The U.S. military could face enormous losses of troops in this ninth year of the “War on Terror” – and al-Qaida has nothing to do with it. But what’s stunning is the cavalier attitude Pentagon leaders have displayed at the prospect, because right now, nothing is more important to them than making sure homosexuals can serve in the U.S. military.

Lt. Col. Oliver North, a retired Marine Corps officer, has written an illuminating piece for National Review Online, attacking the breathtaking hubris of Admiral Mike Mullen on “Don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal. Mullen is chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appointed by President Obama to that position, and recently said that if troops start leaving the U.S. military over DADT repeal, they can “find another place to work.”

North uses the data from the Pentagon’s own study to show that the potential losses of military servicemen from DADT repeal dwarf any potential gains of a few openly homosexual servicemen. It’s sheer madness, and North hits it on the head right here:

“Secretary Gates, Chairman Mullen, and other proponents of changing the law have concluded that ‘limited and isolated disruption to unit cohesion and retention’ is ‘an acceptable risk’ — even in the midst of a long and bloody war. They claim that any problems arising from repealing the ban will somehow be ameliorated by ‘careful planning, training and good leadership.’ What they cannot do is explain how the possibility of losing even 20 percent of today’s active-duty military — more than 250,000 troops — could be anything but an unacceptable risk.”

The full Oliver North article at NRO is here.

Additionally, I would recommend Adam Paul Laxalt’s frank assessment of DADT repeal. Laxalt is a former US Navy JAG officer with experience prosecuting sex-related crimes in the military – a problem that has increased with the integration of women in the ranks. But even then the situation with women is far different: homosexuals open about their sexuality will train, eat, shower, and sleep in close quarters with those whom they are sexually attracted toward, should DADT be repealed. And the Pentagon has made clear that separate facilities are out of the question.

So Laxalt makes several points plain: “men still love to have sex” despite the constraints of culture, “the military cannot tolerate sex in combat,” and the military “cannot tolerate the tensions that surround sexual relationships or potential ones.” 

“Allowing homosexuals to ‘live out’ their sexuality and their relationships in the military would cause many problems. Along with more sex comes more assaults, more sexual tension, and more of everything we already battle on a daily basis.”

[See Laxalt’s article at NRO here]

Can the United States afford to lose 10 – 20 percent of its 250,000 strong all volunteer force, while fighting two full time wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and maintaining its outposts across the globe? Can we really risk losing 25,000 to 50,000 troops in a matter of years?

Who needs al-Qaida to bring the US military to its knees? The cultural left knows no ideological truce in a time of war, and is now poised to inflict such losses on the greatest military power in the world that only live in the dreams of men hiding out in barren Afghan caves.