Not So Fast
Oliver North
Friday, March 05, 2010
WASHINGTON -- He had to give them something. During his first year in office, Barack Obama made the rounds of his constituents and tried to appease them all. For the pacifists, there were promises to get out of Iraq. Self-loathing Americans were given a global kowtowing presidential apology tour. The Marxist-librarian constituency was assuaged when he accepted communist literature from Hugo Chavez. To satisfy Rodney King "can we all get along?" adherents, Mr. Obama promised to close the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Proponents of global environmental policy, universal health care, nationalized industry and massive government all got something.
But the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, which worked so hard to elect Mr. Obama, wasn't feeling the love. The president wouldn't let them out of the closet, they argued, and their patience was wearing thin. POTUS had to give them reason to stay in the fold.
The payoff came in his State of the Union address, when Mr. Obama went off on another frolic and diversion in declaring, "This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are."
That set Washington's Self-Esteem Caucus on full throttle. "Fairness" is liberalism's golden calf and now a central organizing principle of Mr. Obama's national security policy. The pundits, citing politicians and polls, declared that "society has moved on" and that the 1993 law barring active homosexuals from military service is "old and outdated."
When Secretary of Defense Robert Gates went so far as to suggest that he was prepared to ignore enforcement of the law, he wasn't chastised; he was commended. Others who once stood up for our military and its families but who now voice support for opening the military to active homosexuals are -- for the first time in their careers -- cited by the media as "authoritative," even "heroic."
Such is the inane duplicity that passes for governance in our nation's capital. Proponents of overturning the law cite the hurt feelings of homosexuals, their "integrity" and the ever-popular "aw, shucks, gee whiz, can't we just let these nice folks serve the country they love?" argument. But few have actually addressed the national security implications of such a change. Now the Joint Chiefs of Staff have done just that.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey informed the Senate Armed Services Committee he has "serious concerns" about repealing the law in the midst of war. "We just don't know the impacts on readiness and military effectiveness," Casey testified.
A somewhat softer note was sounded by Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, who said, "This is not the time to perturb the force that is, at the moment, stretched by demands in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere without careful deliberation."
Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations, testified that he endorsed a "study" of the issue because "only with that information can we discuss the force that we have, not someone else's." He also resisted a "freeze" on discharges for homosexual behavior, citing duty to "the families that support the force."
The straightest shooting of all was done by Gen. James Conway, the commandant of the Marine Corps. In testimony to the House Armed Services Committee on Feb. 24, he said, "Unless we can strip away the emotion, the agendas and the politics and ask ... 'Do we somehow enhance the war-fighting capabilities of the United States Marine Corps by allowing homosexuals to openly serve?' then we haven't addressed it from the correct perspective." Then he reloaded.
After observing that proponents of repeal have failed to produce any evidence that openly homosexual individuals' serving in uniform will improve combat readiness, Conway unequivocally stated: "At this point ... my best military advice to this committee, to the secretary and to the president would be to keep the law such as it is."
Whether Mr. Obama and his allies in Congress will heed this wise advice from a war fighter remains to be seen. Buck McKeon, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, has cautioned, "Before the president or special interests force a change in the policy or law, Congress deserves to see from the services concrete, in-depth evidence that readiness concerns require a change and that such a change would not degrade wartime military readiness."
Rep. McKeon is right. Defense Secretary Gates, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin and Mr. Obama need to call a halt to their planned "moratorium" on discharges for those who engage in homosexual behavior. The 1993 law is clear that such conduct presents "an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." Perhaps the commander in chief can explain how, in the midst of war, any of that has changed.
______________________________________________________
Don’t Ask, Don’t Bleed
Matt Barber
Friday, March 05, 2010
The U.S. military has always discriminated. There are a host of malignant behaviors such as illicit drug use or habitual criminality that can render a person ineligible to serve. As my father-in-law learned, there are also benign maladies such as vision impairment or flat feet that can bar an otherwise eligible applicant. Any number of behaviors or conditions with varying degrees of severity can dash one's hope of donning the uniform.
This is discrimination only insofar as "discriminating minds" with expertise in these matters have found that such restrictions are necessary to maintain excellence in our historically unparalleled fighting force.
In formal recognition of the long-established finding that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service," federal law – Section 654, Title 10 – objectively prescribes the following:
- The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise;
- Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion;
- The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service;
- The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability; and
- There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
Indeed, federal courts have ruled over and again that a prohibition against homosexual conduct within the ranks of the military is both constitutional and justified.
So now that Barack Obama is president, what has changed? Is there something about "out and proud" homosexuality, hitherto absent or unseen, that suddenly makes it compatible with military service? Is there something about our military that has, for the first time in history, made it compatible with this particular lifestyle?
The answer to both is no.
The fact that "homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline" has not changed. Proponents of military homosexualization offer scant evidence to the contrary. In truth, the only thing that has changed is politics.
Reasons for incompatibility are manifold. They are firmly rooted in both common sense and in the "settled" anthropological, sociopolitical and medical sciences, as well as the theological arena. Taken alone, each provides ample justification for maintaining the status quo. Combined, they prove the case. For now – in the interest of brevity – we'll focus on but one: medical science.
Consider that current U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM – aka "gays") from donating blood. Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration categorically confirm that if MSM were permitted to give blood, the general population would be placed at risk.
According to the FDA: "['Gay' men] have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors."
The FDA further warns: "['Gay' men] also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in ['gay' men] than in the general population."
A 2007 CDC study further rocked the homosexual activist community, finding that, although "gay" men comprise only 1-to-2 percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.
Do the math: If "gays" are allowed to serve openly – as to appease leftists' euphemistic demands for "tolerance" and "diversity" – how much more would soldiers in the field – where battlefield blood transfusions and frequent exposure to biohazards are commonplace – face pointless peril?
All things considered (and we've only scratched the surface), is it any wonder that, according to a 2008 Military Times survey, almost 10 percent of currently enlisted personnel say that should "gays" be allowed to serve openly: "I would not re-enlist or extend my service." Furthermore, 14 percent warn: "I would consider not re-enlisting or extending my service." The potential exodus of up to 14 percent of military personnel from our all-volunteer services would be devastating.
When we apply these uncompromising medical and administrative realities to the "gays in the military" debate, we find that, objectively, and based solely upon medical science and the imperative to maintain good order and unit cohesion, homosexual behavior and military service remain today as oil and water.
Yet, inexplicably we see reckless movement from this administration, liberals in Congress and even a handful of high-ranking military commanders toward military homosexualization. This type of San Francisco-style social experimentation within the ranks of the armed services would demonstrably weaken, not strengthen, our military, jeopardizing national security.
In a purely civilian world perhaps we can afford to grant liberal social engineers a manageable level of latitude to play fast and loose with wistful "gay rights" rhetoric. However, it's an entirely different proposition when bad behaviors place others – particularly those who've already waged life and limb for country – at both an unnecessary and avoidable level of risk.
For these reasons (and many more) allowing practitioners of the homosexual lifestyle to serve openly in our armed services should not and must not be "tolerated."
Mr. President, it's your sworn duty to place national security above misguided ideology and extreme special interests. It's high time you begin to take your job seriously.
No comments:
Post a Comment