It was almost painful to watch the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Senate hearing in the Armed Services Committee via C-Span on 03 December. The panel of witnesses included the top military brass actually responsible for the performance of the various military branches of service. These men, some if not all of whom have been hardened by service in various military operations throughout the world (enough service ribbons and stars to decorate a Christmas tree), tried to do their duty under pressure created by the social engineers, the president, the Joint Chiefs chairman, Defense secretary and committee democrat honchos Levin and Lieberman, neither of whom, along with Obama, has served in the military, thus has virtually no idea of the ramifications of what they’re trying to ram through Congress in its lame-duck session.
These commanders, without being as blunt as they are in their milieu of operations, tried to tell the committee that homosexuals should not be in the military, though some are there without letting their homosexuality be known. The highest-profile military person in the country presently is PFC Bradley Manning, ensconced in a military prison in Quantico, Virginia, for his alleged theft of the classified documents appearing in the current WikiLeaks fiasco. Bradley is an un-closeted homosexual, who has written of his “orientation” on Face-Book and even of his boyfriend, a "self-described drag queen." I did not hear Manning mentioned but the facts of his case had to cloud the hearing.
The 256-page report put together by the Pentagon over the past months purportedly defining the attitude of military personnel concerning the matter has just been released, thus the committee members had had little to no chance to study it, but Senator Levin decided to stage the hearing anyway, starting with Secretary Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mullen on 02 December, probably understanding that both the commanders and some senators such as McCain would tear it apart for the obvious propaganda it is. Levin’s party holds the cards, so it didn’t matter, especially since DADT is buried in the current Defense bill, which is in need of passing.
The glowing reviews given to the report alluding to no problem with repeal of DADT were totally negated by what was buried in the report, namely that huge percentages of the military, especially in the cadres serving in combat areas and on ships, are dead-set against repeal and even consider leaving the service if it is enacted and/or discouraging others from joining. The commanders made it plain that repeal during a time of war, as is currently the case, is unthinkable, putting the troops at greater than ordinary risk as unit cohesion breaks down. Levin and Lieberman seemed either unable to grasp this or simply didn’t care. Obama has promised it, notwithstanding the law of the land.
Perhaps a focal point of the matter has to do with the difference between a homosexual serving “silently” with regard to his orientation or preference – who knows – and the homosexual who flaunts his nature. It’s the knowing about the guy whose bunk can be touched in its closeness that is damning, even though service-members may sometimes suspect homosexuality in a comrade. It’s the knowing about the guy in the shower and using the same toilet facilities, with the knowledge of the perversions/filth of homosexual behavior. It’s the wondering about what will happen in combat.
Perhaps the greatest disservice to the argument has to do with comparing it to the difficulties encountered in the integration of African-Americans and women into the services. This is akin to comparing apples and oranges. Those two groups had to do with physical and mental normalcy, while the current flap has to do not with race or gender but with sexual perversion, regardless of race and gender. Blacks and women have been assimilated on the basis of how probably 99% of them function mutually, but just as one rotten apple can ruin a bushel of them, the commanders made it plain, at least inferentially, that one homosexual can ruin a unit. This is not what the president wants to hear.
Hanging over the entire process is the recent decree by a California female federal judge to effectively overturn DADT without even a fare-thee-well to the Congress, thus doing the president’s bidding without the hassle and predictable gridlock occasioned in the Congress. Her decree is in abeyance currently by a higher court but one can pretty well guess what the 5-4-oriented SCOTUS might do with the matter, notwithstanding the constitutional posture as it especially relates to national defense.
Gates and Mullen are political appointees, Gates from the presidency of the University of Texas. University campuses/faculties, hotbeds of ultra-liberalism, would approve orangutans for service regardless of their sex if they could demonstrate an ability to peel a banana. Perhaps Gates is afflicted with that mindset. The questionnaire used in the report-process was handled in the backdrop of the House vote to repeal DADT. Besides receiving far less than 100% response, the document was worthless on its face if for no other reason the fact that repeal was thought to be automatic no matter what any military person thought. Indeed, the question as to whether or not to repeal didn’t even appear on the document.
Never has a worse whitewash been perpetrated on the Congress or the public. The obvious purpose of the whole thing was not “whether or not” but “how to.” No wonder the shabby results happened. The respondents knew they had no voice. Stinks!