# Retired US General Blames Gay NLD Troops for Srebrenica???



## The Bread Guy (18 Mar 2010)

As opposed to all the heterosexual Dutch troops who, ignoring UN orders, did something different than the gay ones?  Riiiiiiiiiight - this, from Voice of America:


> A former top U.S. and NATO commander says the Netherlands' inclusion of gays in their military rendered Dutch peacekeeping troops unable to prevent the slaughter of thousands of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica in 1995.
> 
> Retired U.S. Marine General John Sheehan led the U.S. Atlantic Command and served as the top NATO commander in the mid-1990s,  the height of ethnic cleansing in former-Yugoslavia.
> 
> ...


----------



## northernboy_24 (19 Mar 2010)

Apparently the Dutch don't agree with the account of the US general.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100319/dutch_anger_100319/20100319?hub=World

Dutch officials are reacting angrily to a retired U.S. general's assertion that having gays in the military led to Dutch forces being overrun in 1995, leading to the massacre at Srebrenica.

At a U.S. congressional committee meeting on Thursday, John Sheehan, a former NATO commander who retired from the military in 1997, spoke out against the proposal to get rid of the controversial "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the military.

Bosnian Serb forces overran light-armed Dutch peacekeepers in Srebrenica, and killed more than 7,000 Muslim men and boys.

Sheehan said the Dutch were overrun because of European efforts to "socialize" their militaries in the 1990s and "that includes the unionization of their militaries, it includes open homosexuality."

"That led to a force that was ill-equipped to go to war. The case in point that I'm referring to is when the Dutch were required to defend Srebrenica against the Serbs," he said.

"The battalion was under-strength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed the soldiers to the telephone poles, marched the Muslims off, and executed them."

Dutch Defence Ministry spokesperson Roger Van de Wetering called the retired general's claims "nonsense."

"For us it is unbelievable that a man of this rank is stating this nonsense, because that is what it is," Van de Wetering told The Associated Press.

"The whole operation in Srebrenica and the drama that took place over there was thoroughly investigated by Dutch and international authorities and none of these investigations has ever concluded or suggested a link between homosexual military personnel and the things that happened over there. I do not know on what facts this is based, but for us it is total nonsense."

Renee Jones-Bos, the Dutch ambassador to the United States, also said in a statement, "I couldn't disagree more" with Sheehan.

American politicians also criticized Sheehan.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin told Sheehan he was "totally off-target."

He said that while it may be the case that some militaries suffered from a focus on peacekeeping, that had nothing to do with homosexuals serving their countries.

"But I think that any effort to connect that failure on the part of the Dutch to the fact that they have homosexuals, or did allow homosexuals, I think is totally off-target," Levin, who wants gays to serve openly, said.

"The Dutch military, as you point out, were peacekeepers and not peace-enforcers. I agree with that," he added. "But what the heck that has to do with the issue before us is what mystifies me."

Dutch officials also noted that the U.S. military works successfully with the Dutch military in Afghanistan. Canada, one the U.S.'s most active partners in the war torn country, has allowed gays to serve openly in the military since 1992.

The Srebrenica massacre remains a sensitive issue in the Netherlands. In 2002, a six-year investigation into the genocide led to the government's fall.

Comments are now closed for this story


----------



## CougarKing (30 Mar 2010)

An update:



> *Sheehan apologizes for Dutch gays slur*
> THE HAGUE, Netherlands — A retired Marine general has apologized for a remark to the U.S. Senate suggesting that gay Dutch soldiers were partly to blame for the Srebrenica massacre by Serb soldiers in Bosnia, according to the Defense Ministry.
> 
> The comment by retired Gen. John Sheehan during testimony opposing a proposal to allow gays to serve openly in the U.S. military caused an uproar in the Netherlands, where discrimination against gays is outlawed, including in the military.
> ...


----------



## Greymatters (30 Mar 2010)

Sounds like the Bread Theory of Crime (false logic joke):

- Studies indicate that over 90% of convicted criminals ate some form of bread poduct prior to commiting a crime, therefore bread was the major cause of crime...


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Mar 2010)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> - Studies indicate that over 90% of convicted criminals ate some form of bread poduct prior to commiting a crime, therefore bread was the major cause of crime...


When bread is outlawed, only outlaws will have bread...


----------



## Greymatters (30 Mar 2010)

Another ill-informed opinion:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100319/dutch_anger_100319/20100319?hub=World 
Comment from 'Jim' in Ottawa:

_While I complete disagree with the former commander's comments about gays in the Dutch forces, the fact remains that the Dutch peacekeepers, regardless of their orientation, completely and utterly failed to defend the defenceless Bosniak civilian population of Srebrenica from the murderous Serbs and were thus complicit in the genocide. I don't want anyone out there to lose sight of that fact. The Netherlands does have blood on their hands for which they have never publicly apologized._


No doubt 'Jim' probably also blames the Belgian commandoes for failing to stop the massacre in Rwanada...

And why do so many persons on that comment list think that this is a typical 'conservative' comment?


----------



## tomahawk6 (31 Mar 2010)




----------



## Tetragrammaton (31 Mar 2010)

While I was well off the ground by the time, the fall of Srebrenica remains one of my most significant personal failures and it continues to bother the hell out of me whenever I think about it. 

Having said this, if this general can't accept that it was a lack of international leadership and will that is to blame and for him to state that it was instead homosexual soldiers is laughable, if not downright delusional.


----------



## SeanNewman (31 Mar 2010)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Studies indicate that over 90% of convicted criminals ate some form of bread poduct prior to commiting a crime, therefore bread was the major cause of crime...



Or that 99% of people involved in motor vehicle collisions were wearing shoes...

Very happy the General apologized.  Typically when you hear the words gay and extermination mixed together you think of Hitler killing them in WW2, not gays being responsible for extermination due to incompetence.

I'm trying my best to see his side of the story because I genuinely want to understand what he was saying.  I don't think he was coming at it so much from the angle of gay = not a good soldier, but he stressed the "open" part, which led to conflict and thus an overall lack of performance for the unit.

This is just hypothetical, but an example of how how _could have_ been right would be if the day before some big ethnic cleansing massacre, there was an open brawl inside that unit between all the troops and everyone was too focused on that to do their jobs.  That doesn't speak to being gay though, just a lack of unit cohesion.  So that may be the angle he was coming from (?)  Hard to say, as obviously I can't speak for him.  

The same thing could be said if Mike Company and November Company had a brawl inside of 3 RCR and then stating that having an Airborne capability openly visible was at fault for the unit's lack of effectiveness*.

*Note* Obviously a hypothetical in that case because 3 RCR is the greatest unit of all time and incapable of being anything other than hyper effective.



			
				Tetragrammaton said:
			
		

> While I was well off the ground by the time, the fall of Srebrenica remains one of my most significant personal failures and it continues to bother the hell out of me whenever I think about it.



Outstanding demonstration of "Seek and accept responsibility"!!!  You should be teaching Leadership at the Infantry School.


----------



## pbi (22 Apr 2010)

This business reminds me of a visit to 1 PPCLI by staff of  the US Army Corps HQ from Ft Lewis in the 1990's, not long after we struck down the service regulations and QR&O against homosexuality. I was Adjt at the time. They spoke with the CO, myself, the RSM and perhaps a few others. Anyway, this group of senior officers was very concerned about the impact of allowing openly gay people to serve in the military. I think the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was being considered in the US at that time.

What we explained to them was that, as far as the battalion was concerned, it was all a big non-event. We hadn't seen any problems of any kind connected with gay soldiers. At the time, most people weren't exactly overjoyed at the change in the CF regulations, but that was about it. The Americans didn't seem very convinced.

When I look back now, I'd pretty much say the same thing as I did then. I've met a few gay soldiers over the years, (two of them are good friends) but only a few. I've never met any whose sexual orientation caused a significant problem for discipline, unit cohesion or operational effectiveness. We've been engaged in a very tough and nasty fight in Afghanistan for nearly a decade now, and I don't see any evidence that our gay soldiers have any negative effect on us whatsoever.

My contacts over the years suggest to me that social and political conservatism runs very, very deeply amongst some members of the US officer corps, far moreso than it does with us. (even though some Canadians probably see us as right-wing jackboot types). I think this was just an example of that cultural difference: the good General obviously thought better of it afterward and issued an honourable retraction.

Cheers


----------



## SeanNewman (22 Apr 2010)

PBI,

Pretty much bang on, Sir.

It has to be looked at as "Is this part of the soldier causing a burden to himself or his peers?", and that question has nothing at all to do with sexual orientation more than it does if they build plastic models and people know about it.

If a soldier is gay but does a good job, then anyone who has a problem with that soldier should be the one getting charged.

The only time a detriment would come into play is if it interfered with life at work, and at that point it would be the same as any other issue that spilled over into military life and caused problems.

I have seen far more disturbances to military life caused by a member's personal life involving bad credit, divorces, fighting at a bar, drinking, gambling, and motorcycle accidents due to stunting than I ever have due to homosexuality.


----------



## pbi (23 Apr 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I have seen for more disturbances to military life caused by a member's personal life involving bad credit, divorces, fighting at a bar, drinking, gambling, and motorcycle accidents due to stunting than I ever have due to homosexuality.



That pretty much sums it up, the way I see it, too. Any sex-related pers problems I've ever been aware of, or ever had to take action about, were almost always about stupid or criminal heterosexual behaviour. I can only think of one situation involving a problem caused by a homosexual advance to another soldier, and it happened before we changed the rules.

Cheers


----------

