Scott Spiegel

As the newly appointed Dean of Harvard Law School, Obama Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan decided, in the middle of the War on Terror, to cripple the Reserve Officer Training Corps’ recruitment capability on campus by denying it crucial access to funding, operating space, and assistance from the Office of Career Services.

Kagan’s action fits into a shameful history of antiwar college administrators’ kicking ROTC off university campuses nationwide, most visibly at Ivy League schools, out of opposition to the Vietnam War in the late 60s and 70s.  After the war ended, officials extended the policy out of supposed concern over the military’s ban on gays in the 80s and the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the 90s.

After the Solomon Amendment barring federal funding to universities that ban military recruitment on campus was fully implemented at Harvard in 2003, Kagan signed on to a legal challenge to the amendment.  The Third Circuit Court overturned the amendment in 2004, but stayed its ruling pending Supreme Court review.  Kagan, impatient with the vagaries of the legal system, decided to force Harvard back onto its anti-ROTC policy, even though the law hadn’t yet been changed.  The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Third Circuit ruling in 2006, at which point Kagan reversed her actions to comply with the ruling.

Gay rights supporters defend Kagan’s actions as a necessary stopgap against government-sponsored military discrimination.

It is instructive to reconsider Kagan’s stance in the context of the role our military plays, the people and the rights it protects, and our enemies’ attitudes toward individual liberty and their treatment of gays.

Who, for example, benefits from the protections the U.S. military provides its citizens—only straight people, or gays as well?

Who protects the rights of citizens of our country, in which gays may live more or less as they please; form relationships with same-sex partners; enter (in a growing number of states) into civil unions, domestic partnerships, and marriages; adopt (in a growing number of states) and raise children; file lawsuits if they believe they have been unlawfully discriminated against; push to change laws to promote equality with heterosexuals; protest for their rights and hold rallies and parades in America’s major cities; and engage our political leaders in debate about allowing gays to serve openly in the military?

How do governments treat gays in countries that are our adversaries—in particular, those that fund, sponsor, and sympathize with the war to defeat gay-tolerant Western civilization and promote radical Islam around the world?  Do these Islamic governments have the same enlightened perspective on gays as the U.S., or do they condemn gays and throw them in jail or execute them for homosexual behavior?

The left in this country has traditionally demonized or devalued the military—at worst, it is for them a barbaric, fascist, industrial complex that sparks unnecessary wars and engages in brutal imperialist conquests.  At best, it is for them a largely unseen, slightly tacky presence whose benefits they take for granted, just as they take for granted our capitalist economy’s wealth, which they seek to appropriate and redistribute with no concern for the effort required to create it.

As many soldiers pointed out during the Iraq War, our military protects the right of antiwar liberals to protest the military’s actions.  What a slap in the face it is to bar or hobble the military in recruiting the brightest students from the best universities across the country to help complete its mission.  Imagine if military recruiters were similarly barred from other U.S. institutions and were unable to recruit enough members to fill its ranks.

As liberal, DADT-opposing Peter Beinart wrote, “The United States military is not Procter and Gamble.  It is not just another employer.  It is the institution whose members risk their lives to protect the country.  You can disagree with the policies of the American military; you can even hate them; but you can’t alienate yourself from the institution without in a certain sense alienating yourself from the country.”

Kagan’s ROTC-bashing position is also counterproductive, in that it further isolates the military from liberal views and entrenches in the left the mindset that the military is hard-line and unreformable.  And how is spitting on ROTC fair to soldiers, commanders, and potential recruits who oppose DADT or might be gay themselves?

The American Spectator’s John Tabin, who also supports repealing DADT, notes, “[I]f you want a military leadership with more liberal views on homosexuality, you should be more reluctant to entrench this cultural estrangement, not less.”  The policy of banning or restricting ROTC is just another example of leftists prematurely deciding that debate on an issue is over, those who disagree with them should no longer have a voice in the conversation, and dissenters do not deserve to be persuaded out of their positions or treated with respect.

Although DADT is misguided, treating recruiters shabbily is merely one way for liberals to disguise their contempt for the military and its unapologetic defense of American values around the world.  The day that DADT is repealed, leftist college administrators will be scouring the horizon for some other excuse to ban recruitment at their schools.

As Beinart wrote, “Barring the military from campus is a bit like barring the president or even the flag.”  But liberals can’t ban the American flag, can they?  Oh, wait—yes they can!

 Print This Post

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Problem With Elena Kagan (thedailybeast.com)
• Supreme Court nominee has thin ‘paper trail’ (realclearpolitics.com)
• Kagan Doesn’t Deserve It (thedailybeast.com)
• Does Elena Kagan Support Limited Government? (cato-at-liberty.org)
• Double Standard Anyone? Ten Times More ‘Conservative’ Labels for Alito than ‘Liberal’ Tags for Kagan (newsbusters.org)

Discouraging military service, bean counting minority group members instead of evaluating achievement, injecting irrelevant sexual undertones—sound like conservative stances to me!

As Miss Manners once wrote on sexual orientation, the important distinction these days seems to be not gays vs. straights, but people who think other people’s sex lives are open for scrutiny vs. those who don’t.

A rapidly dwindling number of conservatives have been arguing that the military should preserve its ban on gays serving openly in the military.

The U.S.’s highest ranking military official, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, happens to disagree.  In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, he declared in no uncertain terms that “allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do.”  Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the nation’s other top defense official, testified alongside Mullen in support of repealing the ban.

Just before President Obama took office, 104 retired admirals and generals had signed a statement urging the next president to overturn the ban.

Apparently all of this wasn’t good enough for Senator John McCain, who had categorically stated in 2006, “The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, ‘Senator, we ought to change the policy,’ then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it.”  Last week McCain told Mullen and Gates that he still opposes lifting the ban.

I can understand some conservatives’ suspicion regarding overturning the ban on gays in the military, when the last president who tried to do so (Clinton) had nothing but contempt for the military and aggressively eroded its capabilities every year he was in office.

But those opposed to lifting the ban have offered a lame series of unrelated, “they doth protest too much”-sounding excuses more befitting liberals’ shifting defenses of their misguided and unconstitutional policies.

For example, there’s the argument that we shouldn’t “experiment” with the military while we’re in the middle of two wars.

I notice that we weren’t in the middle of any wars in 1993, when President Clinton first proposed lifting the ban.  If anything, we need more recruits now, due to the notoriously long and repeated tours of duty our soldiers have had to undergo in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the need for specialized recruits such as Arabic translators.

The notion that our current roster of troops could do their jobs better if they weren’t distracted by the presence of the estimated 65,000 gay U.S. troops helping them out is ludicrous.  The more soldiers who are trained and willing to fight our wars, the better.  One of the best conservative arguments for the greatness of the U.S. is that we are able to get so many highly qualified people to volunteer for our military, and that so few leave due to conflict or dissatisfaction.

The necessity of maximizing troop strength during wartime is also reflected by the fact that the number of troops discharged for being gay decreased almost every year from 2001 to 2009, even though general military enlistment was up after the September 11 attacks.

For what it’s worth, we did experiment with this policy in recent history, and during a war at that: the ban on discharging gays was suspended during the Persian Gulf War, with no adverse consequences.

Then there’s the highly objective and verifiable suggestion that homosexuality is “incompatible” with military service.

This flimsy proposition is torn to smithereens by the inconvenient facts that gays: (1) currently serve honorably in the military, (2) have served honorably in the military since our country’s founding, and (3) already serve openly in the military in 30 major countries around the world, including nearly every NATO member and other U.S. allies such as Australia and Israel.  American soldiers serve alongside openly gay soldiers in these armies, and I haven’t heard about any mass defections on their part over fellow gay soldiers’ unprofessional conduct.

Conservatives generally reject affirmative action, correctly viewing the policy as amounting to reverse discrimination.  Why are so many conservatives hell-bent on discriminating against gays in the military?  It is true that some conservatives probably fear the day when gay rights groups start pushing for loosened standards for gays in the military to promote diversity or to right historical wrongs.  But just because the same thing happened with race and gender doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have granted equal rights to African Americans and women.

Violent felons, card-carrying Marxists, and radical Islamists may all happily serve in the U.S. army.  What sense does it make that, say, an Episcopalian Log Cabin Republican can’t?  Even a gay person who never utters a word about his sexual orientation in the military can be discharged for the act of getting married in one of the five states that allow it.

There’s also the contention that unit cohesion would be disrupted.  Yet the same claim was made regarding racial integration of the military in the 1950s.  This assertion slanders dedicated service members by purporting that (1) gay soldiers can’t do their jobs without making sexual advances toward their peers, and (2) heterosexual soldiers can’t do their jobs without dwelling on the possibility of advances from their peers.  Here I thought conservatives were the ones who held our military in such high esteem.

Admittedly, gays are asking for a tall order from the military: namely—nothing.  Nothing needs to be done to allow gays to serve openly, except for our Commander-in-Chief or Congress to declare that it be so.  Gays already serve.  Heterosexual service members claim they already know who many of their gay unit members are and don’t care.  If heterosexual soldiers can discern the most obvious cases and aren’t uncomfortable around these people, I think they can tolerate the existence of cases so undetectable they otherwise wouldn’t have guessed if they hadn’t found out.

All the military needs to do now is stop wasting time and resources sniffing out gays like contraband and axing them after having spent millions of dollars to train them.

Leftists are usually the ones infusing sexual undercurrents and lurid motives where none exist—pointing out latent homoeroticism in “Winnie the Pooh” or condemning “heteronormativity” in Jane Austen.  Why are some conservatives so intent on insisting that the seething, passionate impetus undergirding military service is… gay lust?

 Print This Post

The problem with hate crime legislation is that it creates special classes of minorities who receive greater protection from harassment via harsher penalties for their would-be assailants.  One upshot is that groups perceived as chronically threatened because of their identity are given greater benefit of the doubt in bias-motivated crimes they commit against other groups.

If there were ever a group that U.S. law should consider shielding through hate crime legislation, it would be: Americans.  The U.S. should be uniquely interested in protecting its citizens against attacks for being residents of this country, in the same way it protects its citizens against foreign attacks and its soldiers against enemies on the battleground.

If there were ever a setting in which pro-American hate crime protections should be enforced, it is in the military.  American soldiers, more than any other group, actively display dedication to pro-American ideals.

If there were ever a cultural group in modern times that has demonstrated persistent, widespread hostility toward and willingness to engage in violent attacks against Americans, especially Americans in the military, it is radical Islamists.

Naturally, army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan, who adhered to extremist Islamist ideology, sought connections with Al Qaeda, and shouted “Allahu Akbar!” as he massacred 13 soldiers and wounded dozens at Fort Hood last week, is being portrayed by the mainstream media and the present administration as a guy who needs OSHA counseling.

Muslim apologists have been telling us to not jump to conclusions (except that the killings were caused by stress), that the murders weren’t related to Islam, that it’s “speculation” that the military ignored warning signs regarding Hasan.  We get clueless gems like this from the New York Times on Monday: “It is unclear what might have motivated Major Hasan.”  Wusses like Lindsey Graham don’t help by claiming that the murders were “not about his religion—the fact that this man was a Muslim.”  (Wait—isn’t that a conclusion?)  It takes a hawk like Joe Lieberman to initiate hearings into Hasan’s conduct and the military’s failure to eject him for anti-American actions in which he engaged for years.

In the interest of preventing future attacks, I propose that we learn from the following warning signs:

•    Hasan identified as an Islamic fundamentalist, advocated for Muslims to “rise up and attack Americans” in retaliation for war against Muslims abroad, and espoused anti-Semitic views.

•    Hasan rejoiced over the murder of an army recruiter in Arkansas in June by an American convert to Islam.  According to Colonel Terry Lee, who worked with Hasan at Fort Hood, after the attack Hasan helpfully suggested, “Maybe people should strap bombs on themselves and go to Times Square.”

•    In 2003 Sergeant Hasan Karim Akbar—another American convert—slaughtered two U.S. soldiers and wounded 14 more in a grenade and rifle attack on a base in Kuwait in retaliation for the war in Iraq.

•    Classmates in Hasan’s master’s program complained of his anti-American views and his insistence that sharia outweighs U.S. constitutional law.

•    Fellow psychiatrists reported that, at a Grand Rounds talk during his residency, Hasan lectured his audience on Koranic justice, including the proscription to behead nonbelievers or pour hot oil down their throats and set them on fire.  Hasan defended suicide bombers, a position he has taken in postings on jihad-themed websites.

•    Hassan called the war on terror a war on Islam and said that military service for the U.S. is incompatible with Muslim beliefs.  (He may be on to something!  About 0.6% of the country identifies as Muslim, compared to only 0.25% of the military.)  Hasan argued that Muslim soldiers should be exempted from combat as conscientious objectors.

•    At Fort Hood, Hasan received warnings from supervisors for attempting to convert his patients to Islam, though he maintains it was entirely their choice whether to receive castor oil or hot oil for their remedies.

•    The FBI had been investigating Hasan since 2008 and was aware that he had sent dozens of e-mails to Al Qaeda spiritual leader Anwar al-Awlaki.  Hasan and his family attended the mosque in Falls Church, Virginia where al-Awlaki served as imam in the months leading up to September 11 and where two of the 9/11 hijackers worshiped.

Even if Hasan’s admonitions to slaughter infidels were not evidence enough to convict him of some kind of crime, he should have been ruled unfit for his position by military officials.

Hate crime legislation has been justified as necessary due to specious defenses offered for crimes against minority groups, such as the claim by lawyers for Harvey Milk’s assassin that junk food contributed to his inability to control his actions, or the “homosexual panic defense” that some who feel threatened by advances from a gay person enter a state of irrationality that prompts them to murderously strike out.  Hate crime laws have also been offered to cover minority groups whom police might not adequately protect due to racial bias.  The solution to specious legal defenses and lapses in police enforcement is to treat members of all groups equally, not some groups better than others.

As a consequence of this inverted mentality, we are warned by our political leaders to ignore the cause of obviously jihad-motivated killing of U.S. soldiers and accept spurious explanations for the massacre such as stress over anticipated deployment in Afghanistan or the inability of a trained psychiatrist to listen to stories from combat veterans.

The latest enlightened word, from Fort Hood base commander Lieutenant General Robert Cone, regarding the military’s plan to prevent future violence: “What we’re looking for is people with personal problems, not at all related to their religion—not at all.”

I hear the sugar rush from the Halloween candy civilians sent in care packages can lead soldiers to do some crazy things.

A couple of months ago, the mainstream media was snickering because a national survey of liberal historians had rated George W. Bush to be among the least successful of all American presidents, mostly on the basis of his conduct in the war against Islamic terrorists.  Given Obama’s adoration by the media, his wholesale reversal of nearly every one of his foreign policy campaign promises, and his Xeroxing of Bush’s war strategy, Bush should reach… oh, about #2 on the presidents’ list by the end of Obama’s tenure.

Candidate Obama wailed for years about Bush’s war in Iraq and promised to remove all troops by March 2009.  The latest plan, which President Obama scrawled on a cocktail napkin at one of his Wednesday night White House soirees, is to remove them by August 2010 and leave up to 50,000 troops in place for security purposes—and if you believe those dates and numbers won’t be extended further as “conditions change on the ground,” you probably voted for Obama.  Admittedly, “Obama lied, kids died” doesn’t have quite the same ring, but I think if Bush had pulled a fast one like this, we would have heard a few more complaints about his mendacity.

Obama formerly countered the spectacularly successful surge in Iraq, claiming that there was no way it could work—then turned around as President and implemented something in Afghanistan that starts with ‘s’ and rhymes with ‘urge’ but is definitely not a surge.

As Senator, Obama rejected special funding measures for U.S. anti-terror military conflicts—then, while president, asked Congress for an additional $83 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; you know, the ones we were fighting all along.  On the campaign trail, Obama whined about the cost of war and swore that funding would not be approved without benchmarks; when Congress’s bill came to a vote, Obama asked that the benchmarks be removed.

Obama once complained that Predator drone air attacks on suspected terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan were killing civilians; as President, he ramped up use of this targeted killing tactic at a higher rate and with more civilian casualties than under Bush.

Obama at one point criticized the Patriot Act, including its provisions allowing warrantless wiretapping and obtaining suspects’ financial, travel, and telecommunications records without their knowledge; now he supports renewing the act.

Obama previously opposed the use of the “state secrets doctrine” to prevent the required disclosure of evidence in court that would harm national security; in several cases stemming from the previous administration’s surveillance and interrogation practices, Obama’s Justice Department has invoked that very doctrine to prevent the disclosure of evidence.

Obama used to resist the practice of rendition, or capturing terrorist suspects and sending them to a third country for interrogation; recently he vowed to continue the practice.

At one time, Obama spoke out against the use of enhanced interrogation techniques on high-level terrorist suspects.  Recently, however, he set up a committee to look into whether CIA interrogators should be allowed looser standards than military interrogators—i.e., he left the door open for these techniques to be used again if he deems necessary.  He rejected the call to establish a Truth Commission into the Bush administration’s interrogation techniques and the prosecution of those who approved or implemented them.  When Nancy Pelosi claimed the CIA lied to her about the use of these techniques, Obama did not publicly support her, and allowed CIA director Leon Panetta to release a memo contradicting her claim.

In the past, Obama contested the practice of detaining terrorist suspects without trial; yet his Justice Department filed a brief claiming that his administration can hold for an indefinite period of time the following: Al Qaeda members, Taliban members, “associated forces,” and anyone who “substantially” supports them, which includes about half of Congress.  Federal judge Reggie Walton slyly mocked the Obama administration’s arguments as drawing “metaphysical distinctions” between his and Bush’s policy that were “of a minimal if not ephemeral character.”

Obama wrung his hands over denial of habeas corpus to terrorists in Guantanamo but has upheld the Bush position on denying habeas corpus regarding detainees’ conditions of confinement in Afghanistan’s Bagram prison, which is sort of a Guantanamo Express.

More recently, Obama revived military tribunals for Gitmo detainees after having called them an “enormous failure” and sworn to end them (the tribunals, not the detainees).

Finally, last week Obama changed his mind and decided he would oppose the release of photos documenting abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib.

It shouldn’t be this way for the former Bush administration.  After seven-and-a-half years of doing the right but unpopular thing, suffering precipitous drops in their approval ratings, and enduring uninformed screaming from every corner of the media about their Nazi-like tendencies, Bush and Cheney shouldn’t be dependent for their legacy on the eleventh-hour conversion of an irresponsible, wet-behind-his-big-ears neophyte who isn’t adult enough to serve as Commander in Chief.  The Bush policies should have been praised all along for keeping us safe, and any candidate who ran headfirst against them should have been defeated in a landslide.

But at least Bush’s “rehabilitation” is happening sooner than we could have hoped—just several months into the subsequent administration.  Any honest commentator must admit that it is happening squarely on the back of the feckless Obama.