Tag Archives: Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

U.S.S. ‘Babe’: More Evidence That the Counterculture’s Sexual Assault on the Military Is Taking its Toll on Morale, Readiness

(Washington, D.C.): In recent days, sex in the military has been making news again. As
usual,
these titillating developments are symptoms of a larger and more serious problem — a sign that the
armed forces are being diverted from their mission, the integrity of their code of conduct
undermined and the conditions necessary to retain the best and brightest in uniform eroded.

When taken together with the deleterious effects of other forces that are at work — many of
them
the products of the Clinton Administration’s counterculture assault on the military href=”#N_1_”>(1) — the
implications of the current series of sex-related developments should be seen for what they are:
evidence that the Nation’s armed forces are in serious trouble and, as a result, that the Nation is
likely to find itself in trouble when the military will have to be called upon to fight its future wars.

A Bill of Particulars

Recent manifestations of the problems arising from sexual politics’ assault on the U.S. military
include the following:

  • Congress has recently been wrestling with legislation that would require all the
    armed
    forces to separate the sexes in basic training.
    This step was courageously recommended
    earlier this year by a blue-ribbon commission chaired by former Senator Nancy Kassebaum
    Baker. Secretary of Defense Cohen has implicitly acknowledged that a problem exists with
    gender-integrated training in the Army, Navy and Air Force (the Marines alone have conducted
    separate basic training for its male and female recruits),(2)
    but refused to adopt the Kassebaum
    Baker Commission’s conclusions.
  • As a result, the issue has now been joined in Congress. In connection with action on
    the FY1999 Defense authorization bill, the House of Representatives adopted a
    provision that would require separate sex basic training. The Senate rejected a similar
    measure, however, and the issue will be resolved in a conference committee —
    presumably, under threat of a presidential veto if the House position prevails.

  • According to press reports, the Pentagon is wrestling with ways to change the
    Uniform
    Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) so as to adopt a sort of “don’t ask, don’t tell” attitude
    toward most instances of adultery.
    Secretary Cohen — stung last year by the rejection
    of his
    first choice for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joe Ralston (USAF), over an
    extramarital affair the General acknowledged having years before and confronting a number of
    other controversies involving adulterous behavior (from Commander-in-Chief Clinton to Maj.
    Gen. David Hale to Lieutenant Kelly Flynn) — directed his General Counsel to explore
    alternatives that would bring the UCMJ more into conformity with contemporary American
    society’s relatively lax mores.
  • Published accounts indicate that, to his credit, Marine Corps Commandant
    Charles
    Krulak
    has objected to the idea of making adultery a punishable offense only in
    circumstances where it interferes with unit integrity and good order and discipline. The
    20 July Washington Post quotes Col. Stuart Wagner, a Marine Corps. spokesman, as
    saying: “You need trust and accountability on the battlefield. If you can’t trust the
    Marine next to you to remain faithful, how can you trust him on the battlefield?” As a
    result of the continuing thrash, Secretary Cohen has apparently scrubbed plans to
    unveil this controversial new initiative as early as this week.

  • Most recently, the Washington Times revealed yesterday that members
    of the gender-integrated crew of the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln are
    wrestling with each
    other in “orgies” ashore and afloat
    , giving rise to a new nickname for the ship: “the
    Baberaham Lincoln” or “the Babe,” for short.
  • Unfortunately, the reality is that sexual fraternization is rife in today’s military. A
    senior officer just returned from a lengthy overseas deployment told the Center for
    Security Policy recently that many commanders have concluded that they have no
    choice but to turn a blind eye to such behavior, even when it occurs between officers
    and enlisted personnel, lest their own careers be blighted by the executive or legislative
    branch enforcers of the new sexual politics. As a result, subordinates are losing
    confidence in their superiors and respect for the system when the chain of command
    ignores, or otherwise papers over, such morale-eroding and discipline-undermining
    conduct.

The Bottom Line

The question occurs: At what point will the American people realize that the
institution they rely
upon for their security is being systematically undermined by the counterculture-dominated elite’s
insistence that the military conduct itself in the same fashion and according to the same standards
as the society it protects? As the Center noted on 9 June:

    “The fact is that obliging men and women to sleep in close proximity,
    whether in basic
    training dormitories or subsequently in tents, barracks or ships, creates opportunities
    for fraternization that have a ruinous effect on the good order and discipline the
    military requires to perform its mission. Pregnancies, disruptive jealousies, double
    standards masquerading as ‘gender norming,’ adultery and destruction of the families
    of service personnel — to say nothing of sexual abuse and rape — are only part of the
    problem. Even more worrisome from a national security point of view is the
    prospect that armed forces wracked with such behavior are unlikely to be able to
    fight as cohesive units should they be called upon to do so.”
    href=”#N_3_”>(3)

Like it or not, the “gender-norming” of the military to conform to the
codes of conduct of
society at large is a recipe for leaving military demoralized, hollowed out and incapable of doing
its job and, therefore, for leaving American society undefended. If the President and his civilian
advisors refuse to confront this reality, the Congress must do so at once — if only to prevent
further initiatives that will make matters worse, possibly much worse.

– 30 –

1. These include: the sustained cutting of investment in defense, the
extraordinarily high
operational tempos being sustained in support of peacekeeping and station-keeping missions
inimical to readiness and morale, political correctness and declining confidence in the chain of
command. See Center’s Decision Brief entitled Clinton Legacy
Watch # 27: A Counterculture
Assault on the U.S. Military and the National Sovereignty It Safeguards
( href=”index.jsp?section=papers&code=98-D_121″>No. 98-D 121, 29
June 1998).

2. See the Center’s Decision Brief
entitled Secretary Cohen Implicitly Confirms that Gender Integration Conflicts
with Good Military Order, Discipline and Readiness
( href=”index.jsp?section=papers&code=98-D_103″>No. 98-D 103, 9 June 1998).

3. See the above-referenced Center Decision Brief
(No. 98-D 103, 9 June 1998).

IT’S OFFICIAL: GORBACHEV IS BETTING ON BUSH TO PROP UP MOSCOW CENTER, COERCE REPUBLICS ON UNION

(Washington, D.C.): Rarely in recent
memory has a diplomatic punch been more
clearly telegraphed than that Mikhail
Gorbachev intends to lay on George Bush
at their meeting in Madrid on Tuesday. If
President Bush falls for Gorbachev’s line
this time, he stands to give new meaning
to the term “sucker punch.”

In an article buried in the back pages
of the Sunday editions of the Washington
Post
entitled, “Gorbachev
to Ask Bush To Help Preserve Union,”

senior Kremlin officials indicated that
the leader of the reconfigured Moscow
center will completely abandon one of the
most sacred tenets of Soviet policy —
non-interference in the internal affairs
of the USSR. To the contrary, the Post
depicts such officials as encouraging the
United States to:

“apply clearer and more
direct pressure on the Ukraine
and other breakaway Soviet
republics to persuade
them to preserve some central
role in military and economic
affairs
in the
splintering country.”

From the Horse’s Mouth

Among the highlights of this riveting
article were the following quotes
(emphasis added throughout):

“Now, for the first time, the
West has some leverage
.
You are no longer
bystanders….And about the
Ukraine, I would say frankly, we
would appreciate some more
pressure
.” (An
unnamed, “knowledgeable
Kremlin official”)

“If anyone now can be
forceful, it is the West. All
former republics badly need
financial assistance, economic
support and help in implementing
their reforms
….The
number of options to influence
the situation
are
many.” (Vladimir Lukin,
chairman of the Russian
parliament’s foreign affairs
committee)

“The signals you are giving
now are missed by the republics.
They don’t understand diplomatic
language; they’re not used to
operating in the world. You
should make it clear to them that
there are certain conditions
for admission into the world
community
. (Sergei
Rogov, Deputy Director of the USA
and Canada Institute)

The West should make clear that a
prerequisite for Western aid is
“some kind of central
management
of the economy
.
It should be made clear to the
Ukraine and everyone else.”
(The unnamed Kremlin official)

The problem is not
to support Gorbachev, but to
support stability
.
It is not the same thing….There
are some gentle ways. I don’t
think American diplomacy lacks
for experience and sense of
measure.” (Lukin)

“We don’t ask Washington to
support central authority. We
do ask Washington to support certain
rules of the game
.”
(The unnamed Kremlin official)

Bye-Bye Moscow Center?

In other words, these representatives
of the reconfigured Moscow center
recognize reality: Unless the
West uses its considerable financial,
political and technological leverage to
coerce the independence-bound republics
of the former Soviet Union into retaining
military and economic ties, the jig is up
for the central authorities
.

The Center for Security Policy agrees
with this analysis. It arrives at a very
different prescription for Western
policy, however. The Center believes that
the West’s immense leverage should not
be applied to preserving the Soviet
center but to aiding those
“qualifying” republics that are
engaged in genuine democratic and free
market institution building

actions which are, themselves, wholly
incompatible with the preservation of
retooled central authority.

For far too long prior to the August
coup, the Bush Administration eschewed
this advice. It argued that the
democratic forces at the republic level
did not constitute real alternatives to
the Gorbachev regime. Moreover, the
Administration strongly preferred to
obtain the benefits it perceived from
doing business with Gorbachev: summit
photo opportunities; dramatic (albeit
flawed) arms control agreements; Soviet
cooperation (such as it was) on regional
problems and the like.

While the folly of such an approach is
patently obvious in the aftermath of the
coup, Gorbachev and company evidently
believe they can extract a similar degree
of support — support which is, if
anything, far more essential to
their continued hold on power than
heretofore — from President Bush by
promising, among other things: support at
the Middle East peace conference; new
arms control regimes (e.g., a ban on
multiple-warheaded ballistic missiles);
and repayment of some outstanding foreign
debts. Moscow center clearly
hopes that the Bush Administration will
fail in the future as it repeatedly did
in the past to recognize that far
better terms
may be obtained from
democratic and free market-oriented
republics.

No Hard Feelings But…

The Center urges President Bush to use
the Madrid meeting with Mr. Gorbachev to
make at long last the following points
concerning U.S. attitudes towards Moscow
center:

  • The United States believes that
    it can — and should
    use its economic leverage to
    encourage sweeping structural
    change in the former Soviet
    Union. Gorbachev’s invitation to
    do so simply puts to rest any
    remaining argument against
    engaging in such an effort.
  • The United States is concerned
    about the command and control of
    Soviet nuclear weapons, the
    potential for ethnic strife
    inside the former USSR and the
    international implications of
    economic collapse there. These
    and related issues provide ample
    justification on the grounds of
    “legitimate”
    self-interest for U.S.-led
    intervention in Soviet affairs.
  • The United States does not
    believe, however, that such
    intervention in the form of
    economic and political pressure
    applied to the Soviet republics
    should be utilized to coerce them
    to remain within a new Union.
  • What is of paramount importance
    is that the republics engage in
    the swiftest and most sweeping
    structural reform possible;
    without such change, there is
    little likelihood that they will
    become economically viable (e.g.,
    able to attract and use foreign
    investment). Insofar as the
    preservation of instruments of
    Moscow center’s control — for
    example, a central bank and
    common currency — will simply
    serve to impede this sort of
    change, the United States will
    not press the republics to submit
    to that control.
  • That said, the United States is
    confident that by working with
    its allies to use their leverage
    as Gorbachev spokesmen are
    suggesting — albeit for a quite
    different purpose — much can be
    accomplished. Specifically, by
    offering appropriate incentives
    to “qualifying”
    republics engaged in wholesale
    democratic and free market
    institution-building, and
    disincentives to those that are
    not, the West can help create
    conditions inside the former USSR
    that simultaneously advance
    Western interests and those of
    the Soviet people.

Finally, with regard to the question
of whether preservation of
“stability” is a sufficient
justification for propping up Moscow
center’s authority, President Bush should
call to Mr. Gorbachev’s attention the
words of one of the latter’s greatest
friends in the West, former British Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher. On 23
September 1991, she stated:

“True stability lies in
creating looser structures of
inter-national cooperation in
which legitimate nationalisms can
both express themselves and forge
links based on common interests.

“In other words…[an
appropriate concern for]
stability leads directly to
accepting the legitimacy of
nationalism as a basis for
independent statehood. National
pride, in combination with
liberty and the rule of law,
powerfully strengthens democratic
government.