The Joint Chiefs to testify on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’

The best argument I’ve heard against maintaining the ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy is that you don’t know what’s best for the military, and I don’t know what’s best for the military. The Joint Chiefs, the provisional leaders of the military, are the ones who know what is best for the military. If the Joint Chiefs perform studies and receive reports from their people to find out what is and what is not best for the military.

The Joint Chiefs are the ones who try to put aside the political pressure from politicians, the self-serving statements from focus groups and special interest groups, and they try to make informed decisions for what’s best for their units devoid of the hyperbole given in the media. These groups know little to nothing about what goes on in the closed quarters of military barracks, foxholes, etc. You don’t know and either do I. When it comes to the military, we should only listen to the men and women in the field, their leaders, and the Joint Chiefs.


The Joint Chiefs will appear before Congress tomorrow to report their findings on the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. Some would tell you that there is great pressure from the Commander in Chief to report their findings quickly, before the Republicans take office in January. No one believes, however, that the Joint Chiefs are under any political pressure, from anyone, to find one way or another. For this reason, they are required to report their findings quickly, before the Republicans take office in January.

Gays are allowed in the American military today, and they have been for quite a while now. They’re just ordered not to discuss their sexuality, and their superiors are ordered not to ask them about their sexuality. So what is the big deal here? Aren’t we concerned with the defenders of our freedom, aren’t we concerned with the fact that these defenders of our freedom have an atmosphere conducive to protecting us? They’re giving us their time, and in some cases their lives, to see to it that we can enjoy our Monday Night Football, our cheeseburgers, and our heated homes without fear of intruders. Why do we have to force our social agendas on those who sacrifice so much for us?

Whenever one discusses a social agenda that the left favors, and we lay out possible solutions, they always tell us that our solutions are too simple. Is acceptance of openly gay applicants an end solution to all that special interest groups, focus groups and politicians believe is wrong with the military? Will we all live in harmony once this is accomplished? If this is a simplified assessment, what is the purpose behind it? Will this make the military a better place, will it increase our military might the world over, or is the military the final arena in which the liberals have not succeeded thus far to push their social agenda?

Most of us are good people with no agenda. Most people believe in equality, and we do not want to see anyone denied the privileges afforded to any individuals in our society. For this reason, most people will tell you that they don’t want to see someone denied the ability to sacrifice their time, and possibly their lives, for the country they love. They’re not being denied this.

“Things have changed. Times have changed,” said Wayne Heffner, a retired Air Force technical sergeant who commands a Bellevue American Legion post. “It’s their country, too. If they can do the same job I can do, why not?”

They are doing the same jobs now. They’re just being asked not to discuss their sexual proclivities. They’re asked to sacrifice their self-serving agenda for the good of the military.

“I understand some of the concerns of some people,” said Mike Lewzader, a Marine veteran who fought in Vietnam. “But (homosexuals) have probably been serving as long as there has been a military. Why is this such a big issue? Let’s just let it go.”

In our everyday, those of the homosexual orientation are more than protected. If you punch someone who later turns out to be a homosexual, you could have hate-crime charges added to your sentence. If you make an individual in the work place uncomfortable, and that individual turns out to be a homosexual, you will most assuredly lose your job. If ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ is repealed, the question is will the military be a better place, or will military leaders get bogged down in the details of trying to create a climate conducive to cohabitation with openly gay soldiers? Or if as Matthew Klang predicts in the article, nothing changes at all, the question would be why did we have to do this in the first place? Is it so we can satisfy some special interest or focus group, quickly, before the Republicans take Congress in January?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s