« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

What’s Going on with Obama and the Military?

He may win the DADT battle, but he will lose the war.

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  June 2nd, 2010 at 11:13 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

There is a real internal fight shaping up that I suspect is going to fester into a significant wound to Barack Obama’s Presidency.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff are in open and public rebellion against the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs over Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Most troubling, the Obama administration neither consulted nor advices the Chiefs before rushing off the congress with the proposal to lift DADT.

Adm. Mullen approved a White House deal for Congress to go ahead with a vote on repeal of the law barring openly gay members from the military, rather than waiting for completion in December of a Pentagon study that is seeking the views of troops. Adm. Mullen’s move brought an instant rebuttal from the four chiefs in the form of letters to Congress urging lawmakers not to hold the vote.

In fact, the service chiefs did not see the Pentagon-White House-congressional deal to rush a vote until after the administration announced it May 24, Pentagon officials said.

Remember how leakers from the CIA did their best to undermine George Bush? When this starts happening with reckless abandon from the Pentagon, Obama will be in serious trouble.

The public already suspects the man is weak. Our enemies know he is weak. The man clearly holds the military in contempt, but the public hasn’t paid attention to the issue. It’s one thing to ignore the Gulf Coast states. They aren’t going to vote for him anyway. Military issues are swing state issues.

In a very short time we will see the military bureaucracy go to war with Obama on the battlefield of public opinion.

And he will lose.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • conservativecrusade

    Obama has, yet again, spit on public desire. But even worse, he spit on the military command by only listening to those who support his agenda. His next move will be to try to twist this whole thing into anyone who opposes “equality” in the military is racist, sexist, etc.

    No more would the women want men bunking and showering with them, men do not want those men who are openly attracted to men doing the same with them.

    The bleeding hearts will never accept that it is not an anti gay thing when we oppose ending DADT, It is simply trying to keep a policy in place that works and protects everyone. Maybe one day gays will understand that a person sex life or choice in sexual sway is something that belongs to yourself. Stop proclaiming it to the world, stop demanding we like it, stop demanding extra rights, stop demanding we accept your choice and all will be OK in Dodge City. Keep bringing to public view what should be kept personal, and we will continue to fight you!

    Most people no more want to hear my sexual desires or conquests than they want to here a gay persons. And that is the core issue!

  • redneck_hippie

    Obama didn’t want the survey results known before the vote. Gee, where else has he sat on information that, if known, would be detrimental to a vote? Obama knows this won’t fly with our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and coast guard. Just like the true costs of HCR had to be hidden until after it became a law.

    This is typical and most likely will remove scales from the eyes of many of our men and women who serve. If Obama should succeed in getting his way, he had better space out his military photo ops for a long time, like until after his butt is out of the WH for good in 2013.

    I still feel gratified that Thunder and Lightening expressed God’s view of Mr. Obama’s speech here in Illinois. Liar that he is, he probably isn’t a believer in divine retribution.

    It isn’t about whether someone should or can serve if gay. It is about preserving our military’s effectiveness. Period. End of question.

  • wolfster38

    This is about so much more then gays in the military, look back at the last two Democratic Presidents. Jimmy Carter so weakened the military when it was needed in Iran it fail also banning the use of flamethrowers because he believed they were inhuman.That is why they say war is hell, it is inhuman. Bill Clinton’s under the table dealings with China gave away US technology. And now we are back to don’t ask don’t tell. This is just another way of making our military weaker by peer pressure . Think about this, new recruits consist of mainly young men 18 to 23 years of age and they have friends the same age, and the peer pressure will be great. This is how the leftist views this. A young man tells his friends hes going in the army and his friends say, “What are you gay?” You are going to be sleeping with gay men?” Do you see how this will affect the men willing to serve in our military? This is just another tool of the left to hurt and weaken our military. It’s what they do. And this is what gays in the military is about.

  • C. Marie

    should this repeal shove forward before 11/2/10, with no regard to the study and thoughts of the working military.

    “What I don’t want to do is electrify the force at a time when they’re going through two, in the time of two wars, the length of time that we’ve been at war,” Adm. Mullen said.

    This admin has dallied on the aggressive acts of Iran, No. Korea, of home terror attacks, and how can we forget, the Somali pirate hostage issue. And our soldiers fight two wars. Now a breach of authority rushes to undermine what has protected our uniformed women and men.
    The obsessive-compulsive administration acts like a battering ram to breach, to destroy the walls and foundation on which this republic stands. Will concerned citizens stand in the breach alongside the joint chiefs of staff to protect those who sacrifice in our stead?

  • c17wife

    Forget spitting…Obama is pissing all over our carpet and us while leaving steaming piles of sh*t on our doorsteps.
    This DADT repeal nonsense is devastating to morale.
    We, family members and active duty, feel like we are being sold down the river. I just can not even tell you how furious most of us are over this. Being in Europe, we get AFN and I want to throw something at the TV everytime I see Gates or Mullen get on air and talk about this topic. And don’t even get me started on Michelle and Dr. Jill with their phony BS wecareaboutyou schtick. Disgusting!!!
    Open and public rebellion by the JCS…all I can say is…BRING IT!!! It’s about time.
    America…we are willing to fight and die for you if necessary. We are willing to sacrifice our husbands/wives, sons/daughters…for your freedom, the sovreignty of this nation, and our way of life. For all that is good and holy…come November 2010 and November 2012…you need to fight back against this Socialist regime and help us get our country back. The social experiment of Barack Obama’s follies needs to end. And we can’t do it on our own.

  • c17wife

    …This is just another tool of the left to hurt and weaken our military. It?s what they do. And this is what gays in the military is about.

    Obama is doing everything he can to cut us off at the knees. Cutting space program, weaponry, and personnel. He is also using the military academies as his ongoing social integration affirmative action experiment. AFA class of 2014 will have the most diverse class in history. Not the brightest, most intellegent, most well-rounded, nope, the most diverse. Meanwhile…white boys with 4.0+ and SAT scores of 790 in Math sit at Texas A&M and Cedarville simply because of the color of their skin. Shameless!!!

  • redneck_hippie

    making the wrong choice between so-called social engineering in the military, and preserving our military and defense effectiveness.

    I’m not concerned about the female half, since I can speak from there. When it comes to it we will not stand by and let a crop of eggheads let our loved ones and those who defend them be trampled. No, we will not.

    Obama may think he can plow ahead and hurt the armed forces without paying for it from the non-military population. Woe to the commander-in-chief who fiddles while Rome burns and turns his backside to those who love and adore their military.

    Obama likes to preen himself about putting the blocks of socialism together one brick at a time. In actuality the bricks are going to tumble down on his head, ridding the planet of just another tin-horn tyrant.

    We got your backs, it’s just that elections take a while to be reversed.

  • c17wife

    But I do fear the social engineeering is going to detrimentally affect our ability to wage war appropriately. The general public simply does not realize what a big Pandora’s Box has just been opened. So many facets of our lives will be affected by this repeal. Not to mention the way it was handled.
    I have spent 36 years of my life affiliated with the greatest Air Force in the world. I can tell you this without a doubt…Barack Obama is doing more harm to the fighting forces of this nation than Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton combined. And that is a tall order, let me tell you.
    Reagan and Dubya were far from perfect men. They weren’t even perfect Presidents. But…the men and women of the US Armed Forces knew that without a doubt, push come to shove, those men would move heaven and earth to ensure our military was poised to win decisively. Now, we often wonder just whose side Barack Obama is on. Because it sure doesn’t feel like he is on ours.
    Thank you for your devotion to those who serve and please, please, continue to fight for us.

  • redneck_hippie

    the most reviled American president ever. His little group of fans is shrinking. We can and we must restore America’s values to her. God bless our military.

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    in Elwood just linked on Drudge and reported at CNN:

    http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-452829

    (Sorry, couldn’t get the embed code.)

    Shouts of “When are you going to resign?!” “Impeach Obama!” “Liar!”

    He is our servant, not our king, and I’m glad to see there are a few Americans, like those on that shuttle bus, who aren’t afraid to voice their opinions with this empty suit thinks he’s going to fawned over as if he’s our messiah and king.

    For Liberty,
    ColdWarrior, PC (that?s ?precinct committeeman,? not ?political child!?)
    Conservatives, UNITE! CHANGE the Republican Party and save the world by UNITING INSIDE the Party as precinct committeemen. NOW!

  • Common_Cents
  • redneck_hippie

    apology tours got started. It is obvious he is working against the interests of our nation vis a vis other countries and, now against particular states in the nation. Mark Levin had it right. He’s a human wrecking ball. His cronies as well want to plunder our bounty to enact global rule. Doesn’t matter if he’s a communist or an Obamaist. Result is exactly the same.

  • Vegas_Rick

    and clinton. They were devastating to morale and readiness. We all walked a little taller under Reagan and the Bushes. Liberals have no clue about testosterone or war fighting.

  • aesthete

    As a hypothetical, if the Joint Chiefs of Staff thought that the benefits to having gays openly serve in the military outweighed the costs, and wanted to go forward with allowing gays to openly serve, would they be able to do so under current law, or would they have to ask Congress to pass something? My main concern in all of this (and what should be the main concern for conservatives) is that political concerns are trumping the military’s enlistment, retention standards, and that the military’s autonomy in day-to-day operation is being infringed upon. (And yes, before you ask, I had a problem with Truman integrating the Armed Forces way back yonder, even though I think his call was the right one. Having the brass drop the ball a few times is more than made up for by not having to deal with LBJ-style micromanagement.) I think that there’s an argument to be made that open homosexuality would decrease morale, but attitudes are changing. I suppose that leads me to a follow-up question: how comfortable would the rest of you be with open homosexuals serving, if the pros outweighed the cons on the narrow point of military effectiveness, i.e., would your position change if the problems associated with open homosexuality in the ranks were sufficiently mitigated? Are there any other arguments for disbarring open homosexuals from serving?

    Anecdotally, from being in a military family and helping at the VA, it seems to me that homosexuality in the military is already something of an open secret, particularly in the Navy.

  • printjournalist

    People forget this issue sunk the Democrats early on. In 1993-94.

  • GregInFla

    You said it as well as it can be said.

  • GregInFla

    early last year. Watch as he tries to give more power to the UN. World Citizen, yes; US Citizen, barely.

  • http://www.helpawhiteguy.com livefreenh

    As the Clown in Chief says, “words matter”. I noticed that some of the words in this article, when used in a context, might also be used in an article that discusses a coup d’?tat.

    Is this what we are talking about here?

  • Kudzu

    Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue, Don’t Harass…only the “Tell” refers to gays not talking, displaying, or marrying in open about thier sexual preference.

    In truth, most service members don’t care because we see this as such a small part of the military. Yet we get a ton of briefings every year on the topic and its just pointless. Most homosexuals I’ve run into while in over the past ten years have kept quiet and don’t advertise. Like I don’t advertise my political views or objection to sex being restricted to the missionary position.

    This issue was rushed and forced on us without any real thought towards logistics or dependents status. I don’t want DADT repealed until someone can explain how we’re going to sustain it and ensure society’s ideal of moral behavior is entact. I try to explain this to people on both sides yet only one side gets it. DADT works

  • eheassler

    When I enlisted in the Navy in 1961 there still existed some quaint terms that originated as the result of homosexuals hiding in the ranks, usually behind their stripes and the existing “Rocks and Shoals” systems of punishment prior to 1948 when the UCMJ was instituted.

    Pogue: Homosexual

    Pogie Bait: Young, pink cheeked tender looking sailor.

    There was a reason these terms existed. It seems as the small minority of gays in our country is forcing the Armed Forces to move in a backward direction.

    Will someone please tell me how doing so will: 1) improve military readiness and performance; 2) improve good order and discipline within the services.

    It’s all part of the “Progressive” movement’s systematic dismantling of the social, moral, political, and military institutions that have made the USA the greatest economic and military force in the history of the world. These people hate this country and want to see it destroyed. The scary thing is that they are doing it without firing a shot.

    EHeassler
    USN-Ret.

  • americansunite

    You know, the Jennings incident, when Obama choose this openly gay activist who wrote about teaching children the “pleasures” of sex and “fisting”, etc., it was to repay a man who had raised over a milliion dollars for Obama’s campaign..I watched videos with him and Obama at Jennings’s place. So what we are seeing, since Obama raised more money than anyone in history is that it’s payback time, unions, gays, special interest groups, acorn, and especially SEIU since Andy Stern is the number one visitor at the whitehouse and was in on health care and everything else you can think of. I really beleive that Obama is a pawn in this and that he’s responding to voices that hold something over his head. I have 2 young military men living next door to me and they just came back from Iraq-they are so upset about this that it’s not even funny. Facilities are a main issue with them-they don’t want to sleep, shower, or be on the battlefield with known gay/lesbian soldiers. I am not surprised at this liberal congress who are on their way out and they are trying to cause as much damage as possible before they leave. I pray everyday for my country and for Israel whose being thrown under the bus too. Why couldn’t congress wait for the report? I see this as a determent to our wonderful guys and gals serving all over the world and they have enough to worry about without this kind of interference. I even read an article about 6 months ago where 3 gay guys attacked a lone soldier in a shower and sodomized him and beat him up. I never saw anything about punishment, etc. so I don’t know what happened in the case. We have to repeal this mess and leave well enough alone. If you’re gay/lesbian, serve your country and keep your mouth shut-win the medals, etc.-you don’t need to proclaim your sexual preferences to be honored and I know that some wonderful people have served bravely and honorably in the past and present without destroying the cohesiveness of our military-right now, their plates are overloaded and they don’t need any more distractions.

  • jiminga

    will hurt military recruitment which will lead to a dramatic downsizing of the military….exactly what the libs want. They want to divert funding for the military to domestic social causes and always have. Repeal of DADT is a strawman strategy to gain a larger victory.

  • jiminga

    will hurt military recruitment which will lead to a dramatic downsizing of the military….exactly what the libs want. They want to divert funding for the military to domestic social causes and always have. Repeal of DADT is a strawman strategy to gain a larger victory.

  • conservativecrusade

    and when all the rhetoric is set aside, it boils down to our brave men and women being comfortable and being unified.

    Would an 18 year old woman want to shower, bunk, dress, strip, etc in front of a bunch of horny 18 year old men? How about if they promise not to be attracted to her if she is not attracted to them? Or how about if politicians state there will be no sexual attacks, sexual attraction, rape, touching, mocking, etc? The answer is no, or at least no by the majority of women who have any morals. Same goes for the men and women who would now be forced to do those thing side by side with the same sex who desire them. They all know there are gays serving with them, but that is not the point, Right now, they are required to keep their sexual sway silent, as it should be for all people gays and non gays alike.

    It all boils down to a very small minority pushing their views on us. They demand the right to flaunt their sexual perversion, act effeminate, demand we like it, demand extra rights, and people are fed up with it.

    If the idiot child wants real “equality” then he needs to break all the sexual boundaries and let those horny young men bathe with who they want to regardless of how it makes the other people feel. If the gays want the right to proclaim their sick lifestyles and get so personal with straight men and women, then let the straight men and women bunk, shower, undress, etc with the opposite sex also.

    Makes no sense does it!

  • bobmontgomery

    …the laws of both intended and unintended consequences will play on this. Openly gay means openly gay. There will be lawsuits, military discipline will break down, the transgendered will want to wear sklirts one day and pants the next. You cannot do this; you just cannot. We are already sliding past the brink when the Supremes rule that Islamic terrorists have the rights of US Citizens, when George Casey rues the loss of diversity more than the loss of thirteen warriors. This has all come to the point where the lefties know that it is tipping and they know that the righties don’t want violence and so the lefties are pushing with all their might. General Officers must now step forward. Colin Powell is a disgrace; people have to start calling spades by their correct names.

  • pittbull

    Mein Duetch ist mach nict guten. Ja?
    Plase. If you must be angry, be angry cool and calculatingly.
    The cool head often prevails. Ja? Danka.

  • conservativecrusade

    what are you trying to say or what is your point?

  • 2big2fail

    Can you explain exactly what “extra rights” gays are “demanding”??

  • conservativecrusade

    or are you just feigning ignorance?

  • aesthete

    And I’m ambivalent on the whole issue: the “right” to join the military. There is no right to join any military: the overweight, infirm, old, and other demographics are wholesale discriminated against in military enlistment. In those cases, the military has made the determination that their presence in the military would promote attributes that would be detrimental to the mission which outweigh their utility, or that they are otherwise incapable of performing their jobs. The questions should be, do the benefits of allowing open homosexuals outweigh the costs (particularly to morale), and whether senior military officials or politicians should be establishing these rules. Social engineering by either some righties or the left shouldn’t play a role in the debate.

  • miroco

    A hand full of sensible accommodations, especially separate sleeping and bathing, and we could have had had gay guys for decades, nobody much cares otherwise. As in all things lib, they must insist precisely on those points that keep things from working—it’s only about power and destroying America that motivates commie creeps.

  • wayneepalmer

    Have any of you asked yourselves this question? With all of his statements about ending them, why are our soldiers still over there?

    Obama wants all of our best soldiers OUT of the country: dead, broken, and or just used up – along with all of their gear. He doesn’t want them back here as anything that might pose a threat to the Progressive victory.

    A military dominated by despair and gay-assimilation issues is one that has no cohesion or identity.

    It will NOT be able to stand up in the face of massive adversity – like being attacked in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan suddenly by Iran and its allies (like Russia, China, Venezuela, etc.).

    Obama is setting up our military for the soldiers who return home to be broken and the ones in the field to be wiped out overseas so they can’t come back here and interfere with the Progressive coup-de-tat that is in progress.

    But what about the CIA war in Pakistan, you ask?

    The violent Jihadi’s are a problem right now because their violence awakens the people to Islam’s threats. The real future of the plan for Islamic conquest over the West has switched to political conquest using the legal system and Progressive “guilt” appeasement to foment the imposition of shariah law and suppress and conquer Democratic institutions and faiths.

    Violence will come later when they can prevail on the cowards in Progressive government to oppress our opposition in fear of Islamic anger – not buy direct terrorism, at least not yet.

    The one point I heard repeated over and over on the Arabic media sites was that the problem they had with Al Qaeda was not the murders of 911 – but merely the timing – Islam wasn’t ready to fight the West at that point.

    They needed to forge a more unified culture and prepare the Western Societies to be conquered by placing laws and useful idiots (like Obama) into places that would open us to conquest.

    As we can see with the forming alliance of Turkey, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Russia and China AND the terrified appeasement by Europe and apathy by Obama against Israel, their plans for our doom are well under way.

    All of these things are tied together as a noose around the throats of every person in the West. If we don’t wake up before they cinch the knot, it will soon be all of us swinging beneath that tree that was once Liberty.

  • oxowhitney

    I like your “tags”. The one about the signs sounds like something Steven Wright would come up with, eg.”I bought a case of batteries, but they weren’t included”

  • 2big2fail

    …”homosexual” is not a physical detriment to performing your job the same way that overweight, infirm, or old is. I agree that a grossly obese homosexual should not be allowed to serve, but “homosexual” is more comparable to blacks serving in the military than it is to discriminating against those that have a physical impairment.

    The same exact arguments you use were given before blacks were allowed to serve our country, and that seems to have worked out ok.