Message from a Marine: Dont Break the Military

Note from Frank Gaffney: The United States Senate is poised to take one of the most fateful votes in its history. It is expected – perhaps as early as tomorrow – to decide whether to impose the radical homosexual agenda on America’s armed forces. Unless 41 Senators object to taking such a momentous step during a lame-duck session, without serious debate and in the absence of powerful evidence of its inadvisability, Congress will surely destroy the all-volunteer military.

That view has been expressed as eloquently and as forcefully by the 30th Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Carl Mundy USMC (Ret.) as by any of his comrades still in uniform or others knowledgeable about what is at stake. He wrote a letter to members of the Senate that is the single most impressive piece of official correspondence I have read in 35 years of involvement in national security policy-making.

Gen. Mundy’s letter should be required reading – not only by those who will be responsible in the next few hours for casting votes on legislation that would repeal a seventeen-year-old statutory ban on homosexuals serving in uniform. It should also be read by every citizen whose security may be dramatically reduced by the far-reaching repercussions of such legislation.

November 30, 2010

Members of the United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator:

In over more than forty years of service as a Marine, I came to respect greatly and to appreciate genuinely the contributions you in the Congress render to our nation in the creation and sustenance of our armed forces. Indeed, at the time I was nominated to lead the Corps, one of my highly respected predecessors counseled me to remember that without the wise actions of the Congress, there would never have been, nor would there have continued to be a Marine Corps. On more than a few occasions during my tenure, some among you today, together with your predecessors, made the decisions that enable America to have armed services that are the gold standard of the world, and I thank you for that. More than once, you sought my views and advice on a wide range of matters and it was always my privilege to offer them. Today, I am assuming again that privilege with strong views that I believe are critical to the viability of the armed services you have been instrumental in creating and sustaining. I thank you in advance for hearing them.

You and your colleagues are at the epicenter of the impassioned debate over whether or not to repeal the law that excludes homosexuals from serving openly in the armed forces. The President, social activists, and some among you are pressing hard for immediate repeal. If you vote to do so, I believe you will inflict significant damage on the All-Volunteer Force, and that you stand to abdicate unwittingly your constitutional authorities and responsibilities in matters of governance of the armed services. This is of even greater concern if you fail to take the time necessary for the deliberative due diligence expected and historically exhibited by the "eldest and wisest" in the legislative "chamber of second thought". I believe further that you are moving in that direction without any compelling reason to do so other than because of the demands by small, but highly vocal and financially influential special interest groups whose objectives go far beyond acceptance for military service. To an outsider, it appears that partisanship, or perhaps a less than complete understanding of military service and the extraordinary dependence upon you of those who choose it may also be factors.

Each of you has a constituency from the state you represent. However, collectively, you have a constituency of something near 2.4 million citizens who voluntarily serve in this nation’s armed forces in obligatory political silence while depending on you to represent their welfare and interests and most importantly, their effectiveness as a vital organization. You will not hear them in loud demonstrations on the Mall, nor will they be among the vocal and demanding activists who visit your office, disrupt your hearings, or send demanding or politically-threatening phone calls or e-mails. The limitations on their rights that you, in your constitutional authority impose, and that they accept voluntarily and swear to uphold, preclude their active engagement or their open-voiced views on this issue. Can you cite any other citizens’ group anywhere that functions in this "one-hand-tied-behind-your-back-and-the-other-in-respectful-and-obedient-salute" circumstance only for the privilege of serving our nation and the honor of defending it? Ladies and gentlemen, it is your sacred obligation as Senators to put the well-being of these selfless servants before partisanship, self-interest groups, or political ambition, and it is my strong recommendation that you do so.

President John Adams once said, in defending British soldiers at the Boston massacre trials: "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

It is critical in deciding this issue, that you consider facts – not the well-spun, heavily-financed, leaked, or otherwise carefully-orchestrated sophistry and hyperbole resounding in the media.

The authority to create armed forces and "to make the rules for the government thereof" is given by the Constitution solely to you in Congress. While the document gives ordinary citizens inalienable rights, because of the unique circumstances and demands of military service, in your constitutional authority, you are empowered to take away or limit some of these rights for those who serve in uniform. Ordinary citizens have the right to say whatever they wish, to be active in politics of their choice, to demonstrate, to groom or dress as they prefer, to live wherever and with whomever they wish, and short of an absolute violation of law, to behave as they wish. A job is of his or her choice, may or may not require a contract, and is of duration and under preferences and working circumstances of the employee’s choosing. Regardless of contract, he or she may quit without notice and without penalty other than perhaps some loss of pay.

Uniformed military members do not have these rights. By both verbal oath and personal signature upon enlistment, they swear before God to support the Constitution that gives rights to others in society, while denying the same to themselves. They affirm that they will bear true faith and allegiance to it, and that they will obey the orders of the President and those of the officers appointed over them. Officers go a step further, swearing that they accept this obligation without mental reservation or purpose of evasion. Each of you reading this letter has taken a similar oath, but without the affirmation that you will unquestioningly give up your rights or follow orders. Just because those who do are legally bound by contract and oath of obedience to our nation is no reason to impose on them circumstances that have no purpose other than political satisfaction of the self interests of a miniscule minority and which may jeopardize their cohesive effectiveness.

Neither the Constitution nor the Congress gives any citizen the right to serve. No one today is compelled to do so, and for the past 38 years, all who have chosen to serve have been volunteers who, at the point of enlistment, have knowingly given up certain of their civil rights and have sworn, as set out above, to uphold the laws that deny them certain rights. Not all who apply are accepted, and to ensure the effectiveness of the military in the purpose for which it exists, you give the Services authority to reject applicants for reasons that are unacceptable or less restrictive in ordinary society – age, physical or mental challenges, education, drug use or abuse, excessive weight, and a number of other reasons.

One of the long-standing reasons judged by you and your predecessors not to be in the best interests of the armed forces because of its impact on the cohesion and teamwork critical to effectiveness in the unique environment of military service is homosexuality. Seventeen years ago, after extensive debate in a dozen hearings, your predecessors and some of you enacted a law based on reasoning as sound then as it is today, that prohibits those who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces, because, you concluded, their presence "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." Nothing in this law requires anyone to lie about who they are. Indeed, their enlistment contract requires only that applicants give truthful certification of their understanding and of what they have revealed and that they give their sworn oath of loyalty and obedience. It denies no civil right.

"Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" isn’t the law. It is counter to the law. It is a euphemistic term used to describe a political accommodation which, in the current debate, has been carefully "spun" to confuse and play on public sensitivities and emotions. It is apparent that many in the media, the public, and most disturbingly, in high places in government do not understand this distinction – or are using it for political leverage. The policy enables those with a "homosexual orientation" to serve so long as they don’t "tell" or otherwise behave in a way contrary to good order and discipline. The law, on the other hand, requires no one to lie or deceive. It simply excludes from eligibility to serve those who exhibit "a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts." The findings that support this law are compelling. If you have not done so, I strongly encourage you to review them as part of your deliberation.

Official statistics provided by the Department of Defense tell us that something over 200,000 service men and women are discharged each year. About 650 of that number – a third of one percent – are separated for reasons involving homosexuality. By comparison, four times as many are separated for inability to maintain weight standards.

Those who advocate repeal of the law tell us that these numbers represent a hemorrhage of critical skills needed to fight and win the nation’s wars. This assertion is not supported by fact. A 2009 Congressional Research Service report states that "… the majority of these [discharges] involve junior personnel with limited skills: that most derive from voluntary admissions and are uncontested; and that most receive honorable discharges."

Let me narrow that focus. Just over 32,400 Marines were discharged from my Service last year. Among those, 78 – less than a quarter of one percent – were separated for reasons related to the euphemistic "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy. More than half of those had less than a year in service and were still in Entry Level Training, a phase of development not even in a category that can be considered qualified, much less skilled. Three were discharged even while in the Delayed Entry Program awaiting assignment to active duty. They had no time in active service at all.

Consistent with GAO findings, it is apparent that many of these Entry Level discharges from among young men and women came as a result of voluntary admissions during the fiery forge that is Marine Corps Boot Camp. On a recurring basis, some young recruits, stunned by stress or by the recognition that they have stepped from the comforts of home and a permissive society into the Spartan ranks of an organization that exists to fight the nation’s enemies, have been known to admit to anything to gain discharge.

The data cited earlier on the total number of discharges from all armed services for homosexual admission or conduct totals somewhere around 14,000 men and women who have been separated – most by voluntary admission – over the 17 years in which the law and the DOD policy have been in effect. The effect of these losses is exaggerated enormously by activists, but is mitigated greatly by facts like those above.

Almost a year ago, the Secretary of Defense commissioned a review to identify significant factors of concern in implementing repeal, should the Congress decide to overturn the law. Purported leaks to the media have suggested that a majority of those surveyed are "O.K. with repeal". This is an extraordinary claim given that by Secretary Gates’ intent and clear tasking, the survey did not solicit nor seek to determine servicemember attitudes toward repeal. As one member who took the survey told me: "The fact that I indicated I would not give up my commissary privileges or move my family off base is not a basis for judging whether or not I’m O.K. with open homosexuality. No one asked me that question and I wasn’t allowed to volunteer it."

Moreover, even if interpretation of the results of the survey gives an inferred indication of non-objection, if there remain a significant number who do object, this is a critical finding in itself. It is reflective of the results of an earlier poll of active-duty servicemembers by the Military Times Newspapers that revealed that ten percent of the survey population stated that if the ban on open homosexuality is lifted, they will not continue in service at the end of their terms of enlistment. Another 14 percent indicated they would consider not reenlisting. These are dramatic statements of attitudes by those in uniform that must not to be ignored. To suggest, as one or two in senior military positions have publicly, that those with such attitudes should "vote with their feet" is an astonishing breach of fundamental leadership together with a cavalier disregard for the impact such an exodus would have on military effectiveness.

Although it is unlikely that a percentage of the survey population of that magnitude will behave as they responded, if they do represent the military population, as polls and surveys of various groups in society claim to, and only one-tenth of the number behave as they state they will or might, it suggests that a figure approaching 24,000 current members of the armed forces might be lost over and above normal discharge attrition in a one-to-three year period – a figure roughly double the total number lost to "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" discharges in the previous 17 years. Because these personnel would be completing one or more terms of service, they would, in fact, represent a hemorrhage of mature, skilled losses from the professional ranks. This is an enormous risk to the viability of our armed forces.

The Commandant of the Marine Corps has recently been criticized for stating the fact that attitudes among Marines similar to those above represent a risk associated with repeal of the law. We are fortunate to have senior leaders who accept the consequences of pointing out facts rather than simply "rolling over" to political correctness.

Claims that a majority of Americans support repeal of the law are highly suspect. Fewer than one percent of the citizens of our nation choose to serve in the armed forces. Among those surveyed, it is likely that not many may have served, understand the law, its basis, its distinction from the misstated "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy, or the implications of open homosexuality in the ranks. Nor may they understand the uniqueness of the military as a segment of society that you, the Congress, as well as our courts have chosen to characterize as a "… special society characterized by its own laws, rules, customs and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior that would not be acceptable in civilian society." To them, as to you or me, a phrase like "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" sounds un-American and discriminatory and deserves to be done away with, but it is not the law, nor is it reflective of the basis for the law, or of the wisdom of the law.

In contrast and reflecting the experienced views of those who have served are the positions taken in firm support of the law by more than four million members of the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars together with those of 1,167 retired admirals and generals – the largest number of professional military officers ever to have taken a public position on a military issue. These past leaders – some of whom have led major formations in combat as recently as the war in Iraq – have conveyed their views and their genuine concerns to the President and the Congress with regard to the impact of repeal of the law.

The chiefs of the four DOD armed services have also given their views to the Congress in public testimony stating that they hold reservations about repealing the law. Their views are uniquely important because it is they who are responsible for the combat effectiveness and the welfare of those entrusted to their respective services, and it is they who are in closest contact with the men and women who comprise the armed forces today.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has given personal views to the contrary. In his authorities and responsibilities as the principal military adviser to the President and the Secretary of Defense, his views on a wide range of matters of national security are of significant strategic import. However, none of his statutory authorities or responsibilities as Chairman extends to personnel matters in the individual armed services, nor do they grant any authority over the services or over his counterparts in their roles as Service Chiefs. His personal views as a senior naval officer have been given, but they need to be balanced carefully against the professional views of the Service Chiefs who bear responsibilities for those who comprise their respective services that he does not.

I mentioned at the outset my concern that repeal of the law at this time places in jeopardy by abdication your constitutional authorities to "make the rules for the government" of the armed forces. As you know, in a rogue decision inconsistent with previous Supreme Court and United States courts of appeals decisions, Judge Virginia Phillips of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, ruled recently that the law barring those who are openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual from military service is unconstitutional. That ruling, stayed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, is currently under review with a time-line for appeal by the Justice Department set for late January. Action by you to repeal the law prior to this time-line and a subsequently finalized court decision will nullify any basis for the appeal and will establish as legal precedent Judge Phillips’ ruling. Existing and future "rules" established by the Congress or regulations by the Services will become, thereby, subject to being overturned in the courts. This will be a serious reversal of historic and constitutional congressional authority and judicial deference to that authority in matters of governance of the armed forces.

The results of the review directed by Secretary Gates to determine significant issues associated with implementing a change in the law, should Congress so dictate, is in your hands. This is a highly complex survey of good intent by the Secretary that has taken almost a year to construct, administer, collect, and analyze. As you review its conclusions, it is imperative to recognize that by design, the review seeks to determine from those in uniform not whether to, but how to implement repeal of the law. As I stated earlier, it is inconceivable that among those conclusions is the well spun "leak" that suggests that the majority of those in uniform "are O.K. with repeal." Its construct and its results deserve the time for your detailed examination and deliberation, not just a cursory review driven by a political time-line.

Whatever your conclusions in this critically important matter, your ultimate decision must focus foremost on a single question: "What do our armed forces gain – or what do they lose – from repeal of a law crafted to ensure their effectiveness in accomplishing the sole reason for which they exist?" That reason is not social reform; it is military effectiveness.

It is popular in Washington to make reference to "what the American people want to hear." I believe an answer to the foregoing question based on facts and evidence – not special-interest hyperbole – is what the American people deserve to hear.

I thank you for the opportunity to offer my views. They are obvious in my strong professional reservations as to the impact of repeal of the law, and in my equally strong advice to you not to do so. The decision, however, is yours and I hope the thoughts I have expressed will be of help to you in reaching it.