Posts Tagged ‘Don’t ask’

The Gay Military Witchhunts Commence

January 5, 2011

I wrote this post two weeks ago.  And I was hardly the first conservative to do so.  There were questions raised, such as:

Do you expect the military system or the civilian courts to deal with the influx of phony sexual harassment cases to follow?

And:

Will a career Marine’s personal opinion on homosexuality become an impediment to promotion or assignment to key billets?

Let the wreckage of the formerly great US military machine commence:

Aircraft Carrier Commander Relieved of Duty After Airing Explicit Videos
Published January 04, 2011
| FoxNews.com

Capt. Owen Honors was relieved of duty Tuesday as commander of the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise after he broadcast sexually charged videos taken aboard the ship, the Navy announced.

The videos, distributed on closed-circuit television during 2006 and 2007 deployments of the USS Enterprise, the Navy’s oldest nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, showed simulated masturbation, suggestive shower scenes with multiple women and gay slurs.

The Virginian-Pilot newspaper broke the story, publishing edited versions of the lewd videos on its website. The Navy Times released two additional lewd videos on its website Tuesday.

Adm. John C. Harvey Jr., commander of United States Fleet Forces Command, said Honors’ performance as commanding officer has been without incident but his “poor judgment” while serving as executive officer of the ship was inexcusable.

“After personally reviewing the videos created while serving as executive officer, I have lost confidence in Capt. Honors’ ability to lead effectively, and he is being held accountable for poor judgment and the inappropriate actions demonstrated in the videos that were created while he served as executive officer on Enterprise,” said Harvey.

“His profound lack of good judgment and professionalism while previously serving as executive officer on Enterprise calls into question his character and completely undermines his credibility to continue to serve effectively in command,” Harvey added.

Capt. Dee Mewbourne will be permanently assigned as the commanding officer of the Enterprise.

Navy officials said Honors will not be kicked out of the service, though it is possible later on, pending results of a longer investigation, that he could be asked to leave the Navy.

Honors attended the Naval Academy and taught at the Navy’s Top Gun flight school.

The military is looking for a few good men.  You know, so it can destroy them and purge them and replace them with guys like Pvt. Bradley Manning.

One of the interesting things about this is that the Navy was well-aware of these videos for years – and only acted when they were leaked.  Which is to say that Captain Honors was an excellent theater commander until political correctness turned him into a liability.  Because it’s more important today that a military officer be politically correct than competent in battle.  Another interesting thing is that these videos were leaked so soon after the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  Almost as though open season of the hunting down of the military had just started.

Here’s another way of putting it:

Pentagon officials admit that overcoming anti-gay attitudes — or at least punishing them when they surface — has become more urgent since Congress last month repealed the 17-year-old law that bars homosexuals from serving openly.

I can’t begin to defend what Capt. Owen Honors did to anyone who did not serve and did not live in the military culture.  I alluded to that culture in my statement:

In my “day” in the Army, soldiers in the infantry that I served in just would not have tolerated openly homosexual soldiers.  There would have been blanket parties galore, until the gay-berets got the message that they were most definitely not wanted.  I don’t know that that will happen today, but I just can’t imagine the mindset has changed that much in the years I’ve been out…

The military – and in particular the front-line combat units – is composed of young men.  And these young men are of a particular sort: they are aggressive; they are black-and-white as regards right and wrong; they are highly sexualized as a result of their long tours and incredibly hard physical work mostly away from women and dating.  And they constantly joke about homosexuality in a manner that clearly and forcefully disdains homosexuality.

Here’s another way of putting it:

“Most U.S. military units, especially those in combat, are kind of hyper-macho,” said a former Army infantry officer who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan. “In that environment, it’s not uncommon to hear homophobic slurs that would be unacceptable in larger societal discourse.”

And like it or hate it, those young, aggressive, black-and-white-thinking, sexualized and anti-homosexual men who fight and die for America are the kind of men who want – even need – the kind of tension-busters that Captain Honors provided to his sailors.

Here’s another way of putting it:

A Facebook fan page set up for supporters of the Enterprise was abuzz today with talk of the story, with many people commenting that they support Honors and appreciated his movies and humor.

One post read: “The XO movie night was one of the few things we looked forward to during deployment in ’06. It is a shame that this distraction has been stirred up now years later.”

I couldn’t even begin to tell you how many times my NCOs and officers made insulting references to homosexuality in front of the units they led and commanded.  Other than that it was literally in the thousands of times.  Heck, it was probably pretty near a thousand times in boot camp and advanced infantry training alone.

When DADT was repealed, some military veterans immediately began asking how long before the persecutions of combat leaders who didn’t want to see their military destroyed began.

The answer is about two weeks.

I’m sorry your career was destroyed, Captain Honors.  I’m even more sorry that you will merely be the first of tens of thousands whose careers will be destroyed over this vile policy.

The liberals in power will not stop until the American military is as weak and useless as the European Unions.  Call it the redistribution of strength, away from us and toward our enemies.

The only thing that is more immoral than the imposing of a gay military is when it was imposed – in the middle of a long and difficult war.

I tell you what: if Roosevelt had pulled this crap during World War II, we would be speaking German and slowly starving in Nazi death camps right now.

Advertisements

Way To Go: GOP Blocks Ideology-Laden Defense Bill

September 21, 2010

When I heard that the Democrat leadership was playing politics by inserting the amnesty-granting DREAM Act into a bill ostensibly to fund our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, I hoped Republicans would block it.  And then the Democrats decided they weren’t being ideological enough in their partisan politics, and added a provision forcing the military to embrace homosexuality whether it hurt national security or not.

What Democrats wanted to do was force Republicans to either vote for the bill, or be the side that “opposed funding our troops.”

And the fact that Democrats started a game of political chicken with our troops’ lives would get conveniently overlooked by the mainstream leftwing media.

Thank God, our Republican Party stood up to this vile game and said no to frankly vile measures that had nothing to do with troop funding.

Republicans block bill to lift military gay ban
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer Anne Flaherty, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked an effort by Democrats and the White House to lift the ban on gays from serving openly in the military, voting unanimously against advancing a major defense policy bill that included the provision.

The mostly partisan vote dealt a major blow to gay rights groups who saw the legislation as their best hope, at least in the short term, for repeal of the 17-year-old law known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

If Democrats lose seats in the upcoming congressional elections this fall, as many expect, repealing the ban could prove even more difficult — if not impossible — next year. The Senate could take up the measure again during a lame-duck session after the elections, but a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he hasn’t decided whether to do so.

“The whole thing is a political train wreck,” said Richard Socarides, a White House adviser on gay rights during the Clinton administration
.

Democrats included the repeal provision in a $726 billion defense policy bill, which authorizes a pay raise for the troops among other popular programs. In a deal brokered with the White House, the measure would have overturned the 1993 law banning openly gay service only after a Pentagon review and certification from the president that lifting the ban wouldn’t hurt troop morale.

But with little time left for debate before the November ballot, the bill had languished on the Senate calendar until gay rights groups, backed by pop star Lady Gaga, began an aggressive push to turn it into an election issue.

Reid agreed to force a vote on the bill this week and limit debate, despite Republican objections. A Nevada Democrat in a tight race of his own this fall, he also pledged to use the defense bill as a vehicle for an immigration proposal that would enable young people to qualify for U.S. citizenship if they joined the military.

Republicans alleged that Reid was using the defense bill to score political points with the Democratic base.

“This is not a serious exercise. It’s a show,”
said Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

You read it right.  The intellectual and moral power behind the Democrat Party is Lady Gaga.  The Democrat Party reached the sewer, and just kept right on digging.

I don’t doubt for a second that Republicans have done this themselves in the past.  But it is vile.  And it is the kind of thing that any party that is worthy of the title “reformers” will pledge to stop doing and then never do again.

The funding for our soldiers – and most especially during time of war – should be off-limits to anyone who would politicize it.  Because every time a soldier is wounded or killed in action, he is wounded and killed for every American; not merely Democrats or Republicans.

And our politicians damn well better start respecting that.

You want your ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal?  Then have the simple integrity to vote for it straight up.  Because otherwise, you are nothing more than an evil, vile weasel.  And the same thing applies with leftwing OR rightwing immigration proposals.

Both Democrat proposals would transform our society.  And to try to sneak them through under the guise of supporting our soldiers is undemocratic and in fact un-American.

Why Fighting For Our Country Under Obama Is Different Than Any Other Time – Except Maybe Vietnam

July 5, 2010

Fighting a war under the command of Barack Obama is very different than fighting under the command of any president who has ever come before.  Up until president #44, commanders-in-chief actually had some degree of trust in the soldiers under their command.  They put them into battle for one reason, summed up by President Ronald Reagan’s statement: “We win, they lose.”  They sent them with commonsensical rules for civilized warfare, and then they gave them the mandate to go out and win.  Today we have a commander-in-chief who would prefer not to talk about actually winning:

I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.”

In order to avoid the potential for some kind of awkward “victory,” our soldiers and Marines are literally unable to shoot when every element of common sense and the entire history of warfare tell them to shoot:

Troops: Strict war rules slow Marjah offensive
By Alfred de Montesquiou and Deb Riechmann – The Associated Press
Posted : Monday Feb 15, 2010 15:08:51 EST

MARJAH, Afghanistan — Some American and Afghan troops say they’re fighting the latest offensive in Afghanistan with a handicap — strict rules that routinely force them to hold their fire.

Although details of the new guidelines are classified to keep insurgents from reading them, U.S. troops say the Taliban are keenly aware of the restrictions.

“I understand the reason behind it, but it’s so hard to fight a war like this,” said Marine Lance Cpl. Travis Anderson, 20, of Altoona, Iowa. “They’re using our rules of engagement against us,” he said, adding that his platoon had repeatedly seen men drop their guns into ditches and walk away to blend in with civilians.

If a man emerges from a Taliban hideout after shooting erupts, U.S. troops say they cannot fire at him if he is not seen carrying a weapon — or if they did not personally watch him drop one.

What this means, some contend, is that a militant can fire at them, then set aside his weapon and walk freely out of a compound, possibly toward a weapons cache in another location. It was unclear how often this has happened. In another example, Marines pinned down by a barrage of insurgent bullets say they can’t count on quick air support because it takes time to positively identify shooters.

“This is difficult,” Lance Cpl. Michael Andrejczuk, 20, of Knoxville, Tenn., said Monday. “We are trained like when we see something, we obliterate it. But here, we have to see them and when we do, they don’t have guns.”

That mindset doesn’t just apply to our fighting men on the ground, who are put in a position in which they can’t defend themselves if their enemy flouts Obama’s miserable rules of engagement.  The pilots flying overhead and the artillerymen on surrounding positions are prevented from supporting our soldiers if they get pinned down, too:

Family calls U.S. military goals ‘fuzzy’
Parents of soldier killed last week criticize firepower restrictions

By DENNIS YUSKO, Staff writer
First published in print: Thursday, June 24, 2010

QUEENSBURY — The parents of a Lake George soldier killed in Afghanistan attacked the Obama administration Wednesday for “flower children leadership,” and said they would work to change U.S. rules of military engagement in the nine-year conflict.

Hours before holding a wake for their 27-year-old son in Glens Falls, Bill and Beverly Osborn heavily criticized a military policy implemented last year that places some restrictions on when American troops can use firepower in Afghanistan. The new rules were set when Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal assumed command of the Afghanistan effort, and have reportedly made it harder for troops to call in for or initiate air power, artillery and mortars against the Taliban.

The counterinsurgency policy is intended to reduce civilian casualties and win the allegiance of Afghans, McChrystal had said. But echoing criticisms from the Vietnam era, Bill Osborn said Wednesday that it’s tied the hands of service members on the ground.

“We send our young men and women to spill their blood and we won’t let them do their job,” he said from his Queensbury home. “Winning hearts and minds is wonderful, but first we have to defeat the enemy.”

And then we wonder why Obama doubled the American body count from Bush in 2009, and is now on pace to double his own total (which means four times the Bush 2008 Americans KIA).

We just suffered the highest number of American causalities for a single month in the history of the war.  Mind you, EVERY month becomes the new “deadliest month” under Obama.

From icasualties.org:

For those who are historically ignorant, America firebombed Tokyo and Dresden in World War II.  We didn’t make sure that every single person who could possibly get killed during an attack was a 100%-confirmed “militant” before we sent a wave of death at our enemies.  If we’d resorted to that form of liberal moral stupidity, we would have lost – and the only question would have been how many of us would have ended up speaking German, and how many of us would have ended up speaking Japanese.

Thank God we didn’t have Obama leading us back then.

But our rules of engagement still weren’t getting enough American soldiers killed, so Team Obama came up with a better idea: how about ordering soldiers to go into battle with unloaded weapons? That’s right. Soldiers are now told to wait until they actually start falling down on the ground dead before they can actually be allowed to fumble a round into the chamber.

Fighting a War without Bullets?
by  Chris Carter
05/25/2010

Commanders have ordered a U.S. military unit in Afghanistan to patrol with unloaded weapons, according to a source in Afghanistan.

American soldiers in at least one unit have been ordered to conduct patrols without a round chambered in their weapons, an anonymous source stationed at a forward operating base in Afghanistan said in an interview. The source was unsure where the order originated or how many other units were affected.

When a weapon has a loaded magazine, but the safety is on and no round is chambered, the military refers to this condition as “amber status.” Weapons on “red status” are ready to fire—they have a round in the chamber and the safety is off.

The source stated that he had been stationed at the base for only a month, but the amber weapons order was in place since before he arrived. A NATO spokesman could not confirm the information, stating that levels of force are classified.

In other words, our guys can’t prepare their weapons to actually fire until they are already under attack.

Imagine sending our police into a building filled with armed gang members like that.

And you want to know how to win a medal in Obama’s army? Don’t do anything. Certainly don’t actually shoot at the enemy.

Hold fire, earn a medal
By William H. McMichael – Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday May 12, 2010 15:51:31 EDT

U.S. troops in Afghanistan could soon be awarded a medal for not doing something, a precedent-setting award that would be given for “courageous restraint” for holding fire to save civilian lives.

The proposal is now circulating in the Kabul headquarters of the International Security Assistance Force, a command spokesman confirmed Tuesday.

“The idea is consistent with our approach,” explained Air Force Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis. “Our young men and women display remarkable courage every day, including situations where they refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, in order to prevent possible harm to civilians. In some situations our forces face in Afghanistan, that restraint is an act of discipline and courage not much different than those seen in combat actions.”

Soldiers are often recognized for non-combat achievement with decorations such as their service’s commendation medal. But most of the highest U.S. military decorations are for valor in combat. A medal to recognize a conscious effort to avoid a combat action would be unique.

It used to be that the hero was the guy who took on the enemy. Now it’s the guy who crawls into the fetal position and walks away from a battle with an unfired weapon.

We can only wonder what Obama’s version of Audie Murphy will look like.

And Iran sure doesn’t have to worry about Obama shooting at them as they develop their nuclear arsenal so they can cause Armageddon.

About the only thing regarding the military Obama is actually determined to fight for is gay rights. You can bet that the same political weasels who won’t let our soldiers actually shoot at the enemy will fight tooth and nail for the right of homosexual soldiers to be able to buttrape their buddies. Because we don’t have nearly enough gay rape in the military. That’s going to be the new meaning to “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Don’t tell, because that homosexual is the new protected class.

And if all of the above doesn’t beat all, you probably don’t want to hear about the fact that Obama’s timetable for a cut-and-run had nothing whatsoever about satisfying military issues and everything about satisfying political ones within Obama’s radical leftwing base.  The military wasn’t even consulted, according to General David Petraeus:

McCain: “General, at any time during the deliberations that the military shared with the President when he went through the decision-making process, was there a recommendation from you or anyone in the military that we set a date of July 2011?”

Petraeus: “Uh, there was not.”

McCain: “There was not – by any military person that you know of?”

Petraeus: “Not that I’m aware of.”

Nobody knows what the hell is going on over there.  Are we going to stay and fight?  Or cut and run?  Most of the Obama administration is saying that we are most definitely going to cut and run in July 2011.  Take Vice President Biden, who says, “In July of 2011 you’re going to see a whole lot of people moving out. Bet on it.”  All Obama will say is that “We didn’t say we’d be switching off the lights and closing the door behind us.” which isn’t really saying anything.

All the money is on a pullout, as Obama cuts and runs.  The Afghan people know that, know that the Taliban will soon be their landlords, and aren’t about to risk any kind of meaningful alliance with America that would be necessary to actually winning over there.

Do you remember FDR telling Churchill, “I’ll give you a year, and then we’re running with our tail between our legs where it belongs”???

If it’s a war worth fighting, it is a war worth sticking around to fight.

We will win when we allow our fighting men to fight.  And not until then.

If you wonder whether Afghanistan is going to become like Vietnam, stop wondering: it already has.  Because we’re fighting Afghanistan the same way we fought Vietnam – with the mindset of putting our troops in danger while simultaneously preventing them from securing victory.