Mullen plans to institute a Reverse Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Admiral Mike Mullen told the Senate Arms Committee today that when DADT is repealed, all of you POS servicemembers who’ve served faithfully over the years, adhering to every DoD and Executive policy to the letter of those policies, well, you can just get the fuck out of his military (Fox News link);
Mullen told a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that the military is based on meritocracy, “what you do, not who you are.” He said if Congress changes the don’t ask, don’t tell policy then the U.S. military will comply.
And if some people have a problem with that, they may not want to join the service.
While some troops may ask for a separate berth or different showers, “some may even quit the service,” Mullen said. “We’ll deal with that.”
Shouldn’t that be “Who you do, not who you are”? Because apparently assholes like Dan Choi who’ve made a pest of themselves by NOT following an established policy…hell, demonstrated an inability to comply with ANY policy…get a pass.
Now you fucking breeders know where you stand with the CJCS.
I never thought I’d see the day that a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs would make such an blatant threat to his troops in front of the Senate Arms Committee.
I guess it’s a good thing that I’m not invited to this toad’s birthday party this weekend.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Military issues
He’s full of B.S. Unless the Army has recinded DA Pam 600-26 when I wasn’t looking Affirmative Action is alive and well in the U.S Army. Just need a doctrinal change to add another protected group. “Who you are, not wha you are” indeed.
Its the same old story. Fuck ups get ahead and solid troopers get the shaft.
Isn’t there something like a huge patch of grass at the Pentagon where this man can run laps? Hike his salty dawg leg, tinkle on a tree and go scratch in the grass maybe?
Mullins should be fired. Or, the troops who follow the rules could commit mutiny! HFS!!
Mullen also claimed he worked alongside gays his entire career. I wonder how he knows since he was the guy in charge of DADT. Did he ask but not tell? Also I wonder if he even remembers what it is like to share sleeping and shower space. It’s a long ways from Seaman to Admiral but somehow Admirals always know what it is like to be a Seaman. That knowledge must come along with the stars.
My two cents, discounting inflation:
All of the criticism, including that from his one-time peer Senator McCain, is clearly getting under the Admiral’s skin.
For someone to issue a threat to his subordinates to toe the line tells me the Admiral began the process of divorcing himself from the Navy, and by extension of his position, the US military. Good, he recognises he’s to be retired very shortly.
Mullins lacks the time remaining to carry out his threat, and he is a holdover from Mr. Bush. Question is: who, carrying three or more stars, will volunteer him or herself to the POTUS to ruthlessly carry out a reverse-DADT? Adm. Roughead?
Admirals always know what it is like to be a Seaman.
And yet funny, I’ve never seen one diving a bilge, cranking, or getting qualified. Granted, I’ve never seen a seaman run an entire battle group, but please, Admiral–don’t sit inside the 5-sided funny farm and pretend to know what it’s like on the deckplates. You’re too far removed from them and your time on them passed far too long ago.
Were you all in a different military than I was?
If I had a dime for every time I heard an NCO or SNCO (or myself) tell a junior Marine “If you don’t like it you can get the fuck out of my Marine Corps” I’d be living in a much bigger house.
This is how an all volunteer military in a democratic society works.
To Claymore @ #1 –
She’s not making you a sandwich bcause you failed to use “sudo.” http://xkcd.com/149/
Sorry, geek humor…
In response to #8: That’s all well and good, however, let’s see if it hurts retention and recruiting in real numbers, not just “estimates”. There are those that say it won’t hurt retention and recruiting at all, but those are the same people championing this plan. Do we want to risk having a depleted military to the point of a draft? It makes me no nevermind, since I’m too beat up and old to be drafted and I am a member of my county draft board (yes, they have plans in place for a draft, if it ever happens), but the pussies won’t have the excuse of “I’m gay” to get out of a new draft, plus there goes your volunteer military in a democratic society meme (I’ll let you in on a secret; we live in a democratic republic, which is a bit different since democracy is a tool, not an operating system).
Just food for thought.
We are Rome
This comment cements my prediction that no dissent, mild criticism and/or intimidated disapproval of the homosexual lifestyle will be tolerated at all.
These new soldiers will be more than legal, extra-legal.
BTW, where’s all the $ going to come from for sensitivity training, i though we were pinching pennies. Will NAMBLA teach the classes?
#12 should have been “intimated” not intimidated.
Old Trooper,
The report also found, in both combat and other, that when they knowingly served with a gay person they became much less opposed to open service. It is possible that open service will lead to combat arms becoming less opposed to open service.
J: You leave it as “possible”, but you don’t know for sure and as I stated; are you willing to risk the consequences for a very small percentage of military personnel? DADT was the best compromise they could come up with and it worked, but it’s not good enough for the militant GLBT crowd and their liberal supporters. Nope, give them an inch, they want a mile; give them a rope and they want to be a cowboy.
You may be comfortable with “possible” and the risks associated with it, but maybe you are in the minority, as are the gays?
@Notsooldmarine Sure, the Noncoms use the line “If you don’t like it, GTFO.” They don’t say it to the entire force, and usually only to the random knucklehead who is bitching about stuff that is hard. In this case, the good admiral is saying it to EVERY service member, regardless of how well they have performed over the last 0-30 years. In effect, he is saying “This is what we are going to do, and if you don’t like it, all your previous sacrifices and service give you no standing to comment on the matter.” It’s interesting to me that he doesn’t qualify his remarks with “If congress mandates a change to policy” or “Since we are a volunteer force, and we are subservient to the president, and by extension the people, and if they tell us to change, then we change.” Those are both VERY different than “If you don’t like it, you can leave.” What he is really saying, in effect, is “We really doubt that many people will terminate their service over this change in policy. The career servicemembers who oppose DADT repeal will stick it out until retirement, because they won’t throw away their years of service over DADT, and the junior servicemembers on their first or second tour who oppose DADT repeal are a dime a dozen, and really won’t be missed, or they’ll be replaced by the gays who rush to enlist.” Make no mistake about it, they know for a fact that the impact at most will not be a mass exodous, because those enlisted swine who DO opt to not serve in a gay-friendly environment will still have to wait until their end of tour, meaning a phased out reduction, and officers and warrants may resign, but that can tke up to a year, even longer if they have an additional duty obligation, like most junior officer (between three and five years.) He knows that at the very worst we’ll see a small reduction in overall retention, and a small drop in recruiting numbers, which will recoup over time as the force… Read more »
It is possible that open service will lead to combat arms becoming less opposed to open service.
Yeah. . . just another way of saying “we have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it”. Instead of presenting some facts to prove one’s assertion, we get “we have to do this in order to prove whether or not I am correct”.
Would the military leaders accept that kind of bullshit reasoning for any of their plans for war? “General, I have no proof that this will work, but, trust me, let’s just try this. . . it is possible it will lead to success.” Would Congressmen and Senators accept that kind of bullshit reasoning when asked for funding for a war effort? “Senator/Congressman, I have no proof that this funding will positively affect the war effort, but I just think you should give us the money. . . it is possible it will lead to success.”
And really, why did they bother surveying some in the military if the General was simply going to come out afterwards and say “The new policy will be enacted and if you don’t like it, tough shit.”
This is all political theater. The surveys could have come back 99% against the repeal and it would not have mattered. This is going to happen, whether it’s good for the military or not.
Also, this goes back to GEN Casey’s statement after Nidal Hassan’s Islamic jihad attack on Fort Hood:
“. . . I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here.”
Notice that when Muslims and homosexuals stir up shit within the military, it is not Muslims and homosexuals who are told to stop their bullshit and get with the program. It is everyone else whom is told to get with the program and leave Muslims and homosexuals alone.
It’s backasswards.
The message that is being sent is that the military’s prime focus and mission is not about being a good military, but about “diversity” and social experimentation above all else.
Screw Mullins – he’s nothing but another political ho in uniform.
Maybe he’s worked with so many before because he’s one himself and needed this so he can come out of the closet himself.
True or not, I despise that puke.
When I was in (disclaimer… it was the late 80s, peacetime, and I had a medical MOS, so I’ll gladly defer to anyone who has been deployed to a war zone or even served in combat arms in peacetime), it was worth 2 weeks’ pay and 2 weeks’ restriction to be caught in the barracks room of a member of the opposite sex. What you were wearing and doing didn’t matter… you could both be in MOPP 4 on opposite sides of the room and reading training manuals, you were still subject to Article 15s.
Will openly gay servicemembers be subject to comparable regulations?
Flag Officers always know semen?
No wonder this cocksucker wants teh gheys to serve openly.
“If you don’t like it you can get the fuck out of my Marine Corps” I much prefered “shut the fuck up boot”
Is this entrapment? We make it legal to be gay in the military then a year later say no under the UCMJ and boot all those out? A lot who are close to retirement so we don’t have to pay for them. I am suspicious.
The survey never asked the question whether DADT should be repealed, it just asked whether the respondent thought it would have A) Negative, B) Positive, or C) no effect on combat readiness and unit cohesion…as though it was a done deal. Any survey that had ANY B) or C) answers was lumped into the summary count of “not opposed to” or “supports repeal” category, totally discounting any A) answers, so the entire survey is bogus and not representative of the question of whether DADT should be repealed. Do some math: Mullen thinks 10% are being kicked out or kept from enlisting due to DADT violations, but upwards of 20% of active duty members have stated they would seriously consider not reenlisting if DADT is repealed — NET LOSS of 10% if DADT is repealed even using his inflated numbers. How many are booted every year for failing to maintain their weight? How many for a whole host of other “failure to comply” issues? Soon anyone who complains or even expresses misgivings about having to bunk with an open “gay” will be sent to counseling, be written up, who knows what other reprisals will be taken against him. The STRAIGHT will become the pariah, and the “gay” will be protected. We are headed for disaster if this social experiment is allowed to be conducted on an already exhausted and hamstrung with BS rules-of-engagement military trying to fight two wars at the same time.
BTW, my son-in-law is on his SEVENTH tour, this time back to Iraq, if anyone cares. Gates and Mullen and Obama sure don’t.
Yes, policies in the military are usually pushed with the implied threat that anyone who doesn’t like it can get the hell out. Come to think of it, that’s every policy.
It’s never that easy, of course. If you’re one year into a four year enlistment, you can’t just “get out”. You can serve three more years, and then get out. Or you can become a useless chapter chase shitbird who finds a way to get out.
I’ve always said that the military has the rightful authority to tell troops to hit the highway if they don’t like BAGAYWTB (Be As Gay As You Want To Be). Or any other policy for that matter. Yep, they certainly can.
My fear is that people will actually take them up on their offer. What happens if we lose ten percent of our forces? Twenty-five percent? Let’s estimate on the conservative side and say we lose “only” five percent. That’s way too many and far greater than the number we’ve supposedly been losing due to homosexual conduct. We hear so often about how we’re drumming mission-critical troops out of the military, but in fact the numbers are low. What about mission critical-troops who take the good Admiral up on his offer and go home?
Also, the military has the same authority to tell homosexuals to shut up about their private lives too. That’s not discrimination, that’s called following orders.
Great reply, Chuck Z.
If they repeal DADT, maybe it’s time to go all the way and save money on not having to utilize seperate heads, showers and berthing. Just make it all coed.
Doc Bailey says : ” Its the same old story. Fuck ups get ahead and solid troopers get the shaft.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself, time for a beer.
P.S. Mullen can suck it.
Anon said: “This comment cements my prediction that no dissent, mild criticism and/or intimidated disapproval of the homosexual lifestyle will be tolerated at all.”
And that’s what this whole thing is about. People always seem to want to frame this as a question about whether gays can practice their gayness in the military. “Why can’t they just serve their country?” they whine. Actually they can serve their country, just so long as they keep their stories of P-Town adventures to themselves on Monday morning. They can serve and still engage in recreational cock-smuggling, so you’d think they’d be happy.
But of course, they aren’t. It’s really about the freedom of others not to approve of it, like it, etc.
If you want to see how authoritarian the gay-stapo can be when dealing with disapproval, just look at corporate America or drop by a university.
Or you can just ask Sergeant Eric Holyfield, sixteen year veteran of the LAPD, how “tolerant” the LGBTXYZ community is when it comes to disapproval. (By the way, the LAPD ‘actively recruits’ personnel of an alternative lifestyle. They do not actively recruit Baptist ministers.)
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/officer_sues_lapd_alleging_discrimination_for_offduty_bible_quotation/
“My fear is that people will actually take them up on their offer. What happens if we lose ten percent of our forces? Twenty-five percent? Let’s estimate on the conservative side and say we lose “only” five percent. That’s way too many and far greater than the number we’ve supposedly been losing due to homosexual conduct. We hear so often about how we’re drumming mission-critical troops out of the military, but in fact the numbers are low. What about mission critical-troops who take the good Admiral up on his offer and go home?”
Numbers are low because quotas are in place. We are overstrength and turning people away right now.
If you want to see how authoritarian the gay-stapo can be when dealing with disapproval, just look at corporate America or drop by a university. Or recall back to post-vote on Prop 8 in California. The ‘gay-stapo’ harassed business owners who donated or voted the wrong way, smeared and harassed the Mormon Church, put people’s addresses on websites so that people could go to their houses and protest/harass them, etc. This is how the Homosexual/GLBT movement works. They have been bullying people for decades to get their way and people keep giving in to them. It started with bullying the APA to take homosexuality off the list of psychological disorders and it has continued ever since. They bullied to get DADT and now they’ve bullied to get it repealed. They bully to forbid any ridicule of homosexuals in TV, movies, print, cartoons, etc. Next, they will take their victory in repealing DADT to bully their way to get marriage redefined. Then they will do as the GLBT lobbies in other countries have done to harass churches, force organizations to allow homosexual couples to adopt, force schools to teach children that family is now redefined to include two mommies or two daddies and that is akin to mother/father unions, etc. There is no one with the backbone to stand up to political correctness, because the movements have made it such that anyone who does will pay high consequences for their actions (financial loss, job loss, harm to family, etc). Who’s gonna stop them when one of the top members of the military stands up for them and says “if you don’t like it, feel free to leave/not join the military”? People claim that social conservatism is irrelevant and cultural issues are irrelevant. Considering the foundation of any society is its culture, I’ve always thought it highly naive for people to bash social conservatives and never want to address social issues. Progressives have always been focused on social issues, since the 60s. They successfully took over all institutions of information dissemination — schools, high schools, universities, TV media, print media, “entertainment” industry… Read more »
Did anyone bother to ask “Whats wrong with the current policy that is NEEDS to be changed?” I mean the Military isn’t broken, we’re not hurting (right now) and most of the grunts are against this. Is it really necessary?
Yeah, Doc, I did mention soemthing about that up the thread a bit.
Wow! For a bunch of big, strong, brave guys who have faced faced bullets and bombs to get all bent out of shape by the repeal of DADT is akin to them shrieking because of an itty-bitty spider crawling across the floor. Get over it and focus on doing your job and everything will be just fine! I’m sure there were as many, or more, doomsayers in the late 40’s/early 50’s when the services were integrated. Some left the force. Life goes on……
Hey Joe; You served when, exactly? Yeah, that’s what I thought. With that in mind; why don’t you just STFU or enlist, take your pick.
Joe, I am not scared of homosexuals or pedophiles or animal fuckers. I just dont have a place for them in my formation.
Hey OldTrooper, neither you nor anyone else “owns” the military. I have as much right to chime in as you do. Several points – I can’t enlist, they don’t take 60 year olds, even strong, fit ones such as myself. And although I am not gay, I faced my own decision point years ago when a college room mate came out of the closet. My other room mate moved out the next morning – the person who “came out” had been his friend just a day before, but now had become a pariah because of his admission. I had to think about it for about 30 seconds. Then I shrugged my shoulders and got on with my life. The fact of his “gayness” didn’t change the honest, straight forward guy he had always been. So I guess I would have to say, “Grow up”!
Well, 1stSgtD, it looks like you’re going to have to make a decision of your own before too long, should I stay or should I go?
Mullen is a pussy. He is a weak sister or he would not be the CJCS under Nobama. He wants a political tool who does what he is told to do, not someone who tells him he is an idiot and his ideas are fucking ignorant.
I know some of the folks I served with were queer. As long as I didn’t know about it and they towed the SAME MARK I HAD TO TOW, I didn’t worry about it. But a lot of gays are not suited for military service, not so much because they are sexual deviants, but because for many that lifestyle demands that everyone else submit to their twisted desires and expectations. Not compatible at all with the military which expects everyone to bend to the common good, rather than everyone kissing the gays’ asses and catering to their expectations. For the Gays who can submit to authority for the common good, I never had a problem with you, but the aggressive, narcissistic, entitled fags are never going to serve with me if I can avoid it.
Joe has a point. why should someone like 1stsgt D with his military experience in a functional operational serving Army unit have any right to have an opinion about serving with gay troops openly flaunting their gayness? That should be a UCMJ offense in and of itself. I am sure the swish squads will do a fine job of defending the republic after the real troops leave after one final affront to their moral values is forced upon them.
Joe, the military is not a social experiment. That has been tried and has only served to reduce efficiency and readiness. Gays ain’t special, any more than anyone else. They rate no special consideration any more than anyone else. And at some point normal people should not have to be forced to suffer at the hands of the liberals in their drive to make every lunatic or fringe group specially entitled at the normal folks expense. It would be really cool if some fucking politician or libtard actually took into account what we regular folks want for a change.
This is an extreme example, and not military, but it might give Joe some idea of what the soldiers are worried about.
My sister worked as a store manager. Over the years, she had several homosexuals work for her; only one ever presented a problem. The man was also a transvestite. He bagan requesting the right to wear feminine clothing to work on the days when his feminine side expressed itself. My sister actually was going to attempt to work with this situation — until this man also requested the right to use the female restroom (which was an open, multiple-stall type). That’s where the situation hit the fan, and ended up in legal action. My sister was stressed so badly that she left her position; she heard later that the individual in question was denied both the right to wear the feminine clothing and the right to use the female restroom, and left his job shortly after, also. (I do not know exactly how the store legally managed to restrain the individual from his requests.)
Like I said, this is an extreme example; but the extreme examples can and will occur, and this is what the military will have to deal with, at one time or another.
USMC Steve,
You say, “Gays ain’t special, any more than anyone else. They rate no special consideration any more than anyone else”. Exactly right. They’ll have to abide by the same rules.
You also state, “And at some point normal people should not have to be forced to suffer at the hands of the liberals in their drive to make every lunatic or fringe group specially entitled at the normal folks expense”. Here’s a news flash – gays are “normal” people. You don’t have a monopoly on “normal”. In fact I’d say some religious right-wing views are decidedly abnormal. Homosexuals have existed in every human society, and all across the animal kingdom. No one is asking to let male soldiers wear dresses in combat or anything like that, PintoNag. Come on! So again, get over it, focus on your job, ignore the static.
Ok, Joe. You’re full of shit. This is why you’re full of shit. In the animal world, their entire existence is to procreate and further the species; yes? Gay animals don’t procreate, so they aren’t “normal”. They aren’t accepted into a pack and they aren’t the silverback of the tribe. If gay is “normal”, then they should be able to procreate; yes? I want you to pick out any 2 males, or 2 females, and have them go into a room and procreate.
Like I said; you haven’t served, so you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
“why should someone like 1stsgt D with his military experience in a functional operational serving Army unit have any right to have an opinion about serving with gay troops openly flaunting their gayness? That should be a UCMJ offense in and of itself.”
It will be. Soon enough. If there’s one thing I know about the military, it’s that they don’t take kindly to truth-telling if that truth-telling hurts the feelings of a protected group.
And Joe, concerning that homosexual roommate of yours–did you take showers together? How would you like it if you were forced to? What if the two of you were out in the field and you were spooning for body heat? The third guy (the one who moved out) exercised an option that our soldiers don’t have. He left.
Another thing. I always assumed that you were a veteran. Kind of a liberal veteran, but some of those exist. You’re not a veteran? That doesn’t mean that you have no right to an opinion, I’m just surprised.
Joe said: “Exactly right. They’ll have to abide by the same rules.”
Joe, that’s the crux of the argument. The policy now is that if you enjoy a little peter-puffing on the side, you’ve got to keep mum about it. Keep it to yourself. But some people can’t follow those rules. Take Dan Choi for example. He can’t follow ANY rules!
So now the rules have to change to suit the rulebreakers.
“Here’s a news flash – gays are “normal” people.”
Uhhh…come again? If you practice a bizarre, deviant sexuality, you are not normal. Please tell me how you define normal. This is really perplexing to me. Normal people don’t offer their anuses to other men for penetration.
“In fact I’d say some religious right-wing views are decidedly abnormal.”
Why? It’s interesting that you sense some kind of bigotry when someone says that homosexuals are not normal, but you don’t think your statement is bigoted.
OldTrooper,
You are not up to date on the latest research. Too much info to go into here. But let me ask you this – if homosexuality is abnormal and homosexual organisms do not procreate, why hasn’t homosexuality disappeared like any other deleterious trait? It’s because there are a lot of other factors at work, the details of which are still being teased out. But whatever a person’s inclination, they are still human beings, and if they can do their job without disruption, they should be allowed to serve. And ruffling some bible thumpers feathers should not be considered a disruption.
“Homosexuals have existed in every human society, and all across the animal kingdom.”
This one is a non-starter.
I’d like you to show me that homosexuality exists all across the animal kingdom. Every single species. Here’s an interesting article from Nature News. It concerns ibises, a water fowl native to Florida. Apparently, ibises that have been exposed to mercury turn to homosexuality. But here’s the kicker–ibises in the wild, who have never been exposed to mercury, have never demonstrated homosexual tendencies.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101201/full/news.2010.641.html
As far as it happening inb every civilization…That may be true, but it’s been rejected by nearly all of them. Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece leap to mind as excpetions to this rule. In those societies, homosexuality was quite common, at least among the ruling class. But then again, so was pedophelia. The Roman emperors liked their little boys.
Actually, couldn’t the same be said of pedophiles? They’ve existed since the beginning of time, in every civilization. And I bet there were even a few civilizations in which the practice was accepted.
Other practices that have existed since the beginning of time in nearly every civilization: beastiality, adultery, murder, rape, racism, and infanticide.
How about slavery? That institution still exists in the Arab World. It existed in the British colonies, the United States, Brazil, Ancient China, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Ancient Egypt, and in pre-Columbian America.
Do you mean the latest research that is done to come to a pre-determined conclusion? Kinda like global warming? Nice try on attempting to make it as though homosexuality should “disappear”. Are you really that fucking stupid? Never mind; rhetorical question. A very small percentage of people are homosexual, but it doesn’t make it normal. According to your dumbass question, it is a matter of breeding out homosexuality. Ok, if it’s genetic, explain bi-sexuals. Did they get a half of a homo gene?
See, I have never said anything related to religion; did I? So, you are losing the argument without religious implications, so you want to inject religion into it in order to deflect in classic leftist/marxist/communist standard operating procedure.
Next time, don’t bring a knife to a gunfight; mmmmmmkay?
Ben,
You asked, “And Joe, concerning that homosexual roommate of yours–did you take showers together?”. No, but before I know of his inclination, we had been in close proximity on a 5-week bicycle tour, as well as several other backpacking trips, and I never had an inkling about his persuasion, despite the fact that he did, as he later stated, have a “crush” on me. I never even suspected, and that is how it can be, and should be. Homosexuals can control their desires to the same degree as heterosexuals can.
OldTrooper,
” Ok, if it’s genetic, explain bi-sexuals. Did they get a half of a homo gene?” You act as if genetics is an either/or proposition. It’s not – that’s the old view. With “junk” DNA, microsatellites, epigenitics, etc., we’re finding out it’s a whole lot more complicated than that.
Ben, you raise a good point about the “Naturalistic Fallacy” – if it’s natural, i.e., it occurs in nature, then it’s good. I don’t agree with that. We have both good, altruistic natural tendencies, and dark, murderous ones. It’s up to us to figure out which tendencies to condemn and which to nurture in society. But if it’s “natural”, and if no one gets hurt or affected in a negative way, why condemn it?