Friday, March 26, 2010

Not surprised

Yesterday, in changes to DADT across the DoD, the Secretary of Defense removed the authority of Commanding Officers to separate Sailors from the Navy for homosexual conduct. The new changes raise the rank of officers who are authorized to initiative fact-finding inquiries or separation proceedings under DADT to generals or flag officers.

In other words, Commanding Officers can not be trusted to do this properly. We need Flag officers who are more in tune with the political realities of DADT and who will consider those realities before acting.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yours is the typical homophobic response. Grow up.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 0830 - you are a fool. "Homophobic" is a word used only by those who have no true and reasonable response to the fact that homosexuality is a problem. I am not "homophobic" or "fear of homo's"...I think they have real physical/mental problems and want to blame the rest of humanity for those problems.

And now we have CINCARPAC in trouble for telling the truth!

Army Strong said...

http://www.starbulletin.com/news/20100326_Isle_Army_commander_takes_heat_over_remarks_on_dont_ask_policy.html

Check out this link. ADM Mullen is allowed to express his opinion but will not support LTG Mixon's right to express an opinion.

You Navy types suck. And, apparently you like it.

Anonymous said...

Evidently Admiral Mullen does not believe service members should have opinions contrary to his own and further, he does not believe service members should communicate with their congressman, which is what LTG Mixon was advocating.

Compare LTG Mixon's record with Admiral Mullin's. Mixon has served multiple tours in combat, Mullen has never been in combat nor commanded a combat force.

Anonymous said...

Gays have been serving in the military forever...and honorably at that...I am currently an active duty SCPO, I am not gay, and I do not have a problem with someone who is gay that wants to serve their country in the military. As long as they are professional, have excellent military bearing, keep their personal life out of the workspace, and sex life in the bedroom..WHO CARES IF A PERSON IS GAY! We had the same debate on Blacks and women in the past...and they now serve with honor! Gay will serve with honor as well...get over it!

Anonymous said...

Senior,
If "who cares" was true, then it would be a non-issue. But it is far more important than you evidently realize. Societal implications of the federal government acknowledging gay couples are significant, and for the military, it will alter the culture significantly and forever. Read and understand what General Sheehan said in front of congress.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 6:31 pm...you are wrong. Blacks and women were normal people that were unproperly held in prejudice. I have served with homos in the work space and they are, for the most part, a problem - they have mental issues that impact far more than their sexual preference...

If you really are a SCPO and serving, knowingly, with gays, then you are violating DADT!

Anonymous said...

I think people would be surprised to find out who they serve with you are actually gay..."Blacks and women were normal people" Gays are normal people...just not by your standards.

Anonymous said...

For anon @ 6:43pm:

Regarding your "I have served with homos..." comments.

So did I during my 21 years of active duty,

I'd much rather serve with homosexuals than with bigots.

The American Psychological Association removed homosexuality as a diagnostic condition two generations ago (in 1973).

Glad you have special qualifications in the field to paint all of them with a broad "mental conditions" brush.

Shame on you. I can't help but wonder what other unfounded perceptions you assumed for your other shipmates.

General Quarters said...

The political decision has already been made, folks. Standby to execute smartly, or alternately resign in protest. There will be turmoil and military culture will certainly be altered "significantly and forever" just as it was when blacks and women were fully integrated, (and not all of those alterations have not been 100% net gains for the service although the prevalent mendacious PC culture could never forthrightly acknowledge anything but total victory).

Anonymous said...

The comments to this post, only one of which really deals with its subject, provide just one more piece of evidence that we Americans are no longer able to discuss matters of importance without rapidly descending into name calling.

The issue at hand is the reduction of a commander/commanding officer's authority in the discharge of homosexuals by elevating it to the Flag/General Officer level. I agree with our host. While it may not be the intent, the result of this decision will be the feeling that "We don't trust you to implement the policy correctly". Is there any evidence that COs have not or will not act evenhandedly? If so, a statement to that effect should have been made. To me a better policy would have been to place a moratorium on all DADT discharges other than those involving coercion until the new policy is established.

Having held several commands prior to my retirement I would have felt insulted had I received such direction. On the one hand, I was expected to operate my ship(s) without hands on direction and had the authority to use their weapons systems in accordance with my ROE. On the other, I'm now no longer trusted in an administrative matter.

Just for the record, I've been of the "Don't Ask, Don't Care" school of thought for many years and have more interested in a subordinate's performance of duty than anything else. As I've posted elsewhere, I disliked DADT because it limited command discretion in these cases to the "nuclear option" of mandatory discharge that only benefited those who sought to avoid service, deployments, etc.

If we truly can't trust our COs to handle these cases correctly then maybe we should establish another commission to look into the flaws of our command selection process (although given come of the boneheaded command decisions reported in this blog, that may not be a bad idea either.

C-dore 14

Anonymous said...

"maybe we should establish another commission to look into the flaws of our command selection process" With the recent firing of COs there should be more responsibilities from COs taken away other than mast authority.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 6:23 PM: Your suggestion to remove more of the CO's responsibilities would merely treat the symptoms and not correct the problem. True there have been a number of COs relieved in the past few months but to impose what is essentially collective punishment on the vast majority of commanders who do their jobs correctly. If there truly is a problem with our COs then the Armed Services need to look into the criteria they use to select those "best suited" for command and change those criteria accordingly.

C-dore 14

Anonymous said...

Just blame the enlisted...

stephen said...

Don't ask, don't tell, don't be an asshole.

I would be curious from the JAG perspective and CO perspective just how DADT actually worked. I have a hunch that a lot of times is was used to ease the undesirable out, rather than going to the trouble of an discharge board or Courts Martial.

I agree with c-dore 14. The recent ukase just makes a good CO's job that much harder.

I also wonder just how much same sex sexual assault never gets reported.

Anonymous said...

stephen, Can't vouch for anyone else but of the six cases that I dealt with under DADT all but one involved folks trying to get out of deployments or the service requirement after commissioning. Once they said "The phrase that pays" the CO's hands were pretty much tied and the individual was on his/her way to discharge.

I used to hear a lot of talk about the damage to "unit cohesion" that homosexuals cause. Let me tell you that somebody getting out of something is damaging too.

C-dore 14

Anonymous said...

For
C-dore 14 @ March 27, 2010 5:10 PM

Unfortunately, most discussions on this topic rapidly degenerate as this one did. To paraphrase and summarize:
(1) "You're homophobic"
(2) "Homos are sick"
This was clearly the evolution in this thread.

With such strong emotional investments on the arguments of organizational culture and inclusion, the context that the OP described --diminution of command responsibility-- get lost in the noise.

I'm sure the blog owner realizes the issue that will need the most attention on the deckplates is the cultural one. But his reverence for the concept of command --and especially command performed with integrity and fairness-- requires an examination of what the new SECDEF guidance means (and to be fair, I haven't read it...and with my last day in uniform a dozen years behind me...probably won't).

Changes in the scope of commanders' authority primarily effect commanders. But the environment that follows DADT will effect everybody who serves and has an opinion on homosexuality.

In this episode, and in my opinion: the commentary of the armchair psychologists convinced that gays and lesbians are abnormal and somehow laden with "issues" are more worrisome than whatever SECDEF has decreed regarding who gets the decision authority in DADT.

Commanders shouldn't be so naive to be surprised when the politics attendant to civilian control of the military reach them....

Anonymous said...

Here's a link to an article which provides some background the Pentagon's recent actions:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nation/86722412.html

I think we can all agree having a different standard across the military is poor form, and with the political attention this subject has reaped it's not surprising that Flag Officers are involved.

stephen said...

My thanks to cdore-14 and his answering post on March 27, 2010 @510pm.

Confirms my suspicions.