Ms. Flint sparks my interest by pointing out the following statement from Congressman Ron Paul in Monday night's GOP Presidential candidates' forum. Rep. Paul was responding to a question (and Mitt Romney's response) on pulling our troops out of Afghanistan:
...I wouldn't wait for my generals. I'm the commander in chief.
I make the decisions. I tell the generals what to do. I'd bring them home as quickly as possible. And I would get them out of Iraq as well. And I wouldn't start a war in Libya. I'd quit bombing Yemen. And I'd quit bombing Pakistan.
I'd start taking care of people here at home because we could save hundreds of billions of dollars.
I appreciate that, unlike Rep. Kristi Noem, Congressman Paul recognizes that cutting back on our military would be good for our budget and our national security.
I also appreciate that Rep. Paul understands that we civilians control the military. The President tells the military what to do, not the other way around.
I'd like to hear that principle applied more often in discussions of allowing homosexuals to serve in the military. Alas...
Tim Pawlenty: ...we need to pay deference to our military commanders, particularly our combatant commanders, and in this case, I would take my cues from them as to how this affects the military going forward. (Extra demerits for saying "going forward.")
Newt Gingrich: ...it's very powerful that both the Army and the Marines overwhelmingly opposed changing it, that their recommendation was against changing it. ...I would listen to the commanders whose lives are at risk about the young men and women that they are, in fact, trying to protect.
Michele Bachmann: I would want to confer with our commanders-in-chief and with -- also with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, because I'd want to know how it was being implemented and if it has -- had had the detrimental effects that have been suggested that will come.
Come on, put on the combat pants! If you believe homosexuals deserve the right to serve in the military, then you tell your generals, "Gays are in." If you believe homosexuals don't deserve that right, then you tell your generals, "Gays are out." Either way, the generals say, "Yes, sir!" (or, heavens forbid, if Bachmann wins, "Yes, ma'am!") and we go on killing people and breaking things.
Republicans need to not hide behind their generals' skirts. The President can confer but should never defer to the military.
p.s.: Rep. Paul says he would not work to reverse President Obama's repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Bigoted fear-monger Herman Cain gets half-credit for saying that trying to reverse Obama's decision would be a "distraction"... but Cain also says he never would have overturned DADT in the first place. Still bigoted.
Mitt Romney admirably says we should be talking about the economy and jobs instead. Credit gained on my scorecard, credit lost from the raving culture warriors. Their love goes to Rick Santorum, who thinks equal rights and privacy are really just "social experimentation."
Although, I was very impressed with former Governor Mitt Romney's performance in the debates (he won it in my humble opinion), I disagreed with Mitt on his answer to the question of continuing foreign military adventures in far-off places. I 100% agree with US Rep. Ron Pauls statement that you reposted Corey. It's far past time that we take care of our own people here at home.
Republicans are irrelevant. They keep pushing failed mythology and calling for compromise as they themselves refuse to compromise their mindless failure models.
They continuously whine about the failures of the Obama reforms and stimulus and then also blame him for the lack of economic confidence by consumers. Amazing that their yowling has consequences and destroys confidence. Not surprising that with their acute hypocrisy they blame Obama for the effects.
The GOP is irrelevant.
Kristi made an impression on me, although a bad one, in the debate with Stephanie. She was constantly pushing lower the spending until the question of spending at Elsworth came up. Kristi immediately blamed Stephanie for only being for raising the spending at Elsworth by one hundred million rather than two hundred million. It looked like she did not even notice her flipflop. She could switch gears so fast that it seemed like an automatic. Kristi went from full speed one direction to the other. I wondered if she ever read the story of when the Godly king Jehosophat counted his troups and God condemned him for trusting his army rather than trusting God. All the Christian right that I know have forgot that lesson.
Cori,
You are correct that the uniformned services do not and should not set national policy they merely enforce it. I have never met a senior grade officer that thought he or she should set national policy. The senior uniform staff of the Department of Defense provides input, when requested, to Congress and the Commander in Chief and then does what they are told.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice, enacted by Congress as directed by the U.S Constitution, has never forbid homosexuals from serving in the armned forces.
Congress forbid the enlistment of homosexuals. In the past gays have been prosecuted under Article 125, sodomy; Article 83, fraudulent enlistment; Article 107, false statements; Article 134, general article concerning good order and discipline; and for officers, Article 133, conduct unbecoming. None of the Articles specifically target gays.
Don't ask, don't tell, implimented at the direction of the Commander in Chief, merely removes Article 83, fraudulent enlistment, as a charge under the UCMJ.
Until Congress acts to remove Article 125, sodomy, as a charge under the UCMJ(providing the basis for other charges), the armned forces retains the obligation to discharge openly gay service members.
Your complaint is not with the Uniformned Services or with the President, it is with Congress. One house Republican, once house Democrat. Three years ago the Dems controlled both houses and could have setteled the problem by repealing Article 125, but they chose not to. Don't blame the Repubs when your party could have done what was right three years ago but chose not too. There is plenty of blame to heap on both parties.
Joseph G Thompson
The articles I listed are the only the ones I have seen used, someone more currently familiar with prosecutions under the UCMJ may have some other input.
Point taken, Joseph! Sometimes my Dems need to get more spine as well. The 111th Congress could have acted much sooner on DADT.
Of course, remember that was the same Democratic Congress that caught heck from the Tea Party for doing so many things all at once. I don't make excuses for failing to act on principle, but they were taking Mitt Romney's advice and focusing on the economy and jobs at a time when they very much needed to save the world from a great depression. At least when they did get to it, they rallied some GOP support (65–31 in the Senate, including that nice Scott Brown fellow who the Tea party once loved).
Ron Paul was the only debater with the correct answer.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/16/eisenhower-fears-invent-enemies-buy-bombs