Iron Mike On DADT

Posted December 8th, 2010 by Iron Mike

Does this old soldier believe gays should serve in our Armed Forces?  Absolutely!
  Absolutely NOT!

When the ‘wants’ of the few clash with the security of our Republic:

FIRST: I personally believe that if you are gay it  is simply the result of the random combination of your genes.  You had no say in the matter, any more than you did about your race, your sex, eye color, or how big your feet will grow.  It is simply your lot in life.  Most learn to accept it, – just as I learned that I would never sing or play football.

But based on decades of observations I also believe that gene combination sometimes includes a few more genes which make some gay people focus excessively or exclusively on their gayness, and makes others spend much of their time ‘acting out’ or making a public spectacle of themselves.

SECOND:  In the matter of maintaining a robust and ready defense force of our country, our first and overriding priority must be on “Robust and Ready” and not on making accommodations for the wants and whims of militant minorities that will jeopardize the outcome of military operations and the lives of our troops.

Bluntly stated – it would be a corruption of the sworn duty of both elected politicians and members of our military to weaken our military by changing DADT so that gay service members could publicly display and even flaunt their sexual preferences and lifestyles.


I am posting this piece because I dearly love my Army, and our military.  Across the board I think our troops are the noblest creatures God ever put on earth.  I know what they go through, the work, the sweat, the pain, the loneliness, the doubts, the fear, and the heartbreak.  I have lived their life – the boasting politicians, the occasional inept self-serving leader, the few cowards and thieves hiding in their ranks, the poorly designed and malfunctioning equipment, the idiotic regulations and the sanctimonious desk warriors who insist on not wavering them.

With shaking hands I have loaded 5.56 into box magazines and led troops aboard flights and on missions from which I never expected to return.  Each sunrise, sunset, and moonrise since has been another gift from a God who let me live when so many around me were taken.

Our Founders had all served in colonial militias or placed their lives at extreme risk during our Revolution.  They all owned firearms, – they were all part of the ‘organized militia’, and they all had an up-close and personal understanding of armies and warfare.

Civilians in general and politicians in particular who have not served in uniform, [or those like Senator Brown who have never been in Harm’s Way], have no clue what happens in units during training, during prolonged sea patrols, air and overseas missions, and in combat.  They have no business making statements about how our military should be organized, manned, trained, or disciplined.  Hell, most of the time they can’t even buy us decent equipment or enough training ammo.

Admiral Mike Mullen – Sir – you are dead wrong!  How many gays were tossed overboard on ships you served aboard?  You’ve been in Washington too long Mike, and you’ve never heard a shot fired in anger.  How dare you tell combat veterans they can ‘take a walk’ if they don’t like serving around gays?

GAY BEHAVIOR IS DISRUPTIVE:  There have always been gays in uniform [remember we once had the draft], and most have served with courage, distinction and honor.  But open homosexual behavior – gay or lesbian – is highly disruptive.  It can end in terrible violence.  It is a recipe for murder and treason.  It is simply not worth the risk.

THREE BIG and LETHAL CASES:  There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of cases of gay and lesbian soldiers causing disruption and damage to our military mission over the past hundred years.  In fairness I must state that I ~ believe ~ each of these cases to represent a minority of the gay / lesbian soldiers, and that the majority serve with distinction and without incident.

But there at least three major cases you should be mindful of.

–  In 1967 a gay supply sergeant in the Berlin Brigade was set up with a gay lover [called a ‘Swallow’ in espionage lingo] by the East German intelligence service.  Believing he would be allowed to live forever with his lover, he walked a brand-new Redeye anti-aircraft missile through the Brandenburg Gate.  By early 1972 Russian copies – the SA7 – were knocking our planes and helicopters out of the skies of South Vietnam by the dozens.

–  Although most of the evidence died in the explosion, there is still enough surviving to conclude that the gay relationship between two sailors [Hartwig and Truitt] on the Battleship Iowa ended in the explosion of #2 Turrett which killed 47 men instantly.  Their relatives continue to refute this allegation.

–  The damage done in recent months by gay [possibly transgendered] SP/4 Bradley Manning providing highly classified videos and documents to WikiLeaks is equal or greater than if the NorKs and the Iranians had just sunk two of our super-carriers with all hands.


During my years of service I witnessed first-hand the final chapters of the racial re-integration of the Army.  While it is true that combat will help most units come together as a fighting force, our time in Vietnam coincided with the more violent chapters of the Civil Rights movement here at home.

In the 60s and into the 70s racial tension were very high in many units and on many posts.  There was violence and fraggings.  It was very ugly, it distracted from the missions, and men died needlessly.  It took over a decade of mostly peacetime operations tempo in the 80s for full acceptance to settle in.

But of course we made it worse starting in the 1970 by disbanding the WAC and assigning women to deployable units.

Immediately there were problems, both physical and sexual.  The services spent millions of hours on classes and seminars teaching ‘thou shalt not…’ and teaching leaders at all levels how to deal with female soldiers.  We spent zillions of dollars on special uniforms [including maternity field uniforms], modifying barracks, modifying equipment, modifying training programs, and lowering standards.

We decided that delicate female hands and wrists couldn’t or wouldn’t handle the venerable .45 cal pistol, so we adopted the puny Beretta 9mm, – only to find in combat that it won’t stop a juiced-up jihadi.  We found that small women couldn’t or wouldn’t carry an M-16 rifle, so we bought the M-4 carbine for the Army and Marines, even as troops in Iraq and Afghanistan were asking for the old M-14 to be re-issued.

We expedited the promotion of unqualified female NCOs and officers ahead of highly qualified and combat seasoned males – because “God-Damn-it – we were going to have high-ranking females in uniform!!!”

MY POINT?  To accommodate the idea of ‘equal opportunities for women’ – we made our military weaker and less lethal. 

And in our first big war – Desert Storm – the Army and Marines covered up the shortfalls and problems, because “God-Damn-it – females are just as good as men!”  Female soldiers during Desert Shield were getting pregnant – and sent home – at a fabulous rate.  The two who were taken prisoner were promptly raped. [We warned you.] Desert Storm ended quickly enough that the ugliness and the problems were buried in the success stories.

Our response was to redouble our investment in ‘smart bomb technology’ because we knew we had a badly weakened fighting force.

But then came our second gulf war, and again we achieved seemingly incredible success in taking Baghdad.  Abu Ghraib would be a friggin’ disaster of enormous proportion.

Brigadier General Janis Karpinski,  commanding the 800th MP Brigade proved to be a conspicuously empty uniform who had no clue what was taking place under her nose.  She had been promoted several ranks past her competence level.

When photos were leaked of SP4 Linndie England leading naked Arab prisoners on a dog leash – the streets of Iraq exploded in an insurrection.

Hundreds of American soldiers and Marines died fighting an enraged enemy who might never have lifted a finger – but for these incompetent females, and the photos leaked to the press.

But Mike, there have always been gays serving, – why not let them serve openly?


We’re in a war with radical Islam. Just ONE (1) picture of two troops holding hands or kissing will incite a firestorm. It will be an incredible victory for al Qaeda and others who hate us. It will mean that enemy fighters who ~ might ~ have surrendered won’t.  They’ll fight on to the death – killing more of our kids in the process.

It’s likely to mean that certain Islamic countries will forbid us to station troops in their country – or will require us to certify that none stationed there are gay.  Iceland did this to us in the 70s over the AIDS epidemic, no HIV positive soldier could be stationed in Iceland.

It will mean units will have to stand down from combat to hold classes and seminars on how to deal with Leslie and Bruce, how not to make them feel uncomfortable.  We will spend hundreds of millions of dollars on ‘sensitivity training’, using up valuable time better spent on gunnery ranges.

Once allowed to serve ‘openly,  gays will demand gay clubs on base – where they can be both open and comfortable.  Then gays will demand military marriages in military chapels with military chaplains marrying them. They’ll likely demand gay chaplains too, And married gay couples will demand military housing – on base.

Then somebody will surely demand an all-gay unit.

Soon seasoned warriors, courageous men with multiple combat tours and multiple combat wounds and decorations will be disciplined for making real or perceived slurs.  Guys with Silver Stars and PHs will be cashiered because some gay troop claims “…he called me a fag“, or “he gave me a mean look“.

You think this won’t be disruptive? We don’t need another Hartwig-Truitt incident, we’re still dealing with the fallout from young Bradley Manning.

In 1972 I watched men die because of that gay supply sergeant who delivered a Redeye to the Russians in ’67.  I’m not willing to risk any more troops on an experiment which all nations have rejected for thousands of years.

The issue is BEHAVIOR and IMAGE. The danger is very real. We’re up to our eyeballs in three wars with Korea maybe a fourth, and with a CinC who doesn’t have a clue. Let’s not make things any worse.

And this word of advice to gays and lesbians already in uniform:

Even if spineless politicians courting the gay vote overturn DADT, you would be VERY WISE to keep your gender preferences to yourselves.  Should DADT go away, Islamists who capture Americans – maybe you – will be looking for gays for special treatment – including buggery, hanging and beheading.


Today most politicians – particularly from our east and west coasts – live in craven fear of the GLBT lobbying groups and voter blocks.  In that fear-stressed environment, many are making inane statements even as they look for cover.

The falsehood of the mob:  Most of the GLBT protesters who turn out in anti-military / anti-recruiting protests have ZERO intention of ever enlisting ‘to serve openly’.  Their protests are merely another excuse for gay street theater, DADT is just a stage prop. Smart politicians should know this.

Politicians like Scott Brown –[he claims 31 years of ‘service’] who are NOT combat veterans have no clue what life is like in real military units, and in combat.  They get to go home at night, and have spent minimal time in barracks or aboard ships.  Their total association with gays is voluntary, and they can walk away at any time.  The soldier, marine or sailor is trapped in his barracks or aboard ship.  This is why gays used to get tossed overboard at 2 AM.

We are fighting two wars today, with the Mexican Border and Korea both ready to explode.  Our military cannot possibly bear any further distractions right now.  Any politician who votes to put our military at risk in an attempt to placate and curry gay votes is unworthy of reelection.

It’s not a ‘fairness’ issue – it’s a readiness issue!

/s/  Iron Mike
Old Soldier, – Still Good for Parts!

2 Responses to “Iron Mike On DADT”

  1. dannap

    Excellent post.

  2. Perplexed Senior

    You certainly did your research and made the point very conclusively, the repeal of DADT is not only the wrong thing for our military warriors, but another cave to GLBT minority. This minority does not have the best interests of our military, they are more concerned with their own shallow motives. Again, Senator Brown has not read all of the available information, he is bowing to the militant minority that he perceives as a voting block in his column in 2012.