04/17/2008
Asst. Defense Secretary Under Reagan Says End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
Lawrence J. Korb, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and Assistant Secretary of Defense from 1981 to 1985, strongly criticized the Bush administration's policies in Iraq and Afghanistan with regard to the U.S. military and told the House Committee on Armed Services that not allowing gays and lesbians to serve is endangering troops and the military as a whole.
Said Korb:
"The Army and Marine Corps cannot afford to place unnecessary obstacles in the way of qualified men and women who want to serve. Over the past 10 years more than 10,000 personnel have been discharged as a result of ['Don't Ask, Don't Tell'], including 800 with skills deemed 'mission critical,' such as pilots, combat engineers, and linguists. These are the very job functions for which the military has experienced personnel shortfalls. General John M. Shalikashvili, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1993 when the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy was enacted, no longer supports the policy because he now believes that allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the military would no longer create intolerable tension among personnel and undermine cohesion. A recent Zogby poll supports this view. It found that three-quarters of Afghanistan and Iraq veterans were comfortable interacting with gay people."
Yesterday, Box Turtle Bulletin made note of the growing list of public servants who have publicly opposed the flawed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
Reagan-era defense expert to House: Allow gays to serve openly in the military [pageoneq]
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 12:25 PM EST by Andy in Don't Ask, Don't Tell, George W. Bush, Military, News | Permalink
Comments
Draft Michelle Rodriguez!
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Apr 17, 2008 12:29:39 PM
I was a Pararescue Jumper in Desert Shield/Desert Storm and would be in the Air Force to this day if it weren't for DADT. Of all the people I saved in the 10 years I was in the service not a single one ever asked if I were gay nor would they have cared.
Posted by: JerzeeMike | Apr 17, 2008 12:33:07 PM
10.000 and that's just the DADT victims. Add those who still haven't told and those in self denial. I wonder if the armed forces attract gay men/women for some reason.
Posted by: SJ | Apr 17, 2008 12:54:24 PM
I guess that since they can't get anyone with a clue to enlist and fight this war that won't be won, have done the back door draft to keep sending these troops over there every few months, they are getting desperate enough to let the gays in, how magnanimous of them, and, then get back and be treated like second class citizens. sadly, history continus to repeat itself.
Posted by: Sebastian | Apr 17, 2008 12:57:10 PM
Glad to see Andy didn't treat this story, as others incorrectly did, as some kind of change in Korb's heart on the subject. He's been condemning banning gays from the military for several years.
That is not to under appreciate or under estimate the value of his opposition, but, in addition to lobbying Congress, he needs to start lobbying his chosen candidate for the Democratic nomination: Would-Be-Commander-in-Chief Obama who keeps moving his eye further and further from the prize.
He's gone from admirably and appropriately saying he'd fight to repeal DADT to absurdly saying he'd "work with military leaders" ["Hello, Mr. Fox. What should we do about them chickens?"] to saying that opposition to it would be no "litmus test" for his Joint Chiefs of Staff [essentially THE board of directors for the military]. Is Obama partying like it's 1993 or what?!
Posted by: Leland Frances | Apr 17, 2008 1:02:06 PM
He's partying like it's 1493.
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Apr 17, 2008 1:19:30 PM
I'd like to hear the good Mr. Korb's opinions on giving gay men and women ALL the rights, benefits and responsibilities that he feels we are worthy of fighting and dying for.
I too served in Operation Desert Storm where I was separated from my husband that I wan't allowed to even talk about (or TO in any loving or romantic way when I was given the chance to call home).
It seems that A LOT of people are just fine and dandy with us fighting and dying for OTHER people's rights and privileges just as long as we don't have the audacity to ask for those rights and privileges for ourselves.
Sorry Leland but I'm not buying the claim that anyone named Clinton will come out as a hero when the final chapter of history is written on the DADT debacle.
As you've pointed out MANY times in the past, like with the DOMA repeal issue (but in the reverse), Obama's position is a reality that applies to BOTH candidates no matter what either might say on the stump. NO ONE will be able to overturn DADT without having talks with military leaders and bringing them on board (even if barely and grudgingly). Not doing that was what got us into this situation in the first place. Obama has said that he will have to talk with the joint chiefs (who he will appoint) and other military leaders, but that he wouldn't have to have complete support in order to act. In the real world, that's as good as it gets.
Posted by: Zeke | Apr 17, 2008 2:30:21 PM
I'm not at all surprised to see that DADT is being opposed not because it is a hideous piece of blatant bigotry against a specific group, but because they can't afford to keep losing personnel when enlistment is down during a wildly unpopular war.
Nauseating. We can be blown apart in Iraq, but we can't marry our loved ones. Thanks again, Bill and Hillary and Barack...
Posted by: Roscoe | Apr 17, 2008 2:31:44 PM
Zeke, Zeke, Zeke, mon frere. In addition to selectively remembering history, you're declaring Obama's glass overflowing when, at best, it's now half-full and threatening to get emptier every day..
One of the best moments of that portion of last night's debate that I saw was when, in response to repeated questions about what they would do if the Pentagon opposed removing troops from Iraq, he, even more strongly than Sen. Clinton's admirable agreement, essentially said, "Fuck them. The President tells them what to do, not the other way around."
WHY should it be different re gays in the military? Yes, getting buy-in from miliatry leaders would help the transition, but it's insane not to get that BEFORE you appoint your Joint Chiefs of Staff not AFTER. And that's why his statement to the Advocate that he would NOT do that reveals how limp his support for change in this area is. Ya think he'd appoint anyone who declared beforehand, "There's is nothing you can say to convince me we should leave Iraq. I will fight you tooth and nail on this and encourage everyone else in the military to do the same thing."
Whatever his passion or lack of it about gays in the military, he's stupidly signaling to homophobic military his vulnerability before he even fucking has the nomination.
That's my point about 1993. Did Obama learn NOTHING from President Clinton's naivete about how deep and ruthless opposition to out gays ran in the military and even among some fellow Democrats [tho Sam Nunn being passed over as Secretary of Defense cannot be underestimated as a major real reason for his leading the civilian war against it]?
Nunn took us from 50+ year-old Pentagon policies banning gays to actual statutory law in order to block Clinton's intention to open the military to out gays by Executive Order the same way President Truman racially integrated the services.
Sen. Clinton has publicly supported eliminating the law banning out gays in the military since 1999, and, again, there is nothing to suggest that SHE is now hedging her bets as Obama is. As he requests, I'm only judging him by his own words and I hear, "Danger, Will Robinson," while you hear what you hear.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Apr 17, 2008 3:08:34 PM
No Leland. You are wrong; Zeke is right. It is precisely because of HRC's "fuck 'em" attitude that the military despises Billary. HRC was so petty that she would not even let military personnel wear their uniforms in her non-public presence. She treated them with open disdain and subjected them to repeated lectures from such military strategists as Barbra Streisand.
The military got its revenge in many ways, small and large. The most public repudiation was DADT. Other humiliations included "forgetting" to tell the President that a member of his security detail is responsible for his luggage. Repeated loud snickers greeted Billary toting their own luggage off Air Force One early in their administration.
It is precisely because Billary does not talk to those they consider beneath them (everyone who did not go to Yale Law School during the Golden Age) that we are saddled with DADT and DOMA. The President cannot simply impose her will on others. She must convince at least 51% of the interested parties of her opinion. Similarly, it is that overweening hubris that turned her health care reform program into such a political fiasco.
Particularly after that cringe-inducing performance in last night's debate, I am more convinced than ever that Billary will not get the nomination. The Super Delegates realize that her old-style scorched earth style of politics would bring about paralysis. Anyone who wants to see any of Billary's or Obama's positions actually enacted into law should be supporting Obama.
Posted by: rudy | Apr 17, 2008 3:27:25 PM
Luggage? Streisand? Time to check the "Use By" date on your meds, Rudy.
One of the audience TV shots during the debate last night that Obama Bitch Tom Shales bitched about showed Chelsea Clinton sitting with...wait for it...former four-star General Wesley Clark who has endorsed Sen. Clinton along with over 3 times as many military leaders than have endorsed Obama. Sen. Clinton's endorsements include, among others:
General John M. Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
General Henry Hugh Shelton, another former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral William Owens, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs
General Johnnie E. Wilson
Admiral William Owens
Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard
Lt. Gen. Robert Gard
Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy
Lt. Gen. Donald L. Kerrick
Lt. Gen. Frederick E. Vollrath
Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak
Major General Roger R. Blunt
Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr.
Major General Edward L. Correa, Jr.
Major General Paul D. Eaton
Major General Paul D. Monroe, Jr.
Major General Antonio M. Taguba
Rear Admiral Connie Mariano
Rear Admiral Alan M. Steinman
Rear Admiral David Stone
Brigadier General Michael Dunn
Brigadier General Belisario Flores
Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote
Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr
Brigadier General Virgil A. Richard
Brigadier General Preston Taylor
Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr.
Brigadier General Jack Yeager
Lt. General Joe Ballard
Major General Antonio M. Taguba
Rear Admiral David Stone
Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr.
former Secretary of the Army Togo West
Admiral William Owens
Video at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOE2YumlXO4&feature=related
Sample audio and quotes from their statements of support for Sen. Clinton for President at:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=6298
Posted by: Leland Frances | Apr 17, 2008 4:02:31 PM
The war parties, led by the Clintons, Bush, Obama, and McCain etc, have recently witnessed the failure of both the US military’s 'surge' and the and the almost comical collapse of the US trained ‘government’ military and police. The insurgents, both in Basra and Baghdad, proved that the insurgency was very much alive and kicking.
As in Vietnam the military situation is fluid but the US is on the losing side. The US is stymied by its own bungling political and military leadership, the growth of the antiwar movement among civilians and GI’s, the desertion of its allies and the stubborn resistance of the Iraqis. This resistance, in spite of the genocide, or maybe because of it, is proof that the light at the end of tunnel that General Praeteus claims to see is an insurgent freight train barreling towards him at full speed.
What this is all about is an attempt to increase the US military’s supply of cannon fodder.
If they succeed in repealing the Clintons bigoted DADT law we’ll want to mount a campaign to let prospective GLBT volunteers know what’s in store for them and why they should be ashamed to have anything to do with the oil piracy and the racist genocide against the Iraqis. At the same time we want to campaign to aid the whole GI antiwar movement and to insist that GLBT service members are treated with scrupulous fairness. We should avoid supporting the illegal and immoral Clinton-Bush oil piracy war in any way.
Posted by: Bill Perdue, RainbowRED | Apr 17, 2008 6:11:35 PM
How stupid can you be if you think that Barack Hussein Obama is going to repeal the DADT policy?.All minorities (Gay,hispanics,etc...) have to come to the realization that blacks in the USA think that human and civil rights belong to them.They think that because they were slaves and marched against descrimination,those rights are theirs and only theirs.That is one of the things that separate blacks from other minorities.That is way latins in Nevada went for Clinton.Also their religion (blacks) do not allow them to embrace gays.In the Old Testament and in Paul's letters gays are condemned and so in black churches.No reconciliation is possible even so Christ (the religion is called "christian" no paulist) never condemn gays (read the 4 Gospels and not a peep is uttered against gays).Whomever is elected President of the USA in 2008, gays will be in the same horrible and untenable position they are right now of descrimination in the Armed Forces.
Posted by: Oscar | Apr 18, 2008 8:05:29 PM
Recent Comments