DADT repeal vote

Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by Pima, Jun 3, 2010.

  1. Pima

    Pima Parent

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    12,804
    Likes Received:
    940
    This is very interesting because of the split within the Chiefs.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/1/military-chiefs-split-with-mullen-on-gays/

     
  2. Navy15

    Navy15 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matter of necessity. One can say how they feel about the issue, but if the administration believes it ought to be overturned, there is a finite window for that to happen.

    I tend to agree with the decision, but that's another topic :p

    Related issue:
    http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/02/obama.gay.benefits/index.html
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2010
  3. Pima

    Pima Parent

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    12,804
    Likes Received:
    940
    I am not sure what you mean by a finite window for overturning.

    The one thing that burns my goat, is the amount of taxpayer dollars and manpower hours used to do the study, only for Mullen, to say, never mind we don't need it let's go forward now.

    If Obama, Gates, and Mullen felt this way to start with, they should have never ordered a study in the first place. It makes me question if they were even going to take the study into an account before deciding their path.

    This is a prime example of Fraud, WASTE and Abuse. You spend a fortune on a study with no intentions of utilizing the information obtained from the results is WASTE.

    I don't have an issue with repealing DADT. I have an issue on how Mullen approached it. I understand how the shoulder toss works, i.e RHIP, but as a leader he has a duty not only to the administration, but to the troops. Don't ask them their opinion, and tell them it doesn't matter.
     
  4. Just_A_Mom

    Just_A_Mom Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    2
  5. Just_A_Mom

    Just_A_Mom Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    2
    no, no, no - read the article I just posted.

    The survey is important. It's one thing to repeal it - yet another to implement it.
     
  6. Pima

    Pima Parent

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    12,804
    Likes Received:
    940
    He may have the pulse on the military, IMHO, he is probably correct in the decision. That is not my point of contention. You don't have a study created and then make a decision before it is is completed. That is called WASTE and ABUSE.

    It is a study, and I am sure that there is someone at every post/base that has been assigned to perform this study in their job requirements. That person will then bring it up the chain at the base, it will then go to a higher chain and a higher chain until all of the info is collected, reviewed and assessed ending up on Adm. Mullen's desk, where he would then brief Gates, and Gates would brief Obama. This is a lot of man power hours that were wasted. He has made a decision, I accept that. I have no issue with his decision. I have an issue that he ordered a study and for whatever reason decided to make a decision without the results of the study. If he knew he was going to go this route, why order the study? Just do it. He made think he has the pulse, and acted pre-emptively, but what if the study came out against his opinion? What if his pulse was wrong?

    More over another signal was sent. There is a fracture in our CS's. There are 4 CS's that openly acknowledged their opinion of the JCS regarding this issue. It is not a minor thing for the 4 of them to write a letter to Congress. The fact that Congress acted against their position also sends a statement. Additionally, it is a problem if this article is correct, that Mullen left them with their pants down by not informing them before announcing the decision. He owed it to them to inform the CS's before the announcement. I know through Bullet's job, that they have meetings to discuss the most minute details. The amount of briefings that occur at the Pentagon are insane, and many of them happen last minute at 4:30-5:00 to put out a fire. Mullen owed that respect to the other CSs. I will caveat, that I take media reports with a grain of salt when no name is attached to it...pentagon official to me is different than XXX Smith.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2010
  7. Just_A_Mom

    Just_A_Mom Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    2
    Pima - read the article.
    The survey is going to assist the military in IMPLEMENTING the repeal of DADT, assuming it happens and it looks like it will happen.

    The Military has learned from other major changes that proper planning and implementation is needed for the transition to be successful.
    From the JCS website:
    http://www.jcs.mil/newsarticle.aspx?ID=294
    As for the "fracture". meh. It's all politics. The other chiefs are namely concerned with their own service and the leaders (Generals). Of course, maintaining the status quo is the easy way out. Change is difficult.
    Admiral Mullen, otoh - knows and understands the enlisted and officers who are out doing the "real" work. He is unafraid of change and smart enough to know that the transition will take come planning and thought.
     
  8. Pima

    Pima Parent

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    12,804
    Likes Received:
    940
    This is what he stated yesterday.

    Now this is what he stated almost 2 weeks ago
    Does he actually believe that Congress will not repeal it? MOCs are elected officials and they bend to their constituents, rightly so. The majority of Americans and military members are A-OK with the repeal. HOWEVER, MOC's are not on the battle grounds or serving in the military. Social views should not play a part in military issues. Those serving should have a larger voice in the matter than the outsider. They will live and die by the uniform.

    It should also be noted Mullen stated NEW rules. To me, and maybe I am reading into it, but how could there be new rules if DADT isn't repealed? How do you state New rules if DADT is not overturned?
     
  9. Pima

    Pima Parent

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    12,804
    Likes Received:
    940
    We crossed posted on the last one.

    I have an issue with this comment. JCS rotate. General Myers(AF) was JCS from 01-05. Gen Pete Pace was Vice, (Marine) who served as JCS from 05-07. Admiral Mullen (Navy) replaced Pace As you can see they rotate among the branches. To state that chiefs are namely concerned with their own service is a dis-service to them. Yes, as leaders of their own branch, they will fight tooth and nail for their branch. However, this is not about the Navy getting more defense dollars for a carrier while the Army wants a new tank, and the Marines want to resuscitate new Marine 1 Helo's.

    This is not about grabbing money out of the pot. That is when they are concerned with their service. Trust me as a spouse whose DH works on a program in the Pentagon, where the AF and Navy are at odds, I do get it.

    To even state that they care about their service more than the overall military, places a crack in the foundation of your defense regarding this argument. 4 CS signed the exact same letter. That means, they united as ONE front against Mullen. They are stating that each service has an issue.

    May be incorrect, but isn't Admiral Mullen wearing 2 hats...JCS and CSN? In your theory if I am correct that he is the CSN he is looking out for the Navy not the entire military...your words "The other chiefs are namely concerned with their own service and the leaders"...are you stating that he can or cannot differentiate if he is CSN? If he can, why can't you give the same faith to the other leaders?

    Finally, it is an insult to every CS to say this:
    Are you really implying that the other Generals don't know and understand? If anyone has a political pawn in the game it is the JCS, not the CS. I refuse to agree that any of these Generals know the troops better than their counterparts. They all deserve equal respect. JCS is not only about qualifications, but it is appearance too. All are equally qualified to be JCS, but to maintain the image of equal branches it is all about timing. General Schwartz (CSAF) knows there is a snowball chance in hell that he would ever be appt JCS, over General Casey. Why? Because it would not look good that a second AF General would be appt again before an Army General. In essence, DOD in my scenario, would have gone AF, Marine, Navy, and AF again. The Army would not take this as positive support from DOD. It would cause issues.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2010
  10. Just_A_Mom

    Just_A_Mom Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    2
    The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. Any perceived "rotation" is coincidental.
    The Chief of Naval Operations is Admiral Roughhead. Admiral Mullen wears one hat - the Chairman of the JCS. He outranks the other four chiefs and some might think that their letters to Congress would be tip-toeing on insubordination.

    The "letters" simply ask Congress to wait until the survey is complete before the repeal. Admiral Mullen basically is saying this is not necessary. He says - repeal is inevitable. Go ahead and do it but let us finish the survey and use that to provide leadership and guidance to implement the new regulation.

    I would be willing to wager that Admiral Mullen has greater visibilty among the troops than the other 4 Chiefs. No disrespect intended to any of them of course - they are all hard-working.
     
  11. aglages

    aglages Parent

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,680
    Likes Received:
    4
    Wrong. The letters simply ask Congress to wait for the results of the survey BEFORE voting for repeal. Clearly they believe the results may have an influence on the vote.
    Perhaps I misunderstood the purpose of the "survey"? The purpose is to provide leadership and guidance to implement the new regulations?

    I interpreted Admiral Mullen's position as one of helping the President and the Democrats to pass a bill now that they very well may not have the votes for after November. In other words, a political decision as opposed to a "best interest of the military" decision.
     
  12. SamAca10

    SamAca10 Ensign - DWO

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,019
    Likes Received:
    2
    Well, that's JAM for you. :shake:
     
  13. Just_A_Mom

    Just_A_Mom Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    2
    Wrong. The letters simply ask Congress to wait for the results of the survey BEFORE voting for repeal. Clearly they believe the results may have an influence on the vote.
    This is what I meant. They want the survey completed before Congress votes. Congress wants to vote now. This is a political "deal". Congress could vote tomorrow and demand immediate implementation. Mullen has reached a deal where implementation will wait until after the survey is complete.


    Perhaps I misunderstood the purpose of the "survey"? The purpose is to provide leadership and guidance to implement the new regulations?
    Yes - this is a big part of the survey and it's purpose according to Admiral Mullen. From the link I posted in post #4:
    I interpreted Admiral Mullen's position as one of helping the President and the Democrats to pass a bill now that they very well may not have the votes for after November. In other words, a political decision as opposed to a "best interest of the military" decision.


    I would agree that those who are opposed to DADT somehow think the survey will provide inrefutable evidence as to why it should not be repealed. You are probably right in that the Chiefs want to use it to influence the vote. I don't think it will influence the outcome of the vote much - most members of Congress have made up their mind either way.

    Are you saying that as Chair of the JCS - Admiral Mullen is nothing more than a puppet of the Obama administration? He was appointed in October 2007. Wasn't George Bush still President then?
    I have confidence that in his position as Chair of the JCS he is doing his job as the highest ranking military officer and providing his own sound advise to the President of the US. If he is not capable of doing this, he is in the wrong job.
     
  14. Just_A_Mom

    Just_A_Mom Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    2
    Sam - please explain this snotty little comment.
     
  15. aglages

    aglages Parent

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,680
    Likes Received:
    4
    So your opinion is that the survey will have no bearing on which way the MOC will vote or what Admiral Mullen will recommend to the president? If that is the case then I'll have to agree with Pima; why waste the money on a survey that has no purpose?
    I wouldn't (and did not) use the term "puppet". I do think Admiral Mullen is making THIS decision based on political considerations as opposed to military ones. Why else rush this to a congressional vote before the survey is done and without the support of the JCS? Would six months make a difference for any other purposes than political?

    I bow to your superior knowledge of how these things work. Perhaps you can help me with a question about the "system"? Is the President able to replace Admiral Mullen if he isn't happy with the support/job that he is doing or is Admiral Mullen immune from being replaced because of political considerations?
     
  16. Maximus

    Maximus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    1,484
    Likes Received:
    0
    Spot on :thumb:

    This is just like the Health Care debacle, 'Rahm' it through quick and then we'll find out the details lol I agree, it'll be done in the next year or so, good or bad, with or without the support of anyone except special interest groups pushing Obama.

    Like Pima said, he's (Mullen) putting the horse behind the carriage and full steam ahead, even after he flip flopped. He does appear to be a puppet, I wonder if he was offered a job too? lol. I agree, it'll be done in the next year or so, good or bad, with or without the support of anyone except special interest groups pushing Obama.
     
  17. Maximus

    Maximus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    1,484
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can you please post the survey or poll that shows this Pima?
     
  18. Christcorp

    Christcorp Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    872
    Instead of surveys to see how best to implement, they should have started with surveys among those in the military to see if they agreed with the decision to get rid of the DADT. And congress should see what their constituents want. This subject needs to stop being a political tool that people use to get votes or their agenda.
     
  19. Mongo

    Mongo Banned

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    Messages:
    1,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maximus, I hope I am not putting words in your mouth but you seem hard core straight line with all things to do with honor, from Marcus Curry to the Marine officers and even your displeasure in that you feel that the USNA honor concept is too soft.

    Again, not putting words in your mouth but you also seem to be against the repeal of the DADT.

    If my perceptions are correct, which every indication of your posts seem to support that they are, how do you justify a policy where it is perfectly acceptable for gay officers to serve in the military so long as they are forced to lie and decieve about it?
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2010
  20. Just_A_Mom

    Just_A_Mom Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    2
     

Share This Page