a waste
Lieutenant Colonel Victor J. Fehrenbach has been flying the F-15E Strike Eagle since 1998. He has flown numerous missions against Taliban and al-Qaida targets, including the longest combat mission in his squadron’s history. On that infamous September 11, 2001, Lt. Col. Fehrenbach was handpicked to fly sorties above the nation’s capital. Later he flew combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has received at least 30 awards and decorations including nine air medals, one of them for heroism, as well as campaign medals for Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. He is now a flight instructor in Idaho, where he has passed on his skills to more than 300 future Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force weapons systems officers. $25M has been spent to train this guy. But he’s about to be discharged because he’s gay.
May 20th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Agreed, a waste.
May 20th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
If there is a Don’t ask don’t tell policy how did the military find out? I think this is nothing more than a ploy to let the Obama ride in on the white horse and come to this mans rescue and to remove the current policy and allow Gays into the military. After all who is going to stand up against a war hero?
May 20th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
I doubt Obama will. He seems averse to gay cooties like the other politicians.
May 20th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
We will see…….
May 20th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
[…] Almost as dumb as “Jewish Science” […]
May 20th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Wow…talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Calling this a waste is a bit of an understatement.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Obama’s already had chances to step in and stop DADT discharges; he’s turned all such opportunities down. no idea why, except maybe if he’s planning severe defense budget cuts during his term(s) and doesn’t want to risk alienating the pentagon any more than those will.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
stupid is as stupid does.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Obama promised to repeal that policy during the election. It was even up on his page as an issue. Today, the page no longer has it as a separate issue and includes weasel words to allow him an out to not to anything.
http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2009/05/o-day-107-plethora-o-broken-promises.html
May 20th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Obviously the plural of anecdote is not data, but from what I’ve seen in the Naval Nuclear Power program (even more money spent on training and bonuses than pilots, generally speaking) most commands go out of their way to ignore service members who are gay, and only actually discharge people who are forcing the issue by repeatedly escalating it up the chain of command, basically TRYING to get discharged. I agree that “Don’t ask, don’t tell” should be rescinded, but only because it provides and easy way out of the military with no negative consequences (the discharge is honorable, it shouldn’t be). I am not commenting on the merits of the above situation (in fact I’m not even going to read the link), just trying to point out that it’s not always the military persecuting gays, many times it’s someone exploiting a loophole to get of their contract.
May 20th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
As a retired USAF Master Navigator (the Lt. Col WSO in question is probably rated as either Senior or Master Navigator), I’m here to tell you that there is something that NO ONE is telling you here, and that is that the Lt. Col. is being discriminated against primarily because he is a RATED NAVIGATOR (NON-Pilot) as well as because he is gay.
There is HUGE discrimination within the top ranks of the officer corps against Navigators in the USAF, and there always has been. At the end of WW2, when the USAF was born as a service, they refused to give Navigators equal opportunity for promotion and leadership at the top of the service, and that policy continues to this day. There have been almost no Navigator-rated Generals, and full colonels are very rare.
There is a very good chance that this Lt. Col. Navigator came up for promotion to Full Bull, and to turn him down, they drag out his gay status. They want him to retire now, but he probably doesn’t have the required 20 years yet, so they put on the squeeze to just RIF (RIF = Reduction In Forces) him out, just like I was RIFed out in 1984 when the USAF decided they had too many Navigators who, for some strange reason, couldn’t be given non-rated officer positions in other fields such as Logistics or Missiles, which I was also capable of doing. Pilots have NEVER been RIFed, except at the end of WW2 and maybe a few at the end of the Korean War.
This is at least as much about him wearing “funny” wings instead of “radiator” wings as it is about him being gay.
May 20th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
The President can’t “stop” the discharges, Dad – 10 USC 654 says “shall” when it calls for separation from the service, if I recall correctly. “Shall” doesn’t leave a lot of room for the executive to override Congress.
(Now, of course, President Obama doesn’t care much about legal niceties or the like, but since I want him to obey the law and Constitution elsewhere, I can’t very well say “but it’s okay to override Congress here!”, can I?)
And while as thirdpower says he may have “promised to repeal” it, he can’t do it by himself. Congress has to do it, and Congress seems deeply uninterested in repealing 10 USC 654.
May 20th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Of perhaps greater concern is that perhaps 20 Arab linguists have been drummed out for being gay since 9/11.
Somebody please do explain how it is we’re safer with fewer people who speak the same language as “the enemy” and fewer seasoned fighter jocks.
May 20th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Sebastian-PGP, I remember when that Arab-linguist story first broke, and as I recall a large percentage of that group were all in the same class at the language school in Monterey Bay, California. Now, which scenario seems more plausible to you; the Army deliberately got rid of a large group of students at the end of their expensive 2-year training program because they had gay cooties, or a group of students all decided to drop “rainbow chits” at the same time to avoid having to fulfill the rest of their contract now that they would have to go into a theater of war that was a lot more dangerous than when they joined 2 years earlier? Obviously that is just speculation on my part, but I know how loathe the Navy is to get rid of people it has trained for 2 years, I can’t imagine the Army is any different. I agree with you that “Don’t ask, don’t tell” should be repealed, but not because I think the majority of people discharged under it are victims, but rather that they are modern-day malingerers exploiting a loophole in their contract.
May 20th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Sebastian-PGP says
“Of perhaps greater concern is that perhaps 20 Arab linguists have been drummed out for being gay since 9/11.”
Sometimes I just stand up and walk away from my computer or TV and walk out on my porch, look across my field, and just shake my head and say “Why Boy (ala Jackie Gleason)”!!!!
Who can understand politicians and the military!
I never served so my understanding is limited, but why get rid of the people that you are trying to recuit? The translators that are gay would be the first to die in Arabia. Why don’t we just behead ourselves right now and get it over with.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
There’s an Iraq veteran and Arab linguist West Point graduate on TV right now talking about how he’s fighting to stay in the military. I’m sure anecdotes can be found about malingerers using the “I’m GAY!!” thing to get out can be found, but that doesn’t change the fact that we’re made less safe when you drum people like this guy out who want to stay in.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
He has a choice, accept the discharge or be court martialed for sodomy and take a federal felony conviction.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
He has also been in long enough to have to had answered no to the question asking if you are gay or not on the SF86 security clearance paperwork. I think that got dropped around 1995 or so? That is also a federal felony.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:24 am
Forcing someone to answer such questions and make such choices makes us safer exactly how Paratrooper JJ?
May 21st, 2009 at 8:40 am
If he was willing to lie to gain a clearance, how can we trust him as an officer?
May 21st, 2009 at 8:55 am
When the “Don’t ask Don’t tell” policy was put in force it was a small victory for the Gay movement, it allowed gays into the military as long as they did not announce that they were gay and the military could not conduct a search for them. This was a foot in the door.
Move ahead a few years and then get a poster boy for gay rights (the LTC) and then show what a great job he has done and make it public.
Now you have the public saying we should not be so harsh on him just because he is gay.
Obama comes in and says yes you are right and ask congress to override the previous decision and then they say maybe we should allow gays into the military, just look how productive this officer was yada yada.
That is why I say this is all a ploy.
May 21st, 2009 at 5:56 pm
He was willing to lie because it’s a bullshit question that shouldn’t be asked in the first place YOU FUCKING IDIOT. The stigma associated with being gay is widely known, and when a person balances their desire to serve their country against ignoring a FUCKING STUPID question, I think you’d have to be real simpleton to not see why an otherwise honest person could easily justify telling asshole bigots (of which we can presume you are one) to fuck off rather than say “yes, kick me out, I’m gay”.
Both that guy and the officer in question have exemplary records–the idea that you can’t trust them because they don’t want to tell bigots an honest answer to a dishonest, immoral question that shouldn’t be asked is so stupefyingly braindead I don’t know where to begin.
You have an obligation to ignore orders that are immoral and illegal as an officer. It’s no different with questions like that.
May 21st, 2009 at 5:58 pm
And PS: you’re still not answering the question. How exactly is it we’re safer with fewer Arab linguists and fighter pilots again?
Didn’t think you’d want to answer that.
If you’re more concerned with an answer to a bullshit question than having good pilots and linguists serving our country…you’re fucked up.
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:14 am
Actually there are many good reasons for keeping homosexuals out of the military. I am simply amazed that you pass over the fact that he lied to gain a security clearance. If you are willing to lie on a SF86 then what stops you from lying during a counterintelligence investigation?
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:13 am
I’d like to see which of those reasons are making us safer (what’s that, three times you’ve dodged that question?) What threat does homosexuality pose that justifies drumming out Arab linguists and fighter jocks?
I’m willing to ignore it because it’s unfair, unnecessary (unless you’re a bigot), immoral question to ask. Much as I wouldn’t fault an officer for ignoring an illegal or immoral order, I wouldn’t fault him for hiding his sexual preference when it’s no one’s business but his own.
If that’s hard to understand, I can’t help ya.
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:24 am
They ask about sexual preference on security clearances for a simple reason. Does it make you someone that could be blackmailed? I’ve been through the process. They want to make sure it’s not a liability. If you’re openly gay, they don’t care. If you’re in the closet, it can be a liability. That could have been the case here due to DADT. But it is a valid question for a security clearance.
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:21 am
All the more reason to get rid of it as something you’ve got to hide.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:22 am
That’s just stupid.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:33 am
I too will lie in a heartbeat if asked a question no one has a right to ask and I don’t want them to know the answer. If they have a right to ask the question and/or it affects my duty then I will not lie, but ask when it is none of your business and I owe you nothing.
I am tickled to death that we have men of courage and dedication who serve this nation at the risk of their lives. It isn’t any of my business nor yours nor anybody else’s who he/she kisses in the throes of romance.
I personally find homosexuality repugnant, but not necessarily homosexuals. I actually have real shit to worry about.