeant!"
Posted on 04/16/2009 11:23:24 AM PDT by DesertRenegade
With the nation engaged in two wars and facing a number of potential adversaries, this is no time to weaken our military. Yet if gay rights activists and their allies have their way, grave harm will soon be inflicted on our all-volunteer force.
The administration and some in Congress have pledged to repeal Section 654 of U.S. Code Title 10, which states that homosexuals are not eligible for military service. Often confused with the "don't ask, don't tell" regulations issued by President Clinton, this statute establishes several reasons that homosexuality is incompatible with military service.
Section 654 recognizes that the military is a "specialized society" that is "fundamentally different from civilian life." It requires a unique code of personal conduct and demands "extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense." The law appreciates military personnel who, unlike civilians who go home after work, must accept living conditions that are often "characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy."
While there have been changes in civilian society since this statute was adopted by wide bipartisan majorities in 1993, the military realities it describes abide. If anything, they are more acute in wartime.
In our experience, and that of more than 1,000 retired flag and general officers who have joined us in signing an open letter to President Obama and Congress, repeal of this law would prompt many dedicated people to leave the military. Polling by Military Times of its active-duty subscribers over the past four years indicates that 58 percent have consistently opposed repeal. In its most recent survey, 10 percent said they would not re-enlist if that happened, and 14 percent said they would consider leaving.
If just the lesser number left the military, our active-duty, reserve and National Guard forces would lose 228,600 people - more than the total of today's active-duty Marine Corps. Losses of even a few thousand sergeants, petty officers and experienced mid-grade officers, when we are trying to expand the Army and Marine Corps, could be crippling.
And the damage would not stop there. Legislation introduced to repeal Section 654 (H.R. 1283) would impose on commanders a radical policy that mandates "nondiscrimination" against "homosexuality, or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived." Mandatory training classes and judicial proceedings would consume valuable time defining that language. Team cohesion and concentration on missions would suffer if our troops had to live in close quarters with others who could be sexually attracted to them.
We don't need a study commission to know that tensions are inevitable in conditions offering little or no privacy, increasing the stress of daily military life. "Zero tolerance" of dissent would become official intolerance of anyone who disagrees with this policy, forcing additional thousands to leave the service by denying them promotions or punishing them in other ways. Many more will be dissuaded from ever enlisting. There is no compelling national security reason for running these risks to our armed forces. Discharges for homosexual conduct have been few compared with separations for other reasons, such as pregnancy/family hardship or weight-standard violations.
There are better ways to remedy shortages in some military specialties than imposing social policies that would escalate losses of experienced personnel who are not easily replaced.
Some suggest that the United States must emulate Denmark, the Netherlands and Canada, which have incorporated homosexuals into their forces. But none of these countries has the institutional culture or worldwide responsibilities of our military. America's armed forces are models for our allies' militaries and the envy of our adversaries - not the other way around.
As former senior commanders, we know that the reason for this long-standing envy is the unsurpassed discipline, morale and readiness of our military. The burden should be on proponents of repeal to demonstrate how their initiative would improve these qualities of our armed services. This they cannot do.
Consequently, our recent open letter advised America's elected leaders: "We believe that imposing this burden on our men and women in uniform would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all echelons, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force."
Everyone can serve America in some way, but there is no constitutional right to serve in the military. The issue is not one of individual desires, or of the norms and mores of civilian society. Rather, the question is one of national security and the discipline, morale, readiness and culture of the U.S. armed forces upon which that security depends. It is a question we cannot afford to answer in a way that breaks our military.
"Major Dick Waud reporting, sir! And may I say you look super fabulous today, sergeant!"
Needless to say, although homosexuals (Heck, everyone, if they are able to, has to serve) can serve openly, many hide their same sex orientation for obvious reasons.
http://cmrlink.org/fileuploads/HASC072308DonnellyShortStatement.pdf
The destruction of the US military was probably agreed to by Hussein as part of the bargain he made with big money homosexuals for funding of his campaign.
I expect, after Obama completes his American mission, that he will retire to Saudi Arabia to live as a hero.
That is my experience as well. The gay (and bisexual) men I have encountered have all been obsessed with sex. It has been alarming to note the risks that they are willing to take to gratify themselves-imperiling thier families, thier jobs, and even thier freedom as they indulge in criminal behavior (mostly doing/selling ecstasy or pursuing teenagers). Some of them have been capable of functioning "normally" in society, but none of them have been stable. Most are alcoholics as well.
A bisexual man I worked with made it his goal in life to "score" with straight men. Thankfully he did not proposition me, but he did target a co-worker. The poor fellow had no idea this person was bisexual and invited him to his home. Once inside, the bi-guy got kissy and gropy and things got funky fast. His mark did not give in, but he was quite disturbed by the experience-especially because his wife was expected to return at any moment!
I do not want to think of what would happen in a situation like that if it occurred in the military, and the bi dude outranked the straight guy.
When I was in Airborne school there was a Sargeant there who had a strange fascination with one of the soldiers ,who was a private in our company. Due to his lower rank the private did his best to tolerate and tried to avoid the sargeant but that proved insufficient. This soldier and I shared a room with two other soldiers and we did our best to try and be around him as much as possible to lessen the sargeants opportunitys to get at the private. One night at about midnight I was awakened by a commotion and that commotion turned out to be the intoxicated sargeant putting his hands on the private. Turns out he was caressing the privates buttocks while he was sleeping which of course woke up the private. Before I or the other two soldiers could react in came the duty NCO. I still remember his words to this day “ I told you what I would do if I caught you doing this s**t. The next thing I know he had the offender by the neck and dragged him out of the room and we watched as they disappeared into the day room. The next day the sargeant was not wearing his black hat any longer and the swelling on his face told the rest of the story. He worked at headquarters company and then was gone by the time we got to jump week. I would like to say that this was an isolated incident during the time I served but it was not. There was another sargeant in one of the units I served with that liked to be friendly to those under his command also. When your job is to kill the enemy while making sure that you and your buddys stay alive ,you should not have to worry about protecting your A** if you know what I mean.
I’ll add to rollos comment that Israel’s experience in two ways. First, you had a defacto don’t ask, don’t tell policy already in force when the issue arose a few decades ago in the sense that only open homosexuals were subject to discharge. The perspective was different in the sense that it wasn’t in the context of general agitation, and really wasn’t much of a change in policy, simply acknowledging what was already policy. Probably more important, though many avoid serving for various reasons, Israel has universal conscription of it’s Jewish and some Arab citizens. A different enviornment that a volunteer force.
Important info Bill, I have heard other accounts like this.
If the NeoMarxist Militant Homosexuals were allowed in, they would rampantly abuse the system and we all know it for this is the kind of people they are to begin with.
“Sergeant” btw.
That’s the truth.
Or occupy the UN w/ slick willy.
I know, I alway use the mispelling of sergeant because of the use of sarge. I consider it the American spelling.
Then what is mispelling, the Michigan spelling of misspelling?
Thanks to both for your comments. Enlightening.
No, it is this Texans uncooperative ring finger on my left hand ,due to an injury to that hand while I was serving my country. Professer, actual spelling is as follows : Professor. I guess I could use spell checker but I consider it to be the computer version of the nanny state. Pleas oh please excuse my mispelling of misspelling.
I especially liked the part about the SDNCO who came in and said; “I told you would would happen if I caught you doing this again” etc. The abusive and dishonorable homosexual soldier had been given a chance - one warning by the that other NCO and he was lucky to have even been given that.
I guess the dishonorable homosexual NCO was confused about what the “Don’t Ask (what I’m doing to you Private”) and Don’t Tell” and as a result got the sh*t kicked outta him by the SDNCO.
That’s okay, I’m a lawnmower mechanic with damaged hearing due to being on a rifle team 50 years ago in the ANG.
On the internet it is hard to discern someones intentions sometimes. Actually it was my dumb butt that led to the injury to my hand. When they tell you no wedding rings,they mean no wedding rings. Right now I have a business where I fix up cars and sell them, kind of like flipping houses except with cars. There aint nothing like fixin things is there Professer?
Machines are more honest than people; I can inspect a mower and tell a lot about the guy who uses it.
It is strange that you said that. When I was writing the previous post to you the same thought came into my mind. My grandson,who is 10 sometimes helps me work on the cars I repair. Not long ago he asked me why I liked working on cars and fixing things in general ,and your response was one of the reasons I gave him.
That's pretty much what happened to the old line protestant churches as soon as they started ordaining women. The gay and lesbian takeover was moments behind. (not to put too fine a point on it.)
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.