DADT: 20th Century Generals Confront Reality of Modern Military

by: Brandon Friedman

Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 12:56:21 PM EDT


During an interview in 2007, Marine Corps General Robert Magnus addressed what it was like having to deal with intolerance and bigotry in the ranks during the 1970s:

When asked if being Jewish was ever a liability in his expansive military career, Magnus' answer is matter-of-fact: It has not. More pointedly, when asked about anti-Semitism, he recalls only one incident, years ago, when as a captain someone foolishly called him a "Jew boy." His response: "I punched him in the face."

Ironically, the now-retired General Magnus--whose own career was enabled by the tolerance of those not like him--is now actively working to prevent gays from serving openly in the military.  

This is hypocrisy.  

When it was announced on Tuesday that over 1,000 flag and general officers had signed a letter urging President Obama to continue barring gays from serving openly in the military, General Magnus was among them.  

Now, this one general's hypocrisy  aside, the whole thing struck me as a bit odd.  When I read the letter to President Obama, I became even more perplexed by the language:

Our experience as military leaders leads us to have great concern about the impact that repeal of [the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law] would have on morale, discipline, unit cohesion, and overall military readiness. We believe that imposing this burden on our men and women in uniform would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all levels, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force.

Break the all-volunteer force?  For one, that type of overwhelming homophobia just isn't representative of the military I knew during my time in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I wondered why so many senior leaders--men who'd sacrificed so much in their own rights on behalf of the nation--would suddenly come out against a repeal of the outdated policy.

With that in mind, I decided I'd do some critical analysis of the list of those who'd signed the letter.  I wanted to know who these military leaders were.  But because the list is so huge, I knew I couldn't quickly compile information on each officer.  So I decided to look at the first--and most senior--group of signers: The 47 four-star generals and admirals on the list.

What I found wasn't surprising at all.  If the 47 senior officers on the list are representative of the other thousand, then the letter has been signed by exactly what I suspected: A large group of distinguished, older, retired military officers who entered the service between World War Two and Vietnam--and who largely left the service prior to the 21st century and the modern military era.  

As it turns out, no four-star officer on the list entered the military after 1969--over three decades before I led my own infantry platoon into combat in Afghanistan as a young lieutenant.  In fact, all but four of the officers were in the service before Vietnam even started.  Eight of the 47 joined the military during World War Two--at the same time as my grandparents.  And the remaining 35 joined between the end of WWII and the beginning of Vietnam--in an era not known for its receptiveness to homosexuality, especially in the military.

But, more important than the fact that these officers entered the service over 40 years ago--in the middle of the 20th century--is the reality that the vast majority never served with troops of the modern era.  Fully two-thirds of the four-stars on the list retired before the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law was even enacted in 1993.  41 of the 47 on the list never wore a uniform during this century, and only four of the 47 retired four-star generals--Magnus included--were still in the service on 9/11.  

The fact is, while they've certainly earned the right to express their opinions, this group of older, retired officers is largely out of touch with current cultural norms and what constitutes "mainstream" in 2009--and they certainly don't speak for those who've served overseas in the years since 9/11.  While many are combat heroes themselves, their experiences range from Korea to Desert Storm.  But not one of the 47 four-stars on that list has ever served in Iraq or Afghanistan with today's military, much less had to depend on one of the 58 gay Arabic translators fired in 2007 alone.  These officers were brought up in a draft military at a time when open homosexuality was typically viewed as deviant--unlike today, when 81 percent of Americans think gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military.

Ultimately, the point is this: Linguists, surgeons, seasoned counterinsurgents, intelligence experts, and other skilled professionals are absolutely vital to our own national security.  At a time when our all-volunteer military is more strained than it has ever been--and despite the complaints of an older generation of officers whose wars ended decades ago--we have neither the time nor the luxury of finding replacements for these individuals who were fired on account of their personal relationships.

The fact that 1,000 long-retired generals are frightened of gay people is not the modern military's problem.  Their antiquated homophobia is theirs and theirs alone.  As I've said before, with two wars raging, as long as you can shoot straight--or speak Arabic or Pashto--it's shouldn't matter whether or not you are straight.  Leaders like General Magnus should know that better than anyone.

The list of signing four-star flag and general officers by years of service is below the fold....

Brandon Friedman :: DADT: 20th Century Generals Confront Reality of Modern Military
Retired in the 1970s

General E. E. Anderson, USMC (Ret.) 1940 - 1975
General John W. Vogt, USAF (Ret.) 1941 - 1975
General John R. Deane, Jr., USA (Ret.) 1942 - 1977

Retired in the 1980s

General Volney F. Warner, USA (Ret.) 1944 - 1981
Admiral Thomas B. Hayward, USN (Ret.) 1948 - 1982
General Frederick J. Kroesen, USA (Ret.) 1943 - 1983
General Edward C. Meyer, USA (Ret.) 1951 - 1983
General Paul F. Gorman, USA (Ret.) 1950 - 1985
General Wallace H. Nutting, USA (Ret.) 1950 - 1985
General John K. Davis, USMC (Ret.) 1945 - 1986
General Robert W. Bazley, USAF (Ret.) 1943 - 1987
General P. X. Kelley, USMC (Ret.) 1950 - 1987
Admiral James A. "Ace" Lyons, Jr., USN (Ret.) 1951 - 1987
General Lawrence A. Skantze, USAF (Ret.) 1946 - 1987
General Richard H. Thompson, USA (Ret.) 1944 - 1987
General John A. Wickham, Jr., USA (Ret.) 1950 - 1987
Admiral Ronald J. Hays, USN (Ret.) 1950 - 1988
General Thomas R. Morgan, USMC (Ret.) 1952 - 1988
General Glenn K. Otis, USA (Ret.) 1946 - 1988
General Arthur E. Brown, Jr., USA (Ret.) 1953 - 1989
General William L. Kirk, USAF (Ret.) 1951 - 1989
General Joseph T. Palastra, Jr., USA (Ret.) 1954 - 1989
General Louis C. Wagner, Jr., USA (Ret.) 1954 - 1989

Retired in the 1990s

General Michael J. Dugan, USAF (Ret.) 1958 - 1990
General James J. Lindsay, USA (Ret.) 1952 - 1990
General Louis C. Menetrey, USA (Ret.) 1953 - 1990
General Joseph J. Went, USMC (Ret.) 1952 - 1990
General John W. Foss, USA (Ret.) 1950 - 1991
General John R. Dailey, USMC (Ret.) 1956 - 1992
Admiral Jerome L. Johnson, USN (Ret.) 1956 - 1992
General Crosbie E. Saint, USA (Ret.) 1958 - 1992
General Edwin H. Burba Jr., USA (Ret.) 1959 - 1993
General James B. Davis, USAF (Ret.) 1958 - 1993
General Carl W. Stiner, USA (Ret.) 1958 - 1993
General Walter E. Boomer, USMC (Ret.) 1960 - 1994
General C. A. Horner, USAF (Ret.) 1958 - 1994
Admiral Henry H. Mauz, Jr., USN (Ret.) 1959 - 1994
General Carl E. Mundy, Jr., USMC (Ret.) 1953 - 1995
Admiral Leighton W. "Snuffy" Smith, USN (Ret.) 1962 - 1996
General Ronald R. Fogleman, USAF (Ret.) 1963 - 1997
General Richard E. Hawley, USAF (Ret.) 1964 - 1999

Retired in the 2000s

General Terrence R. Dake, USMC (Ret.) 1966 - 2000
General Charles E. Wilhelm, USMC (Ret.) 1964 - 2000
General Henry H. Shelton, USA (Ret.) 1963 - 2001
General Carlton W. Fulford, Jr., USMC (Ret.) 1966 - 2002
General William F. Kernan, USA (Ret.) 1968 - 2002
General Robert Magnus, USMC (Ret.) 1969 - 2008

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Can't cite a specific reference, but a lot of combat veterans of WWII (0.00 / 0)
are/were much more tolerant than the general population even back then, because they served with soldiers who were gay. (I read a lot of out-of-the-mainstream WWII stuff for personal reasons).

Most of the enlisted who made statements just expressed that when they were dealing with the stresses of combat, sexual orientation was way down on their list of issues.

I don't think too many officers made similar statements.   Would have been bad for their careers, for sure.

That was good research you did.


General Carl E. Mundy (0.00 / 0)

Gen. Mundy also gave us this nugget of "wisdom":

"In the military skills, we find that the minority officers do not shoot as well as the non-minorities. They don't swim as well. And when you give them a compass and send them across the terrain at night in a land navigation exercise, they don't do as well at that sort of thing."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...


wow. (0.00 / 0)
I don't even know how to respond to that.


[ Parent ]
What's particularly galling is that (0.00 / 0)
a lot of these guys are generals I looked up to as a kid.

[ Parent ]
ALL STOP (0.00 / 0)
Re-read General Mundy's quote in context.

He was not saying categorically that non-whites are genetically inferior, he's saying empirically, minorities didn't perform as well in swimming or on the range.

That is as easily interpreted as a compelling commentary on the unfairness of developmental opportunities in this country (where do you learn to swim and shoot? at summer camp?) as it is as a blatantly racist comment.


[ Parent ]
Very good point about Mundy's remark. (0.00 / 0)
But, personally, I'm still talking about their homophobia in general.

[ Parent ]
In this regard (0.00 / 0)
I am in total agreement with you.

[ Parent ]
The point that I do not understand with this whole issue (4.00 / 1)
is that it is based upon a false assumption.  The fear is that if we allow gay soldiers to serve openly, various problems will occur.  This is already proven false by the fact that our soldiers do serve alongside openly gay soldiers.  Just not from our own country.  Our soldiers serve, fight, and live right alongside soldiers from Britain, Australia, Canada, etc. in deployments all over the world.  These countries do not have the same restrictions as we do.  Therefore, our soldiers are already serving alongside openly gay soldiers.  And it doesn't seem to be causing any problems.  To say that we need DADT is to say that we do not need to work with our allies in a combat environment.  This is the same mentality that brings up the discussion - what if we allow women to serve in combat zones? or to carry guns? They already do.  And it seems to be working fine.

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama

Don't mistake the generation gap with political impotence (0.00 / 0)
Interesting analysis, and your support for DADT repeal is much appreciated, but, with all due respect, you're, as the expression goes, putting the emphasis on the wrong sy-llable.

If it were a simple matter of listening to the opinions of officers and rank and file active today, or to general public opinion polls, DADT would have been repealed long ago. But the fact is that its fate remains with Congress and four years after the introduction of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act in the US House, barely one-fourth have agreed to cosponsor it. And the Senate still has no companion bill. Why? 1. Lack of leadership. 2. Because the members of the 2009 Congress, far from being members of the "'Will & Grace' Generation," are, on average, the oldest on record, easily impressed by the generations of officers you dismiss as irrelevant.

Further, the House bill's current sponsor is worse than a lame duck-unlikely to complete her term after having been nominated to a State Department position, and no one has rushed forward to grab her repeal baton. She didn't even bother to show up for SLDN's rally three weeks ago in front of the Capitol for HER bill! Nor to their annual gala the next night. Even gay Reps Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin were MIA for both events which suggests all three know that the way the wind is blowing is not in the direction of repeal.

In short, in the absence of promised leadership by the Commander in Chief, DADT repeal was a fantasy even before this virtual A-bomb was dropped on it, just like the fairytale that Obama was busy working behind the scenes to convince Secty Gates and the Pentagon to support it. The letter's author may be easy to mock, its signatories easy to discredit at least among ourselves, but unless Obama keeps his promise and takes an active PUBLIC role in dismissing it and calls on Congress for repeal and orders the Pentagon to prepare for it, Congress will simply pull this unprecedented letter over themselves like a giant camouflage blanket and refuse to act.

I urge everyone to demand he do exactly that at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/cont...

Thank you.


[ Parent ]
i agree... (0.00 / 0)
I am a canadian citizen and found this website via Facebook thanks to that scandal, as it seems like up here, about that Fox 'news' show. I have enjhoyed reading about the trials and tribulations of our vets and of course yours. and to me this DADT law seems outdated and extreamley old fashioned.

As you stated Chris, we up here have openly gay soldiers. plus, and i could be wrong so feel free to correct me to any one who wishes to respond. Unlike your army, we allow our women to serve on the frontlines in combat units, and if i am correct we have lost at least 2 of them in fire fights.

It seems to me that after reading this article, the American people as a whole want this to end but the old men and women in Congress can't move forward with the times. Hopefully Obama can change that.

Why should a Gay man or Lesbian woman be forbidden to serve the country they are proud to live in? that should be the real question. Are they not Americans like the other thousadns of soldiers you have in War torn Afghanistan and Iraq? Do they bleed differently than the rest of the world's populace? I think not. This reaks of a form of segrigation. similar to the way Blacks were typically handled in the wars before Vietnam, or even Korea, if i am right. Look at the mentality of the Air Corps with regards to blacks and flying/combat. Yet the Tuskeggee(is that correct) Airmen proved thier fears to be false. Those generals need gays to prove themselves? I think that having the courage to join up knowing full well they will be scrutinized even more so is proof that they too should be allowed to fight for thier flag.


[ Parent ]
Thank you, Ibram. (0.00 / 0)
I know there are many Canadians serving alongside our forces in Afghanistan and Djibouti.  They are excellent soldiers and have seriously led the way in many combat areas.

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama

[ Parent ]
General Louis C. Menetrey (0.00 / 0)
One of the signatories actually died before the letter was written. Footnote 24:

Commanded Sub-unified Command in Korea. Deceased, January 14, 2009. Mrs. Menetrey signed (w/ Power of Attorney), and stated that her husband "believed strongly in this law and would want his name added."



here (0.00 / 0)
http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocument...

page 11, footnote 24.

also, while I would not care to second-guess the general's wife and biographer on this matter, he did become incapacitated by Alzheimer's shortly after their 2003 marriage:

http://www2.xlibris.com/bookst...


[ Parent ]
VetVoice on Social Media
Follow rockrichard on Twitter

VoteVets.org on Facebook
  • VetVoice Recommends

    "The War I Always Wanted,"
    By Brandon Friedman

    "The welcome mat for memoirs by veterans of operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom might never wear out so long as they write with the savvy of Brandon Friedman . . . Friedman's take is vivid, frank, precise and dramatic." --Military Times

    "Add Brandon Friedman's The War I Always Wanted to the ranks of outstanding non-fiction produced by officers from elite combat units in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Always truthful, often excruciatingly so, The War I Always Wanted rises at numerous points to the level of literature." --Steven Pressfield, author of Gates of Fire

    Buy The War I Always Wanted here.

    "A Time To Lead,"
    By General (Ret.) Wesley K. Clark

    "A Time To Lead confirms the rewarding benefits of military service at a time when such service is experiencing considerable strain. It also includes a comprehensive description of America's current national imperatives, which deserve serious consideration." --General Alexander M. Haig, Jr., former Secretary of State

    "This is a primer on leadership forged in battle and by decades of experience. . .This isn't just a book; it's a manual for leading people and living a good life." --Barry McCaffrey, General, USA (ret.)

    Buy A Time to Lead here.

    "Love My Rifle More Than You,"
    By Kayla Williams

    "Whip smart, sassy, with a mouth as foul as a sailor's, 28-year-old Sergeant Kayla Williams. . .tells what it's like to be a female soldier in Iraq." --Booklist

    ". . .echoes military memoirists from Julius Caesar to Ernie Pyle." --Publishers Weekly

    ". . .a shocking, on-the-ground view of one military woman's experience in Iraq." --Bookmarks Magazine

    Buy Love My Rifle More Than You here.

    "How to Break a Terrorist,"
    By Matthew Alexander

    "...a riveting, fast-paced account that reads like a first-rate thriller." --Publisher's Weekly

    " ...an absorbing behind-the-scenes look at the secret intelligence war within a war." --Military.com

    Buy How to Break a Terrorist here.

    Search

    Advanced Search

    RSS Feed Links

    Subscribe to VetVoice in a feed reader!

    Subscribe to VetVoice by Email!

    Diaries and comments at VetVoice do not necessarily represent the views of VoteVets.org. VetVoice will strive to remove any illegal material as soon as it is flagged. Similarly, VetVoice will use its discretion in determining whether to remove exceedingly offensive material. However, between posting and removal, any offensive or illegal material does not reflect the condoning or endorsing of said material by VoteVets.org or VetVoice.
    Similarly, the views expressed on this website are those of the authors alone. Opinions on this website do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense or any of its components.
    Menu

    Front Page Writers
    PTSD Resources
    TBI Resources
    IRR Information
    Casualty Reports
    VA Information
    Support the Troops
    Veteran Candidates We Support
    Congressional Committees
    Contact Your Elected Leaders
    Sites We Like

    Paid for VoteVets Political Action Committee. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. VoteVets Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) organization which primarily focuses on nonpartisan education and advocacy on behalf veterans and their families. VoteVets Political Action Committee is a federal political committee which primarily helps elect Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran candidates and educates about veterans and military issues aimed at influencing the outcome of the next election.

    Site Design: Articulated Man

    VoteVets Political Action and Vote Vets Action Fund are separate organizations.

    Powered by: SoapBlox