Navy Too Politically Correct for ‘Old Salts’

Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times, May 28, 2011

The U.S. Navy is sailing into politically correct waters, sometimes at a speed too fast for the Obama Administration to keep up.

Whether it is policies on gays and women, or naming ships after social activists, the Navy is charting a course that has some “old salts” worried.

“It’s pretty dire,” said John Howland, a 1964 U.S. Naval Academy graduate who manages a web site on naval issues called USNA-At-Large.

“We’re back to ‘H.M.S. Pinafore,'” he added, a reference to the comic opera about English shipboard life. “The leadership of the military is pretty much politically correct kind of stuff. You like to think that we’re approaching hitting bottom, but these people are not through with us yet.”

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, a Democrat and former Mississippi governor, has embraced assigning women to the cramp underwater quarters of submarines, including enlisted females on attack subs. The first female officers are due to report aboard larger ballistic missile submarines this fall.

In addition, Mr. Mabus has left open the possibility of putting women in the decidedly all-male and physically challenging world of Navy SEALs, like the ones who killed Osama bin laden.

{snip}

Earlier this month, Mr. Mabus riled some conservatives by reaching out to Hispanics and naming a supply ship after union activist Cesar Chavez, who served in the Navy.

{snip}

Mr. Chavez was a champion of better working conditions for farm laborers. He enlisted in the Navy in 1946 at age 17. He later called it “the worst two years of my life,” according to the Oxford Encyclopedia of Latinos and Latinas.

{snip}

In 2009, Mr. Mabus announced a ship would be named after Medgar Evers, the Mississippi civil rights activist who was shot and killed in the drive way of his home in 1963. Mr. Evers had no professional connection to the Navy. He served two years of combat in Europe in World War II and was honorably discharged an Army sergeant.

{snip}

In January, the Navy fired the popular commander of a U.S. aircraft carrier for producing a raunchy shipboard video. Some sailors came to Capt. Owen Honors’ defense, saying he was the victim of a “PC Navy” for an internally produced morale builder.

{snip}

The four branches have launched an extensive indoctrination campaign, both in the states and in war zones, to prepare troops for open gays by the end of the year. Homosexuals now serve under a policy called “don’t ask, don’t tell” that requires them to keep their sexuality private.

{snip}

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Richard Zuckerman

    While serving in the U.S. Navy, post-vietnam era, from 1976-1977, prior to being discharged Honorably, I was placed in a holding company, of whom at least one of them told me he is being discharged because he is gay. But he acted gay. The gay folks whom don’t act flamboyant should be welcomed into the U.S. military service.

  • Anonymous

    To politically correct, don’t you know the only way you can defend a nation is to have one hand tied behind your back? Thats what I thought we were supposed to be doing while I was in the Navy.

  • Spirit Wolf

    As far as gays go, they were always in the military to some extent, they just kept quiet about it. Anything that is all male or all female is going to attract homosexuals. However, I never saw any need for anyone to parade their personal sexual preferences. It’s the person’s own business, and they should keep it that way.

    As far as women in the military goes, well, if the submarines are sexually segregated, fine. But why impose the prying eyeballs of women onto men (and vice versa) in such cramped quarters? Doesn’t anyone respect male privacy? I like men just fine, but I wouldn’t want to be stuck on submarine for months with a bunch of them; I don’t believe I would be being fair to myself OR them.

    As for SEALS? Only if they can hack it. I’m sure there’s a few who can, I know I sure as hell wouldn’t, and they oughtn’t be dumbing down/slacking down just to be “inclusive” if they want to remain an elite corps.

    And no one in a physical condition like mine ought to be in any kind of high-physicality job, no matter how nice the employer wants to look. (Heart of Popeye, body of Olive Oyl, that’s me! I can use and clean an FN-C1-A1, but can barely lift the thing any more!)

    Otherwise, I see no racial aspect here, except maybe the lamebrained naming of US naval ships. What on Earth would possess the US Navy to name a ship after someone who dissed them because of his experience with them? That’d be like the Canadian navy (or what passes for it) naming a ship after some Fenian leader, or after some American general from the War of 1812. Just doesn’t make sense at all.

  • Anonymous

    First off, it’s already happening. In the Army in Haiti. Coed tents no less-

    http://goo.gl/0Q7PV

    Let these PC social engineers or their kids serve, first, in the ranks of any military they wish to create.

    Then and only then will they have the right to say who are the best protectors for this nation.

    Gays. No.

    Females. No.

    Ship Names. Ultimately not important but they could do better

    in creating modern heroes for contemporary crews.

    Let’s not pretend that the world is safe for PC.

    And while I’m generally against ‘democracy in uniform’, I honestly believe if you asked the majority of servicemen and women whether they are comfortable with the opening of their elite and honorable ranks to people they are not comfortable around personally, they would tell you that they are sure that they can act professionally at all times.

    That would be a lie.

    And the stress of combat is the wrong place to prove it.

    Remember the USS Acadia.

  • William Hendershot

    This insanity can be somewhat ignored as long as we are the dominant military power. When we get into a war with a foe like Japan was in WWII, it will be an enormous impediment to an effective fighting force. When one of those aircraft carriers is hit by a missle, there won’t be such a cry for females on ships.

    Female SEALS? How does the training go where they carry logs over their heads down beaches? Do the female SEALS get smaller logs? This is completely insane. The people pushing this do not care one bit about an effective military. All they are concerned with is their careers. It is shameful, they know this is destructive.

  • joe

    After getting out of the army guard two years ago, I had enough. From what I know all the branches are totally PC, and if that’s not how you think, better to keep your your mouth shut or face the wrath.

    It’s not the minority groups that are the issue, it’s the women who “run” the military. They are treated so well with privileges galore that even women are complaining about it.

    OK, I said it – unpopular as it may be, but it’s the truth. That’s one thing about western culture – you don’t suppose to criticize women.

  • Anonymous

    Mr. Chavez was a champion of better working conditions for farm laborers. He enlisted in the Navy in 1946 at age 17. He later called it “the worst two years of my life,” according to the Oxford Encyclopedia of Latinos and Latinas.

    ————————-

    Yep, the navy was the “worst two years of his life”…. and then we had some posters here on Amren saying it was okay to name that AMERICAN ship Cesar Chavez, blah blah blah.

    They said he was a great man and all that jazz. Some of us tried to tell them but they would not listen…

    The Navy has been PC for quite a few years now along with the rest of out POLITICAL military. It started when they broke down the RACE barrier and escalated from there.

  • Ian

    My grandfather told me that some of the WW1 officers who were particularly disliked by their men were found to have bullet wounds in their backs, after going over the top into yet another assault on the German trenches. Perhaps these loathsome creatures in the modern forces will a suffer fate.

  • Mike H.

    I was in the process of enlisting in the Navy back when the Naval Academy fiasco(letting in blacks with -much- lower scores, among other things) happened.

    Needless to say, I quickly decided that the military was no longer the career for me.

  • BO_Bill

    Datapoint mid 1990s. Chief Petty Officer selection procedure. Black and Hispanic applications are flagged by procedure for special consideration. Those who are not passed to Chief get a second look, this time as AA applicants. Those who are not passed upon the second look have to be presented to the officer in charge of the promotion board, with an explanation of why these privileged applicants cannot be passed.

    This resulted in some very bad black and Hispanic Chief Petty Officers. Sounds like things are still going downhill.

  • sbuffalonative

    First they kicked out homosexuals. Now they’re going to kick out heterosexuals.

    If, as the argument goes, they lost good men who are homosexual, couldn’t the same argument be made about kicking out heterosexuals?

  • Bandmo

    Just imagine 80,000 women storming Normandy on “D-day”, “I am woman hear me roar, but get this over with by 6, I got’s to be picks up my babies”. Give the blacks, gays, females there own Aircraft Carrier, same training, support, equipment, pay, food, ETC. same as now (except for NO White males) and see the results.

  • E Pluribus Pluribus

    Navy Secretary Ray Mabus may be as fervent a disciple of the diversity cult as one might hope to find in the higher reaches of the U. S. military, but no one should sell Army Chief of Staff General George Casey short in his own devotion our new secular religion:

    “Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.” The remarks of Army Chief of Staff General W. George Casey, Jr. three days after Major Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 U. S. soldiers and wounded 32 more on Nov. 5, 2009. (“General Casey: Diversity Shouldn’t be Casualty of Fort Hood,” Reuters, Nov. 8, 2009)

    http://tinyurl.com/

  • Anonymous

    “Though this be madness, yet there is method in it.”

    So wrote a dead white male playwright many centuries ago. This may well apply to the Fedgov policies described in this article. The US military is being used as a police force rather than a strictly military force. In Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. It’s mission is to control populations and destroy dangerous entities i.e. Ben Laden.

    Will these capabilities ever be used inside the U.S.? Nobody knows, but governments prepare for contingencies.

    What groups will have to be suppressed? Nobody knows, but the Fedgov may feel more secure if it need not depend on white men to suppress insurrections.

  • rjp

    I got a General Separation from the Navy after 179 days being in.

    Worst 6 months of my life back in 1989, pure hell under company commanders catering to blacks who couldn’t get into a “school”. And there was me who got a 99th percentile on my ASVAB.

    Blacks could do nothing wrong, whites were the cause of every misfortune my company encountered. When a possibility of a medical discharge arose, there was no way I was going to try to go against it.

  • rockman

    Reading the idea of women as navy seals caused me to laugh out loud. Maybe the idea is to get the enemy to laugh themselves to death.

  • Anonymous

    Earlier this month, Mr. Mabus riled some conservatives by reaching out to Hispanics and naming a supply ship after union activist Cesar Chavez, who served in the Navy.

    Yeah, “the worst two years of his life.” That isn’t “reaching out”. It’s pandering.

    In 2009, Mr. Mabus announced a ship would be named after Medgar Evers, the Mississippi civil rights activist who … had no professional connection to the Navy

    More pandering.

    The four branches have launched an extensive indoctrination campaign … to prepare troops for open gays by the end of the year.

    I’m surprised Mabus didn’t name a ship after The Village People, too. But, seriously, I’ve no objections to homosexuals in the military. I do, however, object to “extensive indoctrination”.

    In January, the Navy fired the popular commander of a U.S. aircraft carrier for producing a raunchy shipboard video.

    Too bad for him it wasn’t interracial gay porn. It sounds like Mabus would have promoted him.

  • Anonymous

    1 — Richard Zuckerman wrote at 4:42 PM on May 31:

    While serving in the U.S. Navy, post-vietnam era, from 1976-1977, prior to being discharged Honorably, I was placed in a holding company, of whom at least one of them told me he is being discharged because he is gay. But he acted gay. The gay folks whom don’t act flamboyant should be welcomed into the U.S. military service.

    ————————————–

    Gays in the military? As long as they don’t “act gay”….

    That is like saying allow blacks in as long as they don’t “act black” or women in as long as they don’t “act like women”, etc.etc.

    NONE should be in the military period!

    The military was NEVER meant to be a democracy! Now it is a PC democracy and look at what we got! Our military has gotten to be nothing but a social experiment that has gone to “pot”.

    Once you lower the bar to “accomodate” anyone and everyone, then you just as well close up shop.

  • BAW

    My grandfather, an Iwo Jima Marine, my uncle on my mom’s side; a Korean War Air Force radioman, and my uncle on my dad’s side, a decorated Vietnam Green Beret, strongly advised me against enlisting when I was considering it in high school.

    I now know why.

  • Anonymous

    the SEALS?! 99% of MEN can’t hack it. I beleive it is one of the last units of the armed forces that ‘looks like ‘ pre 1965 america- because STANDARDS HAVE NOT BEEN LOWERED.

    THere is only one reason for politicizing the armed forces – particularly the relentless drive to get rid of white officers and replace them with minorities – ANY TIME in history that the office corps are purged, it is bring in an alien population that will have no problem turning the military on the people.

    AND THAT IS WHAT IS COMING. There is no denying it now.

  • Jupiter7

    Of course, everyone here misses the lager issue involved. The Republican-Democatic policy of invading the world and inviting the world requires a massive top down social engineering program organized and implemented by the state. Having homosexauls,muslims and women in th military is all part of the game plan. The policy of invading the world and inviting the world would be undermined if there was a miliary draft of all the White chikenhawk teenage draft dogers. This policy would come to an end if this ever happened. Therefore, the Pentagon has to get warm bodies from somwhere…like ultraconservative muslim men from the muslim world,homosexuals, and women. This is how the game works.

    Now that homosexuals are allowed to serve openly in the “US” military, the next stage in the homosexual’s war on heterosexual society is to argue that since homosexuals are risking their lives to protect the heterosexual majority, it would would be highly immoral not to legalize homosexual marriage..and after this, homosexuals will demand that they be allowed to be married in Catholic Churches.

    So, this is the social and cultural septic tank that comes with invading the world and inviting the world.

  • Anonymous

    “In 2009, Mr. Mabus announced a ship would be named after Medgar Evers, the Mississippi civil rights activist…”

    A couple of weeks back, when AmRen first ran an article about USN naming a ship after labor agitator Cesar Chavez*, I sarcastically suggested that there would soon be one named the USNS Saul Alinsky.

    Now I learn that there is aleady a ship named after Medgar Evers.

    * Yes, I know the correct spelling of his name requires a couple of Spanish accent marks over the vowels. No, I won’t go to the trouble of adding those accents. No Mexican I’ve ever met has been able to spell and pronounce my own Anglo name correctly, so why should I pay them any such courtesies in return?

  • idareya

    I’ve always said that once Political Correctness infected the services, it would be the end of the professional, all-volunteer military.

  • MadMaxx

    I was a member of the USN from 1962-1966. Even then the NAV was political and all enlisted men were aware that they were expendable if it benefitted or protected a superior officer’s career. The entire experience was like walking on egg shells and for years afterward I used to have dreams (nightmares) of being recalled to duty for some lame reason.

    I would never recommend that someone join it.

  • Shawn (the female)

    You think flash mobs are bad…all we need is a group of PMS’ing females running out of Hershey’s bars onboard. Or discovering a sudden, unexpected need for a pad during a covert midnight beach landing. Between monthly hell or showing up preggers, the exorbitant amount of money for special ‘necessities’ and massive (and useless) efforts to accommodate separate facilities and schedules for them, women are nothing but an unnecessary bother and distraction in a confined combat-oriented environment. As a female, women don’t belong onboard military ships of any kind (except perhaps hospital ships) or in any area of combat. My two cents.

  • flyingtiger

    #14 has a point. In the old days, it was a conflict between capitol and labor. Now it is increasing become foreign capitol versus american labor. Foreign capitol hates white people and does not trust them. They want to create non-white units that can be trusted to shoot the whites. This, of course, will fail.

  • Anonymous

    Here’s yet another example of how the military mirrors the ugliness of its controlling entity, our enemy the US government, and has been complicit in the shoving down our throats of every page of the Cultural Marxist playbook.

    Anyone left on this site that still venerates that organization and actually thinks we can count on it as an ally in our struggle is positively intoxicated on propaganda.

  • Mike S.

    Wow, now even the SEALs are being considered.

    I was in the Navy early 90s. I did the crossing the line ceremony named Wog Day. Was beaten, quite badly on the “behind”, very red and very sore, from before sun up to right around sundown. The next time we crossed the line in ’93, they ruled out physical contact and even anything that looked harassing.

    In the latest 10-part video series, Carrier, of PBS (filmed 2005 released a few years later), they discuss some of the political correctness, and some of it is quite obvious. Like the female junior officer Air Traffic Controller, quite emotional and was jumping out of her seat every time a plane “bolted” (i.e. touched the deck, couldn’t land and had to try again.) As I was watching I couldn’t help but think of how better composed a male ATC officer would be. When I was in the navy it wasn’t even thought that women would be on warships.

    Watching “Carrier” shows just what a joke it has devolved into, although I have to admit that that is very likely what the senior guys from the 80s and 70s were no doubt thinking when us 90s guys came in. They had it even rougher than we did (i.e. Time Out pass in boot camp, got to wear tennie shoes for running rather than big old boots, etc).

    As for the navy SEALs, I just don’t think it would work, and quite honestly I’m glad.

  • Anonymous

    Im gay, and I applied for the service academies when i was in high school. I played football, could benchpress 350 lbs, and I studied martial arts (still do). I got into one of them, but I was turned away for being color blind. At that time, I was very interested in combat training and serving my country. I would have given my all, if I weren’t color blind. I find it offensive that some would stereotype me as a left wing lunatic that forces sexuality down someone’s throat. I never had an interest in that. The few gays I know in the armed forces were over-achievers and heros in both Iraq wars. They did not hit on young men or parade their sexuality around. They got shot at fighting for our freedom. Gays in the military are usually on the conservative side (YOUR side). Like most, they want to find a mutual partner someday…not sexually harrass people who are not interested. When you attack gays saying “they’re destroying the military, they’re all weak, they all sexually harass people”, you can be very wrong. Anyone who does sexually harass should be discharged and prosecuted. I for one do not find all male enviroments attractive in any way. Most people in this world are rather average or unattractive. In close quarters, you hear them snore, pass gas, deficate, and sometimes worse. That is not attractive.

    How do you feel when you read hateful comments about whites that are not true? How do you feel when you are hatefully accused for something you did not do? Gay people are not all one person. Most you don’t notice because they simply exist and do there jobs. I don’t want to see a bunch of unqualifed weirdos in our ranks either, destroying our traditions, and comprimising our security. If a person is best qualifed for the job, they should have the job. I agree that quota systems are destroying our military. And like you, I don’t want to know what someone does in the bedroom. That is private. For those who do sexually harass others, whether they harass men or women (or children God forbid), they need to be taken out.

  • Anonymous

    “The few gays I know in the armed forces were over-achievers and heros in both Iraq wars. They did not hit on young men or parade their sexuality around.”

    That’s going to change very soon. It’s not uncommon, probably the rule rather than the exception, that minorities (and everyone else) are hurt more than helped by civil rights laws.

  • Anonymous

    29 — Anonymous at 8:42 PM on June 1:

    I’m not going to call you a liar but I’ll tell you what happened to me. I was 17 when I enlisted in the Navy and I was stationed onboard the USS Detroit which was out of Norfolk VA. I was hit on by several gay people onboard that ship in a very subtle way, had people rub up against me in narrow passageways and even got into a fight with one of them. I was even given glances by officers. Several people were obviously gay by their mannerism and others were even married to women. One really feminine guy that was a Hospital Corpsman would wear women’s perfume when we were deployed for six months out at sea trying to attract someone. None of these people were heroes or over achievers but people looking for fresh meat to “turn”. They weren’t even patriotic.

  • Anonymous

    #29 anonymous writes, “I find it offensive that some would stereotype me as a left wing lunatic that forces sexuality down someone’s throat.”

    I wrote comment #17 anonymous above. I agree with you that most homosexuals in the military are probably overachievers with a strong conservative streak. But if the lunatic left has their way that will change. They’re goal is to radicalize the military and drive conservatives out — including conservative homosexuals. My objection was not to you but to the radicalism of politicians like Mabus.

  • Anonymous

    29 — Anonymous wrote at 8:42 PM on June 1:

    Im gay, and I applied for the service academies when i was in high school. I played football, could benchpress 350 lbs, and I studied martial arts (still do). I got into one of them, but I was turned away for being color blind. At that time, I was very interested in combat training and serving my country. I would have given my all, if I weren’t color blind. I find it offensive that some would stereotype me as a left wing lunatic that forces sexuality down someone’s throat. I never had an interest in that. The few gays I know in the armed forces were over-achievers and heros in both Iraq wars. They did not hit on young men or parade their sexuality around.

    ————————————————-

    Why are you trying to convince us all about your “take” on gay issues? Seems the gay trolls come out in force whenever there is any discussion of gay behaviors. Why is that?

    Most of us already know how we stand on gay issues and the military and you are not going to change our minds about how great you all are and are just as “normal” as the rest of us.

    It seems to me that another “empire” fell by integrating homosexuals and foreign aliens into their once great military.

  • Anonymous

    #29

    Homosexuality (or rather bisexuality) is much more common among blacks and browns than among whites. They are also much more sexually agressive. The pro-gay agenda is not catering to people such as you, but to non whites on the down low.

  • anonymous

    I’ve been in the Navy 19 years, I’ve spent my entire career in the SEAL Teams. I can tell you that as a matter of POLICY, the priority is not getting the best men for the job, it is about pushing WHite men aside and getting black men for the job. I’ll tell you that based on two things:

    Under the umbrella of “diversity”, exclusively black institutions (HBCU’s, 101 different “diversity outreach_ programs)are engaged for the express purpose of paving the way for blacks to get into the training pipeline. Feel free to call the Training Center at 619-435-2351 and ask the Public Affairs Officer what Naval Special Warfare is doing to help the “underpriveleged” races.

    Second, anyone who thinks White men aren’t being pushed aside should try talking about this topic openly; 19 years of service gets you little leeway, but I’d be hung by my heels just for referring to current policies as anything but “fair” and “equal”.

  • Anonymous

    29 — Anonymous wrote at 8:42 PM on June 1:

    “Gays in the military are usually on the conservative side (YOUR side). Like most, they want to find a mutual partner someday…not sexually harrass people who are not interested.”

    My idea of a conservative is not someone who supports gay marriage, the indoctrination of school children into the LGBT world or relishing the thought of charging some pastor with a hate crime for reading certain passages out of the Bible. I’m willing to bet your all for either one or all of these things. You can give yourself any kind of label, liberal or conservative, it doesn’t matter. Your still pushing the homosexual agenda.

  • Mr.White

    “He later called it “the worst two years of my life,” according to the Oxford Encyclopedia of Latinos and Latinas.

    —————————————————————-

    So they [Latinos and Latinas] have their own Oxford Encyclopedia just for La Raza? I guess I should have know they did….

  • Who In Their White Mind?

    E Pluribus- thank you for refreshing that quote by Casey. What a moronic statement. That just goes to show us all that after the Fort Hood tragedy, people were calling for this Hassan’s head, & rightfully so. In effect, the left-lwaning media outlets “coached” Casey into the defensive mode by stating that diversity is a strength. If that were true, then why is it scrutinized, second-guessed, & criticized at every opportunity? What other “strength” in our society is held with such deep skepticism? Politics? Media?They are all ied in with diversity.

  • Anonymous

    I’ve heard all the complaints about political correctness in the military. Some of it is mere hysteria, some of it is legit.

    However, while the consequences of experimentation aren’t as severe, PC run amok is still just as maddening in the business world. Treat women differently but as equals. “Special classes” based on race, to include any and every category of human other than white, able-bodied male. So I still enlisted recently, anyway. The US Military is still as proud an institution as any, and I’m happy I joined.

  • Anonymous

    Very scary. This is same way Hugo Chavez took power permanently in Venezuela while the only person standing between the average suburban Republican retiree and a communist take over is Sarah Palin? Big trouble. Next thing you know Obama will be forming people’s militias.

  • Anonymous

    I recommend the book, “An American Knight: The Life of Colonel John W. Ripley, USMC”, which is the first Biography of the man responsible for blowing up Dong Ha Bridge, which stopped the North Vietmanese advance into the Republic of Vietnam, with over 20,000 Soldiers, and 200 Soviet made Tanks.

    Colonel Ripley testified before Congress regarding women in combat, as well as Homosexuals. His complete testimony is at the conclusion of the book.

    Naturally, the chair-shining decision makers chose to ignore this experienced Marine Combat Veteran, who was a recipiant of the Navy Cross, for bravery in the field.