The disagreement between Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and the heads of each of the four branches of the military on moving forward with a compromised and weak DADT repeal represents the most significant (public?) split on policy decisions between the two factions in recent history, says Air Force Gen. Charles Horner, the retired four-star general who ran the North American Aerospace Defense Command and the U.S. Space Command, leading the Air Force in the Gulf War in 1991. “The chairman is deeply beholden to the secretary of defense and the president. He is in a tougher position than the service chiefs. And also the service chiefs are more directly concerned with things like readiness and personnel policies. I can see where this split occurs, for understandable reasons.”
alan brickman
Retire them all already!!! Bigots never change their spots….
Mike in Asheville, nee "in Brooklyn"
When Gen. Omar Bradley made some disparaging remarks about desegregating the army, President Truman called him for a short conversation. Bradley then made a public statement fully supporting the decision to desegregation. AND THIS ALL HAPPENED LESS THAN 3 MONTHS BEFORE THE PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION AND TRUMAN WAS BEGIND IN THE POLLS.
That the military is subject to civilian authority and that the president is Commander in Chief, has served our country well for 225 years. It is a disgrace to the service and our country that these so-called “chiefs” fail to embrace the full authority and office of the president. Private opinions are one thing, public ones are not. They should be fired; who knows what other order they will fail to obey.
reason
As I said in an earlier post things are not exactly rosy at the White House. The president is working harder at this than appears on the surface. If all of the internal fights and negotiations became public it may convince some of you that the president is working but undermine the entire repeal. The republicans would use it as proof that the millitary experts truly believe that repeal would be detrimental which would send the more skeptical ones in the democratic party running for the hills. If it was precieved that Mullen and Gates were coerced the president would lose his ace in the hole and damage his standing amoung the rank and file. The presidental military relationship is complex, he may be the commander and chief but that doesnt mean the force cant loose confidence in his leadership. We all know what happened to those officers in Vietnam, it wont happen to a president physically be figuratively it will in the form of being undermined like Clinton. Obama is trying to take the smarter approch that will delivery the best result, instead of a fire and brimstone approach that will fire up the gay community but lead to a bad outcome. The politican pushing for fire and brimstone happens to be up for re-eletion this year in a liberal districts.
DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12)
This is not a new development, the heads of each branch (esp the Marines and Air Force, IIRC) have been very vocal about their opposition to any change in DADT. It will be interesting to see what kind of further compromise is reached at the end of the year.
jason
Kick the bigots out. I am sick and tired of fading, aged military chiefs with their outdated homophobic views dictating to the rest of us. If Horner and his ilk don’t like gays serving openly in the military, he needs to get over it or get out.