Why? What Next?
Commentary On the Day After the End of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell!
My debate partner, Dr. Aaron Belkin, who won’t be participating in any more debates with me, is in all the news releases today. He worked nearly a decade writing books and debating better people than I in order to get a couple of interviews and column inches in today’s newspaper stories about the Senate’s vote to end the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy (DADT). And, oh yes, he continued to beat an incessant drum of how things in the military aren’t fair for gay people. Of course, he never served. I served for nearly 29 years and learned on day two that the military isn’t fair for anyone. His drumbeat, and that of the activist gay lobbies that want to stop at nothing less than full cultural acceptance and financial support of a particular behavior, finally got to the American people—the vast majorities of whom haven’t served and have no idea what it means to serve in the military.
So why did it happen? The country is in a “different place” on gay “marriage.” When given the opportunity to vote, even in consistently liberal voting block states like California, the American people—the vast majorities of whom are or know what it means to be married, have voted 31 out of 31 times to affirm that marriage takes place between one man and one woman. I will assert that one man made all of the difference, and his last name isn’t Obama. What’s next? I suggest that answer is the easiest of all—you have but to look to the radical left’s agenda.
Since 2006, they don’t care if you know their agenda and strategy for achieving that agenda—it has been published brashly in periodicals and articulated in other venues so much that I consider it to be in the public domain. Homosexual activists are not happy about just ending the gay ban in the military—in fact the vast majorities have never served either. They want to stop at nothing less than full societal acceptance and financial support of a particular behavior.[1] The military was just low hanging political fruit in that strategy. They know the easy pickings are over. And for those of the American people who have grown weary of the homosexual drum beat on the end of DADT, my message to you is to look for some really good ear plugs.
Why? One name: Admiral Michael Mullen.
Men and women in the profession of arms should know well our war college maxims, among them Clausewitz’s seminal construct: “war is a continuation of politics by other means.” Those who know best, the professional officer corps led by Admiral Mike Mullen our Joint Chiefs Chairman, know that this was a political calculation based upon the resources and opportunities available to our leadership. Since the advent of the DADT policy, signed by President Clinton in 1993, no idea or position forwarded by homosexual activists related to improved mission readiness and effectiveness—none. The whole media sound bite of loss of skilled personnel was a smoke screen. The political reality was that we had a Commander-in-Chief (who had never served) who wanted it and had promised repeal to a special interest support group, and majorities in the House and Senate who could make it happen regardless that the 111th had fewer military veterans than any Congress in our nation’s history. What was Admiral Mullen to do?
The last time the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was in this situation was during the Clinton Administration. General Colin Powell endured great criticism for helping out his Commander-in-Chief too much. Of course, President Bill Clinton needed the help. Eventually, General Powell was roundly criticized by academic watchdogs of the proper constitutional role of military leaders with respect to their civilian masters. Admiral Mullen must have determined he would not draw the same criticism.
Since 1993 and the advent of DADT, the military’s warrior ethos hasn’t changed, but its leadership has had to. Should the American people keep sending to the White House those without military experience or worse—who “loathe” the military or study radical leftist ideologies—then the academics will always be monitoring those whom they consider to be the greater threat to our constitution—the military leadership. And many of these academics, like the most respected professor in the field of U.S. civil-military relations, Dr. Richard Kohn of UNC/Chapel Hill, also favored repeal of the gay ban.
Consider the fact that in the non-defense related conservative world, social conservative ideas are currently taking a prominent back seat to fiscal conservative issues. These days the military needs to acquire new equipment, and pay raises for the troops in the field, and money to upgrade an aging infrastructure and dollars to carry out their mission. There are other fish to fry, if not bigger ones. Was Admiral Mullen’s political calculation on this issue to trade his favorable advice and counsel on the end of DADT for a more favorable Senate response when those funding bills come around? You’ll have to ask him. He hasn’t listened to the rest of us on this issue. Maybe he’ll respond to your questions.
The entire notion of the Pentagon’s Ham-Johnson commission studying this issue was to push this decision to the lame duck Congress. The December 1st deadline was a political calculation. Secretary Robert Gates would be able to find out if the American people would flip both the House of Representatives and the Senate from Democrat Party to Republican control in the 2010 mid-term elections. When the results were in and the Senate didn’t “flip”, then all involved in this process knew the report results really didn’t matter. Secretary Gates even turned them in early.
Those results contained enough information from the war zone to warrant more review. Many voices in the field complained that they were not heard. The low response rate could have been boosted with the requisite push from the Secretary of Defense. Others are capturing that data. From my perspective the survey measured the opinions of the more junior and least experienced of our service members. The more experienced and senior officers who knew best, among them the service chiefs of the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps, were ignored. I suppose they must have been the greater threat to the Constitution.
What next?
Let’s say you are a young sergeant in the Air Force stationed in Germany. You received the DOD-survey on the repeal of the gay ban and you were one of the many who said that it would not adversely affect the military to allow openly gay service members. One afternoon your wife calls you to tell you that your third-grader has come home from her day at the base’s DOD Dependent School and her teacher told her that it was OK if her friend had two mommies. In fact, the teacher said that it didn’t matter whether or not the two of you were married. What do you say to your wife and what do the two of you say to your daughter? You well know that sociologists—who don’t agree on much—overwhelmingly agree that a child does best when her married biological mom and dad live in the home. So, you have to say something for you and for your family’s legacy. What do you do? What do you say? You can’t ask to take the survey over again. You hadn’t thought about this. But, no one has. No one took the time to look into it. The Senate just handed you your lunch.
Our activist homosexual lobby “friends” have likely prepared litigation briefs and papers for such things. They’ve thought about it—it’s part of their agenda. They’ll do the same for equal military promotion quotas for homosexual service members. They’ll be emboldened now to sue for equal representation in the general ranks.
Slowly over the next couple of years, one by one, as their active duty service commitment dates arrive or their assignment selection dates come around, principled members of the military will quietly leave on their own. There won’t be any chaining to the fence at the White House. They won’t throw their medals back at the president. They’re not like that. They served with honor, and when their time is up, well before retirement eligibility—skilled craftsmen, special experts in critically manned career fields all, they’ll simply say they’re separating from the service. Out of deference to their civilian masters, they’ll simply walk away. They hail largely from the conservative south and inter-mountain west. They’ll be the end of long blood lines of ancestors whose families have committed generation after generation to military service. All of this data will be hard to track—and the radical gay leftists know this.
Then, in a couple of years, Congress will become angry at the recruiting shortfalls that will beset Admiral Mullen’s and Secretary Gates’ successors. Gates and Mullen will be gone. I really feel for the Marines—the few, the proud. They showed up for this debate in great strength. Sadly, they will suffer the greatest losses in the ranks. Congress will blame the vocal Marine Corps Commandants. In a few years, there will be talk of the draft coming back. Conscription is a real possibility for my beloved granddaughter who—like yours—would then be forced to compromise her moral beliefs to serve for a homosexual commander. Once again, now government works its way in between me and my God, and she and her God. Will the American people wake up then? Or will they be stuck in their ear plugs and not care about their granddaughters and grandsons?
More immediately, there are the Chaplains. Why would any denomination sponsor anyone for service to the military now? Will the Chaplains that remain still preach from the Bible (God wrote it, not them) that homosexual conduct is a sin? I am a sinner and God has taken up my sin with me as He will with you if you seek Him and find Him. That doesn’t mean I’m perfect—and I expect my sins to be addressed in chapel. But, I expect all of the human condition to be addressed there as well—not just some sins but not others that the government thinks are “O.K.” I expect the activist homosexual lobby has litigation and legal briefs in waiting for the military chaplain who inevitably preaches too close to home. That, and in light of other Biblical truths such as Isaiah 57:21, why would any Chaplain stay in the service in the coming politico-military climate?
What can change this? Sadly, I believe only a future general war with heavy casualties will have us rethink how we organize our troops to fight and win more future wars. At that time, cooler heads will prevail and we’ll determine who best should be fielded to defend us. The social curiosity that will have been the openly gay service experience will vanish as the nation—at great cost—rediscovers the real purpose for having a military.
I fear that our military members in the field are left with these thoughts: “Does my country not think of me that much? Does the country think it should hobble its forces in the field with these distractions during time of war? Does the country require us to deal with this as well? Am I indeed a patriot without a country? What moral madness awaits us next? When bullets are flying at me, and everyone one else back home is apparently just thinking about themselves and their own private behaviors, it’s too much to ask of me to sacrifice my life.”
I ask you, fellow citizen, after The Don’t Ask, Don’t repeal vote, would you give your life for our Senate? Would you give your life for our President? Would you give your life for Admiral Mullen? Or, would you go home to your family? Sadly, you know the truthful answers already. If you never made a phone call or never entered the debate on this issue, it’s too late for the military that you care now. You have just received a 2010 Christmas present from the United States Senate. Inside please find some really good ear-plugs. Whether or not you choose now to put them in your ears is entirely up to you.
Colonel Bill Spencer, USAF (Ret)
Citizenlink, a Focus on the Family Affiliate
©2010, Colorado Springs, Colorado
[1]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/18/gays-repeal-civil-rights-milestone. The following was posted on-line with a dateline of the Associated Press:
Aaron Belkin, director of the California-based Palm Center — a think tank on the issue — said the vote “ushers in a new era in which the largest employer in the United States treats gays and lesbians like human beings. For thousands of years,” he said, “one of the key markers for first-class citizenship in any nation is the right to serve in the military, and Saturday s vote “is a historic step toward that.” . . .
Some supporters of the repeal traveled to Washington to witness the vote, including Sue Fulton, a former Army captain and company commander who is spokeswoman for Knights Out, a group of 92 gay and lesbian West Point graduates who are out and no longer serving. Driving home to North Plainfield, N.J., the 51-year-old Fortune 500 executive said she thinks the repeal will have an effect on the civil rights of gays in America. “As more people realize that gay and lesbian citizens are risking their lives to defend this country, perhaps they ll be more willing to acknowledge gays and lesbians as full citizens in other ways,” she said.
