JANUARY 2011 VOL 31 Chapter 16 Newsletter Organization and Responsibilities: President’s Message Editor: Glen Craig Message from the Presi- Printer: Minuteman Press dent Sections: I have chosen a subject for this issue’s that most of you are watching closely and that many have Message from the President: Dave Shell strong feelings about. Before deciding to go forward though, I Treasurers Report: Paul Waldburger thought it prudent to revisit our Articles of Incorporation to Sec. Rpt (Staff Meeting Minutes): John Patterson -ensure that I was not straying outside the limits of the guide- Sick Call/Obituary: Chaplain Jake lines that bind us by our stated purpose and our status as a non Birthdays/Anniversaries: Chuck Kraus profit organization. Upon review, I am satisfied that we are 1st SFG(A) Update: MAJ Gregory (1st Group PAO) well within our proper role when we provide a voice for the Oasis Update: Bob Ervin/John Armezanni Special Forces community on matters that involve changes in policy and regulations that are controversial and potentially Blast from the Past: Glen Craig disruptive to the force. It is for this reason that I have chosen Special Recognition: John Patterson the recent signing into law of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Upcoming Events: John Patterson (DADT) by the President of the United States as the subject of Calendar: John Patterson my message. Human Interest Story: Chapter at large To be clear, it is not my intent to challenge the repeal of DADT SFA National HQ Update: Dave Shell as there are bigger issues at stake here. DADT was a gateway law enacted as an expedient solution to former President Clin- After Action Report: Jim Lessler ton’s promise to homosexual voters that he would be an advo- Membership Info: Roy Sayer cate for ending discrimination against recruits and current Advertisements: Glen Craig members of the Armed Forces who were found out to be gay or Suspense: lesbian. It functioned as a vehicle for eliminating policies and Newsletter published (Web and Print): 1st of each odd numbered month regulations that prohibited homosexuals from serving in the Input due to editor: 15th of each even numbered month military and set the stage for the day when homosexuals would Draft due to President: 20th of each even numbered month be fully integrated into the same. That day is here and it is not likely to change. As we are constantly reminded by the media and by federally imposed “reeducation” (mandated for federal employees and the military), our history is a wile one with re- gard to minorities, political extremists, and those with alter- nate lifestyles. We have (all groups), through struggle and toil, arrived at a point where most agree in a common set of values that purports that all people should be treated with dignity and respect and that basic human rights for all are at the founda- tion of our system. With this in mind, I think it fair to consider the impact that social engineering has on our military and the likely road ahead for our soldiers. Before I do, I feel it im- portant to make note of certain realities regarding military ser- Page 1 vice and fitness to serve, to include lifestyle/life choices. Most noteworthy is the understanding that military service is a privilege and not a civil right. The military routinely refuses entry to individuals on the grounds of incompatibility due to beliefs, weight, physical limitations and peculiarities (e.g. dwarfism), mental health issues, intelligence quotients, prior misconduct issues, etc. Therefore, however high or low the bar may be, the military is exclusive. Secondly, we have homosexuals in the military and always have. Oftentimes military members know who is and who isn’t, but unless some homosexual act spotlights their orientation most have been satisfied to work together without it being an issue. This isn’t new. The old timers I’ve spoken with agree that the military has always been this way. Thirdly, we have seen the military evolve in relative concert with the country as a whole regarding legal issues that govern homosexuals and homosexual conduct. Na- tional social mores have been a driving force in this evolution. Fifty years ago homosexuality- - was categorized as a mental illness in medical journals and as a deviant and perverse abomination by religious leaders. Twen- ty five years ago it was considered an alternative lifestyle that was argued as a nature vs nurture issue. To- day, largely due to lobbying efforts by special interest groups, there is a push to categorize homosexuals as a minority group that is entitled to the same programs and opportunities as groups identified by race, color, creed, ethnicity, or religion. The military has been subjected to, and is still experiencing, a process of warm- ing up to changes in the way the country views homosexuals and homosexual conduct, largely due to a na- tional movement led by a media and entertainment industry in which gays and lesbians are well represent- ed. The overridingReport questionof the Comprehensive that must be Review asked with of the regard Issues to Associated the military with and a Repeal alternate of “Don’t lifestyles Ask, is Don’t where we Tell”draw the line. DADTthe wasReview the bridge between prohibition of gays and their future integration, the same as are the DoD’s the Review’s (henceforth ) is the bridge between DADT and the full integration of homosexuals into the military as a community. This is evidenced by suggestion that gays gain entitlements and recog- Thenition Review’s over time based on the recommendations of future review boards. In the near term, any “significant others” will not be entitled to military dependent status and the accompanying benefits that go with them. recommendation that a relook at these issues during future reviews of the matter imply that it will happen when all have had time to warm up to the idea. Warming up to the idea will likely be a process of indoctrination that involves mandatory “sensitivity” training usually conducted annually. The jury is still out on the right way to proceed, but the obvious venues are briefings and computer based training modules sim- ilar to the ones required for Force Protection. In time, after we have warmed up a bit, I’m sure that someone will suggest that profiling homosexual superlatives would be a good way to recognize gay contributions to both society and the military. Interestingly, President Obama’s comments upon signing the repeal echoed The Review not exactly those spoken at the signing of civil rights legislation in the 1960s. There are serious implications at work here. was careful to say that “We do recommend that sexual orientation be placed- alongside race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, as a class eligible for various diversity programs, tracking initiatives, and complaint resolution processes under the Military Equal Opportunity Pro gram. We believe that doing so could produce a sense, rightly or wrongly, that gay men and lesbians are being elevated to a special status as a “protected class” and will receive special treatment. In a new environment in which gay and lesbian Service members can be open about their sexual orientation, we believe they will be accept- ed more readily if the military community understandsthe that Review they are simply being permitted equal footing with everyone else”. What are we to believe? The messages are mixed on this. It sounds like the President is categorizing homosexuals as a “protected class”, while suggests that in the interest of acceptance that they not be. - As I asked above,- when and where do we draw the line? Maybe we never draw the line. Maybe through a process of reeducation we become comfortable with the idea that trans sexualism is a normal state of being or that open cross dressing is just a normal person beingPage himself/herself. 2 Most folks are not aware that an - organization known as NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) long ago asserted its legal right to compete for military charitable dollars through the Combined Federal Campaign. They are listed right alongside the American Heart Association and the Warrior Foundation. Lest we forget, we are the most influential nation on the planet and our military is what allows us to be such. So it is, so it has always been that nations are defined by their military greatness. That said, our military is not immune to social and moral decay either Theperceived Review or real; no military is. The jury is still out on the impact that repeal might have on recruitment- and retention, which is the real litmus test of whether or not we can afford this social engineering initiative. estimates “a rough order of magnitude net annual cost estimate for repeal of DADT” to be $30 $40 million per year. That figure would, of course, increase with the revision of partnership policies on this matter. HistoryThe showsReview that great militaries are well paid and well compensated. We are a rich nation that provides unprecedented pay and benefits to our members, but as de- mands go up so does the cost of maintaining the force. definitively shows (though not the Work- The Review ing Group’s interpolation of the results) that military members will get the job done and that they will do it because of the quality life that the military provides. Of concern, , established by the SECDEF, can- not escape the perception that its conclusions were orchestrated to support the President’s agenda, as he has stated many times over. It is fair to suggest that their conclusion that military members are accepting of ho- mosexuals serving openly may be flawed and that a more accurate conclusion is that professionalism and economic necessity, not egalitarianism, is why respondents answered the way they did.