| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Retired general links gays in military to combat weakness, failure to prevent genocide |
| 2010-03-19 |
| A retired U.S. general says Dutch troops failed to defend against the 1995 genocide in the Bosnian war because the army was weakened, partly because it included openly gay soldiers. The comment by John Sheehan, a former NATO commander who retired from the military 1997, shocked some at a Senate Armed Services Committee, where Sheehan spoke in opposition to a proposal to allow gays to serve openly in the U.S. military. Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin told Sheehan he was "totally off-target." Sheehan said European militaries deteriorated after the collapse of the Soviet Union and focused on peacekeeping because "they did not believe the Germans were going to attack again or the Soviets were coming back." Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and other nations believed there was no longer a need for an active combat capability in the militaries, he said. "They declared a peace dividend and made a conscious effort to socialize their military - that includes the unionization of their militaries, it includes open homosexuality." Dutch troops serving as U.N. peacekeepers and tasked with defending the town of Srebrenica in 1995 were an example of a force that became ill-equipped for war. "The battalion was understrength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed the soldiers to the telephone poles, marched the Muslims off, and executed them," Sheehan said. "That was the largest massacre in Europe since World War II," he said of the killing of some 8,000 Bosnian Muslim boys and men after Serbian forces captured the town. Levin, D-Mich., appeared incredulous. "Did the Dutch leaders tell you it (the fall of Srebrenica) was because there were gay soldiers there?" he asked. "Yes," Sheehan said. "They included that as part of the problem." He said the former chief of staff of the Dutch army had told him. Levin said it may be the case that some militaries have focused on peacekeeping to the detriment of their war-fighting skills. "But I think that any effort to connect that failure on the part of the Dutch to the fact that they have homosexuals, or did allow homosexuals, I think is totally off-target," said Levin, a proponent of ending restrictions on gays serving in the U.S. armed forces. "The Dutch military, as you point out, were peacekeepers and not peace-enforcers. I agree with that," said Levin. "But what the heck that has to do with the issue before us is what mystifies me." "You are not saying what we want to hear, so what you are saying is wrong." |
| Posted by: Anonymoose |
| #12 How can you tell the difference between that and his usual slobbering, JohnQC? |
| Posted by: lotp 2010-03-19 19:20 |
| #11 Barney Frank is in the House but he must have been apoplectic upon hearing of these comments. I always enjoy when Frank, who helped destroy our economy, is reduced to a slobbering meltdown. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-03-19 15:51 |
| #10 P2K, spot on. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2010-03-19 15:20 |
| #9 Jith, The problem is the data is there. People just don't want to use it. Gay men have consistently been found to be 10X as sexually active as heterosexual men. I don't know what the number is for women. The real issue is: do you want to spend your time in a foxhole with someone who is 10X as horny as your average 18 year old and who views you as a potential target? That a politically incorrect question but its reality. The other issue is that there is plenty of evidence from the 2 world wars of officers, NCOs or just some tough enlisted men forcing themselves on weaker (or younger) men in the unit. This weakened unit cohesion. Regarding other armies, the British had the most anti-gay policy in NATO until Tony Blair became PM. This was because there was a long and sordid history of gay British officers forcing themselves on the enlisted men. God knows what's going to happen now. |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2010-03-19 14:38 |
| #8 Without some study or facts, who's to say who's right or wrong? |
| Posted by: Jith Ghibelline8809 2010-03-19 12:51 |
| #7 The military is not a political correctness operation. "once a female got pregnant, the old rules were they were immediately separated, career over. Not now. So someone else is yanked to fill the critical position to meet mission requirements. " Thats if you are lucky. I never had those holes filled myself. It always brought our unit below MTOE strength and critical personnel were not available to fill key slots. "sexual harassment, adultery, and fraternization." Thats actually the only thing that needs to be addressed and the military does just fine with it. The DADT is just a dog and pony show for DC. |
| Posted by: newc 2010-03-19 11:41 |
| #6 P2K, you're spot on. I don't want openly homosexuals serving w/me. It will be another administrative and UCMJ headache when off base fights occur between groups of heteros vs homos, and believe me this crap will happen. Speaking of females, the first co-ed unit I was in was combat non-deployable because 20% were post-partum or pregnant. It was a joke. You're right the middle-graders have had enough. I'd say all the guys I knew between E-6 and O-4 are about sick of the current climate. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2010-03-19 11:39 |
| #5 The connection is that the 'free' world has been on military welfare for generations. They believe they only need a token force and minimal defense spending because the real big work is going to be carried by the Americans. They can permit themselves to play games that in other circumstances and times in history would have ended their national existence. How many can interoperate with the Americans today? Very damn few. And those few are indeed few. They can't project forces of significance or sustain them without some part of the American force structure picking up some of the load. The Burg is full of stories of the Brits and their problems just keeping what they have in Afghanistan operational and the limitations that puts on their effectiveness. The whole package is the consequence of pols making decisions without regard to real world contingencies and demands. It's a game to them. It's life and death to those on the line. The one force that is ready to bear the load is the American one. Even that has personnel problems and issues to maintain a force that is half of what it was 25 years ago. It's un-PC to remember that once a female got pregnant, the old rules were they were immediately separated, career over. Not now. So someone else is yanked to fill the critical position to meet mission requirements. The Iraq theater commander finally had enough of what the middle grades have had to put up with for decades and thus issued the statement. Everyone who was responsible wanted and still wants to look the other way rather than address the problem. The same crap is going to happen with this issue. Just like straights, gays are going to be guilty of sexual harassment, adultery, and fraternization. It will destroy effectiveness and unit cohesion as it does with straights. The problem is going to be like the pregnancy issue in that those setting policy are now going to expect everyone else to look the other way, not to make waves, to make the program work. Otherwise, the same political special interest groups will scream just as they do now that they're victims of witch hunts. Those groups don't want tolerance, they want power to include imposing themselves and their behaviors on others without consequences. Senior officers are generally bought and sold by the pols. It's the middle leadership that makes the system work day to day. At a certain point those middle grades who take 8 to 12 years to grow are going to say 'so long' rather than put up with the PC environment while trying to meet real mission. Once they past a 10 year mark, they have no further obligations and are not subject to recall. Those can not simply be replaced by new ascensions. Back to the hollow Army, junior troops and generals with minimal cement in between. See the Russian Army for a preview. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-03-19 10:22 |
| #4 I don't see that connection, but I also don't understand how they could stand by and let something like this happen. I also could not understand how the Royal Marines could allow themselves to be captured by the Iranians. It may because of their PC ways that include openly gay people in the military. As far as Israel is concerned, do you think they are a better military now or when the whacked the Arab legion? Are the two things connected? I have no idea. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2010-03-19 09:26 |
| #3 No runway fashion designers or hair solon lizzards please. You'll have the good men and women going elsewhere. “We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-03-19 07:07 |
| #2 The Gays openly serving in the Israeli, Canadian, British and Australian militaries don't seem to have effected the combat capabilities of those forces in Afghanistan or elsewhere. |
| Posted by: Gaz 2010-03-19 03:23 |
| #1 The argument about basic human respect and 'rights' includes ignoring the respect and rights of others who are given no 'choice'. When you change the basic conditions of contract under which everyone else signed up under give them a choice as well. Allow them in a years time frame the 'choice' to be separated from service within three months with retention of all benefits earned and no further obligation of service. When the exodus of middle grade NCOs and officers who are fed up with PC priorities* erodes combat effectiveness of units, just remember the sock puppets who said it wouldn't be a problem. * wasn't long ago when the Iraq theater commander threatened courts martial if females continued to get pregnant after losing too many critical MOS soldiers. A dirty little PC secret the military keeps from public viewing and its consequences already. The middle grades have been rumbling about it for years. Just add another good reason to hang it up rather than having to deal with the consequences during time of war. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-03-19 03:00 |