Marine Commandant Rejects Obama’s Gay Plan [Reader Post]

Loading

photo_1267139698920-1-1

The Commandant of the Marines Corps, General James T. Conway, has said no to Obama’s plan to allow gays to serve openly in the Marine Corps.

“My best military advice to this committee, to the (defense) secretary, and to the president would be to keep the law such as it is.”

Conway’s public rejection of his commander-in-chief’s stance is sure to fuel debate in Congress on the issue and reflects apprehension among some senior military officers about changing the 1993 law.

The chiefs of the US Army and Air Force also expressed doubts about lifting the ban at congressional hearings this week, saying they were concerned about putting the military under further strain in the midst of two wars.

But Conway went further, making it clear he opposed lifting the ban that requires gay service members to keep quiet about their sexual orientation or face expulsion from the military.

His comments contrasted sharply with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, who has spoken forcefully in favor of ending the ban.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has called for a review of the issue to survey service members and examine the possible effect of changing the law, known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Senator Joe Lieberman disagreed with Conway, saying he believed the review would show that allowing gays to serve openly would bolster the military’s battle readiness.

“This has to pass the test of military readiness. I believe it will based on my knowledge of what’s happened in other militaries,” he said, citing British and Canadian forces who serve alongside American troops in Afghanistan.

Conway said the current policy worked and any bid to lift the ban should answer the question: “do we somehow enhance the war fighting capabilities of the United States Marine Corps by allowing homosexuals to openly serve?”

Conway’s public rejection of his commander-in-chief’s stance is sure to fuel debate in Congress on the issue and reflects apprehension among some senior military officers about changing the 1993 law.

The President’s insult to the Marine’s medics by referring to them as corpse men rather than corpsmen and then neglecting to apologize has left many Marines and former Marines wary and distrustful of this Commander in Chief.

Those who have served in the Marine Corps understand how the lifting of the Gay rules will undermine the Esprit de Corps that is vital to an elite force like the USMC.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
12 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The Few, The Proud, The Sane.

My Dad would pleased.

“Senator Joe Lieberman disagreed with Conway, saying he believed the review would show that allowing gays to serve openly would bolster the military’s battle readiness.”

The Rebbe would not be pleased. Shame on you, Joe!!!

Surely they are not operating under the delusion that Hussein actually CARES what they think or CARES what is best for the US military??!! They MUST know better than that.

COMMANDANT CONWAY i like the way you said it you know better for sure,when you retire would you consider being the top COMMANDER of USA who are in need of guys like you,bye

Three cheers for the Commandant!

Howdy from Kabul. Just had a meal at KFC, Kabul Fried Chicken, pretty fair grub.
KFC offers pizza and burgers as well. Camp Phoenix offers Subway, Dairy Queen and Pizza Hut but since I am living dangerously, I had KFC in town and it was better than my last MRE meal.

Repeal of DADT takes more than an XO from the CIC. It requires a revision of the UCMJ. Gen. Conway has legitimate concerns that need to have the full consideration of All Concerned, not just Senators and Members of Congress that do not deploy to remote and risky parts of the Globe or have to live in tight quarters in dangerous places.

The US Military desegregated in 1948 because it was the right thing to do. However, the US Military in wartime is NOT a fitting venue for “social experiments” of this nature or what some view as a radical departure from established policy. Anyone that believes otherwise needs to spend a deployment in the field under stressful conditions with damn few amenities, no privacy and few critter comforts.

Not a moral judgment on my part but just a personal observation. Our Service Members are All Volunteers, better educated than what you might believe and have a high tolerance to things that most Americans never encounter. The Majority have Traditional Values and this is a very touchy proposition to say the least. How many of you eat, sleep and live with the folks that you work with 24/7 for a year at a time?

My Group is Joint Forces with both Males and Females in the Command (HQ) Group and primarily Males in the Combat Arms roles. Respect is shown for gender and I have had zero SH complaints because I will not tolerate SH in any shape, form or flavor. Throwing a “Social experiment” into the mix is a complication that is not welcome here from their input.

Give that some thought. Take Care Folks!

@Old Trooper:

You’re tempting fate with that fast food crap but then I guess you’ve lived a life that entitles some voluntary risk when it strikes you. Still, “…better than my last MRE….” doesn’t set the bar too high.

I know you’re busy but have you set aside time to consider how you will prepare for GLBT history month if the DoD gets steam rolled on DADT? I’m thinking a unit “fun run” would be just the thing. After that, there could be a prayer breakfast in which a local homosexual Imam could come in and give a thoughtful sermon while backed up by a USO sponsored Indigo Girls concert.

This gay thing will be easier than a passed out, drunk sailor in Key West. (threw that sailor in there to keep it Joint).

Stay safe in Afghanistan.

Great to hear from you OT! You are in my thoughts all the time and especially the other day while reading about the flag raising in Marja. Salute!

It’s always good to hear from OT: I am glad the military has added fine dining to its list of perks.

Apparently Secretary Gates is having second thoughts amid feedback from the guys with stars on their shoulders; it’s good to have positive news from the fronts: Iraq, the Stans, and DC.

We know you’re busy; but check in when you can OT, you help keep the morale up back home!

If it’s ok for openly gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military then it it must also be okay for male and female soldiers to shower together and to bunk in the same barracks. After all the same sexualization and fraternization that is prevalent between the sexes would now be put on the front burner intra sexually by the inclusion of open gays and lesbians. Those soldiers who might not want to be sexualized in the showers or other intimate quarters should have the same privacy rights as females who don’t want to be placed in suggestive positions in front of males.

At a pay grade where many play it safe and become sycophants to protect their future ambitions and bank accounts (think Wesley Clark, for example), it is refreshing and inspiring to see that there’s at least one general who continues to serve his men instead of himself. General Conway, you have my utmost admiration, sir! We need more leaders like you.

He better watch out. Obama’s thought police will hustle him into a back room where they’ll waterboard him with Perrier until he gets his mind right.

EAGLEWINGZ)* i hear there is a difference between gay itself some are male type and others are female type and same for lesbians so you would need 4 diffrent showers units to separate each type is in it a bit confusing that is beside the regular so all would need 6 showers unit but if somes make a mistake and get into the wrong unit ah well…bye