Sept. 20 is an important day for gay activists because it marks the official repeal of the military’s 1993 homosexual exclusion law (10 U.S.C. § 654).  This happened because the gay-beholden Democrats held power and not because there was a shred of evidence repeal would improve the armed forces.  Now our war-weary, all-volunteer military must cope with the consequences of that decision.

Those consequences could be significant, but the American public has no clue, because the 111th Democrat-controlled Congress repealed the ban in a “lame-duck” session without hearing a single dissenting view.  And President Obama hid behind the cover of a politically inspired Pentagon report marred by poor research and improper activities meant to mislead Congress.

President Obama used his 2010 State of the Union address to call for repeal of the homosexual exclusion law.  The following week, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testified, “We have received our orders,” and subsequently he launched a review to examine the “issues associated with repeal of the law.”  Gates’ review never considered whether lifting the ban was right, but only on mitigating the consequences.

That review included a problem-plagued survey that failed to ask critical questions such as, “Do you favor lifting the homosexual ban?” and it used non-random sampling.  Then it biased the results to support Obama’s repeal agenda.

The Pentagon Inspector General (IG) exposed the review’s politically inspired bias.  Last November, the Washington Post published leaked information from the Pentagon’s review claiming 70% of the military would have no problem serving with open homosexuals.  The IG said in an April 2011 report that the leak was meant “to gain momentum in support of a legislative change during the ‘lame duck’ session of Congress following the Nov. 2, 2010, elections.”

Not surprisingly the Obama Pentagon failed to correct the unauthorized and misleading report, which was cited in Congress as fact.  The same survey data (question 68a of the July 2010 Pentagon poll) that was used to generate the 70% report can be restated to support a very different conclusion:  In fact 62% of the military predicted at least some negative effects from repeal, while only 18% predicted positive effects.

Congress ignored many report flaws, including the following:

The Pentagon report admits “the majority of views expressed in [140 focus group sessions] were against repeal of the current policy.”
It based its “no-risk” assessment of open homosexuality for military effectiveness on a panel of 11 unidentified, nonscientific personnel.
It dismissed 67% negative views expressed by combatants by suggesting their lack of service with homosexuals feeds the negativity.

Congress has the constitutional responsibility to set military personnel policy (Article I, Section 8) and therefore deserves the blame for any adverse consequences associated with lifting the ban.  Consider six possible consequences.

First, repeal created a “precedent-setting” legal quagmire for the military.  William Gregor, a professor at the School of Advanced Military Studies, Fort Leavenworth, Kan., wrote in the military journal Parameters that the repealed statute “contained important military policy that extends well beyond the narrow issue of homosexual eligibility.”  Specifically, six of the repealed law’s findings “defined the principles that underlie the established system of military justice and order.”  Their absence creates a “litigious period of indiscipline” whereby issues such as recruitment are subject to legal challenge and reinterpretation, for example, excluding candidates for personal behaviors such as drug abuse.

Second, repeal embraces a category of people associated with high rates of a deadly sexually transmitted virus.  This potentially creates higher health care costs and hurts morale.

The Pentagon admits an increase in homosexuals could increase the number of personnel who are “men who have sex with men,” and that group has the highest known risk of HIV/AIDS.  But the Pentagon contends incidents of HIV/AIDS will be minimal because of regular blood testing.

But in spite of testing, the military already has battalions’ worth of HIV/AIDS-infected personnel, and many contracted the virus via homosexual sex.  These thousands are nondeployable, soak up hundreds of millions of dollars in medical costs annually, and must be replaced overseas by healthy troops, a morale-busting factor.

Third, the Pentagon report dismisses heterosexual privacy concerns by arguing “gay men have learned to avoid making heterosexuals feel uncomfortable.”  That is why troops will not be segregated based on sexual orientation, and besides, states the report, most privacy concerns are based on “misperceptions and stereotypes.”

It is paradoxical that few people give gender segregation a second thought due to privacy and modesty concerns, but those same people expect the military to force heterosexuals to share facilities with homosexuals.  But call for co-ed sleeping and bathing facilities and the objections are loud.  Who says homosexuals are any more perfect than anyone else?

Fourth, the Pentagon admits “a large number of service members raise religious and moral objections to homosexuality.”  Specifically, many troops said repeal “might limit their individual freedom of expression and free exercise of religion, or require them to change their personal beliefs about the morality of homosexuality.”  The Pentagon dismisses that view at its peril.

Chaplains expressed some of the most intense and sharpest views.  The Pentagon promises chaplains “will not be required to perform a religious role … if doing so would be in variance with the tenets or practices of their faith.”  What about chaplains’ objections to gay marriage?

This April, the chief of naval chaplains issued guidance allowing chaplains to conduct same-sex marriages in some states, but outrage temporarily sidelined that guidance.  Later the Navy said it would allow chaplains to perform gay marriages where it is legal.  What might happen to chaplains that preach or counsel that marriage is only between one man and one woman?

Or for that matter, what might happen to chaplains who object to having a homosexual chaplain’s assistant or hiring a gay youth worker?  Religious-based objections are important among the military’s large faith community.

Fifth, Congress must monitor the impact of open homosexuality for unit effectiveness and readiness.  Social scientists should measure homosexuality’s impact on effectiveness factors such as bonding and morale.  The impact on readiness factors such as recruiting and retention is especially important to an all-volunteer force.

The Pentagon will soon see whether repeal has any effect on the propensity of young people to enlist.  In fact, the Rand Corporation’s report on homosexuality warned military recruiting could decline7% because of repeal, and the Pentagon admits recruiting is getting harder because three-fourths of American youth fail to qualify.

Retention is a critical readiness factor.  Thirteen per cent of current service members told the Pentagon’s working group repeal would shorten their future service, and another 11% said they will consider leaving sooner than planned.  Congress must acknowledge that 24% of the force (341,000 personnel) is a lot of volunteers to ignore.

Finally, the Pentagon claims “strong leadership” will successfully mitigate the problems associated with lifting the ban.  But “strong leadership” has yet to “solve” other social phenomena, including sexual assault.  Why should Congress believe the Pentagon can do any better with homosexuality?

The Pentagon’s 2011 annual report on sexual assault exposes a massive leadership failure.  Only 13.5% of total assaults are reported, says the Pentagon, because service members are “uncomfortable” with reporting or “fear reprisal.”  Besides, the report indicates male victims of sexual assault vary from 6% to 20% of all incidents across the services.  How will open homosexuality impact this problem?

The gay community might celebrate Sept. 20, but this date marks a major failure in Congress’ oversight of the military.  It must now closely monitor the consequences associated with repeal to protect our volunteer force and quickly respond as the inevitable problems occur.

Americans should be very concerned about the White House’s cavalier attitude regarding the release of sensitive national security information.  We pay a high price for politically inspired opportunism, especially when the task of keeping our secrets is becoming more difficult.  We must do better.

Last week the History Channel premiered the documentary “Targeting Bin Laden,” which celebrates “the greatest victory in the war on terror.”  It included interviews with President Obama and his key national security advisers and was chock-full of sensitive national security information that reflects the administration’s full cooperation.

The History Channel evidently tapped many of the same sources used by Nicholas Schmidle to write his incredibly “insightful” Aug. 8 article for The New Yorker.  Together, that article, “Getting Bin Laden,” and the documentary recklessly expose the identities of national security personnel and our special operating forces’ techniques, tactics, procedures and technologies used in the May 2 raid to take down al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Clearly politics was the administration’s rationale for being so generous with our secrets.  Our enemies and Obama’s image benefit, while our national security suffers.

Our security suffers because every enemy spy agency and terrorist will thoroughly examine the documentary and article to update their countermeasures and try to identify the intelligence personnel shown in the documentary.  Not everyone in those pictures was an actor, and the detailed operational information is now compromised.

Unfortunately, the exposure of operational details in the bin Laden raid was only the latest example of the administration casting our security to the wind.  Obama, within his first hundred days in office, publicized secret memos on our interrogation techniques such as the approach used by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to interrogate terrorists such as 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. 

Those memos revealed the steps we use to extract information to prevent terrorist attacks.  That release armed Islamist jihadists with invaluable defensive weapons, such as an understanding that our use of waterboarding is “authorized for, at most, one 30-day period, during which the technique can actually be applied on no more than five days” with “no more than two sessions in any 24-hour period.”

The same cavalier attitude is evidenced by the administration’s Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) negotiations with the Russians.  Former CIA Director James Woolsey writes in the June 2011 edition of Foreign Affairs that Obama wants to give the Russians classified U.S. technologies and “‘red button authority to prevent the interception of incoming missiles headed for U.S. troops or allies.”

Woolsey explains that the Russians apparently insist the Obama administration surrender sensitive U.S. missile defense technology and operational authority as part of the START deal.  Fortunately, Congress discovered the deal and inserted Section 1228 in the Pentagon’s 2012 annual authorization act to deny funds that provide Russia with sensitive U.S. missile defense technology.

These security compromises and others illustrate the administration’s offhanded treatment of sensitive information.  But Obama’s problem keeping secrets parallels another well-rooted security challenge—leaked government secrets and a complicit media.  Juxtapose the two, and one quickly sees the administration’s double standard.

Specifically, our press has become an open vault for foreign collection, especially with the Internet harnessed to powerful search engines that vacuum up information that often includes leaks of sensitive information.  Foreign agents use that information to develop countermeasures that diminish our operational effectiveness.  The bin Laden case illustrates the problem.

Ari Fleisher, the former press secretary for President George W. Bush, explained the problem.  The press published leaked information that indicated the National Security Agency was “able to listen to Osama bin Laden on his satellite phone,” Fleisher said.  “As a result of the disclosure, [bin Laden] stopped using it … [and] the United States was denied the opportunity to monitor and gain information that could have been very valuable for protecting our country.”

Like terrorists, nation-states take advantage of our leaking.  James Bruce, a CIA official, posted an article on his agency’s website that quotes a former Russian military intelligence officer addressing our intelligence vulnerability.  “I am amazed—and Moscow was very appreciative—at how many times I found very sensitive information in American newspapers.  In my view, Americans tend to care more about scooping their competition than about national security, which made my job easier.” 

The Obama administration came to office promising to be transparent, “committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness.”  But that commitment morphed into a double standard when it comes to national security.  Specifically, the administration demonstrates a dangerous “openness” in politically favorable cases such as the bin Laden raid and START negotiations, but not when it comes to unfavorable security leaks. 

Rather, the administration vigorously objects when leaks embarrass it, and as a result, has stepped up prosecutions, which is good.  For example, the administration was hurt by the WikiLeaks case involving Julian Assange, the Australian who posted thousands of leaked pages of U.S. documents on the Internet.  Many of those documents and others from insider sources put the Obama administration on the defensive, especially regarding its Afghanistan policy.

To its credit, the administration vigorously prosecutes leakers of government information and is seriously trying to prevent leaks.  Last winter, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) sent a leak-preventing 14-page memo to all agencies.  Interestingly, that memo suggests the agencies use psychiatrists and sociologists to identify disgruntled employees who might leak, among other initiatives.

We need to do four things to better secure our state secrets, beginning with presidential leadership.

First, the American people must demand the President guard the nation’s secrets by eschewing political opportunism such as revealing security information to the doting press.

Second, all federal agencies must educate their force about the legal obligations and possible penalties for failing to safeguard intelligence information.  Managers must know what to look for regarding those vulnerable to leaking and the Obama administration’s OMB memo is a good start.

Third, the Department of Justice needs the tools to identify and prosecute individuals who deliberately share classified intelligence.  We need comprehensive laws that make it easier to prosecute wrongdoers and increase penalties for those who disclose information.

Finally, we need laws that find the balance between protecting journalists and protecting national security.  Media that publish secrets that harm the country must be held accountable.

The Obama administration is dangerously fickle about the nation’s secrets.  It has no problem revealing secrets when it suits its political purposes, but it becomes an aggressive enforcer when it comes to leaks that expose its vulnerabilities.  Our secrets must be closely guarded, no exceptions and especially when it is clear our enemies will benefit.