Dems & The "Don't Ask Don't Tell" Policy

There is an agenda among the more aggressive gay and lesbian groups to ensconce their lifestyle as completely acceptable within society, protected as a civil right and equal in all respects to heterosexual relationships and lifestyle. This is clearly evident in the push for gay marriage coupled with a rejection of the concept of civil unions." That push for acceptance has also been raised in regards to whether homosexuals should be allowed to openly serve in our Armed Forces:

The presidential candidates are dividing starkly along party lines on one of the signature fights of the 1990s: whether the 14-year-old policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” should be repealed and gay men and lesbians allowed to serve openly in the military.

In back-to-back debates in New Hampshire this week, every Democratic candidate raised his or her hand in support of repealing that policy, . . . Democrats argued with striking unanimity that it was time to end the uneasy compromise that President Bill Clinton reached in 1993, after his attempt to lift the ban on gay men and lesbians in the military provoked one of the most wrenching fights of his young administration.

Republicans countered that the policy should not be changed, certainly not in time of war.

It is a dispute that underscores the continuing power of social issues — like gay rights and abortion — in each party’s nominating contest, even as the larger debate revolves around a divisive war. And it shows the Democrats returning to yet another issue that confounded them in the past — like universal health care — with the conviction that the public is more ready for change this time.

Democratic leaders have been moving away from “don’t ask, don’t tell” for some time now . . .

The issue flared anew because it came up in this week’s debates, not because of any big new campaign initiative on either side. But aside from policy considerations, there is a political rationale for the Democrats’ stance: Gay men and lesbians make up an important part of the Democratic Party’s political and fund-raising base, and voters in general are increasingly tolerant on gay issues related to employment and discrimination, analysts say. While gay marriage remains deeply divisive, allowing openly gay men and lesbians to serve in time of war has a far more centrist appeal, advocates and analysts say.

. . . [I]n the view of some Republicans, the issue feeds into the criticism that surfaced in the early 1990s — that the military should not be a laboratory for social engineering. . .

Read the entire story here.

As to the charge of social engineering, leaving aside for the moment that we are in the middle of hostilities, that is not necessarily a valid argument. Our military is the most integrated of all institutions in America and, indeed, it has, more then any other single institution, served as the engine of integration in America. It has been the premeir engine of integration since Harry Truman ordered the military desegrated 59 years ago. That was an exercise in social engineering. It worked spectaulalry.

There can be no claim made that homosexuals can not or do not make every bit as good soldiers as their heterosexual counterparts. Some of the most famous military men of history were either homosexual or bisexual (Julius Caeser, Alexander, many of the Sparatans). For myself, I both commanded and served with a few men in the military whom I strongly suspected or came to know were gay. They were all good soldiers and I was proud to have served with them. Being gay has no bearing on whether a man or woman can be a good soldier.

The penultimate question is not morality, nor is it a question of civil rights. The sole question must be what effect would allowing openly gay soldiers to serve have on unit cohesion? Unit cohesion is an issue of supreme importance in the military. That question was asked and answered fourteen years ago during hearings on this precise issue. The answer was that it could significantly impact unit cohesion and change the dynamics of how our units operate. Having been an infantry company commander, in light of what I know of the average soldier and military life, I concur.

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that arose out of the 1993 hearings was completely appropriate. It does not punish or keep out homosexuals who wish to serve in the military. The policy merely asks gays to keep their sexual preferences out of the unit. It is functional and it works. And the fact is, we are at war. The time to engage in a grand experiment in social engineering is absolutely not while hositilities are ongoing.

But that is not what Democrats nor their radical constituency want. To understand their agenda and how far they are willing to go to achieve it, you need look no further then the Democrats treatment of Marine Corporal Matt Sanchez, a man who wanted to serve his country but then was outed and criticized by the liberal media for having previously appearing in gay porn. It was truly a low point. The agenda of the Democrats must be resisted.

Update: The best line coming out of the Democrat Presidential candidates' embrace of ending the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy," comes from Conan O'Brian who speculated that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' will be replaced by the new policy, 'Don't Tell Me You're Wearing Those Boots With That Gun.'"

Read More...

Summary only...

Turkey's Electorate To Make A Stark Choice - Islamic or Secular Government

The ongoing saga of whether AKP would succeed in appointing an Islamist to the important post of President took another turn today when Turkey's highest court ruled in favor of the secularists, holding the Turkish Parliament's vote to make Abdullah Gul President void. This lessens the liklihood of a military coup and will probably be resolved by a new election in Turkey that will leave the voters a very stark choice - whether to cling to the strictly secular government format instituted by Ataturk after World War I, or whether to embrace political Islam.

Turkey’s constitutional court today supported an effort to block a candidate for the country’s presidency whose background is in political Islam, pitching the country into early national elections and a referendum on the role of religion in its future.

In a 9 to 2 ruling, the court upheld an appeal by the main secular political party to stop Abdullah Gul, the current foreign minister and a close ally of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, from becoming president, objecting to what it says are his Islamic credentials.

But the ruling, which involved the legality of a parliamentary vote for Mr. Gul that was held last Friday, was more political than legal: The court is part of Turkey’s secular establishment, which is now mounting an assault against Mr. Erdogan and the emerging class of devout Turks that he represents, and its decision did not come as a surprise.

Both Mr. Gul and Mr. Erdogan have their roots in political Islam, and the prospect of a president — the highest secular post in the country — whose background is in political Islam has alarmed some Turks.

. . . The court’s ruling appears to have brought Turkey to a defining moment.

Since Mr. Gul’s emergence as the sole candidate for president, a powerful post chosen by parliamentary vote, the country’s opposition parties and its military have warned that his selection would bring an end to the era of secular modernism that began with the Ataturk revolution in 1923.

Last week, the country’s military, which has ousted four elected governments since 1960, issued a stern warning, hinting that it might act against the government if it strayed too far from secularism.

. . . Before today’s court decision, Mr. Gul had faced another round of parliamentary voting this week in order to be confirmed as president. Mr. Erdogan may now propose another candidate or, more likely, call a general election.
In a speech to the nation on Monday night, he avoided directly mentioning the political troubles, instead appealing for Turks to come together. “Turkey needs this togetherness, this unity, this love that has been freed of prejudices,” he said.

Read the entire article here. This will be a watershed moment with perhaps permanent ramifications. As any woman in Tehran with too many strands of hair showing will tell you, once your government goes Islamic, its hard to ever go back.

Read More...

Summary only...

Turks March Against the Rising Tide of Islam

As Turkey's pivotal election approaches on May 16, a large portion of the populace is protesting the islamicization of their country that will likely occur if Prime Minister Erdogan is elected President. This from al Babwa:

More than 200,000 Turks protested against Turkey's prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan Saturday, demonstrating the intense opposition he could face from Turkey's secular establishment if he decides to run for president next month.

According to the AP, protesters called on the government to quit and chanted slogans including, "We don't want an imam as president."

Tens of thousands traveled from across the country overnight to attend the rally in downtown Ankara. Police cordoned off the meeting area - near the mausoleum of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey. Police on the scene estimated the crowd at more than 200,000.

Turkey's president, Ahmet Necdet Sezer, said Friday that the threat Islamic fundamentalism posed to the country was higher than ever. "For the first time, the pillars of the secular republic are being openly questioned," Sezer said in an address to military officers.

The fact that Turkey's President Sezer made his remarks to military officers should be seen as ominous by those that would see Turkey bcome an islamic state. Turkey's military has a long history of coups, and one could well imagine another if the military perceives the secular republic established by Attaturk as under threat.

Update: Much more on this at Instapundit.

Read More...

Summary only...

U.S. Military Equipment Shortfalls a "Disaster"

Retired Major General Robert Scales has addressed the equipment shortfalls now being experienced by our military, which he describes as a disaster:

Most Army brigades are "not combat ready" in part because of equipment shortages. Brigades consist of people and equipment, so the significance of "not combat ready" loses a great deal in translation. . . The bottom line is that virtually any brigade not in Iraq cannot be equipped for war for a very, very long time.

While the true magnitude of the Army's equipment disaster remains clouded in classification, the anecdotal evidence of impending collapse is anywhere you choose to look. For the first time in nearly half a century the 82nd Airborne Division cannot generate enough combat power to put one of its brigades on strategic alert. A retired general friend visited a division at a very large post that has only 30 of its 240 tanks in working order. One general who daily works on equipment issues in the Pentagon reflected on the past: "Remember, after the collapse of the Soviet Union how the Russians left mountains of junked equipment to rust away in Eastern European motor pools? Well, we're nearly there now."

The Army will continue to wear out its equipment at prodigious rates. The pace of this decline is painful to watch. Usage rates for tanks during peacetime are about 550 miles per tank per year. Today in Iraq tanks average over 5,000 miles per year. At these rates the Army will have no choice but to virtually rebuild itself after Iraq.

How did the richest nation on the planet allow its Army to reach this condition? The answer is simply that for half a century every administration has continued the habit of undermanning and underequipping land forces, . . .

. . . The Army went into this war $56 billion short of equipment inside its deployed brigades and was suffering from a $44 billion deficit in delayed or cancelled programs for new weapons and equipment. Now the Army must restock. There are two choices, one cheap, one right. The cheap solution would be to repair the mountain of Cold War fighting gear that served the Army so well in the Gulf War and put it back into action for the next generation.

But cheap won't work because our Cold War fleet was designed to fight on the plains of Europe in huge tank-on-tank engagements against the Soviets. The heavily armored behemoths necessary for this style of war are not suitable for fighting the "long war." Yesterday's tank weighs more than 70 tons. It cannot move great distances. It consumes a huge amount of fuel that must be transported by vulnerable unarmored convoys from Kuwait to Baghdad. It cannot be easily transported by air. And it takes a multitude of repairmen -- many of them civilian contractors -- and a huge base infrastructure to keep it running in the punishing heat and dust of Iraq.

We have learned from painful experience in Iraq and Afghanistan that tomorrow's ground forces must be re-equipped with many more fighting vehicles that are light, mobile, easily transported and capable of keeping more soldiers protected for longer periods. Properly equipping the Army to win the long war will be very expensive. But we have fought 12 wars in the last 30 years and all but one has been decided on the ground. We will fight another one sooner than any of us would like. If we are to break the cycle of underfunding followed by rapid re-funding that has caused so much human tragedy, we must start now and must build a new Army for tomorrow rather than put yesterday's Army back on the shelf.

Read the entire article here. This is at once a disgrace and a crisis. Our military was allowed to truly atrophy in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union - the much vaunted peace divided. Indeed, we are now involved in two wars with a third possible in Iran, yet we have the smallest military since World War II. And there is blame to go around here. While it is beyond doubt that the underfunding of our military spans generations, the fact is that we had six years of a wartime Republican administration that reveled in record levels of domestic pork barrel spending, yet nowhere near enough attention paid to our military. This is unconscionable.

And now we have Democrats such as Jack Murtha who, rather then fix the problem, seek instead to use the problem as a basis for withdrawal from Iraq. Indeed, it would seem a significant amount of funds that could have been used to fix this problem were diverted to pork to buy the votes necessary to legislate that withdrawal - something equally unconscionable. The only way this problem will be fixed is if it sees the light of day. Bush nor any of the elected Republicans have raised this issue with any force. Bush needs to make a public mea culpa on his administrations responsibility for this problem and outline what funds the Congress needs to authorize to fix it -- or, in other words, what is the price tag to "support the troops." Allowing this problem to fester is nonsensical and, in the not too distant future, a sure recipe for disaster.

Read More...

Summary only...

Kissing Ahmedinejad's Ring

I am watching the hostage release on CNN as the British sailors and marines are being paraded single file up to Ahmedinejad to thank him for his hospitality. In a few days, I am sure that it will be possible to put this entire charade into perspective. There are many questions that the Brits must answer concerning their Rules of Engagement, there allowing small groups of soldiers to act without adequate cover or support, etc. Now they must also explain why 15 sailors and marines would become willing accomplices in Ahmedinejad's propoganda war.

The sailors and marines, unconscionably placed into a horrid situation by their commanders, have not distinguished themselves. While one or two of these sailors appearing on national television is to be expected, I never expected to see an officer willingly take part in the televised theatrics, which occurred two or three days ago when a lieutenant in the Royal Marines appeared on Iranian television. And what we are being treated to at the moment is the entire contingent parading up to Ahmedinejad, thanking him profusely and with many smiles, all in a ceremony where Ahmedinejad just gave a decoration to the IRGC commander in charge of the unit that took the Brits hostage.

Let me put this in perspective. I had the honor of knowing James Bond Stockdale. Vice Admiral Stockdale was the most decorated man in the history of the United States Navy. He also had been a prisoner of war. The North Vietnamese tortured him (the real stuff, not waterboarding or the Abu Ghraib faux torture that has the liberals wetting their panties) and was subjected to years of solitary confinement. The Vietnamese on several occasions offered to give him easier treatment if he would only appear on television and denounce the war. He refused, and on at least one occasion before he was to be shown on television, he actually beat his own face with a piece of wood to prevent the Vietnamese from using his image in their propoganda effort.

I do not expect that type of heroics to be shown by the average human, and I include among that nunber the 15 hostages still in Iranian control. But I cannot beleive my eyes watching these 15 sailors and marines honoring Ahmedinehad, each duly marching up to him and thanking him. Is there not one among there number that will not refuse? My respect for Britain and Her Majesty's military is dropping by the minute. I will attempt to keep an open mind for the next week or so until hearing from Britain's military spokesmen and the sailors and marines themselves. But my gut reaction to all of this is not promising.

I sincerely doubt that the willingness of the sailors and marines to participate in Ahmedinejad's propoganda will ever be addressed by Blair directly. But what Blair can do is address how and why this hostage taking was allowed to happen. The Commander of the HMS Cornwall needs to be disciplined and relieved of command, and Blair needs to publicly announce the steps he is taking to insure events such as this will not happen again. I think that necessary for the UK, the UK military, and for the mullahs in Iran who need to be disabused of any notion that the West does not have the stomach for military confrontation if Iran is going to push us to the wall either by events like this or by their continuing drive to create a nuclear arsenal.

Update: There is an excellent article in the UK Daily Mail that lays out precisely what needs to be done now by the Brits. And another here from The Telegraph. All the right questions are being asked. I suspect that a lot of the answers won't be pretty, but that is of no matter so long as things get fixed - and publicly so.

Update: And here, the Brits are questioning the how and why the sailors and marines degree of cooperation with Iran.

Read More...

Summary only...

China's Role in Weapons Proliferation

China is hardly an ally of the United States. Despite symbiotic economies, the Chinese Communist government is not only upgrading its military far beyond any defensive posture, it also plays a large role in WMD proliferation and proliferation of the missle technology used to deliver such weapons. This from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) publication "China and Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and Missiles: Policy Issues:"

China has taken some steps to mollify U.S. concerns about its role in weapons proliferation. Nonetheless, supplies from China have aggravated trends that result in ambiguous technical aid, more indigenous capabilities, longer-range missiles, and secondary (retransferred) proliferation. Asthe Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) has reported to Congress, China remains a “key supplier” of weapons technology, particularly missile or chemical technology.

Read the CRS here.

Hattip: Secrecy News

Read More...

Summary only...

China Rising

China, with the world's largest active duty army of some 2.3 million men, has been pumping huge amounts of funds into its military over the past fifteen years -- far in excess of anything that they need to maintain the defense of their nation.

But China’s military modernization efforts, particularly its drive to develop advanced weaponry, have been raising concern from Washington to Tokyo to New Delhi, where officials are worried that the buildup could be as much offensive as defensive. In January, China set off fears of an arms race in space when it successfully tested an antisatellite missile that destroyed one its own aging weather satellites. A month earlier, the People’s Liberation Army began deploying the country’s first state-of-the-art jet fighter, the J-10.

These advances reflect China’s intense focus on scientific and technological development, and are the fruits of more than a decade of increased military spending. China’s defense outlays increased an average of about 15 percent a year from 1990 to 2005, according to the Chinese military. This year’s jump is the largest one reported since military spending rose by 19.4 percent in 2002.

Military analysts in the United States and Europe say that China’s public military budget actually reflects only a fraction of its overall defense spending, and that the real figure is likely to be two to four times higher. Most defense analysts agree that China’s military focus is to build a force that would prevail in any conflict with Taiwan, which it regards as a renegade province, and also to be capable of creating a deterrent to American military intervention.

Read the entire story here. China is rapidly becoming a military threat in the Far East, even as they act to erode our strength abroad with their support of Iran and other countries hostile to the U.S. China must not only be watched, but there needs to be serious consideration given to militarizing Japan and giving greater military aid and equipment to Taiwan -- a democracy with a flourishing economy.

Read More...

Summary only...

CHINA'S MIXED SIGNALS

China is increasing its military capability far beyond that necessary for its own defense and is taking actions, most recently the destruction of a satelite, that are highly provocative. But while China is becoming a military threat that will only grow in the future, our relations with them otherwise remain in many respects good.

Read More...

Summary only...

A ROUNDUP OF SUCCESS IN THE SURGE. From the Dept. of Defense, an overview of the actions and successes over the past four days.

Read More...

Summary only...