Article

2010-12-02 Home Front: Politix

Mullen: Troops Who Balk at Change in Gay Service Policy Could Be Out of Job

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by armyguy 2010-12-02 11:47|| || Front Page|| [11133 views ] Top

#1 I have the feeling that Mullen is the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. A politician, a bureaucrat, not a warrior.

Posted by Whiskey Mike 2010-12-02 12:06|| 2010-12-02 12:06|| Front Page Top

#2 So, basically, you're threatening to fire everyone who disagrees with you at the same time you're claiming there's a consensus?

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2010-12-02 12:09|| 2010-12-02 12:09|| Front Page Top

#3 And if some people have a problem with that, they may not want to join the service.

It isn't like, at enlistment, there will be any official questions if you disagree that gays should serve openly or anything. And of course, to preserve cohesivness, once the policy is changed those already enlisted won't be asked there assesment one way or the other. However, those that choose to openly voice thier disapproval, regardless of integrity, will be discharged.
So tell me agian how this change will improve retention or overall effectivness?

Posted by DepotGuy 2010-12-02 12:16|| 2010-12-02 12:16|| Front Page Top

#4 Since he's proposing a basic change to the terms of service after the contracts have been signed, how about recognizing the basic rights of contract and 'human' dignity of the individual free citizens and allow those who signed 'a priori' the right to end their enlistment contract without penalty? /rhet question cause everyone else doesn't have rights.

Posted by Procopius2k 2010-12-02 12:27|| 2010-12-02 12:27|| Front Page Top

#5 I disagree with Mullen about a lot, but in this case he is merely telling his boss's boss, Congress, that he will follow the orders it gives. You can't blame him for saluting, even if he thinks the CO is a (fill in the blank).

And he is on the JCS, so he is a politician, a bureaucrat, an appropriator, not a warrior. That's what happens when you have a military-industrial complex instead of a military.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-12-02 12:56|| 2010-12-02 12:56|| Front Page Top

#6 ArmyGuy: what do you expect an officer to do when he/she gets an order?

Salute, say, "yes sir", and carry the order out, that's what.

If Congress changes the law, the military will comply. That's what Admiral Mullen said, and that's exactly what he's supposed to say. Anything else is (at the least) insubordination.

Posted by Steve White 2010-12-02 13:08|| 2010-12-02 13:08|| Front Page Top

#7 No, you do NOT simply salute and follow orders - that leads to things like concentration camps. If you disagree with an order, you can : 1) refuse to obey, and take the kick; 2)refuse to obey, resign, and publicly announce why you resigned; 3) not say anything and leak the hell out of things that embarass the order giver.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2010-12-02 13:18|| 2010-12-02 13:18|| Front Page Top

#8 You can do 1 if you believe the order illegal. Disagreement is insufficient. The military is not consensus driven.

You can do 2 if any one is likely to notice and care.

You can do 3 if you anve weasels in your family tree, and the military is better off without you.

So you do salute, just as they did in 1947, even though many, if not most, disagreed.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-12-02 13:25|| 2010-12-02 13:25|| Front Page Top

#9 Alternate headline: Mullen calls for largest military RIF since the end of the Civil War. (N.B.: back then the US Army went from over 1m to about 25,000, or 1/40th of its size.)

Posted by Anonymoose 2010-12-02 13:28|| 2010-12-02 13:28|| Front Page Top

#10 With leftists, if it's not forbidden it's mandatory.

Before, you could get discharged for being gay; now, as soon as they start allowing gays, they plan to start discharging any who oppose gays.

If this were based on moral principle, they would have condemned don't ask don't tell earlier. It seems to be based only on a love of tyranny.

Posted by Skunky Angeack7024 2010-12-02 13:46|| 2010-12-02 13:46|| Front Page Top

#11 The military is not consensus driven.

An effective and motivated military is. Slaves and drafted peasants, of course, are cheaper and usually more obedient but have shown to be rather wanting in history against the alternative. Palace guards will fight to protect their paymasters, but the bulk of the horde usually takes the first opportunity to do something else.

Posted by Procopius2k 2010-12-02 13:47|| 2010-12-02 13:47|| Front Page Top

#12 Shieldwolf: a military person obviously should never obey an illegal order. I'm not mil/ex-mil, but I'm told that there is a considerable amount of training on what constitutes a legal versus an illegal order.

That isn't the issue here: DADT, or no DADT, both are legal structures put in place by Congress which (after all) constituted the military. So if Congress says that gays can serve, that's the end of discussion.

Yes, you could resign your commission or refuse to re-up at the end of your term, and you could afterwards talk about that as you wish. But while in the service, one's options are 1) obey and 2) obey.

No doubt the mil/ex-mil people here will correct me if I get any of this wrong.

Posted by Steve White 2010-12-02 14:17|| 2010-12-02 14:17|| Front Page Top

#13 "Ready... Wait for it!... FLOUNCE!"
-- Monty Python

Posted by mojo 2010-12-02 14:44|| 2010-12-02 14:44|| Front Page Top

#14 ..or refuse to re-up at the end of your term

Why should they have to wait till the end of their 'term'? The state is changing the conditions of contract. Again, if the whole issue is about 'human rights and respect' then why isn't that consideration also granted those already under contract by releasing them now rather than the end of their 'term'? What you are witnessing is not principle but the imposition of power. Just don't try to obscure that fact.

Posted by Procopius2k 2010-12-02 15:36|| 2010-12-02 15:36|| Front Page Top

#15 You can disobey any order that you feel is illegal and officers by their commission are to disobey orders that will "serve to harm the service." As for having to obey officers that give stupid, destructive, or illegal orders, the US military has a long tradition of fragging such officers. I served in the US Army, and we had one thing pounded into our heads through out Basic and AIT : do not follow an illegal order, and you have a legal obligation under the Nuremberg Standards to refused orders that you feel needlessly endanger civilians, allied troops, your troops, or yourself. We do NOT have a slave army, and any officer that tries to make it so needs to catch a FMJ right betwen the eyes.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2010-12-02 15:38|| 2010-12-02 15:38|| Front Page Top

#16 Besides which, the "Admiral" is violating the UCMJ by publicly supporting a position that is a political call, and is NOT supported under present law. But since Zero is President, he is encouraging this slide into politics by officers, as long as it makes his agenda. DADT is the law, and until Congress changes it, everything the "Admiral" is discussing is a political call that he is supposed to be No Commenting on. He has been pushing the repeal of DADT since Zero got into office, and has more than once violated the bright line on serving officers actively involving themselves in politics. This is a butt kisser that needs to be fired by the incoming Republican President, in a formal dismissal letter.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2010-12-02 15:48|| 2010-12-02 15:48|| Front Page Top

#17 Just throwing out a quick quotation by a guy named Fehrenbach, This Kind of War, chapter "Proud Legions".

"In 1945, somehow confusing the plumbers with the men who pulled the chain, the public demanded that the Army be changed to conform with decent, liberal society.
...
The Doolittle Board of 1945-1946 met, listened to less than half a undred complaints, and made its recommendations. The so-called "caste system" of the Army was modified."

It is a long chapter which must be read for full context; the above is the guts to Fehrenbach's theory of why at the squad level the Army was unprepared for Korea while the Marines, who kept to the old ways, was able to perform much more effectively.

I know much is different now than post-WWII, but much is the same. As a civilian, I am of the opinion that this is a military issue to be resolved by the military or even branch by branch, however they want to do so to best serve their interests. The US military is under the control of the civilians via the US Constitution. The civilians IMHO should only set the tone and broad mission and let the military decide for itself how to best accomplish that goal.

Women, gays, and underage soldiers have served since the beginning alongside the classic soldier, with the understanding that they all act like professional soldiers. That this issue seems to have originated from the civilian side and is requiring more than just bringing up the idea seems to me like meddling for politics. The US Military has consistantly made the best decisions for themselves according to their needs, I trust them to do the same again. The topic has been more than sufficiently brought to focus, perhaps put it on the back burner and let the Armed Forces come to their recommendations without the paparazzi or gauntlet throwing.

Posted by swksvolFF 2010-12-02 16:36|| 2010-12-02 16:36|| Front Page Top

#18 The bottom line is that if homosexuals openly serve in the military, other service members will kill them. That pretty well ends that experiment.

However, because an entire command will be punished if a homosexual is killed because of their sexuality, commands will have no choice but to assign any other reason than that to the homicide.

Even the murderer, if apprehended, will be offered a lesser sentence if they assert that the motive was robbery, an ordinary fight unknowing of the victim's sexuality, even a lame lie--as long as they swear it wasn't what it was.

Right now, with DADT, there are no statistics of military personnel who are killed because of the suspicion that they are homosexuals. Commands are encouraged to rapidly transfer personnel thus identified ASAP, to get them out of harm's way until discharge.

But outside of those who collect such statistics, and in the civilian world, it will just appear that homosexual mortality is very high in the military. But that will be dismissed, as it will officially be because of other reasons. Bad luck.

Posted by Anonymoose 2010-12-02 18:38|| 2010-12-02 18:38|| Front Page Top

#19 ...Here's the problem as I see it:

1. 99% of the troops are going to salute smartly and follow the new rules: "It's okay to be gay!"
2. 99% of the gay troops will do their jobs as the outstanding soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines they already are.
3. There WILL be an incident where a thoroughly incompetent individual who happens to be gay will scream 'discrimination' in a desperate attempt to avoid discipline.
4. The service involved will WILDLY overreact and treat the 99% of accepting troops like the 1% that won't, and I will bet my retirement check that the reaction will include mandatory promotion and assignment regs specifically for individuals who openly self-identify as gay.

Watch what happens then, friends.

I knew lots of people who were gay while I was in the USAF. Twice I put my stripes on the line for them, including an incident where I directly defied DADT. I could care less who you sleep with as long as long as you can do your job. But the ramifications of turning this into a cause equal to that of desegregating the military is going to have nothing but bad results.

Mike

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2010-12-02 19:26|| 2010-12-02 19:26|| Front Page Top

#20 Homosexuality is immoral by the standards of America for centuries. IF this nation has now accepted immorality as a requirement, the men and women who can not agree to that immorality no longer have a reason to follow those orders. Period.

Posted by George Anguth7722 2010-12-02 19:51|| 2010-12-02 19:51|| Front Page Top

#21 I think Mike K has hit the nail on the head - the problem will be that gays will become a protected group within the military, and, in the name of diversity, will be given special opportunities for advancement and other benefits. The other members will see this, and seethe silently in resentment. They know that if they so much as roll their eyes at a gay person, they will be up on charges so fast their heads will spin.

Posted by Rambler in Virginia 2010-12-02 20:36|| 2010-12-02 20:36|| Front Page Top

#22 other members will see this, and seethe silently in resentment

guess that is the real world definition of a 'break down in unit cohesion'

Posted by abu do you love 2010-12-02 20:41|| 2010-12-02 20:41|| Front Page Top

#23 dropping DADT will soon result in two officers entering a domestic relationship, recognized by thier home state and then demanding base housing. How's that gonna go over

Posted by retired LEO 2010-12-02 21:30|| 2010-12-02 21:30|| Front Page Top

#24 sure, we should get rid of DADT so we can have pink barracks' for gays...I can't wait for my SNCOs to have to supervise that field day...Mullen's a douchebag, heard him spouting his nonsensical opinion abt DADT on Oprah or some shit last week. Hey Mullen, now that their telling everyone that their openly gay, how do the company grades protect them from the avg young and full of testerone servicemen who doesn't want that shit in their face? The reality is they will likely have their own off-base bars and get the shit kicked out of them. I don't condone that but after 14yrs and going on AD I foresee that happening. This isn't about individual rights and everyone knows that, it's more gay agenda pandering. We're simply not serious as a country about warfighting.

Posted by Broadhead6 2010-12-03 00:02|| 2010-12-03 00:02|| Front Page Top

00:02 Broadhead6
23:55 JosephMendiola
23:48 JosephMendiola
23:48 Broadhead6
23:40 Barbara Skolaut
23:24 abu do you love
23:11 Anonymoose
23:07 Uleatch Dribble8106
23:07 Uleatch Dribble8106
22:09 ryuge
21:49 Rambler in Virginia
21:30 retired LEO
21:30 Anonymoose
21:29 Anonymoose
21:29 Frank G
21:21 Frank G
21:17 abu do you love
21:04 tu3031
21:03 lotp
21:00 abu do you love
20:56 abu do you love
20:48 lotp
20:41 abu do you love
20:36 Frank G