Sunday, May 15, 2011

Lt. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, the Last Man Left in the Army’s Ranks of General Officers, Driven Out for Opposing Homosexualization

Lt. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon, Ret.

By Howard Sutherland (from Lawrence Auster’s blog)

[NS: See my article: “Has the Republicans’ Capitulation on Homosexualization of the Military Guaranteed the Democrats’ Victory in 2012?”]

And now Lt. Gen. Benjamin Mixon is gone driven into retirement for encouraging military people to express reservations through their chain of command about the precipitate repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell." (I know that's not a strictly accurate description, but it seems to be the accepted shorthand for the topic.)

At the time, Defense Secretary Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral "Mike" Mullen rebuked Mixon publicly, no doubt embarrassing Army Chief of Staff Gen. [Casey]--he for whom any check to the Army's manic Drive to Diversity would be worse than the deaths and injuries Nidal Malik Hasan inflicted because he ... uh, like, had a headache, maybe ... ?--terribly and putting paid to any prospect Mixon had of a fourth star, the holy grail of the career-driven officer.

Many of us former officers who never tried to climb the greasy pole to flag or general rank like to complain about how those who become admirals and generals today are politicians first and warriors second, if at all. Mixon gives hope that there may be a few who haven't completely sold their souls. In speaking up, Mixon put at least two valuable things at risk. By sounding off while still in uniform, as noted above, he killed any chance of that coveted final star. Probably less than half of three-stars become four-stars, but most--having got so close--must believe that last one is in reach if they don't screw up. By continuing to sound off in retirement, Mixon is probably ruining his chances of cashing in on the revolving-door system that conveys four-star and many three-star retirees to lucrative sinecures with defense contractors, which, because they so rely on the U.S. government for business, are just as PC as their lead client. He may turn up as a talking-head at Fox, but even they aren't exactly champions of traditional morality!

So three cheers for Ben Mixon, but I'm still waiting for an active-duty four- star to speak up and oppose the feminizing, homosexualizing and Mestization (if that's a word) into a mercenary mob of the U.S. armed forces. I suspect I will wait a very long time.


“Pushing this kind of social agenda in the military, especially during a time of war, is not appropriate,” retired Lt. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon says of the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Retired general warns of ‘rush’ to end ‘don’t ask’
By Shaun Waterman, The Washington Times, 8:44 p.m., Monday, May 9, 2011.

The newly retired commander of Army forces in the Pacific says the Obama administration’s “rush to repeal” the ban on openly gay men and women serving in the military “is moving way too fast” and risks damaging the armed forces’ fighting ability.

Lt. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon, who retired May 1 after 35 years in the Army, told The Washington Times that he is concerned that repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy will cause problems with morale and mean the military will be less ready and able to fight.

“There’s no question in my mind that this is driven by politics and not military necessity,” he said. “Pushing this kind of social agenda in the military, especially during a time of war, is not appropriate. We’re taking a great risk.

“The risk is a breakdown in morale and unit cohesion,” he added, referring to the bond that warriors share on the front lines. “Everyone has to have total confidence in each other” in combat, he said.

Advocates for lifting the ban on openly gay service members said the general is “out of touch.”

“His frankly outdated views are in contradiction to the will of the American people,” who “overwhelmingly support” lifting the ban, said J. Alexander Nicholson III, executive director of Servicemembers United.

The general is the highest-ranking former officer to criticize the repeal, which was enacted as part of a defense-funding bill during the lame duck session in the final days of the 111th Congress.

While still serving as the three-star general commanding all Army forces in the Pacific theater last year, Gen. Mixon wrote to the newspaper Stars and Stripes urging those who opposed the repeal to speak out through their chain of command and write their members of Congress.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates publicly rebuked him, and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, suggested that he resign.

Gen. Mixon said the response of the top brass had a chilling effect on discussion of the issue within the military.

“After folks saw the reaction to my letter, there was no chance of anyone else speaking up,” he said. “It sent a message.”

The Pentagon said the repeal will not take effect until Adm. Mullen, Mr. Gates and President Obama certify that all the armed services are ready and that the change will not affect the military’s readiness for war or its fighting abilities.

“Training the force is an essential component to ensuring implementation is consistent with these standards,” Pentagon spokeswoman Elaine Lainez told The Times.

Gen. Mixon said he sat through and delivered presentations as part of the cascading training program to get the military ready for repeal and that the presentations “left at least as many questions as answers.”

“What I saw and experienced firsthand in the training is that there were no answers to some of the most important questions,” he said, citing housing arrangements as a good example of an unresolved issue.

The military generally does not allow male and female troops to room together, whether or not they are in a sexual relationship.

“Will commanders have the authority to separate two known homosexual soldiers who are rooming together?” he asked. “Or would there have to be some evidence that they were engaging in sexual activity?

“There are a lot of thorny issues down where the rubber meets the road,” he said.

He said he is worried that the absence of regulations about what constitutes acceptable behavior once the ban is lifted would create gray areas and cause problems for young commanders seeking to deal with potentially explosive conflicts.

“I have not seen any proposed regulations,” he said. “There is a lack of clarity. … What are the rules, regulations and policies which let our soldiers know what is acceptable?”

Ms. Lainez said, “Repeal will lead to some changes to policies, but many of our policies require no change” because they were “sexual-orientation neutral.”

“We owe absolute clarity on these issues to our junior leaders,” Gen. Mixon said.

The general said he also is concerned about the right to serve for people who object to homosexuality.

“There’s a good number of people in the military who, whether for reasons of religious faith or moral conscience, view homosexuality as unacceptable,” he said.

“How do we protect those folks’ right to serve?” he asked.


P.S., Monday, May 16, 2011, 12:26 a.m.: N.S.: Ms. Lainez is full of it, but then, she’s a professional liar by trade.

A few months ago, a reader wrote that the feminization was a much more dramatic attack on military discipline, and set up homosexualization. He was right, of course. Feminization destroyed discipline, standards, and rules. Feminist sharks who were dangerous in a cockpit were made “pilots” and given $100 million jets to crash, and spit on military rules forbidding fraternization and adultery.

But it all goes back to racial integration and “civil rights.” Blacks showed themselves unable or unwilling to carry their weight, and created and institutionalized a military culture of incompetence; insubordination; and racist criminality, violence, and dual chain of command. The Pentagon’s response to racial reality was to lie, cover-up, and accelerate the problems. The same civil rights ideology was employed by feminists, and the Pentagon responded to females’ incompetence, etc., by variously engaging in cover-ups, and so forth. It will doubtless follow the same dog-eared script with regards to open homosexuals.


Anonymous said...

How many homosexuals and lesbians are likely to find military life congenial? More lesbians than male homosexuals, it seems but how much?

Anonymous said...

For all of those who are still up in arms over the repeal of DADT, how about looking up the story of Army Cpl Andrew Wilifahrt, who enlisted in January 2009 and was killed February 27th in Afghanistan when an IED exploded during an attack on his unit. He was 31. While he was not fully "out" with his sexual orientation in the Army (due to DADT), his family confirmed that he was gay. They said that when they asked him how he was fairing in the military being gay he said "Everybody know, nobody cares. Even the really conservative, religious types, they didn't care either." You can see an interview with his mother on Minnesota Public Radio: After listening to his mother, then rant about how the military is being "feminized", and a "social agenda/experiment" is being forced upon our troops..etc..etc..

Nicholas said...

Anon 1,

This is about a takeover of yet another institution, it is not about "congeniality."

Nicholas said...

Anon 2,

What on earth is your point?

You’re talking about someone whose own mother admits was not “out” as an argument for permitting people to serve as open homosexuals. That’s non sequitur #1.

Then you expect me to accept uncritically hearsay statements by his family that other personnel (“Even the really conservative, religious types”) to whom he did not serve while openly homosexual had no problem with his non-openly homosexual service. That’s non sequitur #2.

Based on non-sequiturs #1 and #2, you assume that we must then accept personnel serving in uniform while openly homosexual. That’s non sequitur #3.

Plus, the notion that “really conservative, religious types” would have no problem with personnel serving in the military serving while openly homosexual beggars belief. You lefties always violate the first law of lying: Plausibility. Apparently, you are convinced that everyone is as stupid as you are.

Anonymous said...

@Nicholas, "What on earth is (my) point?" Simple. Cpl Andrew Wilifahrt was not out in the sense that he played by the rules of DADT but everyone in his unit knew that he was gay nonetheless. While it was a non-issue, DADT being on the books made him subject to discharge at anytime if just one prejudiced person had decided to make an issue of it. The justification for DADT was that it compromised morale and unit cohesion. That apparently was not the case here. Keep in mind Cpt Wilifahrt was in a combat arms unit in a combat zone. Gay men and lesbians will continue to deserve with discretion and behave appropriately once DADT is repealled. DADT is not about discretion is is about deception. As Admiral Mike Mullen said last year it is about "integrity, theirs as individuals, ours as an institution." Cpl Wilifahrt has made the ultimate sacrifice for our country for which his memory should be respected. By the way Nicholas, should you respond, and I hope you do, how about being respectful leaving out any personal attacks. You don't even know me and you are calling me "stupid". If you have to personally attack someone in an argument you only prove the other's point.