On the afternoon of October 4 in Washington D.C., the Center for Military Readiness presented expert speakers on two panels covering hot issues that are sure to be discussed during the 2008 presidential race.  The Twelfth Annual CMR Celebration Reception immediately followed the CMR Issues Briefings, and CMR President Elaine Donnelly recognized several distinguished honorees.   She also revealed the recipient of the Second Annual CMR “Patsy Award,” a deserving official of the RAND Corporation.  Several public policy and media organizations joined guests for both events, which took place in the elegant Hall of the States in the National Guard of the U.S. Building.

Following an introduction by Executive Director Tommy Sears, CMR President Elaine Donnelly keynoted the panel discussions with themes presented in her recent article for the Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy, titled “Constructing the Co-Ed Military.”  Donnelly stressed a fundamental principle: “Equal opportunity is an important consideration, but the needs of the military must come first.”

 First Session: “The Rule of Law vs. Policy Regulations: Gays in the Military” 

Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis, USA (Ret.), a prominent media commentator who has visited Iraq several times, began the discussion about homosexuals in the military.  Maginnis was a member of the 1993 Pentagon study group that considered alternatives to the ban on gays in the military early in the Clinton Administration.  Based on his contacts then and his own experience as a career officer, Col. Maginnis explained that open homosexuality in the military would undermine unit cohesion, good order and discipline: “Sexual tensions and sex-based favoritism in intimate settings destroy cohesion,” he said.  “This is the case whether they involve opposite- or same-sex attraction.”  

Maginnis noted that the British military, which has been hailed as a model test for gays in the military, is extremely small and culturally different from our forces, which live in conditions of little or no privacy.  “If the military knowingly assumes the risk of homosexual misconduct, it will have to pay the price.”  

He added, “If we respect women’s need for privacy from men, then we ought to respect the same need on the part of heterosexuals with regard to homosexuals. Protecting privacy in a military with open homosexuality would necessitate recognizing essentially four sexes and would severely disrupt units.”  A column by Col. Maginnis, titled “Gays in the Military Debate – Déjà vu 1993,” was posted the same day on Human Events.com.

Prof. William “Woody” Woodruff, a retired Army Colonel, former Judge Advocate General, and leading expert on the subject, explained the legislative history behind the 1993 law banning homosexuals from the military.  As CMR explains that statute, known only by the technical name “Section 654, Title 10,” should have been called “The Military Personnel Eligibility Act of 1993.”  

Prof. Woodruff said that Congress clearly intended to codify Defense Department regulations barring homosexuals from the military, which had been in effect long before Bill Clinton took office.  He also explained how President Clinton signed the law but then imposed contrary regulations, known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which do not reflect the intent of Congress or the letter of the law.  That policy, stating that “homosexual orientation is not a bar to service entry or continued military service,” was rejected by Congress and has always been inconsistent with the law.  

Several federal courts have upheld the constitutionality of the statute, despite the confusion caused by Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy.  Woodruff added, “Congress and the military continue to have the right to decide which groups are eligible to serve in the military, and which are not.”  Under the “Military Personnel Eligibility Act,” persons who engage in homosexual conduct are not eligible to serve.   The legislation did not include the phrase “sexual orientation” because members of Congress knew it would be vague and unenforceable.  Woodruff added that in 1993 he expected the Executive Branch to faithfully enforce the law, but learned otherwise when Clinton issued his “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” regulations.

Elaine Donnelly completed the panel discussion by refuting several “national security” arguments for gays in the military, which do not hold up under scrutiny.  She drew attention to a bar graph illustrating the numbers of military discharges for homosexuality.  Contrary to many media reports, the numbers have been very small in comparison with other reasons for separation from the military.  She also presented new information about servicemen who become non-deployable due to infection with the HIV/AIDS virus. This issue and others will be highlighted in future CMR publications. 

Second Session: “Military and Cultural Consequences of Co-Ed Land Combat” 

In the second panel discussion, Prof. Kingsley Browne of Wayne State University discussed the complexity of military gender relations and the unique bonding that occurs in all-male groups trained for violence in combat.  Prof. Browne stressed the importance of trust among soldiers in or preparing for war.  He also expressed serious doubt that the inability of men to trust women when facing life-threatening situations could be overcome through “education” and “leadership.”  Browne added that most military men he interviewed have high regard for military women, even though they are opposed to women’s participation in close combat.  Browne’s book, titled Co-Ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn’t Fight the Nation’s Wars, is due for release in November 2007. 

Kathleen Parker, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post Writer’s Group, explained her interest in military gender issues by recounting her upbringing with a father and brothers in the military.  Despite her support for feminism in her youth, her own son’s service in the military caused her to become an advocate for men, who are relentlessly criticized by feminists who seem to believe that men accused of misconduct always are guilty.  She highlighted the illogic of gender-normed training standards in the military, which are most dangerous when they pretend that male and female physical capabilities are the same.  Parker’s new book, which includes a chapter about the military, is titled Save the Males: Why Men Matter and Why Women Should Care.  It will be available in the spring of 2008.

Elaine Donnelly completed the program by summarizing a new CMR Policy Analysis of the RAND Report on Women in Combat, titled Assessing the Assignment Policy for Army Women.   Her article Rubber Stamp RAND Report Promotes Women in Land Combat charges that the RAND Report is an affront to Congress and to the men and women of the military.  “Instead of providing objective information that would have been helpful to Congress, the RAND Report creates needless confusion with unsupported findings, misinformation, and flawed assumptions about questionable Pentagon practices.”  

CMR Celebration Reception

Immediately following the Issues Briefings, the 12^th Annual CMR Celebration Reception began, giving panelists and attendees an opportunity for one-on-one conversation, networking and socializing.  Elaine Donnelly presented the CMR Spotlight Award to both Prof. Kingsley Browne and Kathleen Parker, with handsome plaques inscribed “In Appreciation for [their] Patriotism and Vigilance in Shining a Bright Light on Social Issues of Concern To Men and Women in the Military.”  She described the important impact of their books and articles on the debate surrounding co-ed land combat and feminist criticism of men in the military.  

Elaine also recognized Rick and Janet Lynn Solomon as CMR Honorees for 2007, in appreciation for their long-time support for CMR.  Prior to raising her family Janet was a Bronze Medalist in the 1972 Winter Olympics Figure Skating Competition.  Two of the Solomon’s children graduated from the U. S. Naval Academy.  

The CMR “Patsy Award” 

Finally, Donnelly observed that CMR prefers to recognize those who support and advocate high standards and sound priorities in military personnel policies.  Sometimes it is necessary, however, to point out individuals and public officials who do not live up to their responsibilities where CMR issues are concerned.  In 2006, CMR introduced the Inaugural “Patsy Award” to draw attention to problems that the Administration and Congress have been ignoring for far too long.  

Named for the dictionary definition of “patsy”--“one who is easily taken advantage of,” the “Patsy Award” is presented to individuals who allow themselves to be used by radical feminists or homosexual activists who want to impose their agenda on the military.  “The point is,” said Donnelly, “when officials fail to use their power to do right thing, others will use their power to do the wrong thing.”

This year, CMR chose three nominees for the “Patsy Award.”  They were: 

• Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Sen. John Warner (R-VA), Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, of the Senate Armed Services Committee, for their lack of vigilance and oversight on issues of women in combat;
• Gene Gritton, National Defense Research Institute Director for the RAND Corporation, for approving the disingenuous “Rubber Stamp RAND Report” on women in combat; and
• “Celebrity Endorsers” of Legislation to Repeal the “Military Personnel Eligibility Act of 1993. This group includes former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), a number of retired military officers, and some co-sponsors of the Marty Meehan/Ellen Tauscher bill to repeal the 1993 law—all of whom have allowed their good names to be used by activists whose agenda would do great harm to the military. 

Donnelly revealed a special plaque that will be presented to the recipient of the Second Annual CMR “Patsy” Award, Gene Gritton of the RAND Corporation.  CMR also will inform members of the House and Senate committees about flaws in the RAND Report that inspired the recognition.  She will also seek the opportunity to meet with all nominees to discuss the issues and reasons behind the nominations, so that all can avoid being on the list again next year.

Donnelly expressed appreciation to the 37 members of Congress who were Honorary Sponsors of the event, attendees who came from several states, and to the scores of people whose contributions to the CMR Celebration will continue to support the work of CMR in the coming year.  

* * * * * * *

AC101607