Marine Commandant Defies White House on Gay Troops

The Washington Times is reporting that Marine Corps Commandant General James Conway is opposing President Obama's pledge to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." Citing a former senior Pentagon official, the Times says that General Conway, "has emerged in internal Pentagon deliberations as the most outspoken opponent of permitting gay men and women to serve openly in the U.S. military." According to the Times, the official says that "Conway has gone further than others in stating his opposition to a change in policy."

If nothing else, Conway's apparent resistance may be a warning shot to the White House by telegraphing arguments that opponents of repeal will invoke if the Senate holds hearings on "don't ask, don't tell." Given that we are fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, opponents will say, we just cannot take time out to focus on civil rights issues like gays in the military.

But there could be other implications to the case, some of which have higher stakes than the gays in the military issue. On one hand, even if the White House did not coordinate the leaking of General Conway's views, there is a way in which his opposition plays into the administration's hand. The President, of course, is strongly in favor of repealing the ban. His political reality, however, is that he has to deal with a range of other crises before turning to repeal. What better way to justify going slowly than a statement by the Marine Commandant that we cannot do this now?

On the other hand, even though Conway's apparent resistance may buy some time, it could carry some risk for the White House as well. Law professor Diane Mazur, for example, worries that Conway's opposition could raise thorny questions of civilian control over the military. "The President has declared which way policy is heading," she said. "There is no faster way for a Commander-in-Chief to lose the respect of those serving under him than to allow his Service Chiefs to march in an opposite direction." Mazur should know. She is a former military officer and a top legal expert on civil-military relations.

From this point of view, service members would rather follow a leader who pursues policies that they oppose than a leader who is not forceful enough to ensure than all his subordinates are following his plan, regardless of their preferences. To the extent that Mazur is correct, then it may be important for the White House to take Conway out to the woodshed.

As retired Air Force Colonel Dick Klass said this morning, "Clinton's mistake was to call the Chiefs into the Oval Office and ask them what they thought about gays in the military. What Clinton should have done, and what Obama should do, is call the Chiefs in, explain that repealing the ban is a matter of national security, and tell them that if they are uncomfortable with that, they should resign."

The bottom line is that, as Secretary of the Army John McHugh said last week, the military has a long history of adjusting its policies, and the typical pattern is that "predictions of doom and gloom that did not play out." Most military leaders understand that repeal is inevitable. Many agree that "don't ask, don't tell" is hurting the military, and that it doesn't make sense to fire gay Arabic linguists during a time of war. The question is when, not whether, repeal will happen.

 

Comments

[legalclubs]

I'm not being sarcastic, I really just don't know....bu­t, wasn't the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy put in place by President Clinton as an executive order or something equivalent that didn't require Congressional approval? Isn't this part of the exclusive power of the presidency as the Commander-­and-Chief? If so, couldn't Obama come out today and rescind the policy and put in place a new policy in line with his campaign promise? It sounds like something he could do on a lunch break -- so no excuses for being too busy. Also, who care what General Conway's opinion is as it is irrevelant. He can say whatever he wants now and push for keeping the existing policy as that is the law of the military until Obama says otherwise. Of course if Obama does actually change the policy and Conway fights it after the fact or refuses to implement it then Conway will be fired...so no big deal. The big deal, it seems to me, is that this is probably the easiest campaign promise for Obama to keep and it is solely within his power...ye­t it still has happened.

[OdinsEye]

DADT was a law passed by Congress.

While I disagree with DADT, the opinion of the Commandant of the Marine Corps is hardly irrelevant. As a member of the Joint Chiefs his opinion is very relevant and he is a principle military advisor to the President. And he is hardly the only General/Admiral with concerns.

[caveman1313]

"what Obama should do, is call the Chiefs in, explain that repealing the ban is a matter of national security, and tell them that if they are uncomfortable with that, they should resign."
----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­-------

but that would require obama to make a decision, take a stance and lead. that is not what obama does.

[OdinsEye]

Maybe when he gets done campaigning, apologizing, and blaming...­.

[joeyfoto]

The general has every right to voice his opposition and to state the reasons for his position. The test will come when his Commander-in-Chief give an order. The Marine general will obey that order to the letter. Semper Fi. The operative word in this missive is "WHEN."

[themoneyshot]

Is The Washington Times even worth quoting?

[sherifffruitfly]

Above all else in America, there can be absolutely NO question that our military receives commands from a civilian President.

No military coups here, thx.

Can him immediately.

[OdinsEye]

Can him for what? He has not disobeyed any commands.

[OdinsEye]

Recap:

1) The Commandant did not make a public statement.

2) The Commandant's position was attributed to an anonymous source.

3) No instructions or orders have been given by Congress or the President.

4) The Commandant, as a member of the Joint Chiefs, is an advisor to the President and the CJCS. If the President is thinking about implementing an order, it is the Commandant's duty to give him feedback, positive or negative.


5) There has been no "defying" or "disobeying". The title of this article is completely misleading.

[Joe Politco]

I served for over 20+ years, both in and out of combat. I have two questions for you; can you do the job, and are you willing to put your personal differences aside for the good of the team/unit/­section/co­mmand? If you can - welcome aboard; if you can't - move along.

[OdinsEye]

My personal philosophy is much the same.

[nananance]

The Marine Corps has a long history of opposing social change and adhered to a strict policy of racial segregation until the Korean War when the demands of the battlefield forced it to integrate.
I have no doubt that if this was 1948, Gen. Conway would have advised President Harry Truman not to integrate the military and our nation would have been deprived of some of its very best and brightest service members, just as Don't Ask Don't Tell is costing our country today.

[superstition]

"The President, of course, is strongly in favor of repealing the ban."

The President has fired hundreds of troops for being gay. He refuses to use his ability to stop the implementation of the policy.

Alcee Hastings said the White House pressured him to withdraw his amendment to stop funding DADT.

Repeal language disappeared from the White House's website at one point. Proxies have been replacing repeal with humanize/c­hange/modi­fy.

The White House has filed legal briefs arguing that DADT is a good policy and falsely claimed it has no choice.

"His political reality, however, is that he has to deal with a range of other crises before turning to repeal."

Tell that to the hundreds of troops who have been fired. Tell that to Dan Choi. Tell that to Victor Fehrenbach.

[oldtree]

There is a code of conduct required by the military, and it appears he has violated it.
Is he going to get the presidential medal of feces? A promotion?
I guess everyone is scared of the pentagon. except the devil worshippers that enjoy a nice halloween.

What in the hell is wrong with the president in keeping this mutineer? Fire him for cause and replace him with someone that isn't actively trying to destroy the military of our country. Think the solution is pretty damn easy considering.

[OkieIntellectual]

There was no "mutiny", no treason, and no violation of any code of conduct. I don't know what fiction stories you get your ideas about the Joint Chiefs from, but I can assure you that your understanding of of their role and what they are expected to do is woefully inaccurate. When one of the Joint Chiefs is opposed to a proposed policy from the President it actually IS their job to express that opposition. That's part of what they do, part of why that position exists in the first place. If the President were to force the resignation of every senior officer who voiced disagreement of his proposed policies, we would be left with a cadre of "yes men" who would say thing like "Certainly Mr. President, nuking Iran is an excellent idea and clearly the only way to ensure national security."

Don't laugh, similar situations have happened and if it weren't for the opposition of the Joint Chiefs, we would be in the middle of WW III now.

[RetiredSeniorChief]

OkieIntellectual is right. My last duty before retiring from the Navy was with the Joint Staff. I worked directly for Generals Schwartz, McChrystal and Conway. Fine men.
Many posters here need to verify their facts before giving knee jerk responses. I agree that many gays have served and are serving, and I also think the current policy is bad and should be scrapped. Also, it seems that some think gays are only limited to "not talking about it". Not true - any evidence of homosexual conduct, i.e., sex with a same-sex partner, is also grounds for administrative separation processing. I've separated several while serving as a legal officer.
From the policy interpretation by the Pentagon in 1993:
"Sexual orientation will not be a bar to service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. The military will discharge members who engage in homosexual conduct, which is defined as a homosexual act, a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual, or a marriage or attempted marriage to someone of the same gender."
Regarding the current wars, both need to wound down to something we can realistically do. There is no pot of gold at the end of either rainbow. Our people should not be dying for: 1)political stupidity 2) defense contractor dollars 3) people who don't want us there 4) or ANY OTHER UNSUPPORTABLE REASON. They should only be on the firing line when needed to defend our national security. Afghanistan and Iraq are not threats to us.

[OdinsEye]

"There is a code of conduct required by the military, and it appears he has violated it."

The Code of Conduct is something completely different than what you think. He violated nothing.

The Commandant's supposed views were reported by an "anonymous source" and were his own private views. He did not make a public statement and since no order has been given, it would be hard for him to violate one.

[OdinsEye]

Code of Conduct:

I am an American fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.

If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.

When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.

I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

[texasteph12570]

well stated!

[Dailyfare]

Conway expressed an OPINION, which is his right. His opinion is NOT POLICY.

[rudolfhern]

WRONG! When a US citizen enters the military, he or she gives up many of their rights (like the right to be tried by jury, etc.) Freedom of speech is NOT a right anymore (as evidenced by DADT where merely saying you'e gay will get you discharged.
This commander should keep his mouth SHUT out of military deference to his commander-in-chief or RESIGN!

[OkieIntellectual]

Lemmie ask you something, how much time did you spend in the military? Do you even understand what the role of the Joint Chiefs is? Do you realize that the statements were made during internal Pentagon discussions rather than a public press conference?

I see so many of my fellow liberals here going off the rails about this when it is essentially a non-story with a sensational, dramatic headline that actually has nothing to do with the facts of the incident. Gen. Conway's job as one of the Joint Chiefs is to express his candid opinion and give candid advice, which is exactly what he was doing. If our senior military leaders were nothing more than "yes men" to the President, can you imagine how much more chaos the Bush Admin would have caused? Clearly many of you do not know nearly as much as you think you do about how the military works or what the role of the Joint Chiefs is. Some of you folks make me ashamed to call myself a liberal.

I don't agree with Gen. Conway's position on DADT, but I am not about to accuse an honorable military officer of treason or dissent when he was doing exactly what his position and sense of duty require of him.

[OdinsEye]

"WRONG! When a US citizen enters the military, he or she gives up many of their rights (like the right to be tried by jury, etc.) Freedom of speech is NOT a right anymore "

You are quite wrong.

//signed//
retired combat veteran

[colah]

Your facts are completely wrong. Yes, you can actually have opinions in the military. No, you dont lose any rights when you join, but you agree to follow their rules, which in this case he did. The line is drawn at disobeying direct orders or undermining the chain of command. His comments, while disappointing, were not against the rules.

[rudolfhern]

This guy has the right to express an opinion in direct defiance to his commander-in-chief yet a g.ay service member will be discharged for verbally expressing his o.rientati­on under DADT?

That makes NO sense!

[leftyandproudofit]

Exactly. Conway should be fired. Isn't it amazing that when people (everyday citizens) voiced their opposition to invading Iraq, the right (including the former president and vice president) labeled them unpatriotic, but now a general is vocally opposing his commander in chief, but some (Dailyfare?) say he has a right to free speech? Hypocrisy on parade.

[RetiredSeniorChief]

Bona fides: worked at Joint Staff before/during Iraq war, retired Navy after that, legal officer for several units. Worked directly for General Conway. One of our finest.
Yes, that makes no sense. Nevertheless, that's how it is. Has been since DADT was put in place, mitigating discrimination against gays by saying - if you're gay, you may serve, but you may not be gay while you are serving. Before that, only the gay label was needed to remove you.
I don't believe that using our warships to provide safety for Saudi oil fields makes sense either, but we still do it at and expend millions daily to do it.
Other than running their services, the Chiefs of each armed force (and the Chairman/Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs) have the role of providing the best possible military advice to the President. That includes dissension. General Conway did not hold a press conference; this was leaked. He's doing his job - if he thinks it should not be repealed, and provides logical support for that decision, good for him.

[missouriwatcher]

The good Commandant is letting personal biases and feelings get in the way. It is all really quite simple: The President is the Commander-in-Chief, and the Marine Commandant takes his orders from the President just like all the other generals. If he feels he cannot follow the orders given him, he has the option to retire. This is no different from those generals who felt they could not, in good conscience, follow the edicts of GWB when he was President: they either retired or got fired. Now Mr. Obama does not seem to have the same iron-fisted demeanor of his predecessor; but he is still the boss, and the generals must follow any and all lawful orders the President issues.

[kirbycouey]

They need to get onboard with the policy direction that the Commander and Chief is going or resign their commissions. No if ands or buts.

[TrekBear]

It is precisely because we are in two wars that we need to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The policy causes the discharge of otherwise qualified troops, leading to a weaker position for our forces.

[gutenmorgen]

All of you bloggers who have demanded that General Conway must either resign or be made to resign cavalierly overlook the fact that Conway has not made his views publicly (unlike McChrystal who should have been cashiered by Obama for insubordination) but during internal Pentagon deliberations. Are you insisting that a General who believes that the military is making a mistake must remain silent "indoors"? Are you insisting that a General who believes that the invasion of Iraq was a calamitous mistake should have remained silent "indoors"? Are you insisting that officers must be "yes men" only because of the pre-eminence of the civilian am of our government? That is a prescription for disaster in my view. The loyalty of officers is needed in the execution and not in the preparation for war.
Someone in the Pentagon leaked Conway's stance to the outside world. Is that not the person which should be fired by President Obama?

[COPerez]

As an ex-officer, I agree 100%, gutenmorgen. Unless he makes a statement publicly, this is just staff-talk in preparation for the Commander to make a decision.

There may be reasons for the leak, as stated in the story, but there is certainly no reason to cashier a good Chief. Should the CinC have a word with him about this? Absolutely. It's just too bad this was leaked...

[leftyandproudofit]

No, we're insisting that a general follow orders from his commander in chief. Loyalty isn't needed in the "preparation for war"? Sorry, but that comment is completely nuts.

[OdinsEye]

No orders have been given.

As a member of the JCS, his duty is to advise the President and CJCS. If the President proposes a new policy, it is Conway's duty to provide feedback for or against.