Army, Marine chiefs cast doubt on gay service

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Army chief of staff and the commandant of the Marine Corps have broken ranks with the Joint Chiefs chairman and Defense Secretary Robert Gates on gays in the military.

At a Senate hearing today, Gen. George Casey and Gen. James Amos acknowledged that allowing gays to serve openly is probably inevitable. But they say repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" law during wartime would be more divisive and difficult than a Pentagon study suggests.

Amos says "assimilating openly homosexual Marines into the tightly woven fabric" of a combat unit would divert attention from combat preparations. The Marines Corps commandant said if the ban is to be lifted, it should be at a time when Marines are not "tightly focused on what they're doing in a very deadly environment."

Casey took a less dire view. The Army Chief of Staff said if implemented properly, the policy shift wouldn't keep the Army from doing its job. But he said it would "add another level of stress" to an already stretched force.

Read more: http://www.wfrv.com/news/national/111272514.html

[QC]

1. Exactly who is in charge, anyway? n/t

[saigon68]

2. It isn't Obama---that's for sure

[QC]

12. It's amazing, isn't it, how openly his subordinates defy him.

But then, there's really no penalty for publicly defying this president, is there?

[qazplm]

15. you do realize

that lying to Congress is a felony. Obama couldn't order them to say something contrary to their personal/professional opinions, however wrong, if he wanted to because that would be an illegal order.

So it's pretty silly to somehow paint this as disobedience. Wrong, sure, but they are under no obligation to lie, nor should they.

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. President Obama is, but apparently he has not ordered military leaders to

lie to Congress about their opinion on DADT.

[displacedvermoter]

20. Expecting subordinate military officers to support the

position of their civilian commander-in-chief used to be the norm. He is not supposed to order them to lie, he is supposed to order them to follow the position of the people above them in the chain of command.

I also find the crap about "in a time of war" to be preposterous, especially considering we have been in a time of war for almost a solid decade now, in large part at the insistence of these officers and their ilk continually demanding more troops for more expanded missions.

Glad the president is in charge,though.

[wmbrew0206]

22. Once Obama orders the end of DADT, then his subordinate military officers WILL support it.

Until that time, it is NOT an official position. To suggest that is ridiculous!

The official position of the Obama Admin is that DADT is the legal and accepted current policy when dealing with gays in the military. Hence the reason why his admin is arguing that point in federal court.

A lot of people around here need to learn the difference between an actual order, stated policy, and a goal.

[displacedvermoter]

25. A lot of people around here remember senior officials from

the previous administration who were forced to resign for factually challenging force levels and other matters that would have saved lives had they been listened to. In the real world there is not a great deal of difference in an order, policy, or goal. If what I am hearing is true, and the Obama Administration went to court to defend DADT as part of a multi-dimensional plan to end it, and after the Pentagon released a study that the two men in question seem to challenging, then I would suggest that they are indeed speaking before Congress in a manner contrary to the wishes of their boss(es). Even in the civilian world that is pretty much frowned upon, and it never was nearly as common as it is in today's politicized military.

Capitalizing words like WILL doesn't mean that compliance -- or even basic respect -- will happen in real life, BTW. I was in the AF during the Clinton administration, and saw senior officers denigrate the CIC in front of subordinates all the time.

To suggest that these generals and admirals aren't following what is going on in Congress, don't know who supports their positions over the President, and how hard the Administration will fight on an issue and base their actions accordingly is also ridiculous.

If they were truly convinced as to where the rubber was really hitting the road, they would not be again arguing against their CIC's supposed position on the issue. But they also detect uncertainty.

[wmbrew0206]

28. It doesn't matter what is in Congress or what the POTUS WANTS done.

What matter is what the current orders and policy are. The POTUS can end that policy if the Senate gives him the vote to do it.

Until that time, the service chiefs duty is to their service and what they think is best for it after around 35 years in the organization and not to whoever is POTUS.

You say you think that "they are speaking before Congress in a manner contrary to the wishes of their boss(es)." They are also under oath and sworn to say what they think is the truth. So you are saying that they should perjure themselves in front of Congress just to agree with the POTUS. You bring up how general under the Bush Admin were forced to resign for disagreeing with the POTUS and now you are suggesting that Obama should do the same?

[sarge43]

3. Same false argument they used about integrating women.

Ooooo, the boys will be soooo distracted. If that's all it takes to rattle their cage, maybe they shouldn't be in combat in the first place.

[wmbrew0206]

7. FYI - women are not ingegrated into the ground combat units that Amos and Casey

were talking about.

[sarge43]

17. Yes I know. I was referring to integration in general.

Having been in service when it was going on, I heard every stupid argument from "it'll upset the civilian wives" to "women won't be able to carry the equipment" to "if they're in the field they'll get infections" to -- wait for it -- "they'll destroy unit cohesion".

As said, wash, rinse, repeat.

[wmbrew0206]

23. Gotcha, but the arguement then is still the reason why women are not allowed in

forward combat units, such as infantry, arty, tanks, etc.

Using that argument could cause us to end up with a similar policy where gays are allowed to serve, but not in combat arms MOS's.

[sarge43]

24. That's the argument

The reason is if women, especially officers, are put into the combat MOS that will break the last glass ceiling over command and flag grade.

[Crowman1979]

4. I say about 10% of my unit in the USMC was gay, and the other 90% (including me) didn't give a shit

I bet 60 years ago they would have said the same thing about minorities.

[David Zephyr]

10. Thanks for saying so.

As a tiny, persecuted minority, it is straight Americans like you who so many of us in the LGBT community respect and admire. :)

[bluestateguy]

5. You will shut up, salute and obey your commander in chief's orders

and without condescension or bitching or complaining.

All I want to hear from them is "Sir! Yes Sir!" once the order is given to repeal the policy.

[wmbrew0206]

8. Funny, isn't that the exact opposite of what people here were saying prior to '03?

These men are there to train and equip their forces to be prepared for combat and they are being asked their opinion about the effects of a policy change.

If you don't want to hear what they have to say, Levin should not be holding hearings. Also, Obama or Gates could just with hold them from testifying.

[qazplm]

16. and that is what you will hear

and they've all said, but that's a far different situation then being asked to give their views prior to the policy being changed.

[Historic NY]

6. What war ? Its become a job, another 10yrs and its retirement..

[Ian David]

9. Well, that's great news! Just end the war then! n/t

But they say repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" law during wartime would be more divisive and difficult than a Pentagon study suggests.

[wmbrew0206]

11. This little kabuki dance is coming to a end.

Here is how this whole thing was planned out and how it will end.

Obama wanted to end DADT. He could have done it his first day, but figured out or was told, the last thing a new Democratic POTUS needed was a nasty battle with the Pentagon over this issue, especially with two wars going on.

Gates and Obama made a deal. Obama would hold off ending DADT until the Pentagon had prepared the military for the change. Gates promised the commissioned survey would have the results that Obama wanted and needed to end DADT. In return, the Obama Admin would fight on behalf of DADT in the courts. It would allow the military the time to prepare for the change and allow ending DADT to be part of Obama's legacy.

The survey came back with the promised results. The overall opinion is that ending DADT is not a big deal, with some exceptions. This survey gives Obama and Gates cover to end the practice once a straight up and down vote is called in the Senate. What you are hearing in the Senate is just the death rattle of DADT.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. That is assuming that the Senate holds a straight up or down vote

To do that, they are going to need at least two Republicans.

[wmbrew0206]

19. As long as Reid brings it up as a stand alone bill, I don't think getting two republicans

will be an issue. Brown is already saying he would support ending the ban. Snow would probably also vote for it.

[No Elephants]

26. The Brown turds changed his mind. I hope it's because the good ole

sane citizens of Mass. bombarded him with calls and emails afterr hie sucky vote on the Armed Forces Committee. And I think they may have Collins.

[Roy Rolling]

18. "during wartime"

This phrase always comes up about DADT but never said when it is mentioned that "during wartime" in the 1940s the top tax rate was 90% to pay for it. That is what "during wartime" means---lots of sacrifice not lots of tax cuts for the rich. (or anybody)

[happygoluckytoyou]

21. apparently anti-gay senator MCCAIN is BUTT-FUCKING the nation

[No Elephants]

27. Why do so many writers lie? Gays ARE in the service and are allowed to be, as long as they hide who

they are. Writers, esp. headline writers, always make it sound as though we are now considering whether gays may serve. We are considering only whether gays who are serving in the military may be honest or whether they must continue to be dishonest.

If you frame it accurately, the answer is self-evident, which is why our sold out media frames it falsely.

[Poll_Blind]

29. Not so fast on 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal, say top Pentagon brass

Source: Christian Science Monitor

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chair Adm. Mike Mullen have been strong backers of a repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell.' But the heads of the Army, Marines, and Air Force said Friday the repeal could cause problems and should be delayed.

The heads of the US Army, Marines, and Air Force recommended against repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on openly gay troops, at least in the short-term, in testimony on Capitol Hill Friday – clearly dissenting from the secretary of Defense and the nation’s top military officer.

The Air Force chief of staff, for instance, said repealing "don't ask, don't tell" could impact military effectiveness. He called some of the assessments endorsed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen on the subject "too optimistic."

The Army chief of staff recommended repealing "don't ask, don't tell" only after America pulled back from its current war footing.

The testimony provided Republican opponents of the repeal with plenty of ammunition. Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona suggested that many more hearings on the issue might be needed before Congress makes a decision.

Read more: www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2010/1203/Not-so-fast-on-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-repeal-say-top-Pentagon-brass

---

Done deal? There's always another hoop. But the hoop jumping never leads anywhere, it just keeps them entertained and you busy.

PB

[TwilightGardener]

30. AAAAAANND that's why chain of command can be a good thing.

They are outranked.

[bowens43]

31. why should we care what these folks think?

seriously, I can't think of anyone whose opinion on this subject I would value less. They need to sit down and STFU. We are talking Constitutionally protected rights here. Their opinions should carry absolutely no weight.

[Tesha]

32. I guess The Village People had the Navy pegged correctly? (NT)

[atreides1]

33. Sounds like the same arguments

That were used before President Truman signed his executive order integrating the US military.

[Poll_Blind]

34. Yep, and they will go on and on forever until SOMEONE takes charge and makes the call.

This shitty situation isn't going to change otherwise, IMO.

PB

[Plucketeer]

35. YUP and futhermore

a month, a year, a decade from now, all will look back and wonder WTF all the fuss was about! :crazy:



GOP TAX CUTS JOB RESULTS...

[rasputin1952]

36. Defense Secretary and President Obama should just say...

"That's it, DADT is over, now deal with it."

We could use Harry Truman's style right now.

Either they follow orders or retire, it's as simple as that.

[Love Bug]

37. Yes he can, then the next CIC can bring it back

Which is why we need a law banning it. But yeah, I don't see why in the meantime Obama can't demand the necessary changes to the UCMJ and the repeal of DADT.

[rasputin1952]

38. Once it's eatablished, it wil be hard to retract. ...

Eisenhower didn't care about blacks, but he didn't retract Truman's order, and it makes it far easier for congress to actually pass a law that prevents discrimination.

[SkyDaddy7]

39. Air Force, Army & Marines are the 3 most CHRISTIANIZED branches of the military...

So no surprise they would say this.

[TwilightGardener]

40. I don't even think it's that. They just wanted to make it through to retirement

without this new policy hassle on their watches.

[SkyDaddy7]

42. No there is deep seated Evangelical Christian thinking at play here...

Look at what has been going on at the major military universities, especially the Air Force Academy!

There is a ton of info & past news reports that get little coverage due to our hyper Christian culture...I will post links later if you are not familiar with this problem but I am in a hurry.

[TwilightGardener]

43. No need--I am well acquainted with what comes out of the AF Academy.

I just don't think that's the driving reason for wanting to kick this can down the road, though.

[gratuitous]

41. Where's all this freedom the military is allegedly fighting for?

I'm confused.

[activa8tr]

44. Headline should read: "Gay service members cast doubt on whether evangelical and

extremely conservative right wing military top brass can lead in this 21'st century"!!!

They need to realize we don't live in the 19th century anymore. Gays are everywhere. We don't need the US military leaders acting like the Taliban.

Those folks seem to be as out of touch as the author of the OP's article is!