D-Day for the US Military

Frank Gaffney

9/20/2010 12:01:00 AM - Frank Gaffney

The United States Senate is scheduled to vote Tuesday on a motion to proceed to debate on the annual defense authorization bill. Normally, such a step is a routine mechanical one. In this case, though, it is one of the most important national security votes of the year - and will be scored as such by the Center for Security Policy and a number of other organizations in their annual legislative scorecards.

As a proud alumnus of the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee, it pains me to say that the Senate should not consider this seriously defective product of that panel's deliberations. No Republican or Democrat who cares about national security should vote for this motion.

The reason why a filibuster mounted by that committee's ranking Republican, Senator John McCain, should be sustained is that the defense bill is being used as a vehicle for several extraneous political agendas. These include": language allowing military hospitals to be used for the first time in decades as abortion clinics; an amendment Majority Leader Harry Reid says he wants to attach that amounts to an amnesty for young illegal immigrants; and repeal of the 1993 statute prohibiting openly homosexual individuals from serving in the U.S. military.

The last of these is of special concern as it would, in the words of 1167 retired generals and admirals "break" the U.S. military. In time of war, do any U.S. Senators - and most especially those like Sens. Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln who are battling for reelection in conservative states - want to be responsible for such an action?

To be sure, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) activists insist that there will only be upsides for the military if the law adopted nearly two decades ago after extensive hearings and debate - neither of which has happened this time around - is repealed. They claim the armed forces will not have to dismiss LGBT individuals who come out, or are forced out, of the closet, easing the difficult job of filling the ranks with qualified personnel.

A seven-page memorandum prepared by the superb Center for Military Readiness and provided last week to a Pentagon commission studying the impacts of repeal illuminates myriad ways in which this social experiment would prove incredibly complex, distracting and debilitating for the all-volunteer force in the event the Senate votes down the filibuster. This is especially so if, as the homosexual activists demand, the military adopts a "zero-tolerance" policy towards anyone in uniform who deviates from full acceptance of the LGBT agenda.

A few illustrative examples make the point:

-If LGBT individuals are allowed to serve, on what basis could heterosexual male and female personnel be kept apart in accommodations, lavatories and other circumstances in which privacy is limited or non-existent?

-Would officers in command of units be given career-ending negative fitness reports if they truthfully advise their superiors that there are real problems implementing the new LGBT policy - for instance, by disclosing that consensual or non-consensual behavior is undermining morale, discipline and morale?

-How many military chaplains will be penalized for not complying with the new LGBT policy that their religious beliefs tell them is immoral (including performing same-sex marriages, conducting diversity programs that promote LGBT conduct as equivalent to heterosexual conduct, etc)?

-How will housing of same-sex couples be handled on military bases in states that do not recognize such relationships with marriage or civil unions?

-How will transgender personnel be accommodated in housing, lavatories, etc.? Will sex-change operations be a covered health care benefit for the military?

-How will the military contend with personnel known to be at greater risk of HIV infection - namely, males who engage in sexual conduct other with men - with regard to medical services and medication, exemption from deployment, emergency transfusions, etc.?

-Most importantly, what evidence is there that repeal of the 1993 law will strengthen and improve the combat capability, discipline, morale and overall readiness of the All-Volunteer Force?

The absence of such evidence is the most important reason for supporting Sen. McCain's filibuster. It is outrageous that one or two senators' votes may make the difference between an initiative that will be, at the very best, a new and difficult management burden for a military already overtaxed with its warfighting responsiblities, and that may well actually prove to be devasting for the military.

A sense of just how problematic this initiative may be can be found in a statement reportedly made by Lieutenant General Thomas Bostick in Europe last month. According to the Washington Times, the general, who is the Army's Deputy Chief of Staff for personnel and a top member of the Pentagon repeal review, described critics as "racists and bigots" who need to get out if they can't get with the program. Gen. Bostick denies making the statement but the Times stands by its account. In any event, the remark was really just a more extreme version of one by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen back in March that opponents of repeal should "vote with their feet."

The fevered swamps of a pre-election season are no time to be taking such portentous steps. Senators: Don't break the military. It's the only one we have.