60 Minutes of Infamy

The bad news is.....

.....if you missed 60 MINUTES on CBS tonight (16 DEC), you missed a provocative and intellectually stimulating bit of broadcast journalism entitled, "Military Soft On Don't Ask, Don't Tell? 60 Minutes: Is Military More Tolerant Of Gay Members In Wartime?"

The good news is.....

.....the above link will take you straight to it.

This video is a "must view" (and review) for everyone associated with the DADT repeal effort. Having now watched the video a few times myself, I put together a few perspectives I would like to share on Mailbuoy Watch.

I would like to focus my critical review of the story by reflecting on the two proponents of DADT interviewed. They were Congressman (and presidential candidate) Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Major Daniel Davis, United States Army.

Let us begin with the Honorable Duncan Hunter of the 52nd Congressional District of California which, interestingly (to this Sailor anyway), is comprised of the greater geographic part of San Diego County. San Diego is the home of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, and while Representative Hunter's district does not include the principal Navy bases themselves, it does serve as home to THOUSANDS of Sailors stationed at these bases. So listen up, shipmates in San Diego, here is what your representative is saying out loud....

First of all, should Hunter be elected President, he would be ineffective for his first several months in office. Instead of leading our nation, he would be deeply engaged in repairing our NATO relationships, impaired due to the egregious insult he issued to the courage and "combat-hardenedness" of their militaries.

Hunter made the appalling point that because the American military deployed to places like Fallujah where the combat is "rougher", we needed to be more combat-hardened than the NATO militaries. Since they deploy to softer, more "peace keeping" locations, it's OK, in those less critical places, to allow the gay presence to weaken combat readiness within those units.

I wonder if Congressman Hunter is envisioning Sailors and Soldiers who PT with feather boas or stand watch in high heels. To clarify for you, Congressman Hunter, I offer the following observations. The gay men and women serving honorably in today's military, as well as all of those throughout American and world history, are as fierce, as strong, as patriotic, as loyal, and as proficient as any of their straight compatriots. Maybe more. The first man down in Iraq was gay (link to story). He was not wounded to disability by hiding beneath his desk.

I am almost certainly inadequately capturing the blatant ignorance of such Congressional positions, and I encourage you to tune in to the video to hear for yourself what he said. I will write, in his defense, that he did get at least one thing right. When confronted with the overwhelming successes of foreign militaries' allowing gays to serve openly, he was able to accurately report that Americans were neither the Brits nor the Swedes (grin). I encourage all gay constituents, especially those Servicemembers, of the 52nd Congressional District of California to let Mr. Hunter know you respectfully disagree with his position and that a career change might be in order (contact him).

The second proponent of DADT interviewed was a Major in the U.S. Army named Daniel Davis, who shared with us some equally shocking positions. But before we get to his statements, let's talk about his rank for just a minute. My former rank (Lieutenant Commander) is equivalent to Davis' rank (Major) - both O-4. Don't get me wrong - it is a very cool rank - but, at the end of the day, it is not all that senior. I have to wonder why the senior military member speaking on behalf of DADT on the 60 MINUTES program was a mere Major.

Of course, listening to his statements, I think I can safely speak for the military by suggesting that Davis would not have been their first choice.

Are you ready for this........?

He said, in the true spirit of Congressional wisdom of the 52nd California District, that gay people would actually cause more combat deaths and military unit failure. There must be a bond, a cohesiveness, that a gay presence would diminish, and he confessed himself unable to "cohese" with gays. Of course, since he mentioned it, I confess myself unable to "cohese" with gay people, either, as I have absolutely no idea what that is. Perhaps he meant "cohere", but it is, after all, his quote. The bottom line for my fellow field grade is, homosexuality is "morally repugnant" and he wants nothing to do with gays.

Such statements on the part of both the Congressman and the Major really speak for themselves. I am hoping that the lack of military backing for DADT in this story means that the military is actually ready to drop the ban. Perhaps if we processed out the close-minded and prejudicial instead of the gays we might get somewhere.

A few closing remarks.....

I must say for the record, that it took a lot of courage on the part of Servicemembers, both current and veteran, to step forward for interviews on this article. Well done and thank you! "Bravo Zulu" as we say in the Navy!

I would also like to apologize to readers for the sarcasm I allowed to seep into my writing. In general, I believe this approach to point-making cheapens one's own positions. The fundamental weakness in the DADT proponents' arguments was to the point of rudeness, so I allowed my anger to show in response.

All of that said, it's now time to bring another Mailbuoy Watch to a close. Until our wakes cross again, I wish you "Fair Winds and Following Seas."