IDEAS HAVE CONSEQUENCES: Fallout from DADT Decision ...

Officer won't sign order for troop indoctrination

Asks to be relieved of command over repeal of 'gay' ban in military

Posted: December 24, 2010 @ 7:40 pm Eastern By Brian Fitzpatrick – World Net Daily

An Army lieutenant colonel has asked to be relieved of command rather than order his troops to go through pro-homosexual indoctrination following the repeal of the policy, which required homosexuals to keep silent about their sexual preference.


Currently the commander of a battalion-sized unit in the Army National Guard, the officer also has threatened to resign his commission rather than undergo "behavior modification" training intended to counter his religious convictions about homosexuality.


Discover what's causing modern America to disintegrate. Read "HOW EVIL WORKS: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America"


The soldier sent the following letter to his commanding officer:


Subject: Request for Relief from Command due to Personal Moral Conflict with New Homosexual Policy


1. I respectfully request to be relieved of Command of XXX Squadron, XXX Cavalry prior to new policy implementation subsequent to the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." My personal religious beliefs and moral convictions do not permit me to treat homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, compatible with military service, any more than adultery, illicit drug use, or criminal activity. I believe this lifestyle runs counter to good order and discipline in military units, and I refuse to sacrifice my belief system, protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, in order to fall in line with the command policy that will logically follow. This new policy will undoubtedly include mandatory sensitivity training as well as same-sex partner inclusion in Family Readiness Group activities and integration into the full spectrum of other military benefits, as well as a whole new category of discrimination standards and investigative procedures. I will not, as a commander, put my signature on a training schedule or other document recognizing or legitimizing any of these things that contradict my personal beliefs.


2. I would like to remain in the XXX Army National Guard until I am eligible for retirement (at 20 years and 0 days), which would be in the late summer of 2012, but on grounds of my religious beliefs, I will not attend sensitivity or behavior modification training consequential to this policy change, even if it means disciplinary action. I regret that I cannot continue to serve in the military further, but feel that my efforts would be insincere because my heart will no longer be in it."


"I will not be the person who forces this training on my soldiers," the officer, whose identity was being protected, told WND. He plans to go on the record as soon as he discusses his request with his chain of command.


The officer said he's aware of other officers who intend to resign their commissions.


"These people want to serve. I want to serve. I love my job, but I can't do this job once they begin to implement this policy," he told WND.


Under the terms of the DADT repeal, the armed forces will not be permitted to allow open homosexuality in the service until the president, secretary of defense and head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff can certify that terminating DADT will not impair military readiness. During the transition period that will precede certification, the military plans to require servicemen to attend mandatory training sessions intended to change their attitudes toward homosexuality.


"Very few soldiers are fine with open homosexuals in the service," said the officer. "I cannot believe the numbers jibe with what was published in the previous survey," referring to a study commissioned by the Pentagon to assess whether the military could safely repeal DADT.


"I did not give up my constitutional rights and freedom of religion when I joined the military. I don't believe in subjecting myself to all of the behavior modification and sensitivity training. They're going to try to push the position that this is an acceptable lifestyle."


Beyond concerns about violating his own conscience and the beliefs of his soldiers, the officer predicts several additional adverse consequences to repealing the military's ban on open homosexuality.


"I don't believe the steps they're taking allow a commander to maintain good order and discipline in a military unit," the officer told WND. "DADT was a compromise to allow homosexuals to serve as long as they kept it to themselves. Now they'll be able to throw their lifestyle in everybody's face and commanders won't be able to do anything about it."


The officer also predicted problems with retention and recruitment:


"I think it might not have an immediate, huge impact, but as enlistments expire you'll get people who vote with their feet and leave the service, and I don't believe the recruiting effort is going to offset the amount of people that leave. The military historically attracts a more conservative group of people who have certain principles and beliefs and swear an oath to the Constitution."


As previously reported by WND, some experts predict as many as a quarter of Americans in military service will resign or leave earlier than planned because of the advent of open homosexuality. Nearly half of the Marine Corps respondents to the Pentagon survey said they would consider leaving the service earlier than planned.


The officer also predicted growing security problems as homosexuals become more prevalent in the service.


"One of the Army values is selfless service. Placing the good of the nation above personal desires is an essential trait of a good soldier, who may be called upon to give his or her life in the nation's defense. When you start trying to attract people who are so self-centered that they put living their lifestyle out in the open above the needs of their country and national defense, then you have a really dangerous combination. That's when you get instances like PFC Bradley Manning, who is a homosexual. Because of his personal beliefs and bitterness toward the military he decided to leak 150,000 sensitive wires that have done irreparable damage to our nation."


Manning, an openly gay soldier, reportedly sent many thousands of sensitive documents to the Wikileaks website out of anger over the military's ban on open homosexuality.

DADT: Read the Fine Print ...

Post Now Admits Open Gays Can NOT Join Military

BY Cliff Kincaid

December 21. 2010

The law that was passed says the homosexual exclusion policy can only be lifted if it can be demonstrated by military authorities that the change will not adversely affect military readiness, recruitment, and retention.

Only two days after it proclaimed the end of the Pentagon’s homosexual exclusion policy, The Washington Post is now admitting that open homosexuals can NOT join the military services. “‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ ban on gays won’t change immediately,” was the headline over the article in the print edition of the paper. The on-line version was different. It said “‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ repealed: What’s next?”

As previously noted by Accuracy in Media, the votes in Congress to “repeal” the policy have not actually repealed it. The law that was passed says the homosexual exclusion policy can only be lifted if it can be demonstrated by military authorities that the change will not adversely affect military readiness, recruitment, and retention.

“On Monday, Pentagon officials repeatedly declined to predict how long they would need, saying only that they would proceed at a ‘methodical’ and ‘deliberate’ pace,” the Post is now saying.

An Associated Press story noted that defense officials must certify that “the change will not damage combat readiness.” AP noted that Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwarz told the troops that “the current law remains in effect.”

Indeed, AP reported that Pentagon spokesman Marine Col. Dave Lapan “stressed that the ban on open service is still in effect, and any service member who decided to declare he or she was gay would risk enforcement of the current law—which calls for removal from service.”

In order to secure the vote of Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that “neither he [Admiral Mullen] nor I would sign a certification until we were satisfied, after having consulted with each of the Service Chiefs and Combatant Commanders, that risks to combat readiness, unit cohesion, and effectiveness had, in fact, been mitigated, if not eliminated, to the extent possible for all Services, commands, and units.”

The law, however, specifically states that the changes must be “consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.” The option of changing the policy as long as the negative impact is just “mitigated” is not there.

Senator Webb, a highly-decorated combat Marine in Vietnam and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee, voted for the “repeal” anyway.

In a statement opposing the overturning of the homosexual exclusion policy, Jimmie L. Foster, national commander of The American Legion, said that “The American Legion remains convinced a repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ cannot be easily implemented and could compromise the effectiveness of crucially needed fighting forces.”

It is now apparent that the new policy cannot be easily implemented without major negative consequences. Which means that it will be practically impossible for Gates and Mullen to truthfully certify that the change will not undermine military order, recruiting, and retention.

DADT - It's not too late ...

The Headlines Are Wrong: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Has Not Been Repealed

By Cliff Kincaid - Accuracy in Media

The headlines said that the Pentagon's homosexual exclusion policy had been repealed. "'Don't ask, don't tell' is repealed by Senate; bill awaits Obama's signing," was the headline over the front page article in The Washington Post by Ed O'Keefe.

But the article went on to note, in the 22 paragraph, that top military leaders must find or certify that changes to the current policy "must not affect troop readiness, cohesion or military recruitment and retention." How is this possible when Marine Commandant General Jim Amos has already said that the changes would cost lives?

Calling repeal a major distraction, Amos said, "I don't want to lose any Marines to the distraction. I don't want to have any Marines that I'm visiting at Bethesda [National Naval Medical Center, in Maryland] with no legs be the result of any type of distraction."


The Post went on, "Even after the finding, lawmakers will be able to hold hearings for two months to review the Pentagon's policies and procedures for accepting openly gay troops, according to congressional aides familiar with the matter."
This leaves open the door for Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), the incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, to hold hearings. McKeon opposes repeal and praised Amos for his comments.


McKeon had told reporters that he wanted to hold hearings that would include rank-and-file service members along with military leaders. "I would really like to hear from battlefield commanders," McKeon said. "I would like to hear from battalion commanders, I would like to hear from company commanders on the front lines in Afghanistan and Iraq to see what their feelings are."


The New York Times story on the "repeal" simply noted, "The repeal will not take effect for at least 60 days while some other procedural steps are taken. In addition, the bill requires the defense secretary to determine that policies are in place to carry out the repeal 'consistent with military standards for readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention.'"


The "procedural steps" that are part of the bill give the new conservative-controlled House an opportunity to derail the repeal policy.


In terms of recruiting, Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness points out that the Pentagon survey of the troops found that if open homosexuals were admitted, 32 percent of Marines said they would leave the service sooner than planned, and 16.2 percent would consider an early end to their careers. Among Army combat arms personnel, 21.4 percent would leave sooner than planned, and 14.6 percent would think about leaving.


These losses "could put remaining troops in greater danger, and break the All-Volunteer Force," Donnelly points out.
So will Congress approve the changes, knowing that they could result in the return of the military draft?


As the Times indicates, the specific language of the bill is that the repeal must be "consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces."
The burden is on the gay rights lobby to prove that the changes would have no negative effect on any of the above. How can they prove such a thing when the Pentagon has already concluded that the change is risky and faces opposition from as many as 60 percent of our combat troops?


Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.