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.
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.
The full text of the Mundy letter to Senators can be read at the Center for Security Policy’s website here. After reading the letter, I sat down to talk with Gen. Mundy about this issue, and you can watch our extended conversation below.
Some of the most important highlights of General Mundy’s letter include the following (emphasis added throughout):
- “You and your colleagues are at the epicenter of the impassioned debate over whether or not to repeal the law that excludes homosexuals from serving openly in the armed forces. The President, social activists, and some among you are pressing hard for immediate repeal. If you vote to do so, I believe you will inflict significant damage on the All-Volunteer Force, and that you stand to abdicate unwittingly your constitutional authorities and responsibilities in matters of governance of the armed services.”
- “I believe further that you are moving in that direction without any compelling reason to do so other than because of the demands by small, but highly vocal and financially influential special interest groups whose objectives go far beyond acceptance for military service. To an outsider, it appears that partisanship, or perhaps a less than complete understanding of military service and the extraordinary dependence upon you of those who choose it may also be factors.”
- “Each of you has a constituency from the state you represent. However, collectively, you have a constituency of something near 2.4 million citizens who voluntarily serve in this nation’s armed forces in obligatory political silence while depending on you to represent their welfare and interests and most importantly, their effectiveness as a vital organization. You will not hear them in loud demonstrations on the Mall, nor will they be among the vocal and demanding activists who visit your office, disrupt your hearings, or send demanding or politically-threatening phone calls or e-mails.
“The limitations on their rights that you, in your constitutional authority impose, and that they accept voluntarily and swear to uphold, preclude their active engagement or their open-voiced views on this issue. Can you cite any other citizens’ group anywhere that functions in this ‘one-hand-tied-behind-your-back-and-the-other-in-respectful-and-obedient-salute’ circumstance only for the privilege of serving our nation and the honor of defending it? Ladies and gentlemen, it is your sacred obligation as Senators to put the well-being of these selfless servants before partisanship, self-interest groups, or political ambition, and it is my strong recommendation that you do so.”
- “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.”
“One of the long-standing reasons judged by you and your predecessors not to be in the best interests of the armed forces because of its impact on the cohesion and teamwork critical to effectiveness in the unique environment of military service is homosexuality. Seventeen years ago, after extensive debate in a dozen hearings, your predecessors and some of you enacted a law based on reasoning as sound then as it is today, that prohibits those who ‘demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts’ from serving in the armed forces, because, you concluded, their presence ‘would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.’
- “Nothing in this law requires anyone to lie about who they are. Indeed, their enlistment contract requires only that applicants give truthful certification of their understanding and of what they have revealed and that they give their sworn oath of loyalty and obedience. It denies no civil right.”
- “‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ isn’t the law. It is counter to the law. It is a euphemistic term used to describe a political accommodation which, in the current debate, has been carefully ‘spun’ to confuse and play on public sensitivities and emotions. It is apparent that many in the media, the public, and most disturbingly, in high places in government do not understand this distinction — or are using it for political leverage. The policy enables those with a ‘homosexual orientation’ to serve so long as they don’t ‘tell’ or otherwise behave in a way contrary to good order and discipline. The law, on the other hand, requires no one to lie or deceive. It simply excludes from eligibility to serve those who exhibit ‘a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.’ The findings that support this law are compelling. If you have not done so, I strongly encourage you to review them as part of your deliberation.”
- “Almost a year ago, the Secretary of Defense commissioned a review to identify significant factors of concern in implementing repeal, should the Congress decide to overturn the law. Purported leaks to the media have suggested that a majority of those surveyed are “O.K. with repeal”. This is an extraordinary claim given that by Secretary Gates’ intent and clear tasking, the survey did not solicit nor seek to determine servicemember attitudes toward repeal. As one member who took the survey told me: ‘The fact that I indicated I would not give up my commissary privileges or move my family off base is not a basis for judging whether or not I’m O.K. with open homosexuality. No one asked me that question and I wasn’t allowed to volunteer it.‘”
- “…The results of an earlier poll of active-duty servicemembers by the Military Times Newspapers that revealed that ten percent of the survey population stated that if the ban on open homosexuality is lifted, they will not continue in service at the end of their terms of enlistment. Another 14 percent indicated they would consider not reenlisting. These are dramatic statements of attitudes by those in uniform that must not to be ignored. To suggest, as one or two in senior military positions have publicly, that those with such attitudes should “vote with their feet” is an astonishing breach of fundamental leadership together with a cavalier disregard for the impact such an exodus would have on military effectiveness.”
- “[Perhaps at least] 24,000 current members of the armed forces might be lost over and above normal discharge attrition in a one-to-three year period – a figure roughly double the total number lost to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” discharges in the previous 17 years. Because these personnel would be completing one or more terms of service, they would, in fact, represent a hemorrhage of mature, skilled losses from the professional ranks. This is an enormous risk to the viability of our armed forces.”
- “The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has given personal views [in support of repeal]. In his authorities and responsibilities as the principal military adviser to the President and the Secretary of Defense, his views on a wide range of matters of national security are of significant strategic import. However, none of his statutory authorities or responsibilities as Chairman extends to personnel matters in the individual armed services, nor do they grant any authority over the services or over his counterparts in their roles as Service Chiefs. His personal views as a senior naval officer have been given, but they need to be balanced carefully against the professional views of the Service Chiefs who bear responsibilities for those who comprise their respective services that he does not.”
- “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.”
In light of General Mundy’s strong warnings, informed as they are by his own vast experience and that of nearly 1200 retired flag and general officers who have written their own open letter opposing repeal of the ban on homosexuals in the military, Senators should decline to support such a repeal. At the very least, should they decide to do so, they should indicate whether they are prepared to vote for a return to conscription – which will be the practical effect of breaking the all-volunteer force.