« Sorry For The Wonkiness - A Forced Upgrade Was In Order | Main | All the news that's fit to ignore »

Top Marine on DADT: "Mistakes and inattention or distractions cost Marines' lives"

WaPo:

Amos_JFThe 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."

...

"Right now is a very intense period of time for a pretty healthy slice of the United States Marine Corps. This is not training," Amos said.

"The forces that wear this uniform, that are in the middle of what I call the real deal, came back and told their commandant of the Marine Corps they have concerns," Amos said.

"That's all I need. I don't need a staff study. I don't need to hire three PhDs to tell me what to interpret it," he said. "If they have concerns, I do, too. It's as simple as that."

If we're going to do something like this to the military, let's wait until our forces are largely out of harm's way. 

Now is not the time.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/40762.

Comments (12)

Every man (because it IS di... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Every man (because it IS different for women) who favors Gays openly serving should be forced to spend six months living aboard a US destroyer, or living in a tent in a war-zone.

Men who are attracted to men, and able to show that attraction OPENLY and erectly will enjoy the constant and unavoidable rubbing of naked and half-naked bodies trying to dress, undress, shower and sleep. Men who are NOT attracted to other men will NOT enjoy the experience.

I am VERY heterosexual. So putting me in a situation where I was living with a group of WOMEN, and constantly and unavoidably rubbing up against naked and half-naked bodies trying to dress, undress, shower and sleep would certainly get MY attention. And the women would KNOW they had my attention...whether I did anything about it or not!

Do NOT practice "social engineering" on the military. They are there to PROTECT us.

As I've said before, this i... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

As I've said before, this is only the beginning. Once DADT is repealed, you can look to gays DEMANDING - in those states that recognize gay marriage - that their "spouses" be recognized and given living quarters, medical coverage and allotment checks. Then gays stationed in other states will be demanding similar coverage as being "equal protection".

What I don't get is that it's a "right" to join the military. They have a set of standards you must meet in order to sign up. As far as I know, the blind and those in wheelchairs aren't being encouraged to enlist. And berthing/bathing facilities aren't co-ed. Yet.

GarandFan, you DO get it. ... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

GarandFan, you DO get it. This is all about weakening our military...and thus weakening the U.S.

Doing so while paying off a special-interest group is just icing on the Democrat cake!

The Commandant makes a weak... (Below threshold)
Howie:

The Commandant makes a weak argument. We are always in a middle of a conflict somewhere. As I have stated the only reason this is really an issue is living conditions (i.e. see post 1).

Just assign openly gay sold... (Below threshold)
John S:

Just assign openly gay soldiers in front line combat in Muslim countries. Islam is sooooo tolerant of homosexuals. A gay soldier will shoot to kill to avoid capture, which also relieves us of coddling prisoners to appease Obama's military lawyers.

Focus and cohesion are ... (Below threshold)
gaius piconius:

Focus and cohesion are indispensible elements not only in battle but also in all training for war. Anything that limits these undoubtably influences military preparedness for war...and in the training of soldiers for generations is an implicit, unvarying truth that rates, probably, as one of the most succinct statements in the English language, and one of the easiest to get the grey matter around : 'THE AIM OF ALL MILITARY TRAINING IS TO ENABLE YOU TO CLOSE WITH AND KILL THE ENEMY'. That's it! No social commentary can attach. As for homosexuals...they have undoubtably been part and parcel of military forces since 'dot' and have sometimes distinguished themselves, but these are of the ordinary, invisible, garden variety. They are not your 'act up, in your face GAY homosexuals' which the mischief makers are insisting on having made respectable. Obviously the latter is quite contrary to the perfect statement above. I agree fully with the general...there can be no billet in the military for those homosexuals intent on making social statements from a point of 'simple promotion' to a state of ' steaming poofism and turd burglary'. These things are inimitable to the warrior culture. Fortunately God, Himself, did provide this one half of one percent of mankind with alternative venues; Broadway and Hollywood and the ballet come to mind as does academe, active political sniveling and fashion design, all of these just a moment's thought away.

In the summing up...dont ask don't tell is the acceptable alternative to compromising the nation's security. But, modern Democrats will never bother themselves with that outdated notion. You can take that to the bank!

'THE AIM OF ALL MILITARY TR... (Below threshold)
Howie:

'THE AIM OF ALL MILITARY TRAINING IS TO ENABLE YOU TO CLOSE WITH AND KILL THE ENEMY'

Not totally true in today's modern warfare. The military is more business-like now. People kill others without ever seeing them.

The military had the same tired, old argument of women in combat. Seems to have worked out fine.

.... John S says that Islam... (Below threshold)

.... John S says that Islam is sooooo tolerant of homosexuals ....

What John S apparently does not know is that Islam is owned operated and controlled and is essentially defined by its mattress-munching pillow-biting turd-burgling sister goat and little-boy-buggering.

That much of every individual Muslim "mans'" psychopathologically hesperophobic hatred comes from his own and from every other of Islam's endemically gutless votaries sexual-frustration driven self loathing.

And/or that to live in (particularly an Arab) "Muslim country" is to be homosexually propositioned by (even) every other cab driver.

Howie, succinct...brief.... (Below threshold)
gaius piconius:

Howie, succinct...brief...concise, but not negating the requirement to ponder meaning. Your, yesterday, comment is valid in that the action on the ground was 'micro' and personal in it's nature, but even then, say WW2, the US Army Air Force closed with the enemy as did the US Navy, often not seeing their enemies, (a more macro understanding of the statement), and paid in heavily blood for their efforts. Oh! And no matter where you are in the Order of Battle, even if you are a padre, priest or rabbi, your training has that one, single aim...not withstanding that your vocation might lend you a more humane personal sentiment. With regard to your second point. Don't bullshit the old bullshitter Howie! Up here in Canada we can also sex our body bags...and survey says... men are still opening doors, holding chairs, paying the bills and trying to remain patient in the department store. Oh! And the pensions paid out are, almost exclusively. widow's pensions although the womenfolk are certainly present and effective in theatre.

"men are still opening door... (Below threshold)
Howie:

"men are still opening doors, holding chairs, paying the bills and trying to remain patient in the department store."

The military is not a department store. Doors are not help open for women in uniform, nor do they expect it. The bottom line, women have been in combat and have been very good at it. I am sure gays (and suspect that already are) will be the same.

As for training, yes the big picture is to destroy the enemy, but combat support plays a large part. The majority of people in the military will never fire a weapon at an enemy. The military is run like a business and has been for years.

That's it Howie! I'm f... (Below threshold)
gaius piconius:

That's it Howie! I'm flogging a dead horse, and you are 'casting your seed upon the ground'. Just go back and click my green plus points and I shall reciprocate with your red negatives, Fair enough?

I really could care less ab... (Below threshold)
Howie:

I really could care less about the red or greens. I usually don't post, but as person in the military, this issue will effect me.

The key point I made in the beginning is that the Commandant is off base saying this is not the time. It is NEVER the right time. Since I have been in the service, we had the Cold War, Desert Storm, Bosnia, Afganistan and Iraq. During this time we intergrated women in combat. Off course there was/is growing pains and I expect the same with gays.

However, regardless of someones sexuality, race, gender, religious beliefs, etc. - the service has a code that must be adhered to. This code applies to all people, regardless. So gays wanting special treatment will not happen, nor will I tolerate it under my watch. The same goes for people who abuse gays that (if it happens) openly serve.

And again, the only valid point (I see right now), is living conditions on board ship. If a male or female is uncomortable with a same sex person in the conditions describe in post 1 - that becomes a issue.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy