Protect Your Military

Have you taken the time to thank a soldier, sailor, airman or Marine for their service to our country lately?

We owe so much to our all-volunteer force.   There is no other job that requires this kind of selfless dedication and courage.  We need the military and now the men and women on active duty need us to do something for them they cannot do for themselves. 

They need to be defended from Barack Obama’s plan to expand the gay rights agenda by using our armed forces as a laboratory for social experimentation.

In his State of the Union message President Obama boldly announced his intention to dismantle the law barring homosexuals from serving in the military.   Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen and his minion in the Senate, Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, immediately began working toward that end.

The president is the commander-in-chief of our military.  The folks at the Pentagon work for him.  However, Congress writes the laws that set the rules that govern military personnel and “we the people” have the ability to control Congress.  When the president and Congress lose their way on military matters, “we the people” not only have the option of giving our elected representatives our input, it is our duty to do so.

Military personnel must obey their orders.   They are not really free to disagree with the policy of the commander in chief.  It is considered a career-ender for officers.   Furthermore, military personnel are not permitted to lobby Congress while in uniform.

Changes in military policy should be based on military readiness.  Military policy should never be changed on a whim, but that seems to be the new standard for this president and the Democrat leaders in Congress with the notable exception of Rep. Ike Skelton who chairs the House Armed Services Committee.

Gates promised only to “minimize disruption” and to “mitigate” the “negative consequences” that dismantling the policy will have on unit cohesion, recruiting and retention.  Mullen admits that he doesn’t know what the effects will be but he is in favor of going ahead with this policy anyway. These men are a disgrace to the country!  Meanwhile, Levin is looking more and more like a dunderhead.

The issue of dismantling the law barring open homosexuals from serving in the military has been presented as one of fairness, basic civil rights and military necessity.  These arguments are difficult to defend.

•    The argument that the military needs every person who will serve in times of war just doesn’t hold up.  A study by the Center for Military Readiness shows that the number of soldiers discharged for homosexuality represents about one-third of 1 percent of all total discharges.  In other words, the number is minuscule.

•    On the issues of fairness, this is the question that really needs to be addressed:  Is it fair to put our men and women in the military, who have no control over where they sleep or shower,  in situations where they are viewed as objects of sexual desire?     Isn’t military life difficult enough as it is?

•    Our civil rights laws were written to protect citizens from discrimination based on immutable characteristics such as race and gender, not on political correct terms like “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.”    Furthermore, our military has never been constrained by civil rights concerns.  That is why the law that bars women from serving in combat positions has been upheld.  That is why there are no wheelchair ramps on tanks and submarines.

Over the years, I have watched military leaders, who have demonstrated great courage on the battlefield, fold on issues of political correctness, particularly when it comes to the feminization of our armed forces.  However, it has been encouraging to see our current crop of military leaders refuse to go along with the latest attempt to weaken the troops.

Last week, in hearings before the House and Senate the other members of the joint chiefs, Adm. Gary Roughead, Gen. George Casey, Gen. Norton Schwartz and General James Conway  had an opportunity to weigh in and they were not about to be rolled.  Marine Commandant General James Conway summed it up this way. “I think the current policy works . . . keep the law as it is.”

If these men were willing to put their careers on the line after a lifetime of service to our country in order to protect our men and women in uniform, can we sit back and do nothing?

If you sincerely support our troops, let your voice be heard.

8 thoughts on “Protect Your Military

  1. You’re so off base here. Just a few observations:

    Your willingness to toss gays out of the military based on the fact that they are a small percentage of the total is fully dehumanizing of gays in the worst Soviet-style way. People don’t become disposable and insignificant because there aren’t that many of them. Good people work to ensure that smaller, less-powerful groups get the protection they need. You use small numbers against people. Really, this tack is BAD, even for you.

    Your argument about showering is ludicrous and treats adult soldiers like children. Perhaps someone who has gone through the streets of Baghdad door to door is adult enough to manage their showering with whoever’s around. And do you really think you can use laws to eliminate occasional awkwardness in the shower? This is LIFE, Jane Chastain, it will always be a bit messy sometimes. You don’t throw someone on the street because of this!

    Your willingness to upend and destroy lives and careers based on your imagined shower scenario is born of your own hysteria and hate. You have weighed imagined shower discomfort against entire careers and selected the fool’s choice.

    I notice you skip your usual rant about expense – how about the expense of rooting out gay soldiers and re-recruiting allegedly straight ones? I guess in this instance, if a gay can get thrown out on the street, you’re happy to squander tax payers’ money.

    Not everyone joins the military to be “selfless”. Most people I graduated from high school with who went right into the military did so because the military was the best option for them. As the U.S. sinks $400 billion plus into the military each year the military remains, among other things, a well-funded source of careers for Americans. Gays, who shoulder the national debt along with everyone else, should not be denied military careers when no one else is denied.

    You’re arguing on a civil rights basis as though gays are asking for “special protection” when in fact gays are asking simply not to be singled out for persecution. There’s a big difference.

    You start your article sentimentally (thank a soldier – gee whiz!) then go for the kill. Tacky, Jane Chastain!

    Jane Chastain, anyone can make an irrational, hate-based argument under the guise of logic–people have done it since pen and paper were invented. Have you ever read a defense of American slavery written before 1865? They believed those arguments! But we see those arguments now as seemingly sensical but fatally flawed.

    In the end, you’re defending a non-problem. All your arguments presuppose that having gays in the military is creating big problems, but it’s not the case. You’re fanning the flames of a non-existent fire. Why? Because you hate gays; it’s the only conclusion left after reading your silly, mean and grasping article. Jane Chastain, why don’t you just say you hate gays and like attacking them? Then you don’t have to spend time distorting the facts anymore, you’d make more sense and you’d be being truthful. Then we’d have a real starting point.


  2. Jane,
    It’s interesting your point seems to be based on the assumption that every gay person’s first objective is to objectify people of the same sex. For this reason, why should gay people be able to work at all? Objectification doesn’t only occur in showers or during sleep, or in the armed services. Should I assume my co-worker is objectifying me when she walks by me in the hallway? What about using the restroom? Perhaps my gay co-worker is able to stay focused on not objectifying me while typing on her computer, but if we happen to be in restroom at the same time, I’ll be sure to have my rape whistle at the ready. If you think I’ve blown this out of proportion, it’s obvious you’ve missed my point. In the Army, there is one color: green; and one person; a soldier. There’s not white, black, Latino, or male and female. Each branch of the armed services teaches a cohesive unit and it’s how they weed out weaker individuals who can’t do their job in this manner. Sure, there are ever-evolving issues to address in our armed forces. For instance, there are many Muslims in our military today that are given prayer accommodations due to their civil rights. Same goes for those of Jewish and Buddhist faiths – notice how I’m not talking about Christians because they’re not part of the minuscule minority. So, should they be barred from serving in our military? Accommodations have also been made for women to rightly serve our country, as well. If you’re not in favor of gays serving in the military, then simply state it. Please, don’t insult our intelligence with you feeling the only reason gays shouldn’t serve is because of showers and sleeping quarters, or they represent such a limited minority their presence shouldn’t be acknowledged. For one, gays don’t only serve in combat. They have administrative positions as well – and yes, some of those facilities do have ramps. Lastly, I think you need to get your propaganda in check when labeling sexual orientation as a ‘politically correct’ distraction. Sexual orientation refers to an individual’s characteristic in the same vein that race and gender do; nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps you need to expand your circle of friends. It’s obvious you don’t have any gay friends. But what about black and Latino friends? Maybe they could offer a glimpse into the minuscule minority. Just don’t greet them with a piñata full of watermelon.


  3. Jane,

    I agree with your column that Obama sets the tone as commander-in-chief with the military on everything, including, the subject of gays openly serving there. I’ve always known, however, that Robert Gates wasn’t any good as secretary of defense going back to the final two years of George W. Bush’s presidency. A lot of people didn’t like Donald Rumsfeld, but I did, and when Bush fired Rumsfeld after the November 2006 elections and replaced him with Gates, Bush’s presidency was for all practical purposes then over. Gates having been the president of Texas A&M when Bush selected him as the new secretary of defense, brought no vision or ideology to the job, unlike Rumsfeld. Gates was far better suited to organize pep rallies at Texas A&M, then to be secretary of defense. Since Gates along with Christie Todd Whitman were the two worst cabinet appointees in Bush’s Administration, I believe that he does wholeheartedly support gays openly serving in the military. Gates calls himself a “Republican,” but he truly is one of those Washington insiders that gives credence to the saying about there “not being a dime’s worth of difference between the two major political parties.” That has not been true, of course, since the presidency of Ronald Reagan, except for individuals such as Gates.


  4. If Obamas social experiment goes into effect you can watch troops exiting the military in droves! As a veteran of 26 years of military service I watched the Clinton DADT experiment make a lot of people look for the door. I was a recruiter and a supervisor of recruiters for 10 years and always was proud of my branch but, I would not advise any young people to join today. My grandson is about to complete his college degree and was asking me what I thought if he went in to the Marines as an officer. I told him I would not recommend enlisting, under this administration, under any circumstances.
    I find it amazing that the american people would let people, who have never even had a job other than politics, experiment with our military!


  5. Ted, really? Are military members so fickle that they’d cease their service to their county and leave the military “in droves” if gays (who are ALREADY in the military) could keep serving? I’d been lead to believe that military members’ committment to our country and to the armed forces was a bit higher than that. I hope you’re wrong. I’d like to go on admiring members of the military a bit longer. Jane’s already told us they’re highly vulnerable to the possibility of glances in the shower. I’m not getting a very impressive picture of service people from this Web site…

    Attackers of gays have always used their imaginations to create issues and false paradigms in their efforts to villianize gays. Jane’s (and now your) wierd “experiment” theory is just the latest. Cripes.


  6. First of all, this is a good weblog you have right here. I stumbled upon your website while executing a search on msn. Outstanding post, I might bookmark it for future reading.


  7. Many years ago, a WWII, Korea, and Vietnam COMBAT vet said that he could tell we were going to get into a losing war because the President was downsizing our military. He said that every time our military got small, our enemies got big, and, Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines paid in blood.


  8. Well it’s been about 8 months since DADT was repealed. Just checking in with Jane Chastain and the above Ted Theodore to see if troops have “exit[ed] the military in droves” or if intolerable shower instances have increased.

    Military leaders themselves said the repeal was a “non event” and military members said the biggest result they noticed was “a few changes on FaceBook statues” but maybe Ted and Jane know something the rest of us don’t.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s