Mike Scruggs
The Department of Defense Inspector General has charged that the White House study evaluating the impact of open homosexuality on the military was a fraud and that the conclusions used to convince Congress that there would be no serious damage done to military preparedness were false.
It should not come as a surprise by now that the Obama Administration would engage in deception to pass legislation harmful to national security, the healthcare of most Americans, and the economy. President Obama and his close allies in Congress have consistently placed radical social change and socialist ideology far above national security, fiscal responsibility, and traditional American values. On healthcare, immigration, military preparedness, foreign policy, and other issues, the President seems to have little regard for truth. Early in the Senate hearings on repealing DADT (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell), Senator Jeff Sessions (R, AL) accused the President’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, of preordaining the results to suit the President’s wishes.
The White House promised the military that a survey of 400,000 military personnel would be taken seriously. However, the conclusions of the study were written and shown to a “former news anchor” three days before any troops were even surveyed. The survey questions were also slanted to get the results the President wanted to show. Many critical issues were ignored, as were previous data and conclusions from the 1993 DADT study. Unfortunately for the Obama Administration, the 2010 report was also leaked to Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness (CMR).
Using the same data, the CMR showed that the White House’s conclusions were contrary to what factual data had been collected. Moreover, the study did not even address many substantial problems that senior military officers believe might seriously degrade U.S. military morale, preparedness, and combat effectiveness. For example, no consideration was given to differences between combat operations and support operations. The fact that the CMR did not have access to the report except by leak ought also to ring some alarm bells about the administration’s openness
As I pointed out last week, much of the Obama Team’s persuasion was based on iffy anecdotal stories rather than solid statistics and analysis. In addition, White House spokespersons have tried to make military service a civil right trumping military effectiveness. This wild-liberal type of thinking could seriously jeopardize not only military effectiveness, but also the lives of thousands of soldiers, sailors, and airmen, and the freedom and safety of millions of American civilians. No one has a right to be a soldier, Marine, or pilot, any more than they have to be starting quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys.
According to World Net Daily, the Obama Administration deliberately leaked a false statistic to put Congress in a favorable mood to repeal DADT. The leak was that 70 percent of military personnel were either favorable or neutral to open homosexuality in the military. The CMR showed that the data actually indicated that 82 percent of military personnel considered the proposed changes to be negative or neutral. This would indicate that no more than 18 percent of military personnel are actually favorable to open homosexuality in the military.
Thinking people should also note the analytically incompetent and deceptive bunching of positive and negative opinions with neutral opinions. In addition, many military personnel felt pressured not to be negative on the change.
Just before passage of the DADT repeal, the Obama Administration sent in a high ranking black Army general to lecture and intimidate field grade officers and high ranking NCOs into going along with the change, indicating compliant thinking would be necessary for a successful career. His message was that allowing openly gay and lesbian lifestyles in the military was comparable to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. At least one courageous black senior NCO protested this comparison during one of the general’s lectures. Most others, however, listened in resentful or intimidated silence. The new rules will have zero tolerance penalties for discrimination against LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered) personnel.
The 1993 DADT study brought up several important considerations that were not addressed by the 2010 study.
- Given the high cost of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases associated with homosexual lifestyles, what would be the fiscal impact on military healthcare and the Veterans Administration?
- What would be the cost of additional litigation by homosexual activists?
- What would be the moral impact on chaplains and others with strong traditional moral and religious convictions? Would it discourage traditional-minded Christians from serving in the military?
- What costs would be necessary to prevent unwanted sexual advances?
- Will strict compliance to politically correct acceptance and enforcement of homosexual “civil rights” devastate heterosexual recruitment and retention? Independent polls, including Zogby, indicate that this will be a sizable problem.
The Obama Administration and homosexual activist groups have made much of favorable public opinion polls of adults—not necessarily voters or even citizens. However, basing critical military decisions on polling people who have no military
experience ought to be seen for what it is—stupid and dangerous.
The Obama Administration and supporting homosexual activist groups have proudly pointed to 25 nations that allow open homosexuality in their military. The armies of most of these nations, however, rely on the United States for their defense, and could not stand up to the Chinese, Russians, or Iranians for 48 hours on their own. Every citizen is required to do military service in Israel, and the Germans, French, and British have encountered significant problems.
No comments:
Post a Comment