-
Who’s Politicizing Benghazi?
May 9, 2013 | 6 comments
-
A Tale of Two Teams and Two Stars
January 10, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Mitt Romney Just Got Himself Elected President
October 3, 2012 | 17 comments
-
Obama to Gays and Hollywood: Show Me the Money!
May 9, 2012 | 13 comments
-
Ruinous Obama Austerity
May 9, 2012 | 2 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Don’t Ask and Don’t Tell Politically Inconvenient Questions
The smoking gun in yesterday’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing was the question that the Pentagon deliberately chose not to ask our troops.
One of the most glaring omissions in the Pentagon’s new “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” survey is whether U.S. military personnel believe a change in policy is necessary, desirable or advantageous. That is, should we repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”?
The Pentagon never asked that question, and for an obvious reason: It doesn’t want to have to tell the White House what the White House doesn’t want to hear. Which is that most U.S. military personnel — and certainly most Marines and most infantrymen — believe we should leave well enough alone and retain the current policy.
Because in truth, that policy has worked out quite well. Gay men and women can serve, albeit discreetly, and without incidence or disruption.
Of course, that’s not what you hear from the media and the gay lobby; however, it happens to be true: Most servicemen and women who are drummed out of the military have brought their expulsion upon themselves. They have made an issue of their sexuality, thus forcing the hands of their superiors.
And so, the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” survey had to be manipulated in order to convey the politically correct message, which is: “Everyone’s for repeal! Do it now!”
In yesterday’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Sen. John McCain rightly seized upon this manipulation to argue that the Pentagon’s survey is fundamentally flawed. This created one of the most dramatic tension points in the hearing; and McCain won this round big-time.
“I can’t think of a single precedent in American history of doing a referendum of the American armed forces on a policy issue,” declared Defense Secretary Robert Gates. “Holding a referendum of members of the armed services on a policy matter,” he added, “is a very dangerous path.”
Are you going to ask them if they want 15-month tours? Are you gonna ask them if they want to be part of the surge in Iraq? That’s not the way our civilian-led military has ever worked in our entire history. The should question needs to be decided by the Congress or the courts, as far as I’m concerned.
Notice the sleight of hand by Gates. He raises the question of who should decide policy matters. But that’s not in dispute. No one’s ever questioned the legal authority of Congress to establish criteria for military service. (And as for the courts, they have no jurisdiction here. The criteria for military service is a political, not a judicial question.)
Moreover, military personnel decisions that affect families involve a very different set of policy questions from those involving the deployment of forces in overseas contingency operations. Surely it is reasonable to expect that Congress will be more indulgent of what troops think about personnel decisions that involve their families than it will be of what troops think about when and where to fight our nation’s wars.
Historically, Congress has decided when and where to go to war because that affects American foreign policy, which is a congressional responsibility. However, Congress has tended to defer to the military on the criteria for military service, because it rightly views these criteria as an internal military matter for which the military has special expertise.
In any case, it certainly makes sense to have policy decisions informed by the thoughts, views and observations of our troops. That, after all, as McCain observed, is the essence of good leadership.
Everything I ever learned about leadership, everything I ever practiced about leadership, every great leader I’ve ever known always consulted with his subordinates for their views — no matter what the issue. And certainly an issue of this magnitude deserves that leaders take into consideration the views of their subordinates.
It doesn’t mean that they are dictated [to] by the views of their subordinates. But I never made a major decision in the military without going around and talking to the enlisted people — the ones that would be tasked to carry out whatever the mission is [emphasis added].
So I’m almost incredulous to see that on an issue of this magnitude we wouldn’t at least solicit the views of the military about whether it [the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy] should be changed or not.
Now, those views may be rejected, those opinions… may be discounted. But to somehow say, “Well, we’re not going to have a referendum.”
It’s not a referendum. That’s not what leadership is. Leadership is soliciting the views of your subordinates — and the[n] you’re able to carry out your mission because you have to rely on them…
So to say, “Well, we didn’t need to ask their opinion on whether it should be repealed or not” violates, in my view, one of the fundamental principles of leadership.
McCain has it exactly right. It is precisely this type of stellar leadership that I witnessed in the Marine Corps while serving in Iraq, and which I wrote about recently here at The American Spectator. Marine captains and majors, I noted, sometimes deferred to more junior corporals and sergeants.
The captains and majors, obviously, had controlling legal authority; and no one, least of all the Marine corporals and sergeants, ever doubted or questioned this. But everyone recognized that, because of their combat savvy and experience, the corporals and sergeants had a certain moral authority which had to be acknowledged and respected.
Yet when pressed on this issue, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, insisted that “it’s an incredibly bad precedent to ask them [your people and your subordinates] about, you know, to essentially vote on a policy.”
Ever the fighter pilot, McCain honed in on his target and delivered a devastating and irrefutable strike:
It’s not voting, Sir. It’s asking their views. It’s asking their views, and whether they would agree or disagree with a change… Whenever a new policy or any course of action were contemplated, you would ask the views of others. You wouldn’t necessarily accept them.
But for you to sit there and say, “Well, we wouldn’t want to ask their views.” I mean, that to me is – [It] makes this whole exercise here, [which] took so much time and effort and money, a bit… unrealistic…
Why didn’t we simply just ask them how they felt about it [retaining or repealing the current “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy] — just as you would [when contemplating] any other course of action? Again, every great leader [that] I’ve known has said: “What are your views on this issue?”
Indeed, that was the key question in yesterday’s hearing. That was the dog that never barked. That was the smoking gun. And of course, we know the answer to that question even if our senior military and political leaders won’t say so. Facts, after all, are stubborn things.
For these reasons, then, Congress should refrain from taking any precipitous action over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Find out what our troops really think; and ascertain whether a change in policy is even necessary. Don’t believe the media and activist spin; and do right by our troops.
View all comments (16) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John R. Guardiano
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/12/03/dont-ask-and-dont-tell-politic
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Hannah and Her Friends
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- Obama’s Drone War
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
wodiej| 12.3.10 @ 7:28AM
McCain is exactly right on this one and unfortunately the overwhelming majority of managers, leaders etc. DO NOT CARE A WHIT what their subordinates think. In fact, suggestions are strongly discouraged, dismissed and scoffed at. Hence, I have known few leaders in leadership positions.
If they are going to have this don't ask don't tell, have it for everyone. I don't want to hear about anyone's sexuality, gay or straight. The military is not a dating service.
Pecos Pete| 12.3.10 @ 9:51AM
The unintended consequences of allowing homosexuals to serve are unimaginable. Or maybe not as we can see from the unintended pregnancies from allowing women to serve on ships of the US Navy.
shemurray| 12.3.10 @ 9:59AM
Oh come on. This is only about gays receiving the same benefits that non-gays receive. It is always about money. I'm not sure how much more it would cost to pay for the health services, etc of gay soldier's partners. But, as history has shown, once gays get this passed, they will go after even more and separate benefits. They want to be treated "special" and get special rights that nobody else receives. That is just the way it is.
NotALibertarian| 12.3.10 @ 11:03AM
Gates and Mullen are VERY interested in the views of soldiers. Gay soldiers. Gay soldiers who agree with liberal activists, to be more specific.
What incredible hypocrites. They complain about McCain's concern for the sensibilities of soldiers, but it is the supposed sensibilities of gay soldiers that is the ONLY reason we are having to conduct these stupid, stupid hearings.
Can America survive being controlled by this cabal of vain, spoiled children?
Rick| 12.3.10 @ 11:48AM
Based on today's testimony by the Service Chiefs (and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the USCG Commandant), they are all in agreement that the law should be repealed.
It's illustrative that no one has commented on that fact.
NotALibertarian| 12.3.10 @ 12:32PM
Based on today's testimony by the Service Chiefs (and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the USCG Commandant), it is obvious that these people are little more than political hacks who care more about powerful special interest groups than our military's actual fighting capabilities. You point to their positions without even considering the perfidy of their statements and the way they conducted and presented this fraudulent survey. That is the overall point of this article.
And, by the way, Marine leaders are against this repeal.
Bruce Berger| 12.3.10 @ 12:30PM
The way the Defense Dept. conducted this survey would have earned an 8th grader a failing grade.
To demonstrate why I will make two assumptions.
1. Assume a gay/lesbian soldier is equivalent to a hetero-sexual soldier.
2. Assume that a repeal of DADT would have a neutral impact on battlefield readiness, effectiveness, etc. for a given-size force.
Under those assumptions one could draw the conclusion that repealing DADT would make sense because there would be no negative impact from its repeal, right?
The answer is a big "not necessarily". The reason is that the Defense Dept. doesn't seem to have a clue what the repeal would mean to recruitment levels. If even 10-15% of current personnel or potential recruits say that they would not re-enlist/join because of the repeal, that would have enormous implications for our force level.
The military is not a democracy where the 49% have to go along with the wishes of the 51%. It is an all-volunteer force whose members can walk right out the door (after their tour ends) if they don't like a particular policy.
I know I bring this up on the AS blog from time to time, but it is a huge deal and no one seems to be focused on it.
Chris| 12.3.10 @ 12:35PM
It boggles the mind that anyone thinks McCain 'won' this debate when, in fact, his question was thrown right back in his face. Neither he nor anyone on the panel had an substantive answer for Gates's assertion, failing to justify why precedent should be ignored. To suggest this survey did not elucidate the armed forces' views on repeal due to the omission of one question - frankly, an issue of semantics - is absurd. McCain honed in on figures that support his stance and those were rebutted by Gates et al. We can preferentially select specific answers to questions but you cannot ignore that the resistance to repeal is not nearly as great as McCain & Co. want to make it out be.
NotALibertarian| 12.3.10 @ 1:16PM
This survey only had a 30% response rate. People who have served in the past have stated that at the time women were being allowed in, members of the armed forces were given the clear impression that their careers would be adversely affected if they spoke out against the change. In this climate, guess who will disproportionately decide against responding to a poll like this? Repeal opponents.
Incredibly, the report's authors lied about the concerns of those that expressed them by claiming they are "driven by misperceptions and stereotypes about what it would mean if gay service members were allowed to be 'open' about their sexual orientation." The article goes on to list "misperceptions", some of which are either completely foreseeable or realities supported by research.
This survey, by the way, is being challenged by another survey that shows that 63% of active & retired military and their families oppose repeal.
Teflon93| 12.3.10 @ 1:11PM
The military is not a place for social experiments, particularly in wartime.
If homosexuals wish to feel validated, let them do so by running and electing the first gay or lesbian president on the Democrat ticket.
We'll see Democrat voters' commitment to diversity that way, won't we?
Teflon93| 12.3.10 @ 1:12PM
As a matter of fact, why don't Democrat pols put their money where their mouths are by insisting that nothing BUT gay or lesbian candidates hold Democrat offices and resign their seats accordingly?
DADT SUPPORT| 12.3.10 @ 3:40PM
First, a gay or lesbian could never be president because of Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy. You didn't know that did you? I was in the Army and would never want any special treatments because I am gay nor does anyother person serving in the military! I know plenty of people who were hunted out by superiors by suspicion that they were gay. We just ask to be treated the same and that is all.
NotALibertarian| 12.3.10 @ 4:07PM
Actually, the experience of Wikileaking traitor Bradley Manning speaks against your claim. Manning flaunted his sexual orientation in myriad ways, to which the military clearly turned a blind eye.
BA Cyclone| 12.3.10 @ 1:25PM
Does the repeal of DADT enhance, or detract from our fighting capabilities?
That is the only question that needs an answer, and necessarily leads you to the answer for the "should" question.
The military is not civil society and should never be treated as nor even compared to such.
Rick| 12.3.10 @ 1:40PM
"these people are little more than political hacks."
So, all the Joint Chiefs are political hacks. An incredible ad hominem statement.
BTW: Amos said, "My recommendation is that we should not implement repeal at this time.” "Not at this time" is not "it should never be repealed."
NotALibertarian| 12.3.10 @ 3:55PM
What this comes down to is that you are incredulous that people are not lapping up as fact the opinions of some who, through their own conduct (service chiefs disregarding the views of the generals charged with actually leading these troops, along with misrepresenting the results of a questionable survey), have shown themselves to be untrustworthy. Let's set the record straight with Amos' own words:
"'Successfully integrating gays and lesbians into small Marine combat units has strong potential for disruption and will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus of preparing units for combat,' Amos told the committee.
The commandant citied the survey’s findings that 58 percent of Marines and 48 percent of Army respondents believed that lifting the ban would have negative consequences.
'I cannot reconcile, nor turn my back, no [sic] the negative perceptions held by our Marines who are most engaged in the hard work of day-to-day operations in Afghanistan,' Amos said."
(http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/12/03/1955485/military-heads-strong-oppose-immediate.html)
When, precisely, is it a Good Time to disrupt and "divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus of preparing units for combat"?