Rhino
03-09-2001, 04:19 AM
BEST45CAL
Forum Host
posts: 131
(2/6/01 11:06:55 pm)
| Del All An Agenda For Positive Change In The Military
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center for Military Readiness
AN AGENDA FOR POSITIVE CHANGE IN THE MILITARY
For military people serving their country, political expression is essentially limited to casting a secret vote on Election Day. In the 2000 presidential election, Democrats feared that most of those votes would go for the Bush/Cheney ticket. They tried to obstruct the counting of overseas absentee ballots in Florida, and Vice President Al Gore did not object. Despite that effort, thousands of votes from military people and their families made a critical difference in the election of President George W. Bush.
Noisy homosexual and feminist activists are now demanding that the new administration continue the most controversial social policies of former President Bill Clinton. By contrast, military voters are quietly anticipating constructive change. The selection of Donald Rumsfeld to be Secretary of Defense signaled that President Bush intends to make good on the campaign promise of Vice President Dick Cheney: “Help is on the way.”
With so much to do, where to begin? Recruiting and retention numbers have been alarmingly low, so increased pay and benefits are high on the Bush/Cheney agenda. Shortages in spare parts, maintenance, fuel, and training hours have brought the military to the ragged edge of readiness, so the new president will ask Congress for in-creased funds to meet those basic needs.
Excessive deployments and questionable missions have been a sore point for years, so the administration’s national security team will re-assess overseas commitments. Their overall goal is to pursue a strategic vision to defend America against real threats, including ballistic missiles guided by technology obtained by potential adversaries during the Clinton years.
Signs of Morale Problems
These are straightforward steps in the right direction, but still not enough. To truly restore the strength of the military, something must be done about Clinton-era social policies that have vitiated readiness and morale. For the past eight years, civilian activists have used the military as a laboratory for social engineering schemes ranging from homosexuals in the military to co-ed basic training. Some Pentagon officials seriously embraced the “ungendered visions” of paid civilian consultant Prof. Madeline Morris, who recommended constant “sensitivity training” courses to enforce acceptance of unprecedented social change.
Some soldiers signaled non-acceptance by voting with their feet. A recent Army study found that the resignation rate for young captains, some of whom would have been future leaders of the Army, has increased from 8% to 11% since 1997. Personnel losses are occurring at twice the rate considered acceptable in the early 1990s, despite pay increases and other incentives to keep soldiers in uniform. (Washington Post, Oct. 16, 2000)
Army briefing documents obtained by the Washington Times (Nov. 1, 2000) indicated that the number of senior Army officers declining to accept career-enhancing command opportunities has skyrocketed in the past five years. In a widely circulated statement, one former officer asserted that the Army must fix problems in its leadership culture, but first it has to acknowledge that the problems even exist. (Army Times, Dec. 25, 2000)
Despite tangible evidence of serious morale problems in the volunteer force, high-level Pentagon officials kept insisting that nothing was amiss. Their denials created a demoralizing “credibility gap,” which showed up last year in a major survey done by the respected Center for Strategic and International Studies. CSIS found that 35% of servicemen surveyed agreed with the statement: “When my service’s senior leaders say something, you can believe it’s true.” Trust in leadership must be restored if the volunteer force is to survive.
Ending the Clinton Era
No other administration has faced such a difficult challenge. After four years of “hollowing out” under President Jimmy Carter, all President Ronald Reagan had to do was build enough ships, planes, and weapons to deter aggression and win the Cold War.
To restore a bond of trust with the troops they now lead, the new commander in chief and defense secretary must insist upon complete candor from all subordinates. All policies that affect readiness and morale, including social issues, must be reviewed and analyzed objectively, without career rewards for bringing good news, or penalties for bad news.
There is no need to provoke sudden confrontations with implacable civilian groups who demanded (and would have gotten from Al Gore) a “litmus test” on gays in the military for potential members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This does not mean, however, that it would be wise for the Bush/Cheney administration to automatically continue the most controversial social policies of the Clinton/Gore era.
Most disruptive changes were imposed on the military not by legislation, but by Defense Department directives. The order to impose co-ed basic training on the Army, for example, was crafted by former Army Assistant Secretary for Personnel Sara Lister—a civilian lawyer and feminist who later became famous for calling the Marines “extremist.” Defense Department appointees were also responsible for issuing convoluted training materials and enforcement regulations that are inconsistent with the 1993 law excluding homosexuals from the military. Most of these ill-advised policies can be undone in the same way, with administrative directives instead of the prolonged distraction of legislative action.
To stay focused on the impressive agenda outlined by Donald Rumsfeld in his confirmation hearing, the new administration will need qualified and knowledgeable appointees who are prepared to apply sound priorities to all defense issues. Increased pay, benefits, modernization, and defenses against ballistic missiles are important, but the Bush/Cheney administration will also need people who will consider taking the actions outlined on page three.
It would be counter-productive to select appointees for high-level Pentagon positions—including retired military officers—who support Clinton’s problematic policies and goals regarding gays in the military. Nor would it help to appoint women or former members of Congress who strongly support co-ed basic training and other controversial elements of the feminist agenda for the military.
Rather, the administration should appoint qualified and knowledgeable people who have their priorities straight, especially in matters involving personnel. With support from the president, those appointees will be able to make constructive changes smoothly, at the appropriate time.
RESTORING THE STRENGTH AND MORALE OF AMERICA’S MILITARY
In addition to increasing pay and benefits, modernizing equipment and building missile defenses, the Center for Military Readiness recommends that the Bush/Cheney administration consider taking the following actions, at the appropriate time:
Eliminate co-ed basic training and housing arrangements in the Army, Air Force, and Navy, as recommended unanimously by the 1997 federal advisory committee chaired by former Senator Nancy Kassebaum-Baker. (The Marines continue to train men and women separately, with noted success.) National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was a member of this commission, which found that gender-mixed housing and training arrangements were contributing to disciplinary problems.
Enforce the law regarding homosexuals in the military, which was passed by veto-proof, bipartisan majorities in 1993. To improve understanding and enforcement of the statute, the Defense Department should issue new training materials that include the actual law and the House and Senate reports that accompanied the legislation. Clarifying the rules about eligibility to serve would eliminate confusion, and help put the issue to rest. For more information and analysis, please consult the CMR website: www.cmrlink.org. (http://www.cmrlink.org.)
Require the continued enforcement of laws and regulations regarding sexual harassment and personal misconduct, with protections against double standards and violations of the rights of the accused.
Oppose the assignment of women to close combat units, such as multiple-launch rocket (MLRS) field artillery, Special Forces helicopters, and submarines.
Reconsider the Army’s new advertising slogan, “An Army of One,” and the controversial order that all soldiers be issued black berets similar to those currently reserved for Army Rangers.
Re-evaluate and possibly revise policies associated with the assignment of women to previously closed combat positions on land, sea, and in the air.
Re-evaluate and possibly revise overly generous pregnancy policies that subsidize and therefore encourage single parenthood, family instability, poverty, and dependence on food stamps.
Require equal opportunity in the armed forces, but end recruiting and promotion quotas that have the effect of discriminating against otherwise-qualified individuals.
Oppose efforts to bring back the draft, whether directly or indirectly through mandatory (civilian) national service, and support women’s continued exemption from draft registration.
Discontinue the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS), and all other tax-funded, largely-civilian feminist advisory committees that advise the Secretary of Defense and the service secretaries on policies affecting servicewomen. In the past eight years, the DACOWITS has outlived its usefulness and destroyed what was left of its credibility.
Review and end excessive overseas deployments that drain the strength of our armed forces, but have little to do with America’s national interests.
Prevent the exposure of American military personnel to multi-national command authority or legal actions under the International Criminal Court and tribunals claiming power to violate the constitutional rights of Americans.
End all forms of bureaucratic discrimination against military voters and their families, whether serving overseas or in the continental United States.
Some critics insist that Bill Clinton’s social policies regarding the military should remain unchanged — exempt from scrutiny, criticism, or revision. But attorney Anita Blair, who chaired a 1999 congressional commission that studied co-ed basic training, dismisses the critics’ favorite argument: “Never mind about turning the clock back or forward,” says Blair. “If it’s broke, just fix it.”
Military voters are counting on President George W. Bush to “fix” the armed forces. For the sake of national security, that is a political promise that must be kept.
taximom
New Member
posts: 2
(2/9/01 11:50:00 am)
| Del
Re: An Agenda For Positive Change In The Military
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 1 would have to be to resupply the ammo for the Army, and get our guys in some decent housing.
Forum Host
posts: 131
(2/6/01 11:06:55 pm)
| Del All An Agenda For Positive Change In The Military
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center for Military Readiness
AN AGENDA FOR POSITIVE CHANGE IN THE MILITARY
For military people serving their country, political expression is essentially limited to casting a secret vote on Election Day. In the 2000 presidential election, Democrats feared that most of those votes would go for the Bush/Cheney ticket. They tried to obstruct the counting of overseas absentee ballots in Florida, and Vice President Al Gore did not object. Despite that effort, thousands of votes from military people and their families made a critical difference in the election of President George W. Bush.
Noisy homosexual and feminist activists are now demanding that the new administration continue the most controversial social policies of former President Bill Clinton. By contrast, military voters are quietly anticipating constructive change. The selection of Donald Rumsfeld to be Secretary of Defense signaled that President Bush intends to make good on the campaign promise of Vice President Dick Cheney: “Help is on the way.”
With so much to do, where to begin? Recruiting and retention numbers have been alarmingly low, so increased pay and benefits are high on the Bush/Cheney agenda. Shortages in spare parts, maintenance, fuel, and training hours have brought the military to the ragged edge of readiness, so the new president will ask Congress for in-creased funds to meet those basic needs.
Excessive deployments and questionable missions have been a sore point for years, so the administration’s national security team will re-assess overseas commitments. Their overall goal is to pursue a strategic vision to defend America against real threats, including ballistic missiles guided by technology obtained by potential adversaries during the Clinton years.
Signs of Morale Problems
These are straightforward steps in the right direction, but still not enough. To truly restore the strength of the military, something must be done about Clinton-era social policies that have vitiated readiness and morale. For the past eight years, civilian activists have used the military as a laboratory for social engineering schemes ranging from homosexuals in the military to co-ed basic training. Some Pentagon officials seriously embraced the “ungendered visions” of paid civilian consultant Prof. Madeline Morris, who recommended constant “sensitivity training” courses to enforce acceptance of unprecedented social change.
Some soldiers signaled non-acceptance by voting with their feet. A recent Army study found that the resignation rate for young captains, some of whom would have been future leaders of the Army, has increased from 8% to 11% since 1997. Personnel losses are occurring at twice the rate considered acceptable in the early 1990s, despite pay increases and other incentives to keep soldiers in uniform. (Washington Post, Oct. 16, 2000)
Army briefing documents obtained by the Washington Times (Nov. 1, 2000) indicated that the number of senior Army officers declining to accept career-enhancing command opportunities has skyrocketed in the past five years. In a widely circulated statement, one former officer asserted that the Army must fix problems in its leadership culture, but first it has to acknowledge that the problems even exist. (Army Times, Dec. 25, 2000)
Despite tangible evidence of serious morale problems in the volunteer force, high-level Pentagon officials kept insisting that nothing was amiss. Their denials created a demoralizing “credibility gap,” which showed up last year in a major survey done by the respected Center for Strategic and International Studies. CSIS found that 35% of servicemen surveyed agreed with the statement: “When my service’s senior leaders say something, you can believe it’s true.” Trust in leadership must be restored if the volunteer force is to survive.
Ending the Clinton Era
No other administration has faced such a difficult challenge. After four years of “hollowing out” under President Jimmy Carter, all President Ronald Reagan had to do was build enough ships, planes, and weapons to deter aggression and win the Cold War.
To restore a bond of trust with the troops they now lead, the new commander in chief and defense secretary must insist upon complete candor from all subordinates. All policies that affect readiness and morale, including social issues, must be reviewed and analyzed objectively, without career rewards for bringing good news, or penalties for bad news.
There is no need to provoke sudden confrontations with implacable civilian groups who demanded (and would have gotten from Al Gore) a “litmus test” on gays in the military for potential members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This does not mean, however, that it would be wise for the Bush/Cheney administration to automatically continue the most controversial social policies of the Clinton/Gore era.
Most disruptive changes were imposed on the military not by legislation, but by Defense Department directives. The order to impose co-ed basic training on the Army, for example, was crafted by former Army Assistant Secretary for Personnel Sara Lister—a civilian lawyer and feminist who later became famous for calling the Marines “extremist.” Defense Department appointees were also responsible for issuing convoluted training materials and enforcement regulations that are inconsistent with the 1993 law excluding homosexuals from the military. Most of these ill-advised policies can be undone in the same way, with administrative directives instead of the prolonged distraction of legislative action.
To stay focused on the impressive agenda outlined by Donald Rumsfeld in his confirmation hearing, the new administration will need qualified and knowledgeable appointees who are prepared to apply sound priorities to all defense issues. Increased pay, benefits, modernization, and defenses against ballistic missiles are important, but the Bush/Cheney administration will also need people who will consider taking the actions outlined on page three.
It would be counter-productive to select appointees for high-level Pentagon positions—including retired military officers—who support Clinton’s problematic policies and goals regarding gays in the military. Nor would it help to appoint women or former members of Congress who strongly support co-ed basic training and other controversial elements of the feminist agenda for the military.
Rather, the administration should appoint qualified and knowledgeable people who have their priorities straight, especially in matters involving personnel. With support from the president, those appointees will be able to make constructive changes smoothly, at the appropriate time.
RESTORING THE STRENGTH AND MORALE OF AMERICA’S MILITARY
In addition to increasing pay and benefits, modernizing equipment and building missile defenses, the Center for Military Readiness recommends that the Bush/Cheney administration consider taking the following actions, at the appropriate time:
Eliminate co-ed basic training and housing arrangements in the Army, Air Force, and Navy, as recommended unanimously by the 1997 federal advisory committee chaired by former Senator Nancy Kassebaum-Baker. (The Marines continue to train men and women separately, with noted success.) National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was a member of this commission, which found that gender-mixed housing and training arrangements were contributing to disciplinary problems.
Enforce the law regarding homosexuals in the military, which was passed by veto-proof, bipartisan majorities in 1993. To improve understanding and enforcement of the statute, the Defense Department should issue new training materials that include the actual law and the House and Senate reports that accompanied the legislation. Clarifying the rules about eligibility to serve would eliminate confusion, and help put the issue to rest. For more information and analysis, please consult the CMR website: www.cmrlink.org. (http://www.cmrlink.org.)
Require the continued enforcement of laws and regulations regarding sexual harassment and personal misconduct, with protections against double standards and violations of the rights of the accused.
Oppose the assignment of women to close combat units, such as multiple-launch rocket (MLRS) field artillery, Special Forces helicopters, and submarines.
Reconsider the Army’s new advertising slogan, “An Army of One,” and the controversial order that all soldiers be issued black berets similar to those currently reserved for Army Rangers.
Re-evaluate and possibly revise policies associated with the assignment of women to previously closed combat positions on land, sea, and in the air.
Re-evaluate and possibly revise overly generous pregnancy policies that subsidize and therefore encourage single parenthood, family instability, poverty, and dependence on food stamps.
Require equal opportunity in the armed forces, but end recruiting and promotion quotas that have the effect of discriminating against otherwise-qualified individuals.
Oppose efforts to bring back the draft, whether directly or indirectly through mandatory (civilian) national service, and support women’s continued exemption from draft registration.
Discontinue the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS), and all other tax-funded, largely-civilian feminist advisory committees that advise the Secretary of Defense and the service secretaries on policies affecting servicewomen. In the past eight years, the DACOWITS has outlived its usefulness and destroyed what was left of its credibility.
Review and end excessive overseas deployments that drain the strength of our armed forces, but have little to do with America’s national interests.
Prevent the exposure of American military personnel to multi-national command authority or legal actions under the International Criminal Court and tribunals claiming power to violate the constitutional rights of Americans.
End all forms of bureaucratic discrimination against military voters and their families, whether serving overseas or in the continental United States.
Some critics insist that Bill Clinton’s social policies regarding the military should remain unchanged — exempt from scrutiny, criticism, or revision. But attorney Anita Blair, who chaired a 1999 congressional commission that studied co-ed basic training, dismisses the critics’ favorite argument: “Never mind about turning the clock back or forward,” says Blair. “If it’s broke, just fix it.”
Military voters are counting on President George W. Bush to “fix” the armed forces. For the sake of national security, that is a political promise that must be kept.
taximom
New Member
posts: 2
(2/9/01 11:50:00 am)
| Del
Re: An Agenda For Positive Change In The Military
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 1 would have to be to resupply the ammo for the Army, and get our guys in some decent housing.