I mean, who says this and expects not to have some one say something...
"Should repeal occur, some soldiers and Marines may want separate shower facilities. Some may ask for different berthing. Some may even quit the service," Mullen said. "We'll deal with that."
"We treat each other with respect or we find another place to work. Period,"
So Admiral Mullen thinks that those that serve can just GTFO if they don't like it. I am guessing by "deal with that" he means that he plans on telling those service members who are morally opposed to homosexuality to work real hard to just get over it and go about their business as if nothing has changed?
Did he just spend most of the meeting with his hands over his ears saying loudly "LA LA LA I"M NOT LISTENING TO YOU!!!" while the other service chiefs said this:
The Army is already stretched by the effects of a decade at war, said Army Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey Jr. “I would not recommend going forward at this time given all that the Army has on its plate,” said Casey.
“My recommendation is we should not implement repeal at this time,” I ask for the opportunity to do it when my forces are not singularly focused on combat.” said Marine Corps Gen. James F. Amos.
The head of the Air Force, Air Force Gen. Norton A. Schwartz whose pilots are actively engaged in round the clock combat missions over Afghanistan, recommended that if the law is changed, the policy not take effect until 2012 at the earliest. He said he believed that gay service members could be integrated openly into the Air Force over time, but he described as “too optimistic” the Department of Defense report this week that the short-term risk of repeal was low.
But maybe the choice of guys to speak for the US Navy was not so smart....
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead recommended the repeal of the law, saying that the Navy might see a reduction in re-enlistment by some highly trained combat sailors, including Navy SEALs, but he did not think there would be any long-term effect if the Navy followed the steps recommended by the Department of Defense report.
Yeah, who needs more of those combat hardened and honed pesky Navy SEALs, Navy EOD Special OPS Techs and SWCCs to go fight the GWOT. We can just get some more ya' know. Sprinkle some "bad ass" dust on some guys at the recruiting office and there you have it....
And picking a guy named "Roughhead" to go and speak on the Navy's behalf just makes me snicker.
And I haven't even got started on the stats....
And then with a little help from the internet, I found this.
In response to the Department of Defense report on repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, here is the analysis of Former Navy Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitts, who is an active opponent of any change to the current policy.
"Don't believe the phony liberal media reports that 70% of troops support open homosexual service, because that statistic included 'mixed' feelings. A closer reading of the fine print in the newly released Pentagon survey shows our troops answered as follows:
"Q45. If you had a leader whom you believed was gay or lesbian...9% positive, 91% negative or mixed impact on unit's performance.
"Q68c. 85% of Marine Combat Arms, 75% of Army Combat Arms, 64% overall say Negative, Very Negative, or Mixed impact on unit trust if DADT is repealed.
"Q90. 29% would take no action if assigned open showers with homosexuals. 71% would shower at other times, complain to leadership or chaplains, don't know or do "something else" [including violence].
"Q81. 24% will leave the military or think about leaving sooner than planned. (One half million troops will QUIT the service early, destroying our national security.)
"Q80. 6% will positively recommend service to others after repeal. 94% feel negative, mixed, no effect, or don't know about recommending military service to others. (Destroying recruiting efforts.)
"Q66. If open homosexuality impacts combat performance, is the impact...9% positive, 91% negative or mixed impact.
"Q71. 11% feel positive or very positive about permitting open homosexuality in field environment or out at sea. 60% negative or mixed. 19% no effect.
"Q73. 5% say repeal would positively boost morale. 41% say negative or mixed impact morale. Rest no effect or don't know.
So you see Admiral, people will vote with their feet, it won't be all at once, but they will leave, and last time I checked, there was not a line forming outside of every recruiters office of homosexual men and women who are just dying to serve.
And I speak from experience here. I served with (as a subordinate) a lesbian platoon sergeant who was about as open as she could possibly be without actually saying anything, living with her girlfriend in the same room in the barracks while on a forward deployment, when the other enlisted soldiers were prohibited by the command we were assigned to from being in the barracks rooms of their boyfriends/girlfriends. I watched as she gave negative counseling statements to soldiers who violated the policy while she was doing the same thing, but no one in the command wanted to talk about the giant polka dotted elephant in the room. It made for a great deal of interesting questions from my subordinates that I had no real good answer for.
We put aside our desires and our feelings to the extent possible when serving. We especially do it when we serve in a forward area. These rules are set out for a reason. It is the same reason that officers cannot date subordinates, NCOs are not allowed to lead the squad that their girlfriend or boyfriend or wife or husband are in. Judgment is clouded and focus on the mission to be accomplished gets blurry.
The other service chiefs understand that going down to rabbit hole of Political Correctness is the surest way to end up on the well intentioned road to the Hell of unintended consequences, and I think Marine Colonel James M. Lowe said it best:
"I like Marines, because being a Marine is serious business. We're not a social club or a fraternal organization and we don't pretend to be one. We're a Brotherhood of Warriors -- nothing more, nothing less, pure and simple. We are in the ass-kicking business, and unfortunately, these days business is good."
And there is no shortage of customers in the line of asses to be kicked. Attempting social engineering and morality plays at the expense of the security of a nation because of one judicial activist (who is not the least bit unbiased) is not something I want to see attempted. Congress needs to move on this as a first item of business in January and squash this once and for all with the force of law, not judicial fiat.
Because we have serious business to get to....