If we don't have it, Chesty wouldn't want it.
Questions or Ordering? 888-NOV-1775
Mon-Fri 8am-5:30pm CST. Sat 10am-3pm CST.

The CMC has to go…

 
Avatar
Total Posts: 1522

<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style=“FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Calibri’”>
<DIV>
<SPAN style=“FONT-SIZE: 14.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Arial’,‘sans-serif’”></SPAN> <SPAN style=“FONT-SIZE: 14.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Arial’,‘sans-serif’”>Marine Corps commandant has to go<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office” ><o:p></o:p></SPAN>
<SPAN style=“FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Arial’,‘sans-serif’”></SPAN> <SPAN style=“FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Arial’,‘sans-serif’”>By <SPAN title=http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/articles/richard+cohen/ style=“COLOR: #0c4790”>Richard Cohen</SPAN><o:p></o:p></SPAN>
<SPAN style=“FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Arial’,‘sans-serif’”></SPAN> <SPAN style=“FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Arial’,‘sans-serif’”>Monday, December 20, 2010; 8:00 PM </SPAN><SPAN style=“FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Arial’,‘sans-serif’”><o:p></o:p></SPAN>
<SPAN style=“FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Times New Roman’,‘serif’”></SPAN> <SPAN style=“FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Times New Roman’,‘serif’”>I am a fan of the old World War II movies, the ones where the platoon was composed of typical Americans, Hollywood-style. There was a guy named Farmer and one called Preacher and another called Brooklyn (who was killed shortly after receiving a salami from home), no blacks and, of course, an officer who was good-looking and clearly a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant of the John Wayne variety. Now, of course, we would have to add a gay soldier. I fear for him. He’ll need someone to watch his back. <o:p></o:p></SPAN>
<SPAN style=“FONT-SIZE: 8.5pt; TEXT-TRANSFORM: uppercase; COLOR: #333333; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Arial’,‘sans-serif’”></SPAN> 
<SPAN style=“FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Times New Roman’,‘serif’”></SPAN> <SPAN style=“FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Times New Roman’,‘serif’”>The <SPAN title=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/18/AR2010121801729.html style=“COLOR: #0c4790”>repeal</SPAN> of the odious “don’t ask, don’t tell” law has been 17 years in the making. It could have been done much sooner had it not been for the political cowardice and/or ignorance of much of Congress and some of the military. The nation as a whole was way out in front of these institutions, having learned from their own kids and society in general that gays and lesbians were not drooling perverts but human beings with a different - not better and not worse - sexuality. Most of us know this now. <o:p></o:p></SPAN>
<SPAN style=“FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Times New Roman’,‘serif’”></SPAN> <SPAN style=“FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Times New Roman’,‘serif’”>There’s good reason to believe, however, that this lesson has not been universally learned. In the run-up to the vote in the Senate, Gen. James Amos, the Marine Corps commandant, showed how he felt about the prospect of open homosexuals serving in the Marines. He was particularly concerned about combat situations where, he thought, gays might be “<SPAN title=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/14/AR2010121404985.html style=“COLOR: #0c4790”>a distraction</SPAN>.” “Mistakes and inattention or distractions cost Marines’ lives,” Amos said. This was not the first time the general had expressed his doubts. Earlier, <SPAN title=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/us/politics/09military.html style=“COLOR: #0c4790”>he had talked about</SPAN> what might happen when his Marines were “laying out, sleeping alongside of one another and sharing death, fear and loss of brothers. I don’t know what the effect of that will be on cohesion. I mean, that’s what we’re looking at. It’s unit cohesion. It’s combat effectiveness.” <o:p></o:p></SPAN>
<SPAN style=“FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Times New Roman’,‘serif’”></SPAN> <SPAN style=“FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Times New Roman’,‘serif’”>It’s easy to dismiss Amos, but his concerns fall within the realm of possibility. After all, being gay is a sexual matter and young people are nothing if not sexual. This is the way it is supposed to be. This is also the problem with having women in the armed services or, if you are a radical feminist, having men. Sooner or later, a certain amount of unacceptable harassment will occur, abuses will be committed and, more innocently, plain hooking up is going to happen. We know this. <o:p></o:p></SPAN>
<SPAN style=“FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Times New Roman’,‘serif’”></SPAN> <SPAN style=“FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Times New Roman’,‘serif’”>But we know also that this can be managed - contained, limited. It takes education. It takes training. It takes leadership. This is what concerns me about Amos. His views are on the record. He sees gays as somewhat out of control, possibly holding hands in combat, sneaking into one another’s bunks at night, being distracted just as the enemy is coming over the hill. Not only is this silly and based on an ignorant misconception of who most gays are, but it can be dealt with. <o:p></o:p></SPAN>
<SPAN style=“FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Times New Roman’,‘serif’”></SPAN> <SPAN style=“FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Times New Roman’,‘serif’”>Amos, though, is the wrong man to deal with it. His subordinates know what he thinks of gays. They know he has not an iota of sympathy for what might be their difficulties or any tolerance for their lifestyle. If I were gay, I would not want to work for the man - or serve under him. He is one step short of being a bigot. <o:p></o:p></SPAN>
<SPAN style=“FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Times New Roman’,‘serif’”></SPAN> <SPAN style=“FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Times New Roman’,‘serif’”>The racial desegregation of the military in 1948 also produced much blather about unit cohesion. It is true, of course, that race is not about behavior, but it is also true that race is obvious, spotted clear across a room - or a dance hall or a noncommissioned officers club - and can produce a violent reaction. (Remember, the South was still an apartheid nation back then.) The military managed because it was commanded to comply. The leadership came from President Truman. He liked to have his orders followed. <o:p></o:p></SPAN>
<SPAN style=“FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Times New Roman’,‘serif’”></SPAN> <SPAN style=“FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Times New Roman’,‘serif’”>The Marines of today know that virtually the entire Republican Party stood up for bigotry. The Corps knows that some important senators - John McCain and Jon Kyl, to name two - furiously fought to retain the status quo, always in the sainted cause of unit cohesion. (Kyl <SPAN title=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/19/jon-kyl-dadt-repeal-could_n_798771.html style=“COLOR: #0c4790”>said</SPAN> repeal could “cost lives.”) Marines know, too, that in surveys, those on the front lines are least supportive of having gays among them and they are also aware that their brass fought to keep “don’t ask, don’t tell.” The issue for me, as for Gen. Amos, is unit cohesion. That’s why he has to go. <o:p></o:p></SPAN><SPAN style=“FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Times New Roman’,‘serif’”><SPAN title=mailto:cohenr@washpost.com style=“COLOR: #0c4790”>cohenr@washpost.com</SPAN> <o:p></o:p></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV>**********************************</DIV>
<DIV>**********************************</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><U>A REPLY</U>: </DIV>
<DIV>
I think we need to email Mr Cohen and discuss his brain housing flaptrap.  See Cohen email addy above!  Please forward to others.  Our Commandant is being attacked for being RIGHT!
<FONT face=Verdana><FONT size=2>Semper Fi,</FONT></FONT><FONT face=Verdana><FONT size=2>Leo<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>**********************************
<DIV>**********************************</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><U>And another reply</U>: </DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Mr. Cohen:</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In your Dec 20 column about Marine General Amos you call for his ouster from his position, and presumably from the service. However, you failed to mention your long and illustrious military career, and the years you have studied homosexuals and their effect on military readiness and combat effectiveness. I am sure your readers would be very interested in reading the result of your military experience and scholarly research.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I have a question which you didn’t address. We have a considerable number of Muslims in our armed forces. The usual reaction of Muslims to homosexuals is to kill them, maybe by stoning or decapitation, or even burning them alive. How do you suggest that Muslims who might do such a thing be treated? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You have touched lightly on the monumental task of rewriting the UCMJ and the laws and military regulations. That is merely a mechanical function that privates first class can do, just as they can copy and communicate to unauthorized personnel hundreds of thousands of classified documents. Oh, and the one who most recently did that is a homosexual.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But most importantly, how do you justify forcing Christian men and women not to follow their religious beliefs just to pander to useful idiots like yourself and militant sodomites? How do you justify criminalizing words and nonviolent actions and protests by those who view homosexuality as an offense against God? Along with decriminalizing sodomy, the rewriting will certainly <U>criminalize any behavior and words which might offend a homosexual while legitimizing homosexuals’ offensive words and behavior!</U></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You, sir, and your cohorts are malignant cancer cells that are eating at the fabric of our society. This is especially disgusting when you call for the ouster of a true warrior general who has served with honor, distinction and valor simply because he does not approve of your version of a lavender military force. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I wish you a decidedly unmerry Christmas, and a New Year with an unending severe attack of dysentery, an accompanying case of raging hemorrhoids and no toilet paper or Preparation H.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Sam Sanford<FONT id=role_document face=Verdana color=#000000 size=2><FONT style=“BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent” face=Arial color=#000000 size=2><FONT face=Verdana color=#000000 size=2><FONT style=“BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent” face=Arial color=#1f497d size=2><SPAN style=“FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Calibri’,‘sans-serif’”> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>

Avatar
Total Posts: 392

Cohen is an azzhat.

Total Posts: 1353

 
http://blog.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/AMOSX390-300x257.jpg
Already the articles have started, singling out those whose honest
professional opinion was against the repeal of DADT.  Long-time
Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen has written a column demanding the relief of General James F. Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps, because of his honestly-held professional military opinions advising against repeal of DADT.
A great many of the opinions expressed here and elsewhere cautioning
against repeal of DADT revolved around concerns of the rampant DoD
over-compensatory political correctness which has been the hallmark of
response to special interest pressure from without.  Such concerns were
lightly brushed off as unlikely, or dismissed as paranoia of homophobic,
bigoted, hateful service members whose fitness to serve was almost
always questioned.
Except that now, a major newspaper has begun the effort to remove
from senior leadership positions those they deem somehow politically
untrustworthy.  General Amos must read now in the written press an open
question of his fitness to lead Marines, published dutifully by WAPO. 
What other GOFO will be similarly targeted?   Will those who provided
input honestly and forthrightly be punished for doing so?  How many
views are “on the record”, as Cohen puts it, making them susceptible to
subtle but real retribution?  (In case anyone doubts broad-sweep
retribution occurs within DoD, one needs only to recall Tailhook and the damage done to the innocent as well as the guilty, at the behest of political special interests.) 
Some of Cohen’s words are below, sandwiched between  accusations of
lack of leadership and a brusque dismissal of effects on unit cohesion
being a chimera used as an excuse for dissenting opinions:

They know he has not an iota of sympathy for what might
be their difficulties or any tolerance for their lifestyle. If I were
gay, I would not want to work for the man - or serve under him. He is
one step short of being a bigot.

One could dismiss the Cohen column almost out of hand as expressing
an extreme take on an emotional issue.  Perhaps it should be.  It has
the flavor of a tin-clad dictatorship, where decisions are followed by
purges of opposition simply for being opposition.  However, it would be
far easier to dismiss if the words Cohen used were not so strikingly
similar in tone and intent as those uttered by Admiral Mike Mullen,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a few weeks back:

In the end, if there is either policy direction that
someone in uniform disagrees with.and you feel so strongly about it -
you know, the answer is not advocacy; it is in fact to vote with your
feet.

General Amos, like General Conway before him, disapproved of the
repeal of DADT, and stated well-reasoned professional arguments in doing
so.  Neither expressed his personal views on the matter, but rather
only shared their views as professional Marines whose comments were
regarding readiness and combat efficiency.  Admiral Mullen was not so prudent.
http://blog.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/0303-admiral-mullen-speech.jpg_full_600-300x204.jpg
I would hate to think that Admiral Mullen is in agreement in the
least with Richard Cohen, but he has publicly spoken words that indicate
otherwise.  Because if he is in agreement, even a little, then he is
questioning if General Amos, like General Conway before him, can be
trusted to lead Marines.   General Conway, like General Amos, is a
supreme warrior.   I have served under General Conway’s leadership in
combat, and would do so under the leadership of General Amos.  If, in
Admiral Mullen’s mind, he believes even in the slightest that these two
warriors are not fit to lead Marines, then Admiral Mullen knows nothing
about leading Marines.
Admiral Mullen has been extremely outspoken regarding his personal
beliefs on this political issue.  Now would be a very prudent time to
use that same mouth to be just as loud and outspoken in stating that
such a call for the heads of the dissenters as Richard Cohen has made
will not be tolerated nor condoned.  He has the bully pulpit.  If he
cannot find his voice to do so, it is he who should step down, as he is
not worthy of the trust of those whom it is his job to lead.


   
   

<div id=“st200812044127” class=“st-taf”>http://images.socialtwist.com/200812044127/button.png</div>

    http://blog.usni.org/wp-content/themes/Unleashedprint/images/more_bg.gif
    Posted by UltimaRatioReg in Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Homeland Security, Marine Corps, Navy,

 
 
Visitor Statistics
Post Marker Legend
The most visitors ever was 57, on November 20, 2012 02:18 AM
New posts New posts No new posts No new posts
Total Registered Members: 696836
Total Topics: 6335
Total Replies: 10864
Total Posts: 17199
Total Logged-in Users: 0
Total Anonymous Users: 0
Total Guests: 2
 
Active Members: