Top military leaders still opposed to open gay service

Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen pauses on Capitol Hill in Washington Thursday, Dec. 2, 2010, Prior to testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy hearing. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

The top uniformed officers of the Army and the Marines say letting gays serve openly in the military at a time of war would be divisive and difficult, sharply challenging a new Pentagon study that calculates the risk as low.

Their assessment, expected Friday at a Senate hearing, was likely to become political ammunition for Arizona Sen. John McCain and other Republicans fighting to keep Congress from repealing the 1993 law that prohibits gays from acknowledging their sexual orientation. Democrats have promised a vote this month to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, although its chances of passing this year were considered dim.

“If the law is changed, successfully implementing repeal and assimilating openly homosexual Marines into the tightly woven fabric of our combat units has strong potential for disruption at the small unit level, as it will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus of preparing units for combat,” the Marine commandant, Gen. James Amos, said in remarks prepared for delivery to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Testimony from Amos and the other service chiefs was obtained in advance by The Associated Press.

President Barack Obama has called on Congress to overturn the ban on openly gay service. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, agreed and ordered a 10-month study looking at the attitudes of service members toward gay troops.

Released earlier this week, the study found that about 30 percent of troops predicted problems would occur if “don’t ask, don’t tell” were repealed.

Most of the troops with concerns were serving in combat roles. Nearly 60 percent of troops in the Marine Corps and in Army combat units, such as infantry and special operations, said they thought allowing gays to be open about their sexual orientation would hurt their units’ ability to fight on the battlefield.

“I cannot reconcile, nor turn my back, on the negative perceptions held by our Marines who are most engaged in the hard work of day-to-day operations in Afghanistan,” Amos said.

His assessment was generally backed by the Army chief of staff, Gen. George Casey, who led the Iraq war under President George W. Bush. Casey said the policy shift, if implemented properly, wouldn’t keep the Army from doing its job, and he predicted repeal would pose only a moderate risk to his force.

But, he added, changing the law now would “add another level of stress to any already stretched force” and be more difficult on the Army, particularly its combat units, than the recent Pentagon study suggests.

Gates and Mullen have said they believe resistance can be addressed through training and education. They also cite experience with gay troops as a mitigating factor. According to the study, 84 percent of Marines in combat roles who find they’re working with a gay comrade said they did not see any negative impact on unit morale or cohesion.

“In terms of actual disruption experienced, as opposed to predicted disruption, the distinction between combat arms communities and the force as a whole is negligible,” said Marine Gen. James Cartwright, the No. 2 officer on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The Air Force and Navy chiefs were expected to offer considerably milder assessments of repeal than their Army and Marine counterparts. According to the study, some 70 percent of airmen and sailors predict few problems with lifting the ban.

The chief of naval operations, Adm. Gary Roughead, said it was likely that some highly trained combat sailors, including Navy SEALs, might refuse to re-enlist in protest of the personnel change. But, he said, he did not think any long-term damage would occur if certain steps were taken, such as increased training, and he recommended repeal.

The Air Force chief of staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz, predicted the risk to his force would be moderate. He suggested, however, deferring any policy changes until 2012 so as not to place any “additional discretionary demands on our leadership cadres in Afghanistan at this particularly challenging time.”

McCain has dismissed the military study as flawed because it did not ask troops whether they thought the law should be repealed in the first place, focusing instead on the impact repeal might have. McCain also contends that Pentagon leadership was glossing over serious objections expressed by troops in Marine and Army combat roles at a time of two wars.

Cartwright counters in his testimony that implementing change at a time of war might actually be preferable because troops are focused on their mission.

“The challenges associated with making a change of any kind that seem enormous during periods of inactivity become less distracting when you are defending your nation and comrades,” he said.

___

Associated Press writer Anne Gearan contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press

Enhanced by Zemanta

One Response to "Top military leaders still opposed to open gay service"

  1. Keith  December 4, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    Seems to me this “don’t put any more stress on our commanders in this time of war” nonsense from our military’s senior leadership is yet ANOTHER excuse for perpetuating their own bigotry.

    And waiting for Congress to repeal the DADT law is nonsense as well. The DADT law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL on its face and has been from day one. Not one, but SEVERAL federal judges have now said as much.

    So, besides your own personal prejudices, what’s keeping you clowns from doing what your own internal surveys now say you should?

    Our senior military leaders need to STOP hiding behind lame excuses that simply enable the bigots under their command to keep such systemically discriminatory practices intact. Indeed, our military leadership doesn’t tolerate lame excuses from those they command on other issues, so why do they keep offering them up on this one?

Comments are closed.