American ex-general claims Srebrenica fell partially due to homosexual

[Crusader]

On 27 June 2005, the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution (H. Res. 199 sponsored by Congressman Christopher Smith and Congressman Benjamin Cardin) commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide. The resolution was passed by an overwhelming majority of 370 to 1, the only one to vote no being Ron Paul, with 62 absent. The resolution states that:

" ...the policies of aggression and ethnic cleansing as implemented by Serb forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1992 and 1995 with the direct support of Serbian regime of Slobodan MiloÅ¡ević and its followers ultimately led to the displacement of more than 2,000,000 people, an estimated 200,000 killed, tens of thousands raped or otherwise tortured and abused, and the innocent civilians of Sarajevo and other urban centres repeatedly subjected to shelling and sniper attacks; meet the terms defining the crime of genocide in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, created in Paris on December 9, 1948, and entered into force on January 12, 1951."

The Srebrenica massacre led to long-running discussions in the Netherlands. In 1996, the Dutch government asked the "Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie" (NIOD, translation: Dutch Institute for War Documentation) to conduct research into the events before, during and after the fall of Srebrenica. The resulting report was published in 2002. It concluded that the Dutchbat mission was not well considered and well-nigh impossible. The NIOD report is cited often, but it has not escaped criticism, leading the Institute for War and Peace Reporting to label the report controversial.

As a result the Dutch government accepted partial responsibility and the second cabinet of Wim Kok resigned in 2002.

Last Thursday, former U.S. general and high ranking NATO official John Sheehan is quoted as saying "They [The Dutch] declared a peace dividend and made a conscious effort to socialise their military – that includes the unionisation of their militaries, it includes open homosexuality. That led to a force that was ill-equipped to go to war." He claimed that his opinion was shared by the leadership of the Dutch armed forces, mentioning the name "Hankman Berman", most probably referring to the then chief of the Dutch defence staff, Henk van den Breemen. Sheehan's remarks were officially condemned by the Dutch authorities and van den Breemen, with his remarks being dismissed as "disgraceful" and "total nonsense."

Dutch military homosexual rights organizations are now planning to start a class-action lawsuit in the USA against Sheehan.

This sparked quite some outrage in the Netherlands. We as a country generally feel guilty that the Dutchbat soldiers were unable to prevent the massacre, although it is generally accepted this was due to them being underequipped and with little time to prepare to handle the task and that NATO partners failed to provide support at crucial times and politicians were bickering while the situation escalated. Dutchbat was not suited to handle the task, which high military officers later tried to hide by destroying evidence (which sparked even more outrage at the time). The general consensus in the Netherlands is that we sent too few men, with too little equipment, with too little preparation. The soldiers were not capable of repelling a tank attack with their measly APC's and relative light firepower. The soldiers at the spot were not to blame, but rather the people who sent them there with not enough means to get the job done.

And now comes this American ex-general, claiming Dutchbat failed because we employ open homosexuals in our military? Talk about throwing salt in an open wound.

[eppie]

And now comes this American ex-general, claiming Dutchbat failed because we employ open homosexuals in our military? Talk about throwing salt in an open wound.

Does this mean Fred Phelps has been right all the way?:ph34r:

I thought the mentally unfit were only used as cannon fodder in the army, but apparantly they also make them general.:D

No this guy should become a priest or go to Iran. They love people that deny the existance of gay people in their organization (army, church or country).

[--Pete]

Hi,

Somehow, the thread of logic in your post escapes me. Let me explain:

On 27 June 2005, the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution . . .

" ...the policies of aggression and ethnic cleansing as implemented by Serb forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1992 and 1995 . . . meet the terms defining the crime of genocide . . . "

OK, that whole part right there. What does that have to do with the rest of the post? Is it just introductory material, or are you implying that the House is somehow to blame for what comes next?

The Srebrenica massacre led to long-running discussions in the Netherlands. . . . The NIOD report is cited often, but it has not escaped criticism, leading the Institute for War and Peace Reporting to label the report controversial.

As a result the Dutch government accepted partial responsibility and the second cabinet of Wim Kok resigned in 2002.

Again, is this just more historical background?

declared a peace dividend and made a conscious effort to socialise their military – that includes the unionisation of their militaries, it includes open homosexuality. That led to a force that was ill-equipped to go to war."

Finally, a point. Apparently, Sheenhan is a loud mouthed homophobe. As to the "the unionisation of their militaries", I'm in agreement with him -- that's a terrible idea.

Dutch military homosexual rights organizations are now planning to start a class-action lawsuit in the USA against Sheehan.

Good. I suspect they will not get far, but good luck to them.

The soldiers at the spot were not to blame, but rather the people who sent them there . . .

This is often true, in many ways.

And now comes this American ex-general, claiming Dutchbat failed because we employ open homosexuals in our military? Talk about throwing salt in an open wound.

Yeah, he's a jerk. And he's a fool for not keeping his mouth shut. Believe me, not all of us in the USA feel like him. And from at least one that doesn't, my sincere apologies for the disrespect shown to the men at Srebrenica who did their duty.

--Pete

[Crusader]

The first part was introduction Pete. Most people have no idea what the Srebrenica massacre is.

[--Pete]

Hi,

The first part was introduction Pete. Most people have no idea what the Srebrenica massacre is.

Very true. Perhaps a shorter introduction with a link might have served your purpose better, but no matter. Here in the USA, where 'Dog Saves Kid from Fire' gets endless air time, it often seems that world peace has been achieved. The news sources seldom report on wars, even those our own military are engaged in. :(

--Pete

[kandrathe]

The first part was introduction Pete. Most people have no idea what the Srebrenica massacre is.

Wasn't that where the Dutch homosexuals killed all those people in a disco?

Just kidding. :P

[Occhidiangela]

Dutch military homosexual rights organizations are now planning to start a class-action lawsuit in the USA against Sheehan.

Reason enough to add the Netherlands to the target list at STRATCOM.

To all of you delightful Dutch morons: how about you clue up about what is important?

Better that you all die, rather than add to the Stupid Coefficient. If you wonder why I have slowly been losing my sense of humor, the original post in this thread is one data point among many.

Heinlein was right: the only universal constants are hydrogen and stupidity.

The Netherlands appear to be Exhibit C for the prosecution.

Occhi

[NuurAbSaal]

how about you clue up about what is important?

Occhi

That might be a problem:P. What is and what isn't "important" is a rather subjective decision, don't you think? Women's rights for example weren't thought of as important, even by women I guess, until rather recently.

As long as there are funny people blaming homosexuals for 9/11 or the failure of a military operation, I can see how this is important, at least to some.

take care
Tarabulus

[kandrathe]

That might be a problem:P. What is and what isn't "important" is a rather subjective decision, don't you think? Women's rights for example weren't thought of as important, even by women I guess, until rather recently.

As long as there are funny people blaming homosexuals for 9/11 or the failure of a military operation, I can see how this is important, at least to some.

take care
Tarabulus

I find it an odd topic. Homosexuals have been in the military, since the Revolution. And even then, there was a concern about losing soldiers over issues of sexual conduct.

What I think might be a problem, is to create another special class which distracts from the military purpose. Sexuality even between straight people is a distraction from military efficiency, which is why even mixed sex units might be less combat effective. If our purpose is to beat the snot out of our enemies, then we should choose the best soldiers for the job and not weaken our force by being distracted by ratios, promotion rates, and quotas, let alone who is hooking up with whom. The current US policy of "don't ask, don't tell" accomplishes the feat of rendering sexual preference a non-issue while serving, but as an additional burden on the minority of homosexuals to stay in the closet. What might be more appropriate would be an entire policy of "don't ask for it, and don't flaunt it" aimed equally at everyone. So, whether you are straight or gay, you can enjoy your camaraderie, but keep your hands to yourself until you are done with the mission (I know, easier said than done). I recall that fraternization between soldiers is already proscribed.

The general was giving his opinion on the Dutch system, and his opinion on the readiness and effectiveness of those units. I think if that works for the Dutch, great. It's unfair to blame the Dutch, let alone homosexuals in the Dutch force for Srebrenica. If they were unready, then some one higher up in command should have known that fact before throwing the units in unprepared (e.g. light skinned vehicles versus tanks). As I recall, it was again one of those FUBAR operations (like Somalia) where we waltzed in as peace keepers, and ended up in the middle of a war.

[Jester]

I find it an odd topic. Homosexuals have been in the military, since the Revolution. And even then, there was a concern about losing soldiers over issues of sexual conduct.

That link is supposed to go where? It takes me here.

-Jester

[LavCat]

I find it an odd topic. Homosexuals have been in the military, since the Revolution. And even then, there was a concern about losing soldiers over issues of sexual conduct.

Link seems broken.

Wonder if homosexuality adversely affected the efficiency of the Sturmabteilung?

[eppie]

If our purpose is to beat the snot out of our enemies, then we should choose the best soldiers for the job and not weaken our force by being distracted by ratios, promotion rates, and quotas, let alone who is hooking up with whom.

If that is the purpose go back to an all conscription army, where you get not only the poor to be cannon fodder in a far away country, but a good cross section of the society. After some general year you can choose which person fits best in which outfit.
If a gay person signs up to be in the army he does that to fight, not to find a mate. So let him.

So, whether you are straight or gay, you can enjoy your camaraderie, but keep your hands to yourself until you are done with the mission (I know, easier said than done). I recall that fraternization between soldiers is already proscribed.

The whole issue is of course that in certain situations gays are being harassed. And I guess that happens (happened) in the army a lot. I think the bigger problems is here by people that are moronic enough to hassle their comrades istead of focussing on the enemy. Suggesting that the problem is gay people who cannot keep their hands to themselves seems a bit odd.

The general was giving his opinion on the Dutch system, and his opinion on the readiness and effectiveness of those units.

The general should retire to his little midwestern village and stay there to complain about commies, gays and blacks with the rest of the extremists. I guess he already forgot how our christian Bush loving government is the first to jump in to help the US in some peace mission, despite most of the population being against it. This remark was a stab in the back of those in the Netherlands that actually wanted to help the US. Making chances that we will join some new mission only smaller. (where I of course realize that our name on a list is more important than teh actual volume of troops we send)

But than again, the general looks like somebody who thinks that holland is the capital of copenhagen.

[Crusader]

Reason enough to add the Netherlands to the target list at STRATCOM.

To all of you delightful Dutch morons: how about you clue up about what is important?

Better that you all die, rather than add to the Stupid Coefficient. If you wonder why I have slowly been losing my sense of humor, the original post in this thread is one data point among many.

Heinlein was right: the only universal constants are hydrogen and stupidity.

The Netherlands appear to be Exhibit C for the prosecution.

Occhi

I find an insult to my country who did it's damn best to help quite important actually. In addition to that I think that equal rights and freedom from discrimination for homosexuals are also important. So explain, please why you think we are morons for having Dutch organization going to court over a case of discrimination in the highest tiers of your government/army?

[kandrathe]

That link is supposed to go where? It takes me here.

Uh, oh. Well, I had linked to a notation in Gen. Washington's diary regarding Lieutenant Enslin;

<blockquote>“Head Quarters, V. Forge, Saturday, March 14, 1778: At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose”</blockquote>

Other commentary questioned whether in such a time of great need for able bodied soldiers that we should be discarding them for their sexual preferences. SSDD.

[kandrathe]

If a gay person signs up to be in the army he does that to fight, not to find a mate. So let him.

Not necessarily. In a career military, there are many reasons to enlist beyond duty, and the thrill of combat.

The whole issue is of course that in certain situations gays are being harassed. And I guess that happens (happened) in the army a lot. I think the bigger problems is here by people that are moronic enough to hassle their comrades instead of focusing on the enemy. Suggesting that the problem is gay people who cannot keep their hands to themselves seems a bit odd.

First, I was not talking about gays alone. In a mixed sex service, we have more of a problem with fraternization between men and women at the moment. Whether it be a college dorm, or a barracks, if you put people together there inevitably will be someone who gets unfairly picked on (regardless of sex, or sexual orientation). The cure is discipline, building greater interdependence, and keeping troops focused on their mission.

The general should retire to his little midwestern village and stay there to complain about commies, gays and blacks with the rest of the extremists. I guess he already forgot how our christian Bush loving government is the first to jump in to help the US in some peace mission, despite most of the population being against it. This remark was a stab in the back of those in the Netherlands that actually wanted to help the US. Making chances that we will join some new mission only smaller. (where I of course realize that our name on a list is more important than the actual volume of troops we send)

You only make yourself appear asinine and bigoted when you comment like this. For example, Minneapolis, a mid-western city near where I live is considered in the top 10 in gay lifestyle and percentage of the cities population, and Houston, Texas is also in the top ten "LGBT cities". You are just as apt to find the anti-gay bigot in upstate New York, as you would be in rural Alabama. The *real* schisms in tolerance have usually been between urban and rural populations. John J. Sheehan is from Massachusetts, has a B.A. in English from Boston College, a Master degree in Government from Georgetown University, and I would guess that since he is a Sr. VP at Bechtel, that he probably works either in San Francisco, or out of their office in Wash. DC. His opinions are not extremist, unless you compare them to those of the average Dutch chemist. I also find no mention of him railing against commies, although I doubt many American Generals embrace that social philosophy, and if you knew an infinitesimal smidgeon about the military, or the marine corps, then you'd know that racial integration and promotion in the forces has been common place for over 1/2 a century. In fact, in even in the racially charged Vietnam era, it was a place where skill meant more than skin.

But than again, the general looks like somebody who thinks that Holland is the capital of Copenhagen.

And you can tell this by looking at him? Was it his skin color, or his bone structure?

[eppie]

Was it his skin color, or his bone structure?

No because he was stupid enough to make a remark like that about an allied force.
Or maybe he was just calculating for another christian government in the Netherlands. If not the chances that the public will support another US military campaign (or support) have gotten smaller again.

And as I said before, they don't need our 'enormous military power' but having our name on the list of supporters (next to a bunch of 3rd world countries and England) is important.

[kandrathe]

No because he was stupid enough to make a remark like that about an allied force. Or maybe he was just calculating for another christian government in the Netherlands. If not the chances that the public will support another US military campaign (or support) have gotten smaller again.

And as I said before, they don't need our 'enormous military power' but having our name on the list of supporters (next to a bunch of 3rd world countries and England) is important.

I just watched again on Youtube, this exchange, and Sheehan's point was the one I made above. The purpose of the military is to beat the snot out of your enemies, not as a means of equally representing all facets of society. For example, if you start comparing the ratios in higher ranking positions based on sex, race, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation you are focused on social equality, and not on kicking the snot out of your enemy. Sheehan was saying that in his opinion, the Dutch were not focused on preparing a force for combat. I don't agree with all of his analysis, and I don't have a problem with gays in the military, but I do agree that the focus of a military needs to remain on capability rather than social justice. When the UCMJ is followed regarding fraternization, we have no problems. Rather than single out homosexuals in DADT, the code might be amended to prohibit any unprofessional sexual overtures regardless of sexual orientation. In the private sector as well, it is pretty much understood that dating your close co-workers can lead to problems, especially if it doesn't work out. The concern here is on unit effectiveness and cohesion, and not on ensuring that everyones feelings are unhurt.

[Crusader]

Sheenan apologised for his remarks, claiming his memory failed him. Right.

http://wireupdate.com/wires/2640/ex-genera...ti-gay-remarks/

[--Pete]

Hi,

Sheenan apologised for his remarks, . . .

Good.

. . . claiming his memory failed him. Right.

It did. He clearly forgot he was a homophobe and that the problem isn't with gays but with insecure straights. He also seems to have forgotten a lesson he would have learned well while serving -- when to keep his mouth shut.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

He also seems to have forgotten a lesson he would have learned well while serving -- when to keep his mouth shut.

What was that military jargon again? Opinions are like... elbows... No, that's not it.