Iran and America

By James A. Lyons Jr.
The Washington Times
March 29, 2007

The Iranian-staged capture of 15 British service members who were clearly in Iraqi waters needs to be seen as another blatant “act of war” against the United States. This time, the mullahs’ target was the United Kingdom, America’s closest ally in the war against terrorism. This was a calculated act by Iran either in response to the United Nations Security Council’s sanctions against Iran for its failure to comply with the call to cease its nuclear enrichment program or more likely in retaliation for the five Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds personnel captured in Iraq distributing munitions and other support to the insurgents.
    
This is the same tactic Hezbollah and Hamas, acting under the guidance of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, have used against Israel for years to obtain the release of terrorists. The question is: What are we going to do about it?
    
I am sure that part of the calculus that went into the Ayatollah and his hard-line council of advisers decision to capture the British military personnel was the nonsupport shown by our Congress for our troops and the president; thereby, leading them to believe we would be incapable of responding to their aggression.
    
The same can be said for the British Parliament with regard to its nonsupport of their Prime Minister, Tony Blair. We cannot turn the other cheek again and look weak and embarrassed in the eyes of the world. We must stand firmly with our ally on this blatant act of war. Our credibility as well as our honor is on the line. Further, our response or lack thereof will have a major impact on whether we can achieve our objectives in Iraq.
    
In November 1979, when our embassy was sacked and our diplomats were taken hostage, I recommended to the then-acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Tom Hayward, that our only good option really was to capture Kharg Island, Iran’s principal oil export depot. If we did this, we could negotiate from a position of strength for the immediate return of our embassy and our diplomats.
    
Unfortunately, the Carter administration rejected any offensive operations as a means of responding to this blatant act of war against the United States. We were humiliated and seemed to the world to lack the courage to defend our honor. Thankfully, we were not faced with a Falklands Island situation because we did not have a Margaret Thatcher but surely needed one.
    
There is no time to waste. Immediate diplomatic and military pressure must be brought to bear to obtain the immediate release of the British sailors and marines. While our State Department and the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office work to obtain U.N. and allied condemnation of Iran’s illegal act, the Joint Chiefs of Staff need to develop or refine a series of military options that can be immediately carried out when directed by the commander in chief, President Bush after coordination with Prime Minister Tony Blair.
    
One such option should be the capture of Kharg Island. That could be viewed as part of a larger economic sanction that the U.N. Security Council has already endorsed. It is not an attack against the Iranian people. In fact, it could further encourage the popular antigovernment movement against the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s corrupt and already shaky regime. The economic cost to Iran would be catastrophic at minimum.
    
Most of all, such a move would end almost 30 years of our Iranian appeasement policy, demonstrating to Tehran we finally mean business. If Iran fails to respond to this measured action, we must be prepared to execute more forceful options. The choice would be Iran’s to make.
    
    James A. Lyons Jr., U.S. Navy retired admiral, is a former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations. As deputy chief of naval operations, he was principal adviser on Joint Chiefs of Staff matters.

Bigotry That Hurts Our Military

 By Alan K. Simpson
The washington Post
Wednesday, March 14, 2007

As a lifelong Republican who served in the Army in Germany, I believe it is critical that we review — and overturn — the ban on gay service in the military. I voted for “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But much has changed since 1993.

My thinking shifted when I read that the military was firing translators because they are gay. According to the Government Accountability Office, more than 300 language experts have been fired under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. This when even Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently acknowledged the nation’s “foreign language deficit” and how much our government needs Farsi and Arabic speakers. Is there a “straight” way to translate Arabic? Is there a “gay” Farsi? My God, we’d better start talking sense before it is too late. We need every able-bodied, smart patriot to help us win this war.

In today’s perilous global security situation, the real question is whether allowing homosexuals to serve openly would enhance or degrade our readiness. The best way to answer this is to reconsider the original points of opposition to open service.

First, America’s views on homosexuals serving openly in the military have changed dramatically. The percentage of Americans in favor has grown from 57 percent in 1993 to a whopping 91 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds surveyed in a Gallup poll in 2003.

Military attitudes have also shifted. Fully three-quarters of 500 vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan said in a December Zogby poll that they were comfortable interacting with gay people. Also last year, a Zogby poll showed that a majority of service members who knew a gay member in their unit said the person’s presence had no negative impact on the unit or personal morale. Senior leaders such as retired Gen. John Shalikashvili and Lt. Gen. Daniel Christman, a former West Point superintendent, are calling for a second look.

Second, 24 nations, including 12 in Operation Enduring Freedom and nine in Operation Iraqi Freedom, permit open service. Despite controversy surrounding the policy change, it has had no negative impact on morale, cohesion, readiness or recruitment. Our allies did not display such acceptance back when we voted on “don’t ask, don’t tell,” but we should consider their common-sense example.

Third, there are not enough troops to perform the required mission. The Army is “about broken,” in the words of Colin Powell. The Army’s chief of staff, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, told the House Armed Services Committee in December that “the active-duty Army of 507,000 will break unless the force is expanded by 7,000 more soldiers a year.” To fill its needs, the Army is granting a record number of “moral waivers,” allowing even felons to enlist. Yet we turn away patriotic gay and lesbian citizens.

The Urban Institute estimates that 65,000 gays are serving and that there are 1 million gay veterans. These gay vets include Capt. Cholene Espinoza, a former U-2 pilot who logged more than 200 combat hours over Iraq, and Marine Staff Sgt. Eric Alva, who lost his right leg to an Iraqi land mine. Since 2005, more than 800 personnel have been discharged from “critical fields” — jobs considered essential but difficult in terms of training or retraining, such as linguists, medical personnel and combat engineers. Aside from allowing us to recruit and retain more personnel, permitting gays to serve openly would enhance the quality of the armed forces.

In World War II, a British mathematician named Alan Turing led the effort to crack the Nazis’ communication code. He mastered the complex German enciphering machine, helping to save the world, and his work laid the basis for modern computer science. Does it matter that Turing was gay? This week, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said that homosexuality is “immoral” and that the ban on open service should therefore not be changed. Would Pace call Turing “immoral”?

Since 1993, I have had the rich satisfaction of knowing and working with many openly gay and lesbian Americans, and I have come to realize that “gay” is an artificial category when it comes to measuring a man or woman’s on-the-job performance or commitment to shared goals. It says little about the person. Our differences and prejudices pale next to our historic challenge. Gen. Pace is entitled, like anyone, to his personal opinion, even if it is completely out of the mainstream of American thinking. But he should know better than to assert this opinion as the basis for policy of a military that represents and serves an entire nation. Let us end “don’t ask, don’t tell.” This policy has become a serious detriment to the readiness of America’s forces as they attempt to accomplish what is arguably the most challenging mission in our long and cherished history.

The writer was a Republican senator from Wyoming from 1979 to 1997.

Aides: Pace won’t apologize for gay remark

WASHINGTON – Senior aides to the chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff said Tuesday that Marine Gen. Peter Pace won’t apologize for calling homosexuality immoral — an opinion that gay advocacy groups deplored.

In a newspaper interview Monday, Pace had likened homosexual acts to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces.

“General Pace’s comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces,” the advocacy group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said in a statement on its Web site.

The group has represented some of the thousands dismissed from the military for their sexual orientation.

Pace’s senior staff members said Tuesday that the general was expressing his personal opinion and had no intention of apologizing. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not allowed to speak on the record.

Rep. Martin Meehan, who has introduced legislation to repeal the current policy, criticized Pace’s comments.

“General Pace’s statements aren’t in line with either the majority of the public or the military,” said the Massachusetts Democrat. “He needs to recognize that support for overturning (the policy) is strong and growing” and that the military is “turning away good troops to enforce a costly policy of discrimination.”

In an interview Monday with the Chicago Tribune, Pace was asked about the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve if they keep their sexual orientation private and don’t engage in homosexual acts.

Pace said he supports the policy, which became law in 1994 and prohibits commanders from asking about a person’s sexual orientation.

“I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts,” Pace was quoted as saying in the newspaper interview. “I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.”

Pace, a native of Brooklyn, N.Y., and a 1967 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, said he based his views on his upbringing.

“As an individual, I would not want (acceptance of gay behavior) to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else’s wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior,” he said.

The newspaper said Pace did not address concerns raised by a 2005 government audit that showed some 10,000 troops, including more than 50 specialists in Arabic, have been discharged because of the policy.

Louis Vizcaino, spokesman for the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, said Pace’s comments were “insulting and offensive to the men and women … who are serving in the military honorably.”

“Right now there are men and women that are in the battle lines, that are in the trenches, they’re serving their country,” Vizcaino said. “Their sexual orientation has nothing to do with their capability to serve in the U.S. military.”

“Don’t ask, don’t tell” was passed by Congress in 1993 after a firestorm of debate in which advocates argued that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would hurt troop morale and recruitment and undermine the cohesion of combat units.

John Shalikashvili, the retired Army general who was Joint Chiefs chairman when the policy was adopted, said in January that he has changed his mind on the issue since meeting with gay servicemen.

“These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers,” Shalikashvili wrote in a newspaper opinion piece.

I Got Married On Halloween One Time

By John E. Carey
October 31, 2006
Updated April 9, 2007

Many years ago, before Political Correctness, the Pentagon was one fun place to work. Every Friday in my little area of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we’d have a TGIF party with booze and food.

I was fond of a young gal who was the Secretary and Administrative Assistant to an Air Force two star general. She was very cute and proper and clean.

At one of our Friday night bashes, she got a little TOO drunk so I escorted her to her late bus. She lived way south of the Pentagon near interstate 95 but it was too far for me to drive. I lived close to the Pentagon. She was also married and I didn’t want to carry her into her own house passed her husband if she passed out.

On Saturday I wondered if she was OK but I feared I couldn’t phone her. Before cell phones, I might have gotten the husband. But on Monday I couldn’t wait to ask if she got home in one piece.

She said, “I hurled on the bus.”

Me: “All over the floor?”

She: “No. That would have been disgusting. I threw up into my purse.”

THAT’s neatness!

As we approached Halloween that gal asked her general if he thought the staff could have a Halloween party. She wanted to know if the generals and admirals would dress in costumes.

The general told her there was only one way to get an idea like this off the launch pad. The General said, “Get John Carey involved.”

I had briefed General Vessey the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a few times and he treated me like a son. I also ran a football pool and on Monday’s during football season I’d go the Chairman’s “Stand Up” meeting for the Admirals and Generals. At the end of the meeting, General Vessey would introduce me and I’d announce the winner of the football pool.

One Monday I followed General Vessey back to his office and discussed the idea for the Halloween Party. I told him if he came to the party in a costume, it would be easy to persuade all the other admirals and generals to dress up in goofy costumes.

He opened an armoire in his office to reveal a complete sheik’s robes and headgear. “I was stationed in the Middle East one time,” he said.

PRESTO: The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had a costume and he agreed to wear it to our party!

So I scampered around to all the flag and general officers to invite them to the costume party on Halloween. Many predictably said, “Carey that is a damn fool idea” or something like that. Then I would fire back with this: “General Vessey thinks it is a great idea and he already has his costume.”

Each and every flag and general officer said: “Sign me up.”

On the day of the Halloween Party the gal I was fond of went to Georgetown and had all her beautiful long hair cut off. She had about one inch of hair left and she moosed it so it stood up! Then she had her eyes professionally made up. She looked like a cat. Then she put on purple shoes and purple panty hose. She wore a purple sweater that just barely covered her vitals. She said she was a punk-rock star like Cindy Lauper.

I came as Darth Vader. The helmet and mask cost me about $35.00. At that time we Navy officers wore black pants, black shirts and a black tie. All I needed was a cape.

At the party I saw Cindy Lauper and fell in love immediately. But I had no idea who she really was.

I went over to her and said, “Do you want to go home with Darth Vader tonight?”

She said “Sure.” Then I asked her name.

I was astounded.

A few years later we got married in Mississippi on Halloween. In a hurricane.  Only two guests made it to the wedding.  We couldn’t get home afterward due to flooding and downed trees so we hunkered down in a bar called the Tiki in Pascagoula, Ms.  I called it “The Yacht Club” but it was a dive with only a few bass boats close by!!

Just an aside: that year at Christmas time the Air Force had a party in the Pentagon that featured a band and a, let us say, “cabaret girl.”  My gal friend couldn’t see, so even though I was wearing my Dress Blues, I got her up on my shoulders.

A General walked past and said, “Hey, Navy. You’ve got that girl on backward!”

“Tailhook” and Political Correctness put an end to such fun.

Probably just as well. But we sure had fun “in the old days!”

http://peace-and-freedom.blogspot.com/