Military Progressiveness, Please?

Reposted from the MilitaryTimes forum:

The notion that one's sexual orientation compromises military readiness if one is homosexual versus heterosexual is without logical foundation.

One's sexual conduct, whether homosexual or heterosexual can compromise operational readiness if that conduct occurs. For example, when a heterosexual member of the armed services engages in an affair with the spouse of an active duty member in their unit or command, or a male engages in sexual intercourse with an underage female on and off base, or a senior enlisted active duty member of the armed forces acquieses to the promiscuity of his daughter with other military men on base, operational readiness can be impacted. It is not a leap of logic to find that this otherwise private conduct is either unlawful or has an immediate impact on command readiness given the web of sexual conduct and intrigue within the command. As reprehensible as this conduct is, it would be unlikely to directly undermine command readiness unless it's illegality would subject the member to legal or administrative sanction. In all of these instances, the command was aware of the conduct and did not act against the member, all of whom were former students of mine. The common element was that the sexual conduct involved a male and female, not male and male or female and female.

By contrast, another highly decorated male in the armed services who was viewed as a very macho "man's man" was drummed out of his highly sensitive job in a local military team. His job was among the most dangerous and clandestine in the US military for which hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent to train him. Several of his missions saved the lives of fellow military personnel. Still, he was seen walking in a gay area of San Diego with another military-looking man. Hushed rumors matured into hate messages and death threats. He accepted an honorable discharge after less than 10 years in the military. He had intended to make it his career. Members of his team felt betrayed by him since they believed that he did not share their interest in women. Perversely, they thought if he was not interested in women he must interested in them! The man with whom he was walking was another member of the armed services in a different branch. They were dating at the time. That he did not "tell" nor did his command "ask" was irrelevant. This command did not protect him.

In another instance, a married couple who were both my students, also occupied sensitive posts which called for both to have TOP SECRET security clearances. They were bisexual and some how their command found out about their off-base activities. In an effort to force one of them to leave the service (why one and not both was never clear), their command insisted that one of them would have to leave the sevice to be the responsible adult guardian of their daughter. They had no family who could assume that role. It seemed logical, but they command had always known of their family situation and it had never been an issue until their bisexuality became known. Moreover, the $60,000 re-enlisted bonus each had received would have to be surrendered by the spouse leaving the military. They were understandably outraged. The counsel I gave them in a letter they could share with their command sent their superiors into a panic. As difficult as the matter of guardianship of their daughter might be in the future if sent overseas, the alternative for the military was one that could have lead to reprimands of those up the chain of command, or worse.

The matter of their bisexuality and daughter were dropped. They are still active duty members of the armed forces today serving the nation in their TOP SECRET posts.

I mention these instances to illustrate the conflicting attitudes toward service members' sexuality and just how arbitrary and capricious treatment of individual members can be.

Wrongful hetesexual conduct can be excused and overlooked. Bisexuality can be overlooked if in the nation's interest. Openly gay men and women serve in active duty in all branches of the military without difficulty so long as they are ultra-discrete and closeted in their private lives (not exactly the same standard for heterosexual members).

It is unfortunate enough the irrational prejudices toward gay and lesbian members of the military continues, but this is compounded by the irrational attacks on Matthew Sanchez's political beliefs. It is akin to the illogical notion that all gays must be Democrats . . or it is illogical for a black American to be a Republican.

Those gay advocates who condem Sanchez's political conservatism demonstrate intolerance toward gay members of the service (or former members) who espouse political ideas with which they do not agree. This is much like self-annointed "conservatives" condemming those who criticized the decision to go to war in Iraq. Both act from a rigid ideological base from which they shelter themselves from truths that they do not want to see. One can be gay and conservative. One can also be a loyal American and not want to go to war in Iraq.

It would be better to have a lively poltical discussion with Matthew than to engage in the distraction of how many gay movies he appeared in, or what he did sexually while in the military. They may be titilating in a "National Inquirer" and "Star" centered discussion with lots of heat and overblown rhetoric, but hopefully most of the readers of the Navy Times aspire to more.

Richard Dittbenner, J. D.
San Diego, California
rdittbenner@sprynet.com

Republicans During Kosovo

From the years 1993 to 2001, President Bill Clinton worked alongside four different Congresses; the 103^rd, 104^th, 105^th, and finally the 106^th. During three out of four congresses, both the House and the Senate were presided over by a Republican majority. It is interesting to examine how a Republican majority Congress worked/fought against a President of the other party, especially during war time and on issues of the Constitution and the War Powers Act of 1973. It is in my opinion, a good window of time to examine the failure (56-34 with 17 Republicans joining the Democrats) of today’s non-binding measure which sought to rebuke President George W. Bush’s plan of escalating the number of troops deployed in Iraq with a surge of 21,500 combat and support troops.

Article I- Section 8 of the United States Constitution provides that while the President is the Commander in Chief of military forces when called upon to do so, the Congress retains the power to:

• To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
• To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
• To provide and maintain a navy;
• To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
• To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

In order to understand how the balance of power is struck throughout the course of a war, we must look at Article I in conjunction with the War Powers Act which requires the President to gain the approval of Congress before the commencement of any sort of hostile acts. This Act, whose legality has never been formally challenged through the Supreme Court, gives the Congress a set of teeth, as declaring war can be interpreted as a formality that does not give Congress a role in actually authorizing military action. Congress can authorize a war, but can it end one? Congress can end a conflict if war has not been formally declared within 60 days conflict. However once it authorizes a war, as it did in Afghanistan and Iraq, it relinquishes its war making power to the President. This however does not give him the authority to conduct a war on Iran, unless Alberto Gonzalez somehow successfully makes the argument that in the “War on Terror”, the “terror” aspect is so far reaching that the President can make war with whomever he so pleases. I find that to be unlikely.

In 1992, the US as well as NATO were convinced that it was time to take action against Bosnia. The Senate and House, although controlled by the Democrats passed the multilateral authorization of force by a strong ~94% agreement. Eventually in 1995, the Dayton Agreement was signed and peace was agreed upon by the warring parties in Bosnia and NATO.

It was during this time that Democrats and President Clinton began to be heavily criticized by some in the military and by the Republicans. In a 1996 editorial, John T. Correll, Editor in Chief of the Air Force Magazine, blasted Clinton for not observing the Weinberger Doctrine –

“In 1984, Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger proposed six tests to determine whether US forces should be sent into combat: Is a vital national interest at stake? Will we commit sufficient resources to win? Will we sustain the commitment? Are the objectives clearly defined? Is there reasonable expectation that the public and Congress will support the operation? Have we exhausted our other options?

…the Clinton Administration, which came to office imbued with the idea that the instrument of military power could be and should be applied with fewer restrictions. President Clinton's first Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin, said that under the Weinberger rules, the armed forces would be employed "only very, very rarely" and that "people may not be willing to pay $250 billion or even $200 billion a year for a military that is not very useful."

To my knowledge Correll, even as far as 2003 (when he discontinued his role at the Air Force Magazine), supported the efforts that the Bush administration had made in Iraq and Afghanistan. To some degree, retrospectively I would agree, Bush along with Rumsfeld transformed the military to better fight the evolving threats arising from Middle East combat. However, given our situation in Iraq and Afghanistan today, it being 2007, I would be curious to see if Correll has given his thoughts any reconsideration. His laudatory attitude towards Bush was largely based on rhetoric and not action.

[Correll commenting on G.W. Bush] “He promised to review the open-ended deployments: “Sending our military on vague, aimless, and endless deployments is the swift solvent of morale. ... I will work hard to find political solutions that allow an orderly and timely withdrawal from places like Kosovo and Bosnia. We will encourage our allies to take a broader role. We will not be hasty. But we will not be permanent peacekeepers, dividing warring parties. This is not our strength or our calling.””

Reflecting from 2007, Bush's words ring hollow as the criticisms he reserved for Clinton are those that he is also facing now. As we can see, Bush was heavily critical of the way Bosnia and Kosovo were handled. Many individuals like Bush and Correll threw up their arms, finger pointing that Clinton had committed our troops to world policing activities and used US military power too liberally. As the Congressional Democrats and Clinton pursued keeping troops in Bosnia to ensure success during peace negotiations, Republicans were intent on ending our nation’s activity in Bosnia.

The Republican Congress sought the following measures:

11/9/1995- H.R. 2606
Title: To prohibit the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense from being used for the deployment on the ground of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of any peacekeeping operation, or as part of any implementation force, unless funds for such deployment are specifically appropriated by law.
[Passed 243-171; 214 “AYES” votes were by the Republicans; failed in Senate 22-77]

12/13/1995-H.Res 302
Title: Relating to the deployment of United States Armed Forces in and around the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina to enforce the peace agreement between the parties to the conflict in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Reiterates serious concerns and opposition to the President's policy that results in the deployment of 20,000 members of the U.S. armed forces on the ground in the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Calls for: (1) the President and the Secretary of Defense to rely on the judgment of, and ensure the provision of appropriate resources and support to, the commander of the U.S. armed forces that are deployed in and around the territory of the Republic in all matters affecting the safety, support, and well-being of such forces; and (2) the U.S. Government to be impartial and evenhanded with all parties to the conflict as necessary to assure the safety and protection of such forces.
[Passed 287-141; 221 “Yeas” votes were by the Republicans]

12/13/1995- H.Res.304
Title: Providing for debate and for consideration of three measures relating to the deployment of United States Armed Forces in and around the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
[Passed: 357-70; Majority opinion of both parties]

12/13/1995- H.R. 2770
Title: To prohibit Federal funds from being used for the deployment on the ground of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of any peacekeeping operation, or as part of any implementation force.
[Defeated 210-218; 190 “YEAS” votes were by the Republicans]

This piece of legislation was submitted by D-Rep. Lee Hamilton

12/14/1995- H.R. 306

Title: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the deployment of United States Armed Forces to Bosnia.
Supports the men and women of the U.S. armed forces who are carrying out their mission in support of peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina with professional excellence, dedicated patriotism, and exemplary bravery.
[Defeated 190-237; 219 “NAYS” votes were by the Republicans]

With this Congressional record I think it is obvious that the criticism being endured by the Democrats concerning the non-binding resolution is without any merit whatsoever. Democrats are being accused of hurting the morale of our troops by pushing this resolution, obviously when Lee Hamilton presented the “We support our troops” legislation in 1995, the vote by the Republican majority was a resounding “NO”. Alongside of this lack of support for American troops assisting in peace keeping along with NATO, the Republicans voted repeatedly to cease the funding of activity in Bosnia. At the time, did that not embolden our enemies and show them that a peace agreement would not be supported by force from America? The inconsistency is stunning, a turn around in party politics that was only a little more than a decade ago.

This lack of support for the President in foreign policy only continued into 1999 when America again returned to the area for the Kosovo War. Again, the Congress authorized military action, agreeing to use of “air operations and missile strikes”. There was no opposition to Clinton from the Republican majority. And although the Senate had agreed to Senator Biden’s resolution authorizing air attacks in Yugoslavia and had also overwhelming agreed to Senator McCain’s resolution authorizing Clinton the use of “all necessary force and other means, in concert with U.S. allies, to accomplish U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) objectives in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)”, the Republican House still fought the legality of the war. This is not to say that I think that Clinton’s war was legal, in fact I would side with the Republicans and say it was pursuant with the War Powers Act to end U.S. involvement. The end result was still to authorize an extension to bombing in Yugoslavia, but to this day, Clinton critics argue that he went too far in pursuing “victory” and defending the Albanians.

The Republicans made many efforts to censure President Clinton on his handling of and engaging the United States military in the Kosovo War. They passed resolutions to debate the legality of war, they sought to withhold funds for the war and peacekeeping efforts, they even voted to not “support the troops” in what was for the most part a piece of fluff legislation. It is surprising now that the Republicans are acting so fiercely against Democrats taking action against President Bush and the Iraq War. During the Clinton Administration, there were not questions of how legislation was hurting the morale of the troops, there were however repeated questions about the Presidential powers invoked by Clinton in war making; questions that were absolutely legitimate. The current Republicans in Congress seem to have entirely given up their job of oversight of Presidential power; giving their responsibility in a system of checks and balances directly to President Bush without any after thought.

Historical Lessons for Iraq

We study history to take a glimpse into our past, to gain knowledge as to what motivated people, what mistakes they made, and how we may build upon their experience so that each generation becomes greater than that that preceded it.

The Bush administration is making an interesting claim to support their war on terror; when asked about what lessons he has drawn from Vietnam, he answered “we’ll succeed unless we quit”. The Bush lesson being, had Nixon not called for total withdrawal from Vietnam in 1973, and we pressed on, the American intervention would have been victorious. Had we pressed on, America would have been forced to answer the question, what is victory? Would victory have been the complete obliteration of South Vietnam, ending the north-south “civil war”, or perhaps maybe it would be the reformation of South Vietnam into a democratic entity. Who knows, however, because that question was left unanswered in our past, the question has risen again.

Another historical lesson we may draw on to better understand Iraq can be seen in a statement made by Dick Cheney recently.

CHENEY: Remember with me what happened after in Afghanistan. The United States was actively involved in Afghanistan in the '80s, supported the effort against the Soviets. The mujahideen prevailed and everybody walked away. And in Afghanistan, within relatively short order, the Taliban came to power. They created this safe haven for al Qaeda. Training camps were established, where some 20,000 terrorists trained in the late '90s. And out of that, out of Afghanistan -- because we walked away and ignored it -- we had the attack on the USS Cole, the attack on the embassies in East Africa and 9/11, where the people trained and planned in Afghanistan for that attack and killed 3,000 Americans. That is what happens when we walk away from a situation like that in the Middle East.

Once again, the presiding wisdom of the Bush administration is that, if we do not leave, then we will win. By most accounts, the US mission in Afghanistan that had taken place during the Carter, Reagan, and Bush (41) was a resounding success. The mission was to halt the spread of Russia and communism into Afghanistan following the removal of the Shah. The United States funded, trained, and armed the mujahideen for many years until the Russians withdrew in 1989. Victory!... or not? The question however is, did we walk away? We accomplished our mission and did not have the foresight to anticipate the rise of the Taliban; at the time there really was no impetus to stay any longer than the mission at hand required. We left the country in tatters; they experienced nearly a decade in guerilla warfare against communist rule leaving their infrastructure broken, the best and the brightest of the country had left out of fear, leaving Afghanistan with no leadership outside of the mujahideen factions; we left an awful situation. This is leaps and bounds different from both Iraq and Vietnam. We did not leave because we were in many ways “losing”. We had won. It was just a shortsighted victory.

Today, if is somewhat the fault of the United States that Islamic terrorism persists with the strength we are currently witnessing. The Mujahideen are by definition very similar to the extremist jihadists. They were fighting the specter of atheist communism and promoting the strength of armed and political Islam. We raised them to power.

What was the United States to do in the 1980s? Were US troops to remain in Afghanistan until democracy was spread from border to border; were we to depose the theocratic state that we funded in exchange for secular leadership? Such a campaign is on par if not more daunting than the current Iraq situation. Never would it have been as obvious that the United States was using political puppets to serve its own worldly interests.

The only lessons we can learn from Vietnam and Afghanistan are that if we remove ourselves from regional struggles, regardless if we began them or not, the United States can retreat to a semblance of isolationism and peace for a short while. The lesson is not that if we remain, that victory is immanent. Such a conclusion is not only ridiculous, but irresponsible to the men and women that volunteer for our armed forces. To achieve “victory” in Iraq, we will most likely be in Iraq for an untold number of years, more than a few of those years will be devoted to figuring out what victory is in the first place. If we learn anything from Afghanistan it is this: even if we achieve victory, how long will it be until we discover that our victory was short lived and our conditions for victory short sighted? What other regional conflicts are we not foreseeing by our actions and what new enemies are we creating?

smackdown

You may disagree with the content of Keith Olbermann's commentary, but it is refreshing to see someone other than FOX News brewing up a pot of righteous indignation. This video comes in just a week before President Bush is slated to address the nation and deliver us his plan for future prospects in Iraq. I would have to agree with NPR, that it is likely that Bush's message is going to look exactly like the plan for Iraq just released by The American Enterprise Institute (http://aei.org/publications/pubID.25396,filter.all/pub_detail.asp).
I mean... almost everything he does mirrors AEI.

Already the Democrats have issued a statement to President Bush asking him to reconsider what they (and basically everyone else) anticipate his Iraq plan to be, the increase of troops. Troop increase, I can't imagine that this is a good idea, how could it be? We are not fighting a war in Iraq, at least not in the traditional sense, where there are distinct forces on each side of a conflict. In a traditional war, numbers matter, strategy matters, and perseverance matters. How are the tactics of traditional warfare going to help, are we to increase our troop levels by ~20% and knock on every Iraqi door and ask if they are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers? We are fighting people who are defending their crumpled status quo and who really don't like the United States. The only way to "win" militarily would be to kill every last terrorist and detain/kill every single person that we think might one day become a terrorist. I think at that point we would be teetering on a cloaked form of genocide. We are attacking symptoms and not causes, and by not focusing on the cause, things have been escalating out of control.

What are the causes? Historical relations between Sunnis and Shi'a, the former Baathist party, and the inability of countries such as Lebanon and Iran to provide better social services and political strength to its people outside of terror sponsoring organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Is it a surprise that there are so many that support Hezbollah and Hamas? Given that they have extensive social programs including education, health care, etc. and national unity, how can we be surprised? President Bush and his cabinet have shown little effort in factoring these elements into US-Middle East policy and as we all know (or at least will eventually come to realize) it has been disastrous.

As a side note, Americans should observe Hezbollah and Hamas. They provide everything that a government should provide to its people, but their foreign policies are also driven by the religious convictions of their leaders; foreign policies that have dragged them into war with Israel, with no end in sight. We should take note of this as our politicians suggest and promote that the United States be a Christian nation.