Tag archives: Military

FRC in the News: January 25, 2013

by Nicole Hudgens

January 25, 2013

The Pro-Life March Continues

Jessica Prol, FRC’s Managing Editor for Policy Publications, wrote about the history and the dangers of legal abortion in an op-ed that appeared in The Washington Times. She celebrates life on the day of the famous March for Life today in Washington, D.C. and tells the story of a sweet baby girl, Naomi, who will prayerfully experience one of God’s greatest gifts—life.

Robert Morrison, FRC’s Senior Fellow for Policy Studies, wrote an op-ed that appeared in Human Events today about abortion giant, Planned Parenthood, and the future of the pro-life movement.

General Boykin in the NY Times and on Fox News Sunday

This Sunday, Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin (Ret.-USA), Executive Vice President at FRCwill be featured on Fox News Sunday and was recently quoted in the New York Times with his expertise concerning women in combat roles. Boykin, whose long career includes much time in the Special Forces Operations, made the statement that “the people making this decision are doing so as part of another social experiment.” Read Boykin’s response on the FRC website and op-ed that appeared in USA Today about women in frontline combat.

You Can Fight for the Country’s Freedom, But be Denied Your Own

FRC President Tony Perkins commented on a story done by Fox News Radio that explained how the Army ordered a cross and steeple to be taken off of a chapel in Afghanistan. Tony stated that “Under this Administration, the military has become a Christianity-free zone. As a veteran, there’s an irony here. You put on the uniform to defend freedom — chief among them is freedom of religion. And yet, you are stripped of your own freedom to practice your faith.”

Permission to disagree, Ma’am.

by Family Research Council

November 28, 2012

There’s been a buzz amidst DC’s commenting community about why we still should (or shouldn’t) care about General Petraeus’s now un-secret extracurricular activities with Mrs. Paula Broadwell. People with stronger opinions, more information, and bigger microphones have already discussed and dissected the matter.

Some writers call to greater responsibility and higher standards, others to greater flexibility and understanding. Some are a bit more nuanced, like the Walter Russell Mead’s blog post, “America’s Addled Puritanism.” My goal is not to parse the entire discussion, but to suggest that it is appropriate and at least slightly refreshing that our highest intelligence officers still be held accountable for a breach of trust and integrity in their personal relationships.

But West Point graduate-turned-comedian Laura Cannon seems to disagree. In last week’s Washington Post op-ed, “No sex? Permission to speak freely, Sir.” Ms. Cannon notes the following:

West Pointers are human beings, even those with names such as David Petraeus and Paula Broadwell. I think I have the standing to make this declaration, because I’m a fellow graduate. West Point is long on molding military officers, but a bit short on humanity. Its mission statement stresses the intent to commit every graduate to a career of professional excellence and service, embodying the values of “duty, honor and country.” How does West Point do that?

Here’s how: Rules! Hundreds upon hundreds of rules that govern every facet of human conduct imaginable, including my favorite: no sex in the barracks.

The problem, as Ms. Cannon sees it, is that David Petraeus and Paula Broadwell have been persecuted primarily for being human. Since leaving military service Ms. Cannon has, according to her website www.warvirgin.com, left her Jesus-addiction behind and stepped where no veteran has before, by offering “a candid, irreverent look at the comically naughty, sexually-charged underbelly of the military…”

As a proud sister of a U.S. military-service academy graduate, I concede that Ms. Cannon’s angst regarding military academy life is worth engaging. Over the years, my brother has (much more respectfully) shared stories of the ways that he and other cadets would attempt to stay afloat amidst a sea of rules—rules that often seem irrelevant or even counter-productive to the stated goal of building up the next generation of leaders. For a more intellectual discussion of modern military academies (and a rousing disagreement in the comments section), I recommend Professor Bruce Fleming’s article in The Chronicle Review, “The Few, the Proud, the Infantilized.”

But one thing Prof. Fleming and Ms. Cannon both recommend is to lift the no-sex-on-campus ban. Ms. Cannon does so with a comic and irreverent tone. Mr. Fleming does so in a more academic and detached manner, suggesting the academy should have ‘no opinion’ on matters of sexuality.

But would such a ban-repeal, as Ms. Cannon suggests, allow cadets to be “more human”? It does, of course, depend on what we mean by human. Is it truly human to pursue any sexual impulse, whenever one wishes, with whomever one wishes?

This, it would seem, is premise of sexual revolution. In The Atlantic‘s thorough and engaging essay on the topic, Hanna Rosin explores the following:

The hookup culture that has largely replaced dating on college campuses has been viewed, in many quarters, as socially corrosive and ultimately toxic to women, who seemingly have little choice but to participate. Actually, it is an engine of female progress—one being harnessed and driven by women themselves.

So where has all this gotten us? Ms. Rosin seems a bit more optimistic than I, about the empowering nature of sexual license… especially for young women. But logically, if indiscriminate, few-feelings-attached hookups are normal to the human (American) college experience, it would make sense to extend such license, even to military academies and combat zones.

But what if sexual license is not the definition of authentic humanity? Failed contraception, broken hearts, and lingering pang of the morning-after all whisper that authentic humanity is not finally found in sexual liberty. And the social science—illustrated in unforeseen pregnancies and grueling divorce proceedings—loudly suggests that sexual license hasn’t delivered.

So if General Petraeus or Ms. Cannon (or anyone else, for that matter) begins to find that pleasure isn’t keeping its promise, I suggest that they meet a famous warrior king who learned a very difficult version of the same lesson (the story can be found in 2 Sam 11-12). King David made a “human” decision by chasing the lovely, married Bathsheba. The king faced devastating consequences. But he also knew great restoration. I suggest that, in confession and restoration (Ps. 51), King David rediscovered what it meant to be “truly human.”

Rep. Tim Huelskamp and Tony Perkins Respond to the Ban of Military-Themed Bibles

by FRC Media Office

June 15, 2012

On this week’s edition of Washington Watch Weekly, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS 1st ) joins FRC’s Tony Perkins to discuss the decision by the Department of Defense to withdraw its authorization for Bibles with military insignias.

Here are excerpts from Rep. Huelskamp’s interview:

The Department of Defense is more worried about the atheists than our real legitimate national security threats around this country

The separation of the military and government and [our Judeo-Christian heritage] will be a disaster… . It is just one of many attacks on faith coming out of this administration.

This does an incredible disservice to the men and women in the military… . It turns away something that can help men and women in the military.

Rep. Huelskamp also said that the ban comes at a time when extra spiritual help is needed to help deal with the high suicide rates in the military and the service members need our support.

Click here to listen to the entire interview.

How Homosexuals in the Military Could Cause Casualties

by Peter Sprigg

December 15, 2010

Gen. James F. Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps, suggested in an interview yesterday that allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military could not only harm unit cohesion, but could actually increase casualties. Here are the opening paragraphs of the Washington Post report on the subject:

Marine general suggests repeal of ‘don’t ask’ could result in casualties

The Marine Corps’ top general suggested Tuesday that allowing gays to serve openly in the military could result in more casualties because their presence on the battlefield would pose “a distraction.”

When your life hangs on the line,” said Gen. James F. Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps, “you don’t want anything distracting… . Mistakes and inattention or distractions cost Marines’ lives.”

In an interview with newspaper and wire service reporters at the Pentagon, Amos was vague when pressed to clarify how the presence of gays would distract Marines during a firefight. But he cited a recent Defense Department survey in which a large percentage of Marine combat veterans predicted that repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law would harm “unit cohesion” and their tight-knit training for war.

So the Marines came back and they said, ‘Look, anything that’s going to break or potentially break that focus and cause any kind of distraction may have an effect on cohesion,’ ” he said. “I don’t want to permit that opportunity to happen. And I’ll tell you why. If you go up to Bethesda [Naval] Hospital … Marines are up there with no legs, none. We’ve got Marines at Walter Reed [Army Medical Center] with no limbs.”

Amos had said previously that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly could cause “distractions” and “risks” for combat units. But his remarks Tuesday were the first time that he or any other senior military leader has suggested that repealing the 17-year-old “don’t ask, don’t tell” law could directly endanger troops and cost lives.

Advocates for repeal of the current law against homosexuality in the military are scoffing at Gen. Amos remarks, insisting there is no conceivable scenario under which the presence of homosexual troops could lead to casualties.

However, retired Marine Gen. John J. Sheehan gave a specific example of how this could happen in his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee last Marchan example drawn from his own personal experience in combat in Vietnam. Here is his description of the incident, from the transcript of the March 18 hearing (bottom of p. 16 to p. 17 in the link):

General SHEEHAN. Senator, in my experience, homosexual marines create problems on the battlefield. Let me give you a case and point.

Early years of Vietnam, 9th Marines, West of Da Nang, rifle company on a ridgeline combat outpost, the intelligence was that the North Vietnamese were going to attack, that night. The unit was put on 50-percent alert, which meant one slept, one stood on watch. About 1 oclock in the morning, a fight broke out in a foxhole because the young marine was being molested by his squad leader. To the right of that foxhole, there was a machinegun section that opened up and almost killed a combat patrol that was out in the front.

Now, the natural question is, Okay. Well, fine, dont you have rules that deal with assault? and the answer to thats yes.

The real issue, though, was that, after we sorted this whole thing out, the sergeantthe squad leader essentially said, Look, I was just adjusting his equipment, waking him up because theI thought there was something out to the front. He denied it happened. The young PFC, who was new to the organization, said, Wait a minute. This really happened to me. He was molesting me. The unit took sides, naturally. The squad leader was a popular person, been around for a while. The PFC was a new kid. For about 3 days, that unit divided down the middlethose that supported the popular squad leader, those that kind of thought the new kid might be believable.

The only reason we sorted the issue out was because the sergeant committed the offense about 3 days later. But, the real tragedy of this story is, the young PFC continually insisted, for a long period of time, that nobody in his organization believed it happened. He lost faith in his chain of command.

So, I would argue the case that, if you look atand you can say that Im some old guy thats been around for a while, and beenprobably been around for too long. But, I read

Senator MCCAIN. Youre not the only one that

General SHEEHAN. Wellbut, I read the Defense Departments recently released sexual assault report. And the thing that really bothers me about this issue is that the report saysand this is last years reporttheres been an overall 11-percent rise in sexual assaults in the military; 16-percent rise in Afghanistan and Iraq; 32over 3200 cases of sexualwere not talking about sexual harassment, were talking about sexual assault. Seven percent of those thats about 226male on male assaults, where rape and sodomy took place. And the Department of Defense will clearly indicate that thats an underreporting.

I would stipulate that, from my days in Vietnam in the early 60s, when I had this sergeant that almost got a combat patrol killed, that a226 male soldiers and marines who are molestedthat theres something wrong with our sexual behavior policy.

One Argument Proved, One Argument Refuted by Pentagon Report

by Peter Sprigg

December 2, 2010

There are numerous arguments pro and con on the issue of homosexuality in the military, but the survey of Service members released by the Pentagon on Tuesday has decisively proved at least one argument against the current push to overturn existing law, and decisively refuted at least one argument in favor of that effort.

The Comprehensive Review Working Group report actually identified these arguments in their summary of What We Heard about the issue. One argument against repeal was described as: Why now? We are at war. Many have argued that with our armed forces stretched by the demands of two wars, this is not the time to impose further strain by implementing a radical change in personnel policy to appease a political interest group. (FRC does not believe there would ever be a good time for such a changebut the immediate circumstances are nevertheless a legitimate concern for lawmakers facing an immediate legislative vote).

It has been widely reported that soldiers and Marines in combat arms units were more likely to predict negative impacts from repeal of current law than were other Service members. While 62% of all Service members expected at least some negative results if current law were overturned, the same was true of 74% of all Marines and of Army combat arms soldiers, and 82% of Marines in combat arms units. An outright majority of the latter group, 57.5%, declared bluntly that it would affect their task cohesion either negatively or very negatively, while a minuscule 9% foresaw a positive impact.

The people on the front lines of our wars are the most concerned about repeala compelling argument against it.

On the other hand, the CRWG described the advocates of repeal as arguing, We need everyone willing and able to serve. In other words, the military simply cannot afford to lose the skills of existing or potential homosexual Service members. This is an issue of recruiting and retentionwhat policy will provide the military with the personnel that it needs.

Here again, the results are overwhelming. The surveys showed that the number who would be less willing to recommend a military career if open homosexuality is permitted is four times higher than the number who would be more willing to recommend it. In addition, the percentage who would themselves leave the military sooner than planned or consider doing so if current law is repealed, was more than six times higher than the number who would stay longer or consider doing so.

Its clearthe personnel losses to the military as a result of repeal would vastly outnumber any gains from allowing homosexuals in the ranks.

These are two strong points against the effort to overturn current law, even in a report designed to support that effort.

In the Military, Racial Integration and Sexual Liberation Are Not the Same Thing

by Peter Sprigg

October 22, 2010

Mark Thompson has posted a piece on Time magazines Swampland blog regarding the possible overturning (which he considers inevitable) of the current law against homosexual conduct in the military.

Such a radical change in military policy is hardly inevitable. Legislation to repeal the law is on life support following last months Senate vote to block it, and Judge Virginia Phillips muddled ruling that the law is unconstitutional ignored so much existing precedent that it is unlikely to be upheld.

Thompson, however, has delved into the archives of military history and relates findings about how African Americans were integrated within the armed forces without major difficulty. He concludes that the integration of homosexuals would take place just as smoothly.

One key difference, of course, is that blacks had long been eligible to serve in the military, but had served in segregated units. In contrast, homosexuals have always been considered ineligible for military service at all. (The popular misnomer Dont Ask Dont Tell misleads many into believing that active homosexuals are currently welcomed by the military as long as they stay in the closet. The truth is the oppositethe 1993 law mandates, with very limited exceptions, the discharge of any servicemember who has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts.)

Furthermore, Thompson simply assumes the answer to two critical threshold questions:

1) Is being gay like being black?

2) Is sexual conduct relevant to military effectiveness?

The logical answer to #1 is no. Homosexuality is a behavioral characteristic; being black is a superficial matter of skin color. The racial integration of the military was successful precisely because it proved that the behavior of black soldiers did not differ from that of whites. But with homosexuality, a difference in behavior is what defines the issue. Do not be fooled by vague references to sexual orientation as though it were an innate characteristicwhat homosexual activists now seek is the right to continue engaging in homosexual acts while in the military .

Homosexual activists compare sexual orientation to race in order to obscure the important differences between sexual attractions, behavior, and self-identification. Only the attractions are, like race, involuntary; but none of these elements of sexual orientation are (like race) inborn, immutable, innocuous, and in the Constitution. The 1993 law which homosexual activists seek to overturn is focused on homosexual conduct, and treats attractions or self-identification as relevant only because they are evidence of a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.

So does the military have a legitimate interest in regulating the sexual conduct of its members? The answer has always been yes, with respect to heterosexual conduct as well as homosexual. Adultery, for instance, remains a crime in the military, at a time when the civil law has long since become indifferent to it. As Congress found in 1993, high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion … are the essence of military capability, and there is no doubt that sexual conduct can threaten those standards and harm that capability.

Sexual tension, sexual harassment, and sexual assault are problems that exist among heterosexuals in the militarybut those problems would increase if homosexuals were allowed to serve, because it would be impossible to separate homosexuals the way that men and women are separated in their most intimate settings (showers, sleeping quarters, etc.). Increased health problems among homosexuals (in particular, dramatically higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV among men who have sex with men) would pose a direct challenge to military readiness.

The analogy to the racial integration of the military, even if it had any validity, would apply only to the concern that homosexuality in the military would damage recruiting and retention of personnel. But those are only two out of the nine likely negative consequences of repealing the current law that were identified by Col. Robert Maginnis in the FRC booklet Mission Compromised. The others are:

  • Damage to unit effectiveness.
  • Health consequences with high cost.

  • Threats to freedom of those who morally object to homosexuality.
  • Special protections for homosexuals.
  • Taxpayer-funded benefits to homosexual partners of servicemembers.
  • Possibility of costly new living arrangements to protect privacy.
  • Changes to military law and regulations regarding sexual offenses.

The argument that, as the gay newsmagazine The Advocate recently declared on its cover, Gay is the New Black, is one that most blacks resent, and that simply cannot stand up to serious scrutiny.

Lessons Not Learned from Fort Hood

by Robert Morrison

April 15, 2010

Its another classic bureaucratic report from the Pentagon. In the wake of the murders of 14 persons by Nidal Hasan last November, the Secretary of Defense demanded a full report. [Yes, there were fourteen victims. One of those killed was a pregnant woman.] Well, the Secretary got his report. Its another doorstop of a document replete with all the usual verbiage when it comes to pop psychology and busy-work buzz words. Heres what the Department of Defense press release tells us:

Among the actions to be taken in the near-term are:

(1) Expand the pilot program to fully deploy eGuardian as the DoD-wide force protection threat reporting system to handle suspicious incident activities. The eGuardian system, which is FBI-owned and maintained, will safeguard civil liberties, while enabling information sharing among Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement partners, including interagency fusion centers.

(2) Complete the deployment of the Law Enforcement Defense Data Exchange system (D-DEx) allowing all DoD law enforcement agencies to share criminal investigation as well as other law enforcement data as appropriate. D-DEx will be a consolidated database to enable organizations across the Department to query, retrieve, and post criminal investigation and law enforcement data in a single repository.

(3) Establish the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas Security Affairs as the DoD lead for the FBIs Joint Terrorism Task Force program.

(4) Strengthen DoDs antiterrorism training program by incorporating lessons learned from the Fort Hood incident, Department of Homeland Security best practices on workplace violence, and civilian law enforcement active shooter awareness training.

Shooter awareness training? What in the world is that supposed to mean? Can any American take any comfort from this dismal report? Does anyone think anyone at Fort Hoodor in the nation, for that matter—had any problem being aware of the active shooter in their midst?

I am surprised the report did not advocate advance positioning of grief counselorsgood griefand offer to distribute candles for memorial services before the next outbreak.

Heres my recommendation:

Step 1. Require every member of the Armed Services, officer, non-com, and enlisted, to take an oath. The oath might say something like this:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Whats that you say? They already take such an oath? That youve even seen them take it? That it looks like this:

Very well. Then that brings me to Step 2.

ENFORCE THE OATH.

Nidal Hasan was commissioned in the Army of the United States. He took this oath, along with millions of other Americans. For years, he was allowed to spew venomous anti-American and anti-Christian statements. He was cosseted and coddled in the interests of diversity.

Every time he spoke up for jihad he was in violation of his oath. And he got away with it. Treason is not diversity. Sedition is not diversity. Insubordination is not diversity.

By winking at Hasans treasonous statements, the army brass created the conditions for this mass killing. They were enablers of Hasans murderous rampage. For the troops to see such treasonous statements going unchallenged and undisciplined is to undermine morale at every level.

Once, in the midst of the Civil War, President Lincoln heard that one of Gen. McClellans officers, a Major John Key, had been loudly telling his fellows that the reason McClellan did not pursue the retreating Gen. Lee and the rebel army was because the game was to fight the war only to reach a stalemate; then, Major Key said, the generals North and South would intervene to force a negotiated settlement. Keys sentiments were by no means as dangerous, as treasonous as Nidal Hasans were. But Lincoln summoned Key to the White House and dismissed him from the army on the spot. Although Lincoln was a famously merciful man, he never relented in his determination to banish disloyal sentiment from the army.

Thats the kind of leadership that is missing here. With this kind of pathetic report, filled with all the usual vapid sentiments, the typical bureaucratic gobbledygook, who among our all-volunteer services can have confidence that their seniors will truly look out for them?

Our military has historically been a great place to bring Americans from all backgrounds together. Men and women from different regions, races, religions, ethnic and social groups work together, fight together, live together, pray together. The military has been a great unifier for our country. Our armed forces have survived and prevailed over every enemy that has come against them. But they cannot survive political correctness.

  • Page 2 of 2
  • 1
  • 2
Archives