In a survey of 5,536 Navy personnel, only 27% say morale is "good" or "excellent," a freefall from past responses, where strained troops still managed to keep their spirits up. Now, a half-decade deep into the President's social experiment with the military, the scars are starting to show. Almost half of enlisted troops said they "distrust senior leaders" -- an opinion shared by 40% of officers. And the wave of pessimism threatens to affect more than just the Navy.
From uncertainty over their retirement to the frustration with "excessive political correctness," most of our brave men and women barely recognize the military they gave up their lives to serve. Instead, sailors say they harbor widespread doubts about the men commanding them, "complaining of poor leadership and a disciplinary environment that tolerates absolutely no mistakes."
What they mean is no politically incorrect mistakes. What the Obama military does tolerate, unfortunately, is a brave new world of sexual liberalism and religious censorship -- both of which are tearing at the fabric of America's fighting force. Sexual assaults and suicides are through the roof since the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in 2010 -- and suddenly, the biggest cheerleaders for repeal are nowhere to be found. The Pentagon downplayed the effects of open homosexuality when it was implemented in 2011 -- something it will have a tough time doing now, with the rate of male-on-male assaults at a record high. While the media highlights the female victims, the Pentagon's 1,400-page report explains that service men are just as affected -- if not more so.
Now, four years later, the administration is scratching its head at the sky-high suicides and sexual attacks. Defense officials are racing to reassure people that they're doing everything they can to get to the bottom of these issues -- only to inject more policies that accelerate both. They put political correctness ahead of national security and then seem surprised when both the nation and the people that protect us are at risk.
According to the Washington Times, the survey "was released amid complaints by some aviators about excessive political correctness as the military seeks to stamp out sexual harassment and misconduct in an increasingly gender-integrated Navy." Obviously, these are complex and emotional issues -- from personal safety to private beliefs. If we want to solve these crises, a key component to addressing them is the same vibrant faith this administration is trying to stamp out. Is this really the time we want to tell service members they can't rely on God?
The Family Research Council is clearly implying that it is the Obama Administration's supposed attack on religious liberty and the decision to allow gays to serve openly which led to the survey's negative responses.
That is a lie.
Neither article linked by the Family Research Council (one from Military.com and the other from The Washington Times) mentions anything regarding "religious liberty" or gays serving openly in the military as reasons for the negative responses to the Navy survey.
The article from Military.com said:
A U.S. Navy retention survey found that sailors are increasingly unhappy with lengthy deployments, a high operational tempo, and recent calls to reduce pay and benefits.
In addition, fewer numbers of Navy sailors aspire to earn positions held by their superior officers as sailors have a widespread distrust of Navy leadership, the independent survey found.
"Sailors are most likely to leave uniformed service because of a perception of increasingly high operational tempo, poor work/life balance, low service-wide morale, declining pay and compensation, waning desire to hold senior leadership positions, and a widespread distrust of senior leadership, all of which erodes loyalty to the institution," the survey states.
The Washington Times article says pretty much the same thing. Now while the headline of the article in that publication mentions 'political correctness,' the article itself only mentions the term in the following paragraph:
The independent survey was released amid complaints by some aviators about excessive political correctness as the military seeks to stamp out sexual harassment and misconduct in an increasingly gender-integrated Navy.
This still means that FRC's claim is a lie.
Perhaps the most vicious lie in FRC's piece is the following:
Sexual assaults and suicides are through the roof since the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in 2010 -- and suddenly, the biggest cheerleaders for repeal are nowhere to be found. The Pentagon downplayed the effects of open homosexuality when it was implemented in 2011 -- something it will have a tough time doing now, with the rate of male-on-male assaults at a record high. While the media highlights the female victims, the Pentagon's 1,400-page report explains that service men are just as affected -- if not more so.
A link between the repeal of DADT and the rate of male-on-male rapes in the military has not been proven, except for in the minds of people ignorant to buy into the stereotype of predatory gay males. According to Media Matters:
A study by Palm Center, a research institute focused on sexuality and the military, has found no evidence that open service has led to increased sexual assault. Nor, the center reported, did repeal lead to a decline in military cohesion or morale . . . Increased reporting of incidents may well reflect Defense Department efforts to encourage servicemembers to speak up if they've been assaulted. Emphasizing that sexual assault remains a "heinous" problem, Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-MA), co-chair of the Military Sexual Assault Prevention Caucus, told CNN that the rise in reports may well reflect "legislative and military changes" encouraging people to come forward.
As The New York Times reported in June 2013, the military's DADT policy discouraged victims of male-on-male sexual assault from reporting incidents, for fear that admitting to even non-consensual same-sex relations could lead to discharge.
Furthermore, in creating the stereotype of the predatory gay male, FRC exploits and undermines the real problem of male-on-male rape in the military.
A December 14, 2013 article in The Baltimore Sun, Breaking the Silence, talked extensively about this issue. The article noted that the problem has unfortunately existed for decades. It also noted that male-on-male rape in the military was not an issue of sex but of power and emasculation:
Military data show that the typical perpetrator is a man who has served longer in the military than his victim and holds a higher rank. In most cases, the assailant identifies as heterosexual.
Roger Canaff, who has trained Army lawyers in prosecuting sexual assault cases, says many attacks amount to a particularly violent form of hazing.
It “isn't necessarily seen as a sexual act,” says Canaff, a former prosecutor in New York and Virginia. “It's seen as a humiliating act. It's the ultimate act of emasculation.
“You see that in fraternity life, sometimes. You see that in the civilian world. The military has it also.”
We've seen on a number of occasions that, for an organization which talks about Biblical principles, FRC has no problem with trashing the commandment about " not bearing false witness."
This time, we are seeing that while the group talks about the greatness of America (which it did recently in celebrating the anniversary of The Star Spangled Banner), the Family Research Council has no problem disrespecting the men and women whose service has led to this country's greatness, and also exploiting their problems to demonize the entire gay community.
2 comments:
Great post, but our side does a pretty shabby job of countering these transparent lies. Does it make even a bit of sense that soldiers would be committing suicide over DADT repeal when it is an all-voluntary force and they could simply not re-enlist? Do these charges make any sense when the Commandant of the Marines - the biggest opponent of repeal - says that this issue never comes up when he asks Marines to speak freely about their discontents?
And then there's the sexual assault issue. FRC's position is that gay predator troops behaved themselves because if they assaulted a male soldier, that would expose them as gay and would ruin their career. But the assault itself is a career-ender, so the presence of DADT provides no additional deterrent. FRC might argue that the repeal of DADT created a wave of new gay recruits and that these new recruits are the source of the assaults. But there is no evidence of this whatsoever and the Pentagon report says that the typical perp has been in the military longer than the victim. Doesn't sound like a crime wave coming in with new gay recruits from 2011 onward. Our side needs to stop eye-rolling and start taking an ax to these lies.
Amen to that. we do need to take these lies more seriously.
Post a Comment