For example, he has Admiral Mike Mullen serving with gay soldiers since 1968. What do you bet those were actually sailors. Did the Admiral perhaps say service members?
Then Mr Jackson talked about "the individual commanders of the Marines, the Navy, the Army, and the Air Force" testify on Capitol Hill. The only problem is, the Chiefs of Staff are not commanders. It is an important point. It is about our civil military relations. Way back in 1958, then President Dwight D Eisenhower asked Congress to take the Chiefs of Staff out of the Chain of Command, which subsequently ran from the individual service units up through the Unified and Specified Commanders—the Combatant Commanders in the words of Congress and Title 10—to the Secretary of Defense and the President.
The one place where Mr Jackson really missed the boat was in his last paragraph:
While “don’t ask’’ is not yet dead, the burial is in sight. This is no longer your 1993 military waving the white flag at paranoia. America is deciding that soldiers are not to be judged by their sexual orientation, but by their character on the battlefield.He didn't mention the US Congress, which has to repeal DADT♠ and associated activities banned by the UCMJ.♥ While one might think that this would be easy for the US Congress, I have my doubts. If we are looking for the last holdouts, they are on Capitol Hill and they aren't all Republicans.
Doesn't the Department of Defense Public Affairs Division run some sort of "boot camp" for reporters?
Regards — Cliff
♠ Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
♥ Uniform Code of Military Justice.
4 comments:
A while back, I ranted and raved a bit about a Globe report that talked about a Captain who had "just returned from commanding a brigade in Afghanistan." A few years back, there was the infamous news report about the U.S. troops "firing their AK-47s" back at insurgents in Anbar province.
But those could just be simple typos or gaffes.
Not understanding command relationships, or Goldwater-Nichols, or how the CJCS relate to the operational four-star service heads, is all forgivable.
Playing into old stereotypes about the military being a bunch of reactionary knuckle-draggers is far more egregious, esp. when even a basic understanding of DADT tells you that it's Congressional law.
The New Englander is probably correct about the issue of prejudice against the military and ignorance of the role of the US Congress. I did send an EMail to the Columnist, along with the URL.
We will see what we will see.
Maybe the Bloggers-of-Lowell should invite him up for lunch or dinner and a chance to hear about the blogs from his point of view, as well as ours. We could go high class and do it at Cobblestones.
Regards — Cliff
I guess I am missing a subtle distinction: while, for instance, a Chief of Staff of the Army isn't a Commander, he has been and more importantly he should be considered the "Chief" spokesperson for the Army.
That distinction may be subtle, Lance, but it is important. That is why President Eisenhower asked the Congress in the DoD Reorganization Act in 1958 to pull the Chiefs out of the chain of command. President to Secretary of Defense to the Combatant Commander to ...
It is like how I was quoted incorrectly on Friday in The Lowell Sun. The editor this AM told me that it was probably not the reporter, but someone editing the article and trying to clarify the information. Knowing the difference helps in understanding what is going on. To be a "commander" is to have certain authorities. On the other hand, a Service Chief is charged with the responsibility to "organize, train and equip". See what you can pick up by spending 15 months as Chief of Air Force Doctrine on the Air Staff? Useless, arcane, details.
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment