Tuesday, June 18, 2013

The End of “Combat?”

The End of “Combat?”
By Jamie McIntyre Sunday, September 5th, 2010 9:07 am
Posted in On Media
“To begin with, combat in Iraq is not over, and we should not uncritically repeat suggestions that it is, even if they come from senior officials. The situation on the ground in Iraq is no different today than it has been for some months. Iraqi security forces are still fighting Sunni and al-Qaida insurgents. Many Iraqis remain very concerned for their country’s future despite a dramatic improvement in security, the economy and living conditions in many areas.“
 — Memo from Tom Kent, AP’s standards editor, Thursday, September 2, 2010
AP has it right.
Combat is not over in Iraq.  The war is not won, nor is combat over.
And by the way, the U.S. military doe s not have NON-combat troops.  Even the combat support troops are fighting men and women.
As the AP accurately observes:
“50,000 American troops remain in country. Our own reporting on the ground confirms that some of these troops, especially some 4,500 special operations forces, continue to be directly engaged in military operations. These troops are accompanying Iraqi soldiers into battle with militant groups and may well fire and be fired on.”
What has happened in the Obama Administration has declared an official end to U.S.-led combat missions.   We are pushing the Iraqis to the front, and backing them up with combat forces.  I can well imagine U.S. troops engaging in some gallows humor, as the bullets fly and IEDs explode. “Good thing we’re not in combat anymore!”
Right.   The shift from U.S.-LED combat operations to U.S.-BACKED combat operations is an important evolution for more than symbolic reasons, but It’s not the end of the war. Maybe the beginning of the end, or the beginning of the beginning of the end.   So the AP and other news organizations are right to call what’s going on by its proper name: combat.
In contrast back in 2007 CNN, and some other new organizations briefly refrained from calling the reinforcements sent to Iraq a “surge,” thinking somehow that was putting a positive spin on the escalation of the war.  “Surge” sounded temporary like a “storm surge,” and many of my editors were skeptical that the strategy would increase troop levels only in the short term.
I, on the other hand, believed that “surge” was a perfectly good word, and described pretty much what the military had in mind.  In fact, anyone who was paying attention knew the Pentagon didn’t have enough troops for a permanent, or indeterminate increase in forces.   And eventually CNN got over its uneasiness, and used the term “surge” as everyone else did.
Words do matter, and journalists should not adopt official language that obfuscates the facts.  We talk about the war in Iraq, not Operation Iraqi Freedom.    And when advise and assist puts U.S. troops in combat, we should not hesitate to call it that.   We are not yet the the peacekeeping phase in Iraq.
Tags: , , ,
Share |
« « 2 GUD 2 CHK | » »
+1
Ang · 144 weeks ago
People have to acknowledge the fact that troops are still being sent over to Pakistan and Afghanistan! It is not over until every soldier is home.
0
Jeff · 144 weeks ago
I am a 19D combat scout with the 2-116th Cavalry Brigade. I am deploying to Iraq in November of this year. We may not have a combat mission, but we will be doing patrols, convoy security, and assisting the Iraqi Police and Army when they need us. So how are combat troops out of Iraq? Someone please explain?
2 replies · active 144 weeks ago
+1
Steve · 144 weeks ago
wow opsec! You cannot volunteer information what your unit is doing! I'm a 19D as well and this not the place to ask these questions so open it risks a units safety. Ask someone in the unit for more info on your mission not here. Do you see where I'm coming from?
+1
Justin · 144 weeks ago
I agree with you Steve. Jeff needs to first ask his NCO's what OPSEC is and then information about the mission. Im a 19D as well and in somewhere in Iraq. But, may I be struck down with lightning first before I give my unit and deployment date on the internet. Scouts out!
0
Christine · 144 weeks ago
I'm really curious as to what is going to happen in Iraq. Will we be returning? What is really going on with Parkistan, and Afghanistan... and is it too far fetched to think trouble may stir up between us and Iran? Or is it just the media's idea of throwing us an Iran "bone" every now and then... if you will. It seems we are always at war with someone. If not for reasons regarding real threats, then certainly to stimulate the economy etc.
+1
Martin · 144 weeks ago
This is kind of like calling a janitor a sanitation engineer; you take a heavy brigade combat team, with its complete TO&E and say "You are now an Advise and Assist Brigade!" Poof! All of a sudden, it's instantly transformed into a political campaign promise ........ ummmmm I mean, non-combat unit. You still have all the weapons and ammo. You still perform exactly the same missions you performed the day before the magical transformation. You still have people with AK's, RPG and IED trying to send you home in a flag draped metal box. The image of keeping a promise is more important to these folks than the truth.
0
jason · 144 weeks ago
opsec opsec opsec
0
fenton · 144 weeks ago
the army DOES have non combat troops.
0
Blackcoat · 144 weeks ago
Yes the war is over in Iraq. Yes some of the troops are leaving. The fact of the matter is plain and very simple. The war is over in Iraq for those troops that are no longer there. For those that are not leaving the war is alive and they will be more in jeopardy because the war is over but in reality one can be killed just as dead. And if you do not believe it just ask any politician. The truth of the matter is that there is an over abundance of politicians with no balls. Did someone forget to tell the bad guys in Iraq? What a crock of B.U.L.L. Semper Fidelis. Blackcoat.
0
Mark · 143 weeks ago
The End of "COMBAT"? I agree words have meaning. When this was sweeping across the media outlets I asked myself so what happens now when the next Soldier looses their life. How will that get portrayed since combat is over. AABs - HBCT/IBCT/SBCT with added capabilities to advise and assist; what about partnering, yes still partnering also. What is partnering, does that mean no more combined patrols, etc... I don't thing so.
I agree saying all combat Soldiers are out of Iraq was misleading to the public. I do understand why this this was done as a follow through to the 1 Sep deadline of ending combat operations and getting down to 50K. I believe though a better explanation could've been given on what type of forces are still there, their mission, and the potential threats that they will still have to deal with. Even the potential of more insurgency action as the 50K begins to draw down for the end of 2011 deadline. Having just returned in May I understand the task ahead of the remaining Soldiers is great. I know they will make it happen as Soldiers always do and I will pray for their safe return.
+1
Jeff Sleep · 143 weeks ago
I guess the simple answer is that now that combat is over there will be no more Purple Hearts awarded for wounds. No more Combat Action Ribbons or Combat Action Badges awarded. Veterans benefits will be down-graded to peace time service. Congress will decrease the VA budget now that there is no combat surge in medical need. Banks can return to foreclosing on deployed military members home with no sense of shame. Half of America can dust off their old Dogs and Military Keep Off The Grass signs. PTSD & TBI victems will become just those crazy guys that should be locked up. And military budgets can be reduced to fund corporate bonuses.
Cover your rear America, Peace is here and the politicians are free to help us now. Jeff Sleep, Spokane, WA.
0
galloglas · 143 weeks ago
I recall when Vietnam was going on a troop withdrawal was when all Troops that were going to be rotated out went out early (short, double digit midgets and such) and all troops with their tour just starting were shifted to the units that were staying.
The flag and HQ was rotated back CONUS and the troops were reassigned to units that were staying.
You can move the flag of say the 1st MARDIV but leave the 1MARDIV Marines with 3 MARDIV you've moved a whole division out while leaving the bulk of the combat line companies TDY with the MARDIV that is staying.
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
0
Jeff Sleep · 143 weeks ago
Shortly after Vietnam we had a slew of names for that: Rotating Battalion, Attached, or my favorite and probably the most honest and vague at the time 3rd MarDiv (Rein) or Reinforced. Then there was the WestPac, rapid deployment force, air contigent battalion, etc. The war was over and most of these were simply unit accounting procedures that were necessary for command and logestics but, mostly it was a shell game to keep 3 divisions active with at least one close to full strength in Asia. Semper Fi to all the former reinforcing rotating attachments that did some time as a ACB with a BLT in the MAU on a WestPac from an old Wpns 2/1 Gunner. Jeff Sleep

Post a new comment

Posted by at No comments:

The Immortal 9/11 Conspiracy

The Immortal 9/11 Conspiracy
By Jamie McIntyre Saturday, September 11th, 2010 1:38 pm
Posted in On Media
Some conspiracy theories never die. They remain impervious to facts or logic. So deeply enamored are some cynics with their dark fantasies, that all evidence to the contrary is either ignored, or dismissed.
The E ring of the Pentagon at the 7th Corridor is beginning to fill with a thin haze of smoke, about 20 mins after plane hit the Pentagon. Photo by Jamie McIntyre. © 2001
So it is with the 9/11 deniers who still, nine years later, argue no plane hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. And I know this firsthand, because one of my reports is routinely used, or misused, to perpetuate the myth.

Outside the River Entrance, waiting for the second plane to hit, 9/11/01 Photo by Jamie McIntyre ©2001
Google “Jamie McIntyre” and “9/11” and this firsthand account from 2001 will pop up, in which I utter the fateful words, “I can tell you from my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane crashing anywhere NEAR the Pentagon.”
That phrasing – taken out on context – has fueled internet conspiracies for years, and a fresh crop has popped up ahead of the 9th anniversary of the terrorist attacks.
What the 9/11 deniers intentionally misrepresent, is that I was answering a question about an earlier report that the plane crashed SHORT of the Pentagon, nearby. I was explaining there was no sign of a crash anywhere BUT at the Pentagon.
A portion of the Pentagon collapses — 9/11/01 — Photo by Jamie McIntyre ©2001
A Google search will also turn up a longer version of the same report, in which you can see the full context of my report, and how it was deliberately distorted by mischief-makers whose motives are frankly unfathomable to me.
Whenever  I confront one of these conspiracy promoters, the result is the same: they simply conclude I must be lying, or that the government has “gotten to me” to change my story.
But I was there. I saw the thousands of pieces of the plane scattered over the heliport outside the Pentagon. I photographed pieces of the wreckage, photos you can see here.
As a journalist I understand why some people are willing to believe the worst about the government. Because sometimes the government does lie, and cover up.
On the heliport thousands of tiny shards of airplane wreckage cover the ground, 9/11/01 — Photo by jamie McIntyre ©2001
But the evidence surrounding the events of the September 11 is overwhelming and incontrovertible. Conspiracy theorists use a very simple devious and disingenuous tactic to sow doubt and promote their dubious conclusions. They simply ignore all the strong links in the chain of evidence, and focus instead on the weakest possible link.
If all you had to go by was the short clip of me saying, “there’s no evidence a plane hit anywhere NEAR the Pentagon,” you might well debate all day what I meant.
But we have all the evidence we need to know, without any doubt, that American Airlines flight 77 that took off from Dulles Airport was in fact flown into the side of the Pentagon the morning of September 11th.
A piece of wreckage that appears to be a cockpit window — 9/11/01 — Photo by Jamie McIntyre ©2001
When it comes to questioning the official version of events, it’s good to keep an open mind. But if your mind is too open, your brain can fall out.
And frankly I think that’s what’s happened to some of these deniers.
[Construction Complete On 9/11 Truther Memorial]
A piece of American Airlines flight 77, on the grounds of the Pentagon — 9/11/01 — Photo by Jamie McIntyre ©2001
The picture I was arrested for taking. A Pentagon Police officer claimed I violated the ban on photography. — 9/11/10 — Photo by Jamie McIntyre ©2001
Tags: , , ,
Share |
-3
Glenda · 144 weeks ago
Many thanks for sharing this pix, Jamie! I just heard your interview on WTOP and couldn't wait to get home to see them! I've posted to FB already and plan to send the link to several of my conspiracy-theory relations and friends! BTW, great blog!!
-2
Mark S. Zaid, Esq. · 144 weeks ago
I have dealt with conspiracy theories for my entire professional career as a lawyer. You name it, I've either represented someone connected to it or researched it. The JFK assassination, the RFK assassination, the Lincoln assassination, the MLK assassination, Pan Am 103, Princess Diana, the Lindbergh kidnapping, and the list could go on.

That no plane crashed into the Pentagon (which, ergo, apparently means it was a missile) is one of the more absurd - even laughable - 9/11 conspiracy theories. There are so many people who actually personally witnessed an American Airlines plane go speeding past and low and then right into the Pentagon.

I was home at that time in Crystal City, perhaps 1/2 mile from the Pentagon, and felt the impact when my building shook. A client and an associate called me immediately and told me they saw a plane go down.

I once met Barbara Olson in the green room at CNN when we were there for interviews. So where exactly has she and the other passengers from the flight been for the last 9 years?

The "evidence" from the perimeter security cameras also fails to contribute any support to the theory. True, you can't see the plane hit and just see something streaking across and then an explosion, but that is because those cameras were not operating at a fast enough speed to capture a 650 mph plane striking the building. The cameras were looking to expose auto thieves and trespassers.

I will openly say it: anyone who does not believe a plane - and specifically American Airlines Flight 77 - hit the Pentagon is either an idiot or needs professional help.
+2
CRo · 143 weeks ago
Methinks you protesteth too much about “these deniers”...
Just as lawyers long ago lost the aura that once attended their profession… good soldiers suffer the shame of sell-out Generals; and Clergy are painted (deservedly) with the same brush vis-à-vis their pedophilic brethren… Simarlarlarly, “go-along - get along” reporters bear significant responsibility for the professional decay festering so long in “mainstream” journalism (excepting, of course, you few who fight against it… mostly).
Until “professional” journalists stand-up more forcibly and effectively against the corporate greed-mongers that have successfully usurped your profession, it seems, at best, hypocritical to complain about folks questioning what they see on TV. …And at worst, disingenuous, dismissive and self-serving.
BTW, Great blog – Thanx.
-4
Karen L of WA · 141 weeks ago
Many also deny that a plane could bring down the NY towers. I blame most of this on the fact that many people have little to no knowledge of science and/or math and just can't understand basic facts. Others are just out of touch with reality, they want to create their own reality.
+4
Enver Masud · 127 weeks ago
A few photographs are just that — photographs. They become evidence of Flight 77 when backed up by forensic evidence that they came from Flight 77 — some of the parts would have serial numbers that could be matched to the logs. Then there's contradictory evidence I lay out in my September 11, 2010 article "Pentagon Transcripts, Official Records Belie "The 9/11 Commission Report'." I challenge you to a debate.
+2
terry · 110 weeks ago
I was on the deck of the last Staten Island Ferry (8:45a) that was on its way into nyc when the towers were attacked . In fact, I saw the second plane come along and turn into the second tower. I did not see any identifying marks such as the name of the airlines on second plane. I thought at that time and even now that it seemed odd. We never made it into the harbor that day- the boat was turned around and sent back to staten island. There were no more boats for a week.
1 reply · active 92 weeks ago
+1
Tom · 92 weeks ago
I have 9/11 and In Memoriam documentaries. And both clearly show, from multiple angles, that a United Airlines plane was the second plane to crash into the towers.
+1
Jean · 101 weeks ago
The pictures posted have no significance. They only further reinforce the fact that no Boeing Plane hit the
Pentagon. That is a sick and futile effort to enforce an unenforceable lie. The Comments by Mark are so
of the mark that it is sickening. Only an Idiot would accept this story, not as he put it but then I notice he has
esquire as a title which to me indicates he is an attorney which automatically renders his opinion questionable as they are trained to decieve. Barbara Olson is alive and well. The phone calls were Phony
calls. That was proven using an unusual approach by implementing common sense. False Flag attack, pure
and simple and the coverup was so obvious only a fool would believe otherwise and only a shill or disinfo
agent would attempt to defend the obvious lie. It is no big problem to grease a few hands with a few bucks
to get them to swear to having seen something that never happened and broadcast it far and wide as though it was truth while ignoring the many that contradict those statements and not allowing them exposure to the public.
1 reply · active 92 weeks ago
+1
Tom · 92 weeks ago
You're right. All lawyers are liars and are part of the conspiracy! And the bottom photo in the right column showing the American Airlines livery is obviously not from any Boeing plane. I have a tin foil hat for you....
-1
greg · 87 weeks ago
oh thanks for posting this! - explains exactly how building 7 fell at freefall acceleration for over two seconds without the use of any other explosives and contrary to all understaning of physics today


Posted by at No comments:

Monday, June 17, 2013

Off With Their Heads!

Off With Their Heads!
By Jamie McIntyre Monday, February 8th, 2010 12:31 pm
Posted in On History

Bob Gates is the firing-​​est Defense Secretary ever…  and people love it!



When it comes to involuntary separations of subordinates who fail to produce results, Donald Trump has nothing on Bob Gates.
Back when I was still reporting CNN, I once dubbed the crafty former spymaster, “the firing-​​est Defense Secretary ever.”
Donald Rumsfeld had a reputation as a tough boss, but frankly he was a pushover compared to Gates, whose ability to conceal his iron fist inside a velvet glove is nonpareil.
Scandal at Walter Reed?  Goodbye Army Secretary and Surgeon General.  Loose Nukes?  So long Air Force Chief and Secretary.  Long war going on too long? Buh-​​bye Afghanistan Commander, F-​​35 over budget?  “You’re Fired!”
[Defense secretary Gates fires general in charge of Joint Strike Fighter program- Washington Post, Feb 2, 2010]
“If I’ve set one tone at the Department of Defense, it’s that when things go wrong, people will be held accountable,” Gates told reporters last week.
And it turns out that, except for the victim, almost everybody — especially Congress — LOVES it when people are fired in the name of accountability, no matter how at fault they really were.
(Has anyone noticed that Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s vaunted new Afghanistan strategy — including his call more a troop surge — is not substantially different from the strategy Gen. David McKiernan advocated, but never got the resources to fully implement?)
In 2008 Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-​​Missouri) gushed over Gate’s willingness to sacrifice subordinates when things went wrong, “Not once but twice when I doubted whether or not you would be willing to fire a top commander based on issues within their command, you exceeded my expectations,” she complimented Gates at a Senate hearing.
If you needed any clue to Gates’ propensity to jettison subpar performers regardless of prior success you need look no further than his tenure as President of Texas A&M University, where one of his first acts was to fire the winnings football coach in Aggie history, R.C. Slocum. In 14 years Slocum had never had a losing season, but when the Aggies slipped to 6–6 in 2002, and lost to rival Texas 50 to 20, Gates wasted no time sending him packing.
And of course Gates dispatched him with what has become his trademark practice:  generous praise for past accomplishments, while making clear he no longer considered him part of the solution.
“Coach Slocum is one of the most respected and admired members of the Aggie family, and he has much still to offer the university he has served so long with rare integrity and skill,” Gates said at the time.
Gates would later joke privately that during his time at the CIA he’d overthrown governments of small countries with less blowback.
Time Magazine, Feb 15, 2010
It was a pattern evident in many of Gates firings, such as when he decided it was time for Gen. Peter Pace to exit the stage after his tenure as Joint Chiefs Chairman.   While saying he never shrinks from a tough confirmation battle, Gates nevertheless decided Pace was not worth fighting for.  And so he convinced President Bush not to reappoint Pace as Chairman.
Gates — like his predecessor Donald Rumsfeld — is a wily cold warrior, who has shown he can be a tenacious infighter.   But while Rumsfeld was, in his own way, an idealist, Gates remains much more the cool-​​handed pragmatist.
Time magazine’s current cover story calls Gates,  “a guy who holds his cards close to his vest and knows just when to play them.”   The picture on the cover is not particularly flattering, but from what I could see in my time covering him, I’d say the portrait drawn on the inside pages got the nuances of Gates complicated personality just about right.
Tags: , , ,
0
GI Joe · 174 weeks ago
Rumsfeld was a disrespectful, lowlife jerk to everyone. He was arrogant, petty, arbitrary and had no coherent vision. And while I have no direct proof of this, circumstantial evidence strongly suggests he was an outright liar as well. Gates, like everyone, may have his faults, but thank god he's no Don Rumsfeld.
0
Maximum Leader Adbul · 174 weeks ago
Gates might very well be impressive with his firing abilities but look at the incompetents that almost always exacerbate the problem: Slocum was replaced with Franchione at A&M under Gates tutelage and that rube was no coach. He was fired shortly after Gate's departed for the Pentagon.

Gates cut his teeth originally as a missileer in the Air Force where the Strategic Air Command motto was, "To err is human but to forgive is not SAC policy." In all likelihood, with all of the ass burning throughout SAC at the time, it is highly likely that Gates learned to enjoy the art of smoking out subordinates. Moving forward, Gates selected McChrystal, not because of his combat prowess but rather his good company manners(I was polite and did NOT say brown noser). Moreover, Obama needed a fresh new general in Afghanistan that would be submissive to the civilian leadership. The way to guarantee this was to pick a 3 star general and promote him to his 4th star which means McChrystal can retire at that grade with just two years time in grade. If he screws up, he will not have the time in grade to retire at that grade. You can rest assured that McChrystal will play nicey nice for the remainder of his time as they will most assuredly be grooming and preparing a new replacement for some time in early 2011. McChrystal was one of the many officers that found themselves entwined in the Tillman tragedy.

It's nice to praise and worship Gates but the replacements for the incompetents that he fires are inept too which makes one wonder about Gates.
0
Guest · 174 weeks ago
Time would have been better served by putting a photo that more resembles Sec. Gates on the cover. C'mon Man it does not even look like him. Conduct a poll and you will see the results.
It is about time someone holds the Pentagon senior leaders accountable and no doubt there are a few more that should be sent packing! Sec. Gates is doing a wonderful job and that is what our fighting men and women deserve and need from a SECDEF!
0
MCrayton · 174 weeks ago
If you don't have support from the top it sucks all the way down! I think Secretary Gates is doing a fine job. Nothing wrong with firing people, for that matter not always anything wrong with being fired. Sometimes you find yourself in the den with the lions and when the lions are winning extraction is not a bad thing.
0
Charlie · 174 weeks ago
It's great that members of our House and Senate in Congress love the removable of incompetents. I can't wait until they get to see and feel the result of their upcoming firings in November
0
Guest · 174 weeks ago
Sec Gates is doing an admirable job and his style should be taught in every military or management school in the country. Here is a man who can get stuff DONE in the most unlikely conditions. Wish I could buy him a beer!
0
primetime · 174 weeks ago
Gee, I must be one of the few that has a better impression of Rummy than Gates. I personally had no trouble with Rumsfeld once he saw that I knew what I was doing. Gates...I never served with but have heard from people who worked with him who have nothing good to say about him...one thing for certain...he is a survivor, a pragmatist...how else could you catagorize someone who served two such disparate Presidents...and don't insult my intelligence by saying that the SECDEF is non-political! What I see when I hear "he is a pragmatist" is people like Jim Baker, Brent Scowcroft and Bush 41...these are people who believe in only one thing...keeping themselves employed. Pragmatists do not have beliefs, which makes them all the more dangerous. They will do what is necessary to win...at least Rummy believed in something other than himself.
Having said that, I do agree with Gates on one firing...he was absolutely correct to fire Wynn and T. Michael. They were incompetants and the AF was better off with them gone...of course then the new SECAF and CSAF are emasculated as well and Gates can savage the AF as he has.
One man's opinion.
0
Jeff · 174 weeks ago
"...admirable job and his style should be taught in every military or management school..." you have to be kidding! You’ve been watching too much Don Trump TV. A leader has to have the ability to make decisions and believe their leadership will support them. This type of mis-management generates an atmosphere of avoiding decisions and always looking over your shoulder. It should be taught has how NOT to do it.

Post a new comment

Posted by at No comments:

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: No Applause From the Chiefs

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: No Applause From the Chiefs
By Jamie McIntyre Thursday, January 28th, 2010 10:04 am
Posted in On Media
“We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It’s the right thing to do. “
– President Barack Obama, State of the Union, January 27, 2010
President Barack Obama, State of the Union Address, Jan. 27, 2010
In the post-​​game analysis of the State of the Union address on ABC, George Stephanopoulos made a point of replaying the stone-​​faced reaction from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when their Commander-​​in-​​Chief announced his intention to push for action in Congress to end discrimination against gays in the military.
[ABC also read a lot into Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s reaction to President Obama’s attack on the recent SCOTUS decision on campaign finance law, but that’s another story.]
Many people have forgotten was the original intent of the of the 1993 DA/​DT “compromise” was not to enshrine discrimination, but to come to an accommodation that recognized the reality that tens of thousands of homosexuals serve in our armed forces, with distinction and dedication.  And the idea was to allow that to continue, so long as they kept their sex lives private.   Instead the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law that was supposed to allow gays to serve honorably and be protected from “witch hunts” was perverted into a vehicle for continuing to drum out well-​​qualified servicemen and women — not because of their conduct, but solely because of their sexual orientation.
Joint Chiefs of Staff, State of the Union, ABC News
But back to the Chiefs.  As Barack Obama said he would attempt to fulfill his campaign pledge to lift the ban on gays by working with congress, the Joint Chiefs, lead by Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, were an island of stoic non-​​reaction surrounded by a sea of applause.   While the four-​​stars kept their hands uniformly folded on their laps, their civilian boss Robert Gates was on his feet applauding HIS boss, President Obama.
And that, by the way, is exactly how it should be.  The nation’s top military advisors are not the Joint CHEERLEADERS of Staff.  It is not their role to publicly applaud or deride the political policies of the civilian leadership.   Their job is to salute smartly, and carry out their orders.  If they feel the President, or other civilian leaders, are charting a disastrous course, they have the duty to tell them privately, and to even resign if they cannot faithfully implement those polices in good conscience.
Robert Gates, Defense Secretary, Jan 27, 2010
Adm. Mullen, the senior advisor, has already indicated he’s ready to support the change, if and when Congress acts.  Although he has made pretty clear through his actions and tepid words of support, that he feels he has bigger problems on his plate at the moment.   But the President has spoken.  His commanders know which way the wind is blowing, and its time to think about setting an example of non-​​discrimination, from the top of the chain of command.
Defense Secretary Gates has ready been looking for a way to ease the ban, but it’s not easy.   The law is pretty clear.  Back when President Clinton first took office in 1992, discrimination against gays was a Pentagon policy, not a Congressionally mandated law-​​of-​​the land.   The UCMJ simply stated, “Homosexuality is incompatible with military service.”   When President Clinton tried to acknowledge the reality that was demonstrably untrue, he was outmaneuvered by opponents on Capitol Hill and ended up with a law that boxed in the Pentagon for almost two decades.
This SHOULD be the year that changes.  But with dysfunctional Senate that no longer operates on a simple majority vote for anything, who knows if 60 votes can be found?
Tags: , , , , , ,
0
R White · 176 weeks ago
I once was a D.I. and I do not understand how you going to do this, are all the soldiers going to be in one room that is gays and nongays if that is the case.Why should we let all the gays have fun. Why not put some females in the room to so everyone can have fun. When are you all going to understand its best not to ask and don"t tell. Not to many years ago you all order that all soldiers be train together that is males and females all this did was to lower the standards for all. Thank god you all stop that. And yes Females can do any Job a male can do, and some females can be 11B that is infantry.
0
Dave · 176 weeks ago
/web/20130618011210/http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/29/in-their-boots/
0
Hope · 176 weeks ago
When will people wake up, and realize the homosexual society is relentlessly trying to cram their lifestyle down everyones throat. Why does it have to be broadcasted to everyone in the first place? Keep it to themselves and get on with life! Can't they just do their jobs and keep their sex lives to themselves?
1 reply · active 175 weeks ago
0
Casey · 175 weeks ago
The homosexual society is NOT "try to cram their lifestyle down" ANYONE's throat. They just want to have the civil rights given to other US citizens. They aren't asking anyone to be gay or listen to how their nights with their partners go.
Sex life is easy to keep to one's self but imagine being in love with someone and not being able to display that publicly, whether it be holding hands or just openly saying that you and this person are a couple, in fear of being publicly humiliated by receiving a dishonorable discharge from your job? Imagine having to keep your whole life a secret from peers. It's not an easy thing to deal with.
0
Moe · 175 weeks ago
I would like to know what current First Sergeants think of the proposed policy? More specifically, how would assigning personnel to bays, dorms, or rooms be handled?
0
Jim · 175 weeks ago
As a retired Master Chief Petty Officer I have dealt with this issue during two liberal political administrations:
the Clinton and now Obama. Going from a complete ban on Gays in the Military to "don't ask don't tell" under the Clinton effort to the current proposal under the current administation. I am in complete agreement with the comments of Hope entered earlier.

My comments are directed to Admiral mullins, who is quoted in the news today as saying that he personally
believes that Gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military. This was expressed as his personal views. It is unfortunate that the senior U.S. Military officer doesn,t understand that he doesn't have a personal opinion while he is sereving in his current capacity. He is also the senior representative for the millions of sailors serving in the Navy. The press is asking the wrong people about this issue. Ask the people who will have to deal with the indignities that undesired sexual advances will bring to young men for whom homosexuality is so repugnant.
0
Ranger · 175 weeks ago
True homosexuals cannot reproduce. Therefore Nature selects them for extiction. This abnormal behavior can not be legislated to normality.
0
SPC Moody · 175 weeks ago
lets ban blacks as well
0
Casey · 175 weeks ago
When women were first introduced into the military by The Women's Armed Services Act of 1948, men were appalled because they thought that women were unfit for combat and that the presence of females would cause sexual issues amongst the men. However, in the case United States v. Virginia, the Supreme Court even said women deserve "equal opportunity to aspire, achieve, participate in and contribute to society.” And so women became an active part of the US Military and I think we can all agree the females have proven themselves much more worthy than anyone could have imagined. I have no doubt that homosexuals will eventually do the same.
0
abundt · 175 weeks ago
I spent 20 years on act duty retiring as a SGM, I was NEVER in a unit that didn;t have some gays or what I called Bisexuals. I never cared or for that mater was remotely interested in if someone was gay. I was interested in how they did their job and rsponded to orders. There is no sex allowed on missions or in barracks those that do that are punished for disobeying orders. this doesn't matter if the persons are male/female partners or female/female or male/male. They are not permitted to participate so whats the change? I am 67 and a retired psychologist and still havenot figured out why anyone would announce their sexual preference unless they are prospecting for partners. Most people are just not interested. I used to say offpost when someone asked,: Sorry Taken" good luck I have a wife
0
William Geitz · 175 weeks ago
In my 27 years of naval service including two commands, It appears to me that once again the politicians are using the military to conduct a social experiment. In the early days we were all accused of being prejudiced towards blacks, then *****-mongers when dealing with woman in the Navy. No doubt, as in the past, personnel will be judged to be homophobes. However, I fear that this action will form a victim-class whose presence within the military will disrupt the moral of the troops and whose treatment as a special class of service people will mark them for special treatment with regard to promotions, assignments, and evaluations. Likewise it will further a new form of political correctness within the command structure. Remember Fort Hood.

Admiral Mullen should resign instead of standing side-by-side with others who have no clue what leadership is about and who see the military as just another tool in their quest for political power.
0
gib warner · 173 weeks ago
I don't know if I worked with a Gay or Lesbian..Probably did..I do know that I HAVE in the civillian world of Firefighting, EMS, and Police, hell, Walmart too...So what's the big deal? All that I've worked with didn't do anything but their JOB!!! We even joked about it!!! My favorate comes from one of my Captains of a fire dept. in Columbus,Ohio....What's a ***got look like? Looked in your mirror today didn't ya! LOL... HE,LET ALONE OTHER GAYS,LESBIANS,AND BI'S SHOWED ME THE ERROR OF EVERYONE!!! IN BATTLE, FIRE'S,WHATEVER, THEY'RE JUST AS GOOD AS ME IF NOT BETTER!!! I SAY LEAVE THEM ALONE!!!LET THEM HAVE THE RIGHT TO SERVE OUR COUNTRY WITHOUT RIDICULE..NO BS!
THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE "LAND OF THE FREE" DUMBASSES!!! THAT'S WHAT I FAUGHT FOR WHEN I SIGNED UP!!! THEY SHOULD BE ALOUD TO SERVE JUST LIKE ME(A STRAIT MALE)...GET OVER IT IF YOU DON'T THINK SO...THIS IS THE 21ST CENTERY!!! IT'S TIME SOME PEOPLE GREW UP!!

POPS
0
Semper-fi · 164 weeks ago
Lets get this wrapped up. So I can get on with my life!!!

Post a new comment

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)