Some days one must ask if the politicians are really so ignorant, how they can be so arrogant, or if they being as educated and intelligent as they proclaim are purposely attempting to undermine the Mission and the Military they sent to accomplish it? One must ask which are the true believers of their efforts, which are the blind followers, and which are the knowing masterminds? It is certain that this Congress has demonstrated a stubbornness in their ideologies and plans, loyal to unknown and unelected authors, and irrespective of the will of the people, but particularly careless of the Military.
This is demonstrated in bills that "must be passed to find out what is in them," as well as the passage of the DADT repeal while ignoring the DoD budget 3 months past the deadline to pay for operations ongoing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The effects of the latter will not be immediately evident. From the survey used to justify repeal, we know that as of today 30% of the Marine Corps is considering an exit strategy, because of repeal.
That's 60,000 Marines, experienced in combat looking at the option of getting out over the next 6 years. It's an average of 10,000 a year, in the Marines alone. In Contrast, 15,000 gay and lesbians have been thrown out for violating DADT over the last 17 years. That's less than 1,000/year. That's a balance of 9,000 lost in strict personnel numbers alone, sure to make any retention NCO quake in his boots. It is a severe loss of combat experience and leadership, which makes Generals worry.
We can be reasonably certain that even with repeal, two of these will be (or should be) banned from re-entry. LT Choi's mental issues is disqualifying. His criminal activities may or may not be sufficiently disqualifying. PFC Manning's [pictured right] treason is likewise disqualifying, though he is yet to be thrown out and has not yet been processed for DADT violations.
Prior to DADT, Wikileaks spy Bradley Manning's recruiter would have asked him if he were gay, as would his security clearance investigator. The latter would have actually checked and he wouldn't have been given a clearance. He would never have been given an opportunity to turn on a classified computer system, much less download hundreds of thousands of classified documents onto CD's marked "Lady Gaga." But, while Manning is an example of the DADT policy in effect, the case does not shine light on the repeal of DADT.
The survey conducted by DoD demonstrated serious issues. The 60,000 Marines is the most damning statistic or perhaps not. Only about 12% of the Military responded to the poll. The responses were supposed to be anonymous, but required an electronic signature by DoD ID card. As few doubted this Congress would repeal DADT, many were concerned that they would then be on record opposing it. Only those willing to be on the record, only those that felt strongly enough about the issue to speak their mind, or willing to give the politically correct answers, answered the survey.
In fact, the authors and political appointees make clear that the survey was not interested in the question of Troop thoughts on repeal, but in identifying the indoctrination they would need in order to implement the change. The authors of the report state that certain agendas involved must be initially hidden, such as changes to who is authorized joint domicile in military housing, while refusing to address serious issues like how to deal with mass shower facilities and who rooms with whom mandatorily in the barracks.
Actually, it does address these issues to some degree. It says that despite concerns of Troops and Generals, including the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Warriors should be forced to shower with those that sexually desire them. The authors also suggest that these Warriors should not be allowed to shower with those they do sexually desire. While this is a sexist solution that puts heterosexual men in "an uncomfortable position," no sane leader would suggest that men should be allowed in the female showers. Sexual tension is simply not a good thing to add to the battlefield.
The "fair solution" would be to give all an individual shower facility, but even the authors of the survey report admit that is a logistical impossibility. Others have suggested adding two new classes of showers: Lesbian and Gay. For that to be "fair," unmarried heterosexuals would also need to be allowed to enjoy showers together. Again, not a workable solution, as sexual tensions are not a good thing to add to battlefield tensions.
The politicians and partisan adherents of repealing DADT have consistently blown off such concerns as "homophobic." When the 60,000 Marines getting out is mentioned, they say "then get out," without thought, without thought of the loss of experience, without thought of how to make up for the numbers alone, without thought of the years of honorable service these Marines gave. The same supporters of repeal are noticeably absent when the concept of showering and living with men they don't desire, but desire them, is presented.
A number of people have pointed out that homosexuals have been in the Military since before DADT was implemented by Clinton. But while the Military admits that male-male sexual assault is the most underreported sexual crime, it does not publish statistics on the crime. For a myriad of reasons, homosexual based sexual events are not publicized.
In the 80's, one particular unit was experiencing lesbian initiations in its showers. New females were told they'd play or pay (with a group beating) but that long running event never made it above the Battalion news, except in hushed whispers. Before it made it out of the showers, the complaintant had to endure two beatings; the first for paying and the second for reporting the first.
Across the military, many homosexuals were suspected but given a lack of evidence, were never processed. Shower time stares were insufficient proof, but no less unwelcome. Did that "break down unit cohesion" as asked by the survey? No, the rest of the unit was just as cohesive, even in avoiding showers with the glaring showerer. And reports of the "Ether Bunny" abounded in the field. Soldiers knew of but did not report themselves of an experience of awaking with a headache and sore butt.
The politicians nor political appointees cared about these issues. They were simply concerned with getting their names on the "historical" legislation, with getting this legislation rammed through in the waning, post-election days of their power. They know the next Congress is as unlikely to overturn it as it is to support it. But the lack of dedication to funding the DoD is as telling as their push for this legislation. It demonstrates their priorities to a political base with disregard for National Defense. So many of them were voted out of office for a reason, and that was primarily their arrogant attitudes towards the electorates.
They'll be long gone and forgotten when the effects of this legislation takes effect. And it'll be difficult to prove what caused the effects. The same party will claim it's the effects of an overextended military that they refused to increase in size, that they constantly increased the demands of, that they diminished the rewards to, that they constantly harangued, while it did their bidding. Just as they'll be long gone when the next generation of fighter jet is missing from a future battlefield.
The report does not address how to overcome these issues, other than to indoctrinate Our Troops with tolerance. With hundreds of hours a year already dedicated to "tolerance," PTSD, and suicide issues, which means training for the mission is put on hold for this training, an intensive dedication of more hours away from training is suggested by the report.
The Army has already acknowledged that too much time is being spent on administrative tasks, with too little in the field, training. What was its solution? Reduce the number of Army Warrior Tasks required annually. These are those basic Soldiering skills such as how to search a vehicle or how to treat the wounded, but that had grown into a long list of check the block tests. Something had to be cut from the classroom instruction, but it seems the non-Warrior briefings weren't on the chopping block.
With PTSD & Suicide being constantly in the news, with inflated numbers and un-related comparisons, the Army decided to increase the hours spent listening to those subjects. Race and Sex Equality classes could not be cut back, and now we add to the hours of non-Warrior classes: how to be tolerant of the unwanted gazes of same-sex desires in the shower and barracks.
The Military routinely discriminates against multiple classes of people, legally and for the defense of the Nation, in defense of those discriminated classes. It discriminates against the elderly, even the middle aged, against the handicapped, against the mentally or morally challenged, even against those with too few teeth or appendages.
It is an Equal Opportunity workplace, for those that it allows in, but not an Equal Opportunity Employer of the intellectually deficient or even the educationally inept. Even when GED's were readily accepted, there was a higher bar on the entrance exam for a GED recipient than the holder of a High School Diploma. In today's recruiting environment, GEDs are not welcome. Even colleges are more accommodating.
A single felony or too many misdemeanors is sufficient reason for a recruiter to walk away from a motivated recruit. A single domestic violence charge will rule out enlistment. Even too many parking tickets or a DUI is disqualifying, while current drug use would put a delay on the process.
Morality is regulated by the Military. Adultery is a crime in the military. The military has been trying to stamp out smoking for decades and drinking is illegal in combat zones, even when legal in the country of combat.
The Military has never been a place where time was in abundance. The Military hasn't had a 40 hour workweek since the 70's but the post-Viet Nam era was a particularly dark period for the Armed Forces. Since then, the demands on time for Our Troops increased incrementally, as did the educational requirements for career progression. It began with a 1980's focus on getting our Military trained for the mission: War. With fuel funded, the Military started going back to the field.
From the earliest days of the 80's through the first years of the 90's, that focus on training for war increased, as did the civilian and military education requirements to get promoted. And while leadership schools are conducted on military time, Correspondence Courses through the military and College Courses were on the Soldier's time, in between field exercises, which were themselves 16-20 hour days.
As the 90's came into their own, mandatory classes in Equal Opportunity, in Army Values, Smoking Cessation Classes and multiple other classes were added, with a reduced budget and emphasis on training for combat. On the career progression side, the Military was pushing for a "paperless" future and had developed the DoD Knowledge Online system, placing a bigger burden on the Troops during their "off duty" time to keep their own records and take individual training.
By 2001, the Military promotion system was requiring a significant amount of college, correspondence courses, and other "personal" time dedication for promotion while dedicating significant time to non-combat briefings. With active wars, Troops were deployed to combat zones, far from the resources that these off-duty requirements allowed. Upon return, they got a short period of rest before jumping back into training for the next rotation to combat. While some of the mandatory annual briefings were initially blown off by deployed commands, that eventually came to an end.
In 2011, the mandatory non-combat briefings have hit an all-time high, with DoD political appointees ordering more. It is a wonder that Our Troops have any time left to train for wars, must less fight them. The time burdens on Our Troops may not be a visible burden, but it has moved parallel to the equipment burdens placed on them. One can easily see the difference between what a WWII or Viet Nam era Soldier carried into battle versus what an Afghanistan Soldier carries into battle, but the burdens on his time are just as cumulative.
Our Troops are not "homophobic" but neither do they deserve to be subjected to more demands on their time nor the unwanted desires of a new protected class with which they must shower or room with. Our Troops do not tell Lesbians and Gays how to live, but Our Marines have made clear that they don't wish to be forced to live with them.
We won't likely know the true effect of this partisan pandering on Our Troops, until the economy recovers and the contracts of Our Marines expire, but we do know what those that felt strongly enough to risk the coming backlash have told us, that 60,000 combat experienced Marines will consider ending their careers so that 1,000/year won't get thrown out for breaking the policy put in place by Clinton, a policy that was part of those non-combat briefings for the last 17 years.
Unfortunately, the effects of DADT repeal will not be quantifiable for the most part, but it is certain that it was politics not National Defense which caused it to be pushed through at this point in time despite the objections of Troops and Generals alike. And the appeal to repeal was the reason for the firing of General Pace and the hiring of Admiral Mullen, and may be the cause for the current Marine Commandant's forced resignation. And that is quantifiable, that is two top Marine Generals in a row, whose career has been put on the chopping block for repeal of DADT and political correctness.
Much more thought should have been put into the National Defense aspects of repeal than the partisan rewards of it. Much more effort should have been put into the effects of implementation than the urgency of political bases. And as much effort should be put into winning in Afghanistan as has been put into winning the DADT battle in Congress.
Stumble It!
