Petraeus Aide Marvin Hill: If Troops Can't Deal With DADT Repeal, They Should Leave The Service

WASHINGTON -- A senior aide to David Petraeus, commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, is out with a strong statement in support of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), saying that servicemembers who can't adjust to the change should think about leaving the military.

"If there are people who cannot deal with the change, then they're going to have to do what's best for their troops and best for the organization and best for the military service and exit the military service, so that we can move forward -- if that's the way that we have to go," said Command Sergeant Major Marvin Hill in an interview with Roland Martin on Washington Watch, set to air on Sunday.

Indeed, one of the arguments put forth by many critics of repeal is that integrating the forces will result in a loss of large number of servicemembers opposed to the change.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen addressed this concern during his recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, stating, "Should repeal occur, some soldiers and Marines may want separate shower facilities. Some may ask for different berthing. Some may even quit the service. We'll deal with that."

Also in the interview with Washington Watch, Hill said that he believes "the troops are ready for something like this."

"We know that if there is a change, that that change will have to be led, and it's going to have to be led by senior leaders such as myself and -- and others across the battlefield. Senior leaders are the ones [that are] going to set the tone in the unit and enable the unit to move forward."

In March, Petraeus told Congress that he believed the time had come to repeal the military's ban on DADT. He has also said that in his personal experience of serving with openly gay and lesbian CIA officers, "after the 10 seconds of awareness wore off, the focus was on the professional attributes of these individuals."

UPDATE, 5:38 p.m.: In his recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Robert Gates addressed the issue of troops leaving:

Well, first of all, I didn't say it was not important. But first of all, as I said in response to an earlier question, very few people can leave immediately, and so people would be around for the rest of their enlistment, for the rest of their contract if they were officers. And our expectation is that, as you've heard from the authors of the report and from Admiral Mullen, that experience, based on the survey itself, experience would dramatically lower those numbers.

Comments

[JonB2057]

05:11 PM on 12/22/2010

On a lighter note, I would love to be in any recruiters office when the first "stereotypical homosexual" comes in with HAAYYY!! Or looking like the character from a SNL skit!

[emperance]

07:48 PM on 12/17/2010

I don't think most people of Huff Po go to church & many might be atheists?

Who agrees with me?

[JonB2057]

05:12 PM on 12/22/2010

"I don't think most people of Huff Po go to church & many might be atheists?"

And your point is????

[SFC Gman]

01:49 AM on 12/16/2010

OMG! I have 15 years of service, about half active duty and half reserve. I have had gay soldiers work for me and with me. Except for the more ignorant knuckle dragger types and hardcore religous types, most soldiers do not care. If you know your role and do your job, I could give a shit if someone is gay. No gay soldiers have ever acted inappropriately in my presence or come on to me. All the hoopla about getting rid of DADT is being generated for political reasons and to sell media. Unless you are clueless, you already know you work with or supervise gay soldiers. So let's all grow up, be adults, let people be honest about who they are and make mission.

[JonB2057]

05:41 PM on 12/22/2010

"No gay soldiers have ever acted inappropri­ately in my presence or come on to me."

I also have fifteen years (two in the Marines, and thirteen in the Army). I however can not say the same thing when it comes to a Marine or Soldier "coming on to me". I don't know what it is, but I must say that these Soldiers and Marines took one hell of a chance. They did not know if I would turn them into the chain of command or not. I once had a young Spec. four in my section who came to me with an issue. She stated that another female soldier who we worked with was, coming on to her. After ensuring that she was not joking, I informed her that I will start the process. She then said to me, "You know what Sarge, I think I got it this now." I suspect, she went back and informed her that I (her immediate supervisor) was aware of the situation. With that in mind, I am on the side of the aide.

[VA Lady2008]

02:52 PM on 12/15/2010

About time. Enlistend men--I'm talking about Marine grunts, the ones who do the actual fighting, not the desk populators and pencil pushers--have bigger problems then wondering about someone else's sexual preference. The people who seem to care the most are those we need the LEAST: they represent the long, and highly overpaid (compared with the guys doing the fighting, bleeding and dying) tail of the operation. Not the fighting teeth. These men and women have far more important and bigger fish to fry. Make a danged decision, and once it's made, shut up, salute, and follow orders. That isn't very hard to understand.

[SFC Gman]

01:53 AM on 12/16/2010

You rock! I had a gay medic buddy at Ft. Bragg and he loved hanging out at Camp LeJune and dancing with those 82nd Airborne boys. There are grunts who want DADT done but they would never admit it in front of their more conservative battle buddies.

[connelly]

09:26 PM on 12/17/2010

He must have been dancing in his dreams because the 82 Airborne boys are not at Camp Lejeune .

[EliteBeave]

12:53 PM on 12/14/2010

History will look back on you DADT-loving bigots the same way we now look at those who tried to prevent blacks and women from serving. And I can't wait.

[emperance]

07:36 PM on 12/17/2010

Not the same, never will be.

[carnitine]

05:59 PM on 12/13/2010

Hopefully BeTrayus and the rest fix the shower and bunk if they are going to implent this. I sure it would feel like having meat wrapped over one sell in a room full of lions..except this is worse. All the lions do is kill you.

[EliteBeave]

12:47 PM on 12/14/2010

so... if DADT is repealed, all the barricks are going to be one straight guy surrounded by a bunch of gay guys who want to rape him? are you retarded?

[emperance]

07:37 PM on 12/17/2010

But they are aggressive. I should know.

[Margot707]

12:49 PM on 12/14/2010

Dumb comment.

[Gatormouth]

11:42 AM on 12/13/2010

Marvin Hill is correct for many reasons, social as well as economic. Of course it is much less expensive to create an "Army in Reserve" through the use of an ongoing draft to fill expanded need as it occurs, and trained reserves to be called up in a time of need. If we want to really increase our national military strength, first we should re industrial­ize to restore our loss of critical domestic supply. Our supply lines would be impossible to maintain!

There is an old argument about the relative merits of the profession­­al army vs the army in reserve. The conscripti­­on army in reserve has among it's merits the leavening of democratic ideals being continuall­­y added to the services preventing the of a self identity of a separate class by creating a "citizen" armed force. Reliance upon a profession­­al standing army, often referred to as an "armée de métier", runs the risk of creating a class conscious officer class which historical­­ly has often competed for power and even rule in some countries.

My feeling is that Rumsfeld went "with the army he had" to avoid the negative political effect of a draft. In effect conscripti­­ng Guard troops whose culture was essentiall­­y a police function: the defense of their respective states from natural disaster and social unrest. Now they return as "killer" regulars. A lot to unlearn, if they are ever going to be permitted to. Sorry, Repubs, but just one more thing to blame the Bush Administra­tion for.

[Gregory D Mellott]

11:21 PM on 12/12/2010

The big question in this matter is just what is being asked of the soldiers and our country. How far is gay behavior to be allowed to express itself? Is this leading to the notion that such behavior is normal? We all have health problems in our lives. Many mind-body relationship problems can find traumatic forms of expression. Drug addiction even in the Afghanistan people can lead to confused behaviors and should be addressed. In any case, without some definitive guidelines and limitations there is no way to say if an effort is likely serving success in the effort to manage (or preferably heal) the problem being addressed.

[Ioan Lightoller]

03:30 PM on 12/13/2010

Puh-leeze! There are already GLBT troops. What we want is the right to serve without having to live a lie. Since when is being able to do so about behaviour? I daresay more GLBT people have far more self-control than straights simply because their careers (and in many cases lives) depend upon it.

[Gregory D Mellott]

03:32 AM on 12/17/2010

Lies: I have no love of, or leaning for fighting... May it see its end. I suppose that such battles are inherently full of deception and willful confusion. None the less, I have a hard time where the mind is not harmony with the reality of the nature of even the body that allows its existence. May God (the only one really glorified) help us all with all the lies and confusion that gets 'raised' upon our poor creation to such detriments.

[Margot707]

12:51 PM on 12/14/2010

Female recruits are in more danger from their male counterparts than any one is from a gay soldier. "Gay behavior?" Do you really think anyone is going to show up in cut offs and boas?

[emperance]

07:39 PM on 12/17/2010

Haven't you seen some of those Navy photos??? I have.

They're even wearing lipstick & those were the STRAIGHTS.

Oooh child, it's on & pop'n now. Heeey!!!

[JonB2057]

06:05 PM on 12/22/2010

Curve ball at you, are you implying that because of females being in danger, then why not allow gays to serve openly?

[TheWanderer]

08:50 PM on 12/12/2010

My late father fought in Okinawa in WWII. There wa a gay soldier in his unit, openly gay and no one cared. My father and the rest of the men in his unit, gay or straight, knew they were in Okinawa because they had a job to do, and that job was to fight for this country, and for the free world. They were way too busy doing their job to worry about who did what with whom, or the moralizing nonsense of some stateside politicians.

[truthisneeded]

04:49 PM on 12/12/2010

Thank God for all our military. This is an historic moment in the democracy of the United States; without Admiral Mullen and General Petraeus and all the other amazing military folks we would not be at the verge of a great change in the history of the USA and the world.

Despite liars and cheaters like John McCain and Sarah Palin, who unfortunately deserves no respect.

[Ernie Vega]

06:58 PM on 12/13/2010

Fanned and Faved

[truthisneeded]

09:28 PM on 12/13/2010

F&F

[pahpah25]

12:42 PM on 12/12/2010

if one is on the front-line of a raging battle with a ferocious enemy, i'm sure the question any of the soldiers would ask of their fellow - soldiers would be , ARE YOU GAY'? i'm sure soldiers and marines lay awake worrying about their fellow soldiers personal lives.....they don't care if they are proficient in the skills needed to survive battle.and if they are wounded, i'm sure the wounded mans main concern would be the sexual orientation of the medical personell who are tending to his wounds..............nooooooooo, the above is sheer nonsense.

[dennybop]

05:41 PM on 12/12/2010

pahpah25-
Perhaps you haven't considered that on the front-line of a raging battle with a ferocious enemy that gay soldiers will undoubtedly be checking-out the straight guy next to them. Especially the out of shape ones.

[Ernie Vega]

07:02 PM on 12/13/2010

So you think in the heat of battle people check each other out? You obviously have never been in a battle. That is the last thing anybody thinks about. Ask any soldier.

[EliteBeave]

12:49 PM on 12/14/2010

how do you have 65 fans with such ignorant statements?

[Gatormouth]

10:33 AM on 12/12/2010

Marvin Hill is correct for many reasons, social as well as economic. Of course it is much less expensive to create an "Army in Reserve" through the use of an ongoing draft to fill expanded need as it occurs, and trained reserves to be called up in a time of need. If we want to really increase our national military strength, first we should re industrialize to restore our loss of critical domestic supply. Our supply lines would be impossible to maintain!

There is an old argument about the relative merits of the profession­al army vs the army in reserve. The conscripti­on army in reserve has among it's merits the leavening of democratic ideals being continuall­y added to the services preventing the of a self identity of a separate class creating a "citizen" armed creation force. Reliance upon a profession­al standing army, often referred to as an "armée de métier", runs the risk of creating a class conscious officer class which historical­ly has competed for power and even rule in some countries.

My feeling is that Rumsfeld went "with the army he had" to avoid the negative political effect of a draft. In effect conscripti­ng Guard troops whose culture was essentiall­y a police function: the defense of their respective states from natural disaster and social unrest. Now they return as "killer" regulars. A lot to unlearn, if they are ever going to be permitted to. Sorry, Repubs, but just one more thing to blame the Bush Administration for.

[AaronHughes]

10:24 AM on 12/12/2010

The answer to all of this has been so simple and plain that it has escaped everyone's notice from political and religious activists to simple people just trying to do their jobs: Keep your private life to yourself.
I never discussed my private affairs with the men and women I served with. Nuff said.

[MJHammonds]

11:51 AM on 12/12/2010

You miss the entire point. Keeping one's private life to yourself is not the issue.  Being discharged because of your private life is.

[AaronHughes]

01:29 PM on 12/12/2010

I don't think I miss the point at all. You are quite right that being discharged for what you do in the privacy of your own home is as foolish as installing screen doors on space shuttles.
Unfortunately, when you sign on to active duty service you lose a lot of rights. Your personal and professional behavior becomes governed by the UCMJ. A lot of behavior that people (myself included) believe has no bearing on your job is punishable under one article or another.
Just the most applicable one to the topic at hand is Article 125. Sodomy (including homosexual intimacy, oral sex or any position other than missionary) is actually punishable by, up to, court martial.
Fair? Probably not but the same rules apply to all servicemembers...they are simply unequally enforced.

[JonB2057]

06:20 PM on 12/22/2010

"Being discharged because of your private life is."

It appears to me that your "private life", not that private.

[antaeus]

12:44 PM on 12/12/2010

I see. So long-time relationships and marriages are "private."

"Hey, Aaron, are you married?" "None of your business!"

Yeah, that's a simple solution.

[AaronHughes]

01:23 PM on 12/12/2010

Sarcasm doesn't become you. It is simple and as you snidely suggested, that is exactly how the conversations should go.
"None of your business, now what's the plan of the day?"

I didn't serve to win popularity contests or get friends and sycophants to like me. I served to do something worthwhile with my life and get the education to be where I am today...where I still don't mix my personal and professional lives.

[tbrdfx96]

01:10 AM on 12/23/2010

No, not "Hey, Aaron are you married" but "hey Aaron who did you boink last night." None of your f'n business.

[Skyhawk]

08:31 PM on 12/11/2010

Well the Afghan war should end real soon.

[naschkatze]

07:59 PM on 12/11/2010

I hope they leave en masse using the excuse that they are gay.

[Ioan Lightoller]

10:39 PM on 12/11/2010

F&F. It would serve this country right for they way they have, and continue to treat us. It would certainly show the haters how many GLBT there are in the military.