The American Spectator : Protection Breakdown

Text Size

Protection Breakdown

By Jed Babbin on 12.6.10 @ 6:08AM

Mullen and Gates to Marines: Drop dead!

The perversity of President Obama's priorities was proved again twice last week. First, by our comprehensive failure to use our cyberwar capabilities to disable and disrupt the Wikileaks website's release of a quarter of a million State Department classified cables. Second, in Secretary of Defense Robert Gates's insistence that Congress repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law before the lame duck session ends because he fears the courts will do so more inconveniently than Congress would.

Wikileaks -- anarchist Julian Assange's website -- has over the past four months published three huge groups of U.S. secret documents. Since the latest batch of documents was published, Wikileaks has been under intermittent cyber attacks, for which Assange & Co. blame the United States.

But U.S. Cyber Command, according to a Pentagon spokesman, has had no hand in the attacks because it's legally barred from doing so. The attacks on Wikileaks have reportedly been the work of a "hacktivist" who calls himself "Jester" and is said to be a former U.S. special operations trooper.

But think about that. We've had more than four months -- probably about nine months -- since we learned that Wikileaks had been given hundreds of thousands of classified documents and would publish them. Even four months is an eternity in cyberwar, a period in which new weapons can be developed and employed several times over. Cyber Command -- or one of the intelligence agencies that have vastly more flexible mandates -- could have used their enormous resources to prevent publication by all sorts of cyberwar attacks. Why didn't they? Because the White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department didn't ask them to do it.

It was a choice made by the White House that is, itself, a scandal. It's not only our right to protect our secrets, it's the Obama administration's duty which they chose to ignore.

Defense Secretary Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Congress had to act before the end of the lame duck session to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law. Gates claimed that if Congress didn't act, the courts would overturn the law too quickly and not allow the Defense Department enough time to implement a policy to allow homosexuals to serve openly.

But Gates's claim of urgency is a strawman that the Obama administration created by failing to defend the law in court.

The September decision in the Log Cabin Republicans case -- in which the judge overturned the DADT law declaring it unconstitutional -- was the direct result of the Obama Justice Department's failure to defend the case. In Judge Virginia Phillips' decision, she notes -- not once, but three times -- that the Justice Department presented nothing in evidence other than the text of the law and its legislative history. In effect, it mounted no defense.

Where were the affidavits of then-Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway and other military leaders affirming the military necessity of the law? Where were the witnesses to offset the evidence presented by the Log Cabin lawyers, an endless stream of "expert" and lay witnesses, studies, and such?

They were not entered into evidence. And unless the Ninth Circuit reverses and remands to Phillips for further proceedings, the vacant record will be all the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court will be able to consider. Gates, Obama, and Attorney General Holder know this.

The urgency Gates claims is false. First, if the case were defended properly the matter wouldn't be resolved soon. The appeals would take years. And it clearly isn't a case the defense would definitely lose.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the duty "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." The courts must -- and will -- defer to so clear a constitutional mandate if it is defended properly and skillfully. Which has not been done.

Judge Phillips' decision says that the government didn't meet its obligations of proof that the DADT policy "significantly furthers" the government's interests and that it is necessary to achieve those interests. It's easy to fail to satisfy that standard if you don't try. And the Justice Department didn't.

Phillips made several key findings in the absence of contrary evidence. Consider how puny the defense effort must have been in light of these findings.

She ruled that DADT impedes recruitment and contributes to troop shortages. But Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen testified last week that homosexuals represent only about two or three percent of the military, the same number they represent in the general population. How can that be a major impediment to recruitment and retention?

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (92) | Leave a comment

qwilly| 12.6.10 @ 6:48AM

Wait till the bullets fly. That is when you will find out who is committed to the mission, or to finding out how to make love in a fox hole.

Alan Brooks| 12.6.10 @ 11:23PM

But who voted for McCain?:
look in the mirror.

Alan Brooks| 12.6.10 @ 11:33PM

... what does that mean? it means my conscience is clear, I did not vote in the last election, but if I had the vote would have been for a third party candidate. However I WILL vote for Obama in '12, because the GOP has been on a losing streak since 1/21/'89.

Guilt is what triggers your rage-- you struck out and there's no do-over.

CharlieEcho| 12.6.10 @ 7:09AM

It's my personal belief that GLTGB (did I get that right?) is lifestyle choice of perversion. That being said, let them in with open arms. We've permitted women to participate in the same role as men.

The problems will come with all the political correctness and "locker room" talk. Lawsuits and charges. How will we tippy toe around this don't want to hurt anyones feelings thingy.

What will come of this is a return to the draft. When the gates are open for GLTGB, it will be one less deferment.

Alan Brooks| 12.6.10 @ 11:25PM

Finally, an honest blogger. You're a rare breed, Charles.

Kenny| 12.6.10 @ 7:16AM

After Vatican II, homosexuals flooded into the Catholic clergy while many normal candidates tended to shy away.

And look what has happened as a result. Not only is there the ongoing same sex scandals with the clergy that has cost the church billions, but perhaps even more telling is the confusion in teaching & applying church doctrine.

This is exactly what the Left hopes for the U.S. military.

Ret. Marine| 12.6.10 @ 7:25AM

Gee one would almost think this is exactly what this regime is going after, a convenient way around the truth, as in create a crises, ( see alinsky rules) in order to foment hatred between morals of our men, and the immortals of others. Mr. Gates stands as a moral coward, bent upon the wishes of his marxist master, obamas Bin Ly'n. Clearly he has not heard from the same Marines I talk to on a daily basis. If you were to ask and give them the privilege to stand before any committee, they would would also have a few choice words for the supposed CnC, Gates and the rest of the clowns at the DOD. Time will tell, and as a Marine in retirement now, I will say flat out there are so many traitors in the regime, I find it very hard to hold my temperament these days, and who could or will say this is normal? These wannabe's are going to get some serious charges thrown there way one of these days, its going to be "payback is best served cold" on steroids and God knows they have earned it.

Doctor Right| 12.6.10 @ 11:59AM

You had me at "Gee..."

greghawk| 12.6.10 @ 7:26AM

The Admiral fears for the Navy budget - Chicago style politics - "Say the words or 'NO NEW CARRIERS!'" Emphasis on the baseball bat.

Intelligent Design| 12.6.10 @ 7:44AM

Young Americans should stop volunteering for military service and stop re-enlisting until the treacherous and incompetent impostor named Obama resigns ,or is replaced by a real commander-in-chief.

RCV| 12.6.10 @ 11:31PM

Ah yes, the hatred of Obama runs so deep on the lunatic right that they're willing to sacrifice the country and its security just to spite him.

Melvin| 12.6.10 @ 7:48AM

There is one thing that you need to learn about military flag officers...Damn near every one of em, envision themselves as the next great Congressman or Senator.
Oh, no! They're not going to work in the real world after they retire. Many of them especially for the Navy for some reason want to go straight into politics.
The other services not so much, the Marines almost not at all. Sen. Jim Webb comes to mind but he wasn't a flag rank officer, and he didn't go into politics right away.
Adm. Mullen and Sec. Gates are stooges of the current administration and only doing what they're told to do. Neither of them want to burn their political future down by sticking up for the Marines.
At first I really didn't care on whether or not DADT was revoked. If a homosexual wants to serve no problem, because I know what my sexuality is.
But then I started reading in the undercurrent that trans-genders will be wanting to wear the uniform of the gender that they chosen. Another words if a transgender male to female he is going to demand the he wear the uniform of the female, and vice versa. Also the transgender males are going to demand that they be allowed to dress as women when going out on liberty.
It is becoming not so much as just saying, "OK" homosexuals can serve, but the homosexual fringe groups will to be satisfied and will continue to bring lawsuit after lawsuit with they're demands of not enough homosexuals officer and staff rank are not being promoted fast enough and will demand a quota be set just like the other minorities within the military. DOD says there is no quota system as is in the Federal civilian employment, well the DOD is full of crap because there is a quota system and there has been one for a very long time, it just not something that is brought up unless you want to get promoted that is.
Mullen saying what he said, is typical. If he and Gates cram this down the Marines throats, there could be conceivably be a reversal of DADT to where heterosexuals will be asked or separate voluntarily when asked if they will abide by the new order, because Mullen himself said, that if military personnel don't like it, then they can be the ones to get out.
There could be such an exodus of heterosexuals at least in the Marine Corps that it could be extremely detrimental to mission accomplishment.
It wouldn't be so bad if homosexuals would just serve and keep the homosexuality to themselves but, as my wife's cousin who is an Asian and homosexual said once. "The annoying thing about American Gays is that they area always in your face about their homosexuality."
You know it is getting to the point that I'm beginning to think that homosexuals don't want this equality that they say they seek. I think they want revenge.

NegroX| 12.6.10 @ 5:32PM

Melvin,
I worked for Mullen and Roughead, both are nothing more than politically correct opportunists, they are bean counters, not leaders.

Pelligrino| 12.7.10 @ 2:23PM

Well written, Melvin. You are correct. I will go a step further. Almost no Lt. Colonel (and no officer above this rank) wants to risk (they see it as risking their political/promotion/retirement benefits future) their status and future opportunities by speaking up. You will get no forthright, candid talk from them. NONE.

Otherwise we'd hear the truth about 5 in 8 women overseas getting propositioned (in all manners and forms) for sex on a regular basis. Why not 8 for 8? Easy answer: Some are just downright ugly and too fat. 2 in 8 of those single women overseas do indeed become pregnant. This results in many abortions.

You have guys all the time in Iraq sacrificing the precious little sleep time they have between missions to bang a willing female. And then you wonder why the guy is constantly falling asleep while driving or up in the turret.

(That's current info, folks. And all these officers just look the other way. They know what is going on. They know we could be worlds more effective in Iraq and Afghanistan. But they say nothing. Why? Some want some of the "action." After all, the wife is well over 6,000 miles away. This is the real military DADT.)

So let's add gays, transgenders, bisexuals and things I don't even know the right terminology to describe. It'll all be in the mix....right now in less than 6 years time.

It is all you can do today to try to get the guys to focus on the mission.

Most want to bellyache about no beer, no live football, no currently released Hollywood DVDs, not enough GameBoy or XBox time, and not enough condoms (all sold out) in the tiny field PX.

Adding all manner of sexual orientations means leadership will now be impossible -- from the platoon to the divison.

And we will lose on the battlefield over this. So much for defending your freedoms and protecting the homeland.

JFGalt| 12.6.10 @ 7:51AM

I'm sorry but this sounds like neocon drivel. The govt wouldn't do anything its not supposed to. What fantasy land does this guy think we live in that we still believe that garbage. I'm surprised this junk got past the editors here. If Cyber Command had wanted to Assange they would have but he is holding some serious insurance that he's put out there and who knows what it is. For my part I applaud what he's doing. The secrets that have been revealed have hurt no troops that have been doing their duty. Maybe some turncoats have been hurt. While govt does have some need for secrets this is all a product of their overdoing it. There are so many secrets and cover stories that people don't believe what they are told anymore and by human nature the curious wants to be satisfied. What is really coming out from Wikileaks is HOW the people in power think not so much the WHAT. A free society cannot survive in the dark it will destroy us. Shine the light on the garbage and force people to clean it up. I'm waiting for people to see what he's got on Bank of America - I think they are going to be blown away by how the nation's bankers REALLY think! The damage control will be epic!

CharlieEcho| 12.6.10 @ 8:59AM

I hope you are right. I hope the light of day will expose the infection and bring about a cure. Our fighting men and women know their lives are already on the line. The may want to get an estimate of what the fight is worth, and whom will help them pay the price.

That being said. Once DADT is abolished, I would hope persons will be required to state their choice of sexual preference and such choice will be imprinted on their "dog tag", just like the blood type.

Occam's Tool| 12.6.10 @ 8:34PM

I believe the neocons are also pissed at Mr. Assange. Read The Weekly Standard and there's not much difference between it, NRO, and TAS, which is fine by me.

Career Soldier| 12.6.10 @ 8:06AM

My local press just ran an article stating that the LGBT students at our local public college need to room with students of the opposite gender. The LGBT support group leaders said that heterosexual and homosexual men don't make good roommates. It causes friction and stress that could, and has, lead to suicide. At the very least, the stress causes an atmosphere that diminishes efficiency, mental clarity, and overall physical health. Honest, from their own mouths, we find that homosexuals can't have same gender heterosexual roommates, or they might kill themselves.

Just substitute "US Armed Forces" in place of "public college dormitories" and it all makes sense. This is a non-issue. Homosexuals don't really want to be in the military, rooming with 20 or more heterosexual men at a time. They're actually seeking validation that they have the power to change our oldest and most revered American institution!

Louis Jenkins| 12.6.10 @ 8:24AM

It sounds as though homosexuals are openly going to serve come whatever. Heterosexuals are the ones who must adjust (as usual). Unfortunately it will be "Their message to me is that the potential exists for disruption to the successful execution of our current combat mission...." That about sums it up. However, when the big dog is for it what sources are available to counter the argument?

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 12.6.10 @ 8:43AM

Yeah, it's all rather simple.

Just look at what the diversity and inclusionary policies created so far: Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

Occam's Tool| 12.6.10 @ 8:34PM

I would have loved to have had him as a colleague. Yikes!

Achmed| 12.6.10 @ 8:44AM

This is great news. Now we can destroy the sodomites in greater numbers.

Mike M| 12.6.10 @ 8:48AM

Osama Obama is getting just what he wants - the ruination of our military.

Petronius| 12.6.10 @ 8:58AM

There will soon be nothing left to defend.

Conservative Teamster| 12.6.10 @ 8:59AM

I hope I'm wrong but I think this will lead to a lot of people leaving the military. All my liberal friends will get what they want . . . gays in the military. Of course to get the numbers back up to where they were the draft will have to be instituted. I will look on with pleasure as all of their children start to be drafted. And remember, the Dems said there should be no deferments for college.Everyone should be subject to the draft. It should be fair.When all their little "Johnnies and Susies" have their lives disrupted it will be great to see how they panic. They don't want THEIR kids in the military, just other peoples kids(especially gay ones).The down side is that, as usual someone else will pay for their feelgood ideas.So, I guess it is worth it to them that their mission to "help" three percent of the population get into the military is more important than their own kids situation in life.More twisted thinking from the left!

St. Thor| 12.6.10 @ 9:30AM

The last Republican Secretary of Defense to serve in a democrat administration, McNamara, also tried a personnel experiment--Project 100,000. McNamara ordered the services to admit 100,000 people who, for various mental and physical reasons did not qualify to become members of the service, even under the draft then in place. Those individuals, who wanted to serve their country, were given the most obnoxious jobs, and when they couldn't hack it, thrown out of the service by administrative discharge, usually an undesirable discharge, rather than an honorable discharge. Looks like Gates, in honor of the Republican in democrat administration tradition, is trying to do the same thing with gays in a volunteer service.

Steve A| 12.6.10 @ 9:35AM

Can someone tell me why we are not sending some CIA spooks to zap this Assange? Are we demonstrating our compassion & civility? Because if that is the motive behind not eliminating this guy, I can promise you it is interpreted as weakness by those who would do us harm.

Jaycee| 12.6.10 @ 9:54AM

Isn't the crazy plan to allow openly gay people into the military simply going to increase incidents of accidental 'friendly' fire? Just a thought.....

Quartermaster| 12.6.10 @ 10:04PM

That;s what happened with the French Foreign Legion. Homsexuality was common in La Legion.

Derek Leaberry| 12.6.10 @ 10:13AM

The near silence of official conservatism on homosexuals in the military is deafening. It would appear that most conservatives have surrendered on the culture wars. That the upper echelon of the military is operationally left-wing is now a given. But now political conservatism is culturally left-wing, incapable of even defending the old Clinton "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" liberal policy of the 1990s. When conservatives can not even keep homosexuals from openly infiltrating the military it must be acknowledged that conservatism is dead as a governing philosophy. In fact, conservatism is the political movement that has failed to conserve anything.

Perusha| 12.6.10 @ 11:15AM

What is going to happen, as time continues to bring changes in our gay blade dimension?

As old farts die out and new gasbags are filled with the growing leftist deadly fumes, surely it will become more and more “normal” for swishers to publicly flaunt their “junk”.

In the early 60’s, I got to work summers in my father’s busy meat market. At one time, he hired a “nice” and “friendly” guy, who before long started to come on to my brother, and me now and then.

And, he, of course, even KNEW his boss was our dad!

Finally, I’d had enough, and grabbed the nearest big cutting knife, and brandished it before me, telling him to bug off! No problems from then on!

In Vietnam, in our secure area in Da Nang, we had a Lieutenant, who’d exhibit his gay fides in the “relaxing” evenings, likely after a few brews, by being driven down the road, and saluting his inferiors with both hands, at once!

What a gay guy!

MoeBlotz| 12.6.10 @ 11:25AM

When cannabis sativa is legalised,we can build a formidable military machine just like the Netherlands have. The poofters will be perfect for our combat operations in the nether regions.

Douglas| 12.6.10 @ 11:52AM

I think the point is to leave it in the courts. That way, the majority of republicans never have to clearly state their position. They can play both sides of the fence. They don't alienate the gay vote.

Most republicans and all democrats are queerly effeminate.

RCV| 12.6.10 @ 11:37PM

You're the only real man left, Douglas.

Timothy L. Pennell| 12.6.10 @ 11:52AM

How bad does it have to get? What's it gonna take, for the SECRET SERVICE to determine that this THING - Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro/Abu Hussain - is the "DOMESTIC ENEMY" that their OATH warns them of? When will they take "MEASURES" to "PROTECT and DEFEND the CONSTITUTION of the United States", from this man?
Praetorians. Do your Job!

RCV| 12.6.10 @ 11:39PM

Fortunately, they're not raving lunatics like you. And, if they're doing their job, they' 'll be visiting you soon.

virgil xenophon| 12.6.10 @ 12:18PM

Gates is an odious shape-shifter of the first order--a smarmy bureaucrat who keeps his No. 1 priority always in sight--the career advancement of one Bob Gates--as a long line of people who knew him as far back as his tenure at Texas A&M will so attest.

RacerJim| 12.6.10 @ 12:38PM

Gates, Mullen et al with the wherewithal to keep DADT are all too well aware of what happens to those who take Obama to task about anything...they either get relieved of Command and strongly encouraged to retire like former Army General McChrystal or they get murdered for co-operating with the FBI's investigation into who did what with Obama's passport file during the 2008 election like Quarles Harris Jr.

Kent Lyon| 12.6.10 @ 12:43PM

Mr. Babbins theory on why Mr. Gates is willing to compromise US defense is interesting--that he wants to become Secretary of State--relies on Hillary's willingness to have that position pried from her hands, which may not be the case. Hillary keeps saying this is her last public position, with everyone wondering if she will resign to challenge Obama in 2012. She says no, for now. So, Gates may or may not have an opening for what Mr. Babbin theorizes is his reason for selling out the military to Obnoxious, disingenuous and deceitful Obama policies. Even more worrisome that what Mr. Babbin has reviewed in this article, is the clear prevarication of Mr. Gates regarding secret negotiations with Russia on missle defense, which he testified to Congress was not occurring. Courtesy of Wikileaks we now know that Gates is a bald-faced liar, if need be, for the interests of this administration. Gates was also quoted in Wikileaks documents to the effect that Russia is an oligarchy run by the secret services (e.g., Putin). Gates may have Putin envy, and want to run the US in the same fashion, with himself calling the shots behind the scenes, Putin-style, so that the US would also be an oligarchy run by the secret services. A dirty job, indeed, but Gates seems more than willing to do it.

TURK| 12.6.10 @ 12:51PM

The Navy guy is a big goof but the other guy at the table is a nasty example of the Bush rino crowd. Why would a dedicated defense guy stay on board with an Obama administration? Because he is NOT a dedicated defense guy! How he fired the Sec of the AF and The 4 star Chief of the AF was bizarre. They crossed him on emasculating the AF dominant weapons system the F-22. One of the 2 AF leaders was dragged off the stage at Wright-Patterson AFB and strong armed back to D.C. for firing.

Like McNamara, who cancelled a dominant AF weapons system the Valkryie bomber, because it would "upset the balance of power in our favor", Gates has made it clear the AF should be a bunch of drones w/o pilots and the Navy should consist of canoes NOT those gigantic Reagan type boats.

Where in hell do the rinos get these people??

Oregonian| 12.6.10 @ 1:27PM

Turk - you are right on target. The election of Nov. 2010 was only the first step in the battle to take back our constitutional republic. Replacing Gates and Mullen is definitely on the list - somewhere below Eric Holder but probably before Al Franken. I think that Gates will leave as soon as he sees that his meal ticket, Obama, has feet of clay!

Thomas L. Knapp| 12.6.10 @ 1:18PM

"The professional military is nearly unanimous in opposing a repeal of the DADT law."

Not even close.

I spent ten years in the Marine Corps as a grunt, and still frequently communicate with fellow Marines. I have yet to find one other than the Commandant whose opinion varies from one of the two following:

1) Doesn't give a damn; or

2) Thinks the policy is idiocy.

DADT and its predecessor anti-homosexuality military rules, which date from shortly after World War II (in which a gay acquaintance of mine won the Silver Star on Guadalcanal), are nothing more or less than the faux-conservative side of the liberal "social engineering" coin.

RCV| 12.6.10 @ 11:43PM

The policy is idiocy, and given the attitudes of the current generation, it will be looked at no differently than those who opposed racial integration of the armed forces. Once the change is made, it will be back to, ho hum, business as usual.

carnot| 12.7.10 @ 1:27PM

FU....this is an intentional obfuscation. Skin color and sexual orientation are vastly different.

RCV| 12.7.10 @ 4:57PM

Yes - the opposition to racial integration at the time was far more vehement.

steve| 12.6.10 @ 1:26PM

What, exactly, does "serve openly" mean? Wear a dress and a feather boa during roll call? Act swishy when given the order to charge? Bark your commands with a lisp?

Loshooligan| 12.6.10 @ 4:37PM

Think Corporal Klinger, except it's not an act, and they don't really want to get out.

rongordo| 12.6.10 @ 5:59PM

They don't really want to go in, except to disrupt the system. The gays who are truly patriotic, wishing to serve their counrty, already are, mostly without fuss and open declaration.

RCV| 12.6.10 @ 11:46PM

This may really be news to you Steve, but the overwhelming majority of gays, and certainly gays in the military, don't wear feather boas or dresses, act swishy or speak with a lisp. They just want to serve their country.

CARNOT| 12.7.10 @ 1:26PM

1) You don't know this.

2) FU....this is an intentional obfuscation. Skin color and sexual orientation are vastly different.

Pelligrino| 12.7.10 @ 2:36PM

No, they don't want to serve anyone but themselves. They want the bi-monthly good paycheck that the military offers that they cannot get in their mamby pamby life back on the block.

They want all the benefits to include health care. Can you imagine: With the new HIV positive (still very expensive) drugs, initial treatment of our gays that contract HIV will all be taxpayer funded.

That's a really good deal for them. And that's the point. Uncle Sam aka Uncle Sugar looking after their candy ass lives.

Don't think that you as the taxpayer are off the hook for their medical care once discharged.....no sir. The VA kicks in. Yes, Veterans' Affairs and its myriad of very gracious monetary gifts in the forms of health care, jobs programs, jobs counselling, first-time home mortgage sweetheart loan, Montgomery GI Bill benefits (now up to over $120,000 possibly after a man, woman, gay, or transgender has left the service). So your HIV guy will be regularly sure to get his healthcare through the VA system at your expense.

Do you get it?

Today's military service is SELF-service. From day 1 to discharge or 20 years plus 1 day and glorious retirement at age 39 or 41 or 43.

Sounds pretty good, doesn't it?

RCV| 12.7.10 @ 5:02PM

There are a lot easier ways to make a living. I guess only gays want the regular paycheck and benefits. Only the heterosexuals are in it for the pure service.

Dave Thomson| 12.6.10 @ 1:40PM

Interesting that the WikiLeaker is an openly-homosexual soldier with a high-level security clearance. Back in "The Old Days," (remember the British homosexual spy scandals?) being a homosexual was automatic disqualification for a security clearance. When did that change? Under Carter?

John II| 12.6.10 @ 7:47PM

Probably. That would be about the right time. The license for the change was given by the American Psychiatric Association when, in 1973, it disgraced itself by caving to activist pressure and removing homosexuality from their so-called DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual [of mental and emotional disorders]). It was strictly a political move, without any serious warrant in psychiatry, and no warrant whatsoever in ordinary moral perception.

The following year the general membership of the APA voted in favor of the homosexualist move by 58%. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the cowardly leadership, but enough to leave more than 40% of the profession out in the cold in their advisement and treatment of homosexuals seeking help.

There are many, many reasons why ordinary folks look askance at the shrink-world. Ever notice how that world gets treated by literary types, including screenwriters?

And now back to the very first episode of "Columbo" ("Prescription: Murder" [1968]), in which Gene Barry plays a smug, know-it-all psychiatrist who murders his wife in what he confidently believes to be the perfectly planned crime. His condescension is no match for Lieutenant Columbo: "Excuse me, sir, there's just one more thing I don't quite understand . . ."

Later I'll garnish the Columbo with another viewing of "Miracle on 34th Street" (1947), in which a villainous Porter Hall plays a very nervous shrink, no match for Edmund Gwenn's wise Santa.

Occam's Tool| 12.6.10 @ 8:36PM

I'm not a big fan on disease by vote. No one votes on schizophrenia or depression.

cantanz| 12.7.10 @ 5:15AM

Occam, sorry to say but any Psychiatric disorder could be voted on. Just take a look at the differences between the DSM3 and the DSM4 enacted in 94 will show you that.

RCV| 12.7.10 @ 5:05PM

Well, someone has to make the professional determination. I'd rather have it made by people with psychiatric training and expertise than by professorial film buffs with a right-wing ax to grind.

RCV| 12.7.10 @ 5:09PM

...what would a " right wing ax" actually look like?

And on this day in 1873, the author of the great "Death Comes for the Archbishop", Willa Cather, was born.

mames| 12.6.10 @ 2:02PM

I woke up to the political low lives on the Joint Chiefs when I became aware that the weak knee crypto socialist Colin Powell qualified. Civilians need to clean out this cesspool, or maybe demand that these military "geniuses" take their showers with the homo perverts they want to allow in. Yes I said perverts; what else do you call such a perversion of the natural order of sexuality. Mavbe the military would think twice if they considered the inordinate amount of medical problems homos encounter due to shoving things up their ass, shortened life span- by 15-20 years, weakened sphincters, inability to control defecation, AIDS, and a variety of other concerns given the fact that the anus is a viral and bacterial blotter as it was designed as an exit not an entrance. Bohica a whole new meaning now.

Purple Lips| 12.6.10 @ 2:53PM

Just think, show tunes will become a very military thing in a few years! Lady Gaga will get an honorary commission to Lt Col!

John DuBose| 12.6.10 @ 3:24PM

Most of the posts here ( without saying as much ) seem to be from folks that are SURE that homosexuality among the troops would lead to a weaker military. How about some evidence one way or another ?

As I understand, in ancient times, homosexual bonds were sometimes a soource of strength ?

I do not claim to know, but the ONLY criterion for this decision ought to be military effectiveness.

Hrumph| 12.6.10 @ 7:35PM

3- I think ‘rongordo’ hit the nail on the head above, “They don't really want to go in, except to disrupt the system. The gays who are truly patriotic, wishing to serve their country, already are, mostly without fuss and open declaration.” Much like the vast majority of the military, they don’t do this job for the money or notoriety, they do it because an innate sense of needing to serve. For those that have served, you know what I ‘m saying, for those that have not, it’s hard to explain. When people ask me why I stayed for 24 years, I said, “It’s like riding a motorcycle, if you have to ask, you wouldn’t understand.”

Pelligrino| 12.7.10 @ 2:07PM

The present day military life is so cushy for so many that it is the ultimate welfare program. Yes, you heard that right: Today's USofA Military is indeed the Welfare state. Far better than the projects of Chicago, Detroit, Boston, or NYC.

That's why we have huge numbers of single parents with a very disproportionate number who are women --- women with sometimes 3 kids all from different male sperm, woman soldier never ever married.

How is this possible, you ask? Easy. The US Army has allowed this for over 20 years now. It is everyday commonplace.

And Welfare Momma, aka Staff Sergeant Jones, ain't leavin' the military until she's sure to have a lifetime of retirement benefits (YES LIFETIME) after her 20 year mark.

Don't you think that the gay and lesbian community has been thinkin' 'bout this for a long, long time? You bet they have.

And they want in on all the "goodies" we bestow on our military. And the gays ain't gonna stop pushing until we've announced the first gay 4-star general who is about to be made Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

You think that's fiction? Keep dreaming.

Clint| 12.6.10 @ 3:36PM

Then President For Life, Field Marshall Obama could start The Queen's Own Regiment.

Clint| 12.6.10 @ 3:38PM

Oooor, The Queens' Own Regiment.

Pete| 12.6.10 @ 4:28PM

Any field medical or other blood related issues?

Hrumph| 12.6.10 @ 5:09PM

Many years ago, during a retirement ceremony for a long time Navy Master Chief and friend, he stated in his closing remarks that, "I joined the Navy when it was illegal to be a homosexual. Much to the amazement of most people here, it is now becoming optional. I decided that the only way to adquately react to this new way of thinking was to leave before it became mandatory." This was in 1992 and it seems he was a bit more prophetic than we originally thought. This will be really interesting in those submarines that disappear under the water for months at a time. One good thing, if everyone is gay, there's no concern about unwanted pregnancies at sea.

Pelligrino| 12.7.10 @ 1:42PM

No, you are completely wrong. Perversion knows no bounds. When a lesbian sailor or submariner (yes, we have what the first 7 female ensigns now in their initial submarine training thanks to s----heads like the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs AND Secretary Gates) finds the duty too rough or no longer her cup of tea (or just wants to get the benefits of being a parent in the military -- many benefits) she'll have sex with a male on board. No, of course, not out of romantic yearnings (though they all seem to want to experiment), but to get pregant. And then get shore duty. Translation: A easy desk job, shorter hours, no hindrances to the sundry medical appointments AND the exact same pay as before. What a deal!

Everyone will be screwing everyone else. All the time. Hedonism on the high seas, in port, in the barracks, on the field exercise, on the deployment.

This is partly why we haven't been resolute and finished the jobs in either Iraq or Afghanistan in now 7.5 and 9 years respectively.

Our present-day Armed Forces (with a few exceptions) are a top-to-bottom joke.

RCV| 12.7.10 @ 5:20PM

So THAT's why we've been bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq so long. Not because they're difficult, intractable wars that were I'll-conceived in the first place, against indigenous guerilla forces who will remain long after we're gone.

It's because our soldiers have been fornicating day and night instead of doing their jobs. You really do have a hard-on about the military, don't you, Petronious?

RCV| 12.7.10 @ 5:22PM

Sorry, Petronious. I meant Pelligrino.

rongordo| 12.6.10 @ 5:56PM

The new bureaucratic military. What conservatives used to be able to offer as the one functional and capable branch of government is going the way of the USPS, etc. They've been so put up with diversity, liberal activists and Islamic Jihadists are becoming enmeshed.

steve| 12.6.10 @ 6:13PM

If gays are allowed to serve openly, shouldn't they be required to undergo period testing for HIV, AIDS, and the like? Either that, or mandate that troops in the field wear surgical gloves in combat. You know, so if they have to treat a wounded gay troop who's infected, they won't get infect too.

Hoo, boy, this is gonna cause a lot problems, raise a lot of questions.

Pelligrino| 12.7.10 @ 1:51PM

Correct, Steve. You have hit the nail on the head. It is about TRUST. You have to be able to 100% trust me; I must 100% trust you.

Everyone just cannot think. They think that the military is some advanced high school summer camp where you just get together for 3-5 weeks and then part ways.

No!

You live 24/7 with each other. Sometimes on the marathon deployments like the 16 months ones we were doing 4 years ago.

And the health of each soldier and each soldier's blood matters. Why? Easy. 6 guys dismembered when their convoy hits an IED. All 6 evacuated to the local field hospital where emergency life-saving surgery must proceed NOW.

An ALL-CALL for ALL blood donors goes out to everyone not presently doing something. There are not checks, you just roll up your sleeve and give.

Six guys may not make it. The blood of 45-60 donors might be needed to get them over the hump.

Is that the time for the gay guy or lesbian to say, "Well, uh, I dunno, maybe I shouldn't be donating? Maybe, I'm, you know, not really all that healthy. Or maybe my lifestyle, y'know, is kinda a risky sorta way to kinda live, y'know?"

You want to serve with a twerp like that?

I don't. The pervert should never be there in the first place.

RCV| 12.8.10 @ 1:59PM

All people in the armed forces are already routinely and regularly tested for HIV.

steve| 12.6.10 @ 6:15PM

El-tee to gay troop in LP: "Troop, gimme a sitrep."

Gay troop to el-tee: "Everything's FABULOUS, hon."

Hrumph| 12.6.10 @ 7:02PM

2- Funny... but very, very sad. You know, the thing that scares me the most is the folks in the military don't even realize they are being tampered with, for the most part, until it’s too late. Whether the public realizes it or not, the military, for the past 30+years, has been a testing ground for many social engineering projects. Everything from women in combat to sensitivity training, to diversity awareness and Dr. Deming, to advocating “best business” practices. Although I do realize the military is typically a mirror image of our surrounding society, it used to be help to a much higher standard. Now, it just looks like standard is the norm.

Hrumph| 12.6.10 @ 7:10PM

Sorry, should have said, "... it used to be HELD to a much higher standard." Gotta get some coffee...

John II| 12.6.10 @ 7:59PM

Well, I'm feeling lazy today after proctoring final exams. So, at the risk of repeating myself, I'll repeat an earlier post apropos of this topic:

When you think about it, it's amazing how flexible the military brass are, collectively speaking. I saw something of this phenomenon up close, when I was in the Army during the Vietnam era and the brass would shift promptly with the frequent shift of the political winds.

During the Clinton era, the time-servers and careerists got the upper hand in the management of the armed forces. During much of the Bush II era, the sure-enough warriors stepped to the fore. But Bush started getting wobbly, or maybe just tired, and he put Gates in charge of Defense. Professor Obama kept Gates, partly for obvious political reasons but certainly because the Professor sensed sufficient accommodation in Gates so as not to expect any trouble.

We now have, as well, Admiral Mike Mullen as the Professor's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the very avatar of the career military political accommodationist. Anyone care to guess how much longer General Petraeus is going to last?

Hrumph| 12.6.10 @ 8:27PM

We have a name for the folks in charge that prove to be so flexible - Gumby. It is the only thing we found that was comparable to the rectal lip pressing events performed today.

glucose tester| 12.6.10 @ 9:31PM

The problems will come with all the political correctness and "locker room" talk. Lawsuits and charges. How will we tippy toe around this don't want to hurt anyones feelings thingy.

Osamas Pajamas| 12.7.10 @ 12:36AM

FLF --- the Fruitcake Liberation Front [pronounced "fluff"] is all gaga for serving with those well-muscled boys and girls in the US military --- and the Democrats are eager to inflict the fluffs on our armed forces, in the belief that this will damage America's defenders. That's SO gay!

JP| 12.7.10 @ 7:22AM

Most people here appear blissfully unaware of:

a)The Homosexual Lobby and its constant attempt to force its agenda on everything from workplace relations to how church sermons.

b)How our courts force the homosexual agenda on an unwilling populace. The DOD will be stripped of its authority on how it deals with the discipline, morale, and cohesion of its troops. Congress, which writes the UCMJ will most certainly follow the courts (normally, it's the other way around).

Funny, how no one even points out the obvious: How does the homosexual life-style help us win battles and military campaigns? In light of what happened inside the Catholic Church since 1950, do we really want a homosexual sub-culture inside our military? Its interesting that proponents for gay priests point out that the feminization of the priestly orders makes for a more caring, pastoral, and compassionate Church. Using that argument as a guideline, do we really want a more caring, effette, and sensitive Marine Corps or Army?

Gays who secretly served in the past were able to channel thier desires and sublimate them towards the common good. Take away those prohibitions and Katy Bar the Door.

Dean from Ohio| 12.8.10 @ 2:05AM

It's time to intentionally disregard court decisions that lack obvious constitutional justification. I hope our next President has the guts to do that.

RetUSA1/75| 12.7.10 @ 9:41AM

Mom, dad is yelling outside. He also took my baseball bat into the garage and he is making loud crashing noises. It is ok, son, he is just letting off steam. Just leave him alone for awhile. Why, mom? Well, son, he is a little upset. He and I will explain to you in a little while. We will also get you a new bat, too. Now go grab your mom a cup of joe, will you dear?

NJK| 12.7.10 @ 3:07PM

These two men are a disgrace to the uniform and the country. Our military needs cleaned out of social puppets like these two. They need to do America a favor with whatever amount of dignity they can scrape up and leave. I can't look at them anymore than Obama. It's enough to makeyou throw up. The history books will put them in the shame column.

Pelligrino| 12.7.10 @ 11:43PM

NJK, thank you. Fully correct. My true concern: If we'll have the luxury or our kids and their kids of having the time to peruse any books, history books or otherwise.

We are indeed surely crumbling from within. The next generations will have it significanty worse. And we are to blame for this.

(For all the unaware here; we now civilians have to be the advocates for upright and true standards within our Armed Forces. Those presently serving are almost -- by law and by custom -- required to remain silent on all these things. They are to accept whatever the "chain of command" (the youngsters in the military include Congress and Judges, Governors, Sec. Def. and, of course, the President in all of that) decides as appropriate.

You get little candor because candor is not desired (and it takes putting your name behind it).

Plus they know the deal: Their words matter not. The upper echelons -- people in Washington, D.C. who have never served -- decides.

RetUSA1/75| 12.8.10 @ 12:56PM

Agree. It is why as a young E4 w/less than 3yrs AD, I fled from "Big Army," in 1984 to SOF, and retired from a MEPS in 01. Candor is accepted w/in SOF. I can only hope SOF in all Sister Services remain stalwart throughout this morass. Except the Marines Corps as a whole. Last of the "True Service."

RetUSA1/75| 12.8.10 @ 1:04PM

Another words, I meant to implore, at least leave the "Last True Service," alone, the Marines. Ok, later.

Yosemeti sam| 12.7.10 @ 4:10PM

This Mullen character - is he the same intrepid warrior who showed up on that shrew (save one) infested The View program for the feminists?

Brian| 12.8.10 @ 12:43AM

Does Gates have an agreement with the courts affirming they will not further intervene on this issue if DADT is repealed? No, repeal is just the first step, affirmative action for gays is next.