In case you've forgotten, Adm. Mike Mullen is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I think we can see where the resistance to repeal of DADT is coming from:
"I've had conversations with him about that. What I've discussed in terms of the future is I think we need to move in a measured way," Mullen said.
"Measured"? How so? What exactly does that mean?
And this is totally nonsensical:
"I haven't done any kind of extensive review. And what I feel most obligated about is to make sure I tell the president, you know, my — give the president my best advice, should this law change, on the impact on our people and their families at these very challenging times," he said.
Impact on "our people and their families"? What impact is that, exactly? And just who are "our people"?
More bullshit from the Obama administration.
This is another case in which I'm sorry to have been right -- I had thought that the resistance to repeal of DADT was coming from the top brass (and I've probably mentioned it here), and this seems to indicate that's so. It's not even that the rank and file are opposed -- we know they're not (Elaine Donnelley's cooked statistics notwithstanding). It's the very conservative, mostly Republican, largely Christianist brass. (It's sort of interesting to see how former military leaders, once they leave the Pentagon and get out in the real world, realize how awful DADT is.)
Update:
I take it back. Look what Colin Powell just came out with: more nonsense:
"I was withholding judgment because the commanders of the armed forces of the United States and the Joint Chiefs of Staff need to study it and make recommendations to the president, and have hearings before the Congress before a decision is made," he added. "It is not just a matter of old generals who, you know, are just too high-bound. There are lots of complicated issues with respect to this, and I think all of those issues should be illuminated."
What exactly are these "complicated issues"? I join with Jim Burroway on this one:
Does anyone have any idea what those “complicated issues” might be? Does anyone think that having gays and lesbians serve in the military is at all complicated? I mean, after all, they exist everywhere else in civilian life, and they are increasingly serving in the military with the full knowledge of their fellow soldiers, sailors and airmen. So what are they afraid of?
Keep pushing.
2 comments:
The more I hear about these "complicated issues" the more I suspect that what the brass are trying to figure out is how to segregate gay/lesbian personnel so that they won't threaten the psychological stability of their fellows. After all, could there be anything more demoralizing than knowing there's a gay man showering three spouts away who might get a look at your equipment and have a sudden, completely irresistible, impulse -- to laugh?
"Psychological stability"? If that were a consideration, the past six years would have been very different for enlisted personnel.
They're paralyzed by their own fantasies, based on the right-wing myth that gay men only think about having sex with straight guys.
As if.
Post a Comment