Saturday, December 18, 2010

General Carl Mundy, 30th USMC Commandant Makes the Case vs DADT Repeal


General Carl Mundy, Jr. the 30th Commandant of the Marine Corps has spoken out on the possible repeal of "Don't ask; Don't Tell."

The following is from Frank Gaffney of The Center for Security Policy.

Note from Frank Gaffney: The United States Senate is poised to take one of the most fateful votes in its history. It is expected - perhaps as early as tomorrow - to decide whether to impose the radical homosexual agenda on America's armed forces. Unless 41 Senators object to taking such a momentous step during a lame-duck session, without serious debate and in the absence of powerful evidence of its inadvisability, Congress will surely destroy the all-volunteer military.

That view has been expressed as eloquently and as forcefully by the 30th Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Carl Mundy USMC (Ret.) as by any of his comrades still in uniform or others knowledgeable about what is at stake. He wrote a letter to members of the Senate that is the single most impressive piece of official correspondence I have read in 35 years of involvement in national security policy-making.

You can read General Mundy's letter and view an interview the general had with Frank Gaffney by clicking here.

Gaffney is right when he urges everyone to read the letter:

Gen. Mundy's letter should be required reading - not only by those who will be responsible in the next few hours for casting votes on legislation that would repeal a seventeen-year-old statutory ban on homosexuals serving in uniform. It should also be read by every citizen whose security may be dramatically reduced by the far-reaching repercussions of such legislation.

Following are some excerpts from General Mundy's letter, which deserves to be read in its entirety by every American.

Neither the Constitution nor the Congress gives any citizen the right to serve. No one today is compelled to do so, and for the past 38 years, all who have chosen to serve have been volunteers who, at the point of enlistment, have knowingly given up certain of their civil rights and have sworn, as set out above, to uphold the laws that deny them certain rights. Not all who apply are accepted, and to ensure the effectiveness of the military in the purpose for which it exists, you give the Services authority to reject applicants for reasons that are unacceptable or less restrictive in ordinary society - age, physical or mental challenges, education, drug use or abuse, excessive weight, and a number of other reasons.

Official statistics provided by the Department of Defense tell us that something over 200,000 service men and women are discharged each year. About 650 of that number - a third of one percent - are separated for reasons involving homosexuality. By comparison, four times as many are separated for inability to maintain weight standards.

Those who advocate repeal of the law tell us that these numbers represent a hemorrhage of critical skills needed to fight and win the nation's wars. This assertion is not supported by fact. A 2009 Congressional Research Service report states that "... the majority of these [discharges] involve junior personnel with limited skills: that most derive from voluntary admissions and are uncontested; and that most receive honorable discharges."

Let me narrow that focus. Just over 32,400 Marines were discharged from my Service last year. Among those, 78 - less than a quarter of one percent - were separated for reasons related to the euphemistic "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. More than half of those had less than a year in service and were still in Entry Level Training, a phase of development not even in a category that can be considered qualified, much less skilled. Three were discharged even while in the Delayed Entry Program awaiting assignment to active duty. They had no time in active service at all.

Whatever your conclusions in this critically important matter, your ultimate decision must focus foremost on a single question: "What do our armed forces gain - or what do they lose - from repeal of a law crafted to ensure their effectiveness in accomplishing the sole reason for which they exist?" That reason is not social reform; it is military effectiveness.


Bookmark and Share