Disrespecting the Troops, One Thousand Officers at a Time

Throughout their history, right-wing activists, when left with no facts to defend their case, have often turned to scare tactics to keep their crusades going. Whether it is "code red" terror alerts a few days before an election, or dire warnings about hurricanes seeking revenge for our pro-choice ways, the far right has long been fond of playing Jungian psychology to prey on ancient fears.

That is certainly the case with one of the right-wing's darlings of the moment, Elaine Donnelly, who heads up the misleadingly named Center for Military Readiness. Donnelly, who rose to fame by maligning brave, patriotic women who sign up for service in the armed forces, has recently set her sights on another set of troops, and set out to malign gays. From warning - before a Congressional committee, no less - of the "inappropriate passive/aggressive actions common in the homosexual community" to repeatedly calling an Army command in Texas in an attempt to get a gay soldier fired, Donnelly has crossed lines of decency and respect again and again.

In fact, Donnelly's attacks on women (she recently said - you just can't make this up - that "to treat [women] equally would be unfair") and gays has become the subject of constant ridicule. Everyone from Jon Stewart to The Washington Post have lambasted her 18th century sensibilities.

Yet, while it's easy to use her rhetoric as fodder for news media comedy, the furor she spews is also based on outrageous bigotry that is not just inherently anti-woman and anti-gay. It's anti-military, too. Which is why it's all the more perplexing why some of those who have worn our country's uniform have also signed on to her campaign of disregard and disrespect for our country's troops . . . and given her more fuel to fire up her campaign of irrational fears.

Earlier this week, Donnelly released a list of 1,000 military officers - from a slew of 1-stars to a select few who wear 4 - to the Associated Press. The officers, who were surely recruited by Donnelly following a 2008 "secret meeting" she convened in Washington, urged President Obama to step back from his campaign promise to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and keep the counter-productive ban on gay troops permanently in place.

But if a picture is worth a thousand words, a thousand officers are surely worth a look at the big picture. And the picture Donnelly and her minions paint is neither pretty nor based on what's best for our country, our military or our troops, whether straight or gay.

There is little doubt that Donnelly's newest salvo in her relentless public relations campaign is meant to scare President Obama and Congressional leaders into thinking that any move to lift the ban will result in a '93-esque debacle over gays in the military. By testing Obama's resolve with a group of military veterans who disagree with him, Donnelly is sending a clear message that she believes she can recreate the hysteria of the Clinton administration's early days and cause political pain for a new commander-in-chief without a military background.

The truth, however, is that she can't, because even though a list of 1,000 officers might seem impressive, the number pales in comparison to the growing army of Americans, both military and civilian, who can see past manufactured fear.

Of all the things we have learned since 1993, one of the most important is this: That heterosexual service members, by and large, do not buy into the gay panic press that Donnelly wants to push on the American people. And that when 'leaders' live up to their title, service members, both gay and straight, are inspired to see - and do - the right thing.

"Besides being discriminatory to gays, the policy demeans all the heterosexual men and women who honorably serve our country by assuming that they, too, are driven by small-minded prejudice and bias," Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, Dean and President of Franklin Pierce Law Center, told me. "If they are told by 'leaders' that gays are unworthy to serve, they will act accordingly. On the other hand, if they are told that they are mature and disciplined and that gays will enhance, not undermine, unit cohesion, they will act according to that. We must display confidence in our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, and not presume they are too immature and ill-disciplined to accept gays in the military."

That is to say, it's all about leadership. And as a new generation of military personnel begin to move up the ranks and take the helm of the armed forces - alongside a new generation of political leadership reflected in the current commander-in-chief - old stereotypes and prejudices are quickly falling away . . . even if officers of an older generation continue to push their anti-gay ways.

Indeed, a quick look at the list supplied to the AP by Donnelly shows a few tell-tale things: There are very, very few women who endorse the gay ban, even though women continue to play more and more important roles throughout the ranks. And among the signatories on the list, one has had to apologize for suggesting African-American Marines were somehow less competent than whites, and the same one, in 1993, hand-delivered a virulent, anti-gay videotape, titled The Gay Agenda, to federal lawmakers considering then-President Clinton's proposal to lift the military's ban.

Surely, those are not the "leaders" President Obama will look to for sound policy guidance . . . or the ones he will allow to bully and scare him into doing the wrong thing.

In truth, Elaine Donnelly's list of 1,000 officers proves only one thing: That the more things change, the more the agents of intolerance will fight to keep them the same. But, as we did so proudly and patriotically in November, the American people can, once again, side-step the politics of fear and see the big picture again. Because, while 1,000 generals may paint one picture with inflammatory words, no amount of right-wing hysteria can, ultimately, cover up the truth. And not even 1,000 starred officers should be given the authority or stature to undermine, disrespect or dishonor the service of our lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or straight troops.

Comments

[sbvpav]

listening to secretary powell on the rachel maddow show the other evening, when asked if he thought it was time for the "don't ask, don't tell" policy instituted by congress, should be changed, he responded by saying it should be reviewed but only after the joint chiefs and pentagon had weighed in. he further went on to to explain the uniqueness, discipline and close living quarters of the military.

i could not help but think, especially coming from an african american who achieved such greatness in the military, if harry truman did this when he made an executive order to integrate the military? did he consider and weigh the "uniqueness, discipline and close living quarters of the military?"

now of course, the racial composition of the military, is not even considered and so it should be with one's sexual preference.

[Berettasskeeter]

Racial traits are genetically coded and unchangeable. Arguments are still being made on both sides about genetic coding for homosexuality, but there can be no arguments about acting on one's sexual desires. That is still a choice.
Semper fi

[edwcorey]

Alexander the Great had eunuch concubines. Greek soldiers were encouraged to have homosexual liaisons with their brothers in arms.

"Such relationships were documented by many Greek historians and in philosophical discourses, as well as in offhand remarks such as Philip II of Macedon's recorded by Plutarch demonstrates:

* 'It is not only the most warlike peoples, the Boeotians, Spartans, and Cretans, who are the most susceptible to this kind of love but also the greatest heroes of old: Meleager, Achilles, Aristomenes, Cimon, and Epaminonda­s.'"

[LeftRight]

Arguments are still being made, except by those who understand the reality, which is that sexual orientation is NOT something that you choose, it just is!

[CitizenDeux]

The author carefully conceals the fact that the 1000 officers were all retired. Some of these individuals are so far out of their time in service as to render their opinion meaningless in terms of current military policy. As an active, serving officer - I support service in the armed forces by dedicated, capable and honest people. I don't care about their religion, orientation or gender. As long as they get the job done in a professional manner - that's what matters.

I have served with members whom I knew to be homosexual, and this fact NEVER interfered with their ability to execute the mission. There will always be discipline problems, regardless of these issues, in the military.

[Berettasskeeter]

The fact that they are retired never seems, oddly enough, to matter to folks here when they support the anti-military points of view! I wonder why?
Further, that fact has no bearing on their understanding of military discipline, customs and courtesies.
Semper fi

[LeftRight]

Um.... HUH?????? When have we ever accepted the word of a retiree as gospel when they were anti-military????

[IntellectuallyHonest]

What an embarassment for Irish America.

[1differentdrummer]

Odd. When I was in the army I served with a West Point, Infantry, Airborne, Ranger, gay lieutenant. For whatever reason, it was no problem. He did his job and the unit didn't fall apart. I suppose there must have been more like him in the division, but there was no outcry or no kangaroo courts that I knew of. What's the big deal?

[Berettasskeeter]

Speaking as a veteran of 26 years service, I applaud Elaine Donnelly's efforts. She was largely right about women in the Services, while being narrowly wrong. And the fact that 1,000 retired and former officers have come out against the open service of homosexuals is telling, in spite of the author's single example of a man who made an error concerning black Servicemen.
The author seems to call into question the service and experience of these Officers! I share their experience, and agree with them.
During my 26 years, I was not aware of a single homosexual serving alongside me. I don't want my son to be in any different circumstances.
Semper fi

[BassMonk]

What are you afraid of?

[quindy]

He is afraid 'it' will move if man touches him. Remember Seinfeld?

[Berettasskeeter]

I'm afraid of the disciplinary/morale problems that could be, and probably would be, caused by the known service of such people. While I personally knew none, rumors abounded, and none of them were good!
Semper fi

[1differentdrummer]

We could go into the payline-chowline discussion, but what would that do? I served with gays and straights of both genders on active duty and in the reserve and saw no problems. I'm straight and saw no mission effects of the gay/straight non-issue.

[1differentdrummer]

It just occurred to me, you were not aware. That doesn't mean they weren't there.

[Berettasskeeter]

You're right, it doesn't mean they weren't there. It does mean that we didn't have any disciplinary or morale problems arising from a known presence!
Semper fi

[LeftRight]

Speaking as a veteran (though nowhere near the level of stars...) I must say that this woman is INSANE!!!! I've served with both women and gay people (of both sexes) and never had a single problem with them!! One of my very best friends from the Navy is now out of the service and living happily with his lover not too far from my house! The fact of the matter is that kicking out gays does NOTHING for esprit de corps, and actually harms those left, both because they must now work harder since they are down, and because there are straight people abusing this system!!