Yesterday, retired Marine Gen. John J. Sheehan told Congress that the Srebrenica massacre, in which more than 8,000 people were killed, happened in part because the Dutch allowed gay and lesbian soldiers to serve in their armed forces:
"As a result, they declared a peace dividend and made a conscious effort to socialize their military," he said, noting that the Dutch allowed troops to join unions and enlisted openly gay soldiers. Dutch forces were poorly led and unable to hold off Serb forces in 1995, leading to the execution of Bosnian Muslims and one of the largest European massacres since World War II, Sheehan said.
When asked whether Dutch leaders had told him this, Sheehan said, "They included that as part of the problem." Dutch officials have vehemently denied this. I also feel obligated to mention that the state of Israel has prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation in the armed forces since the early 1990s, and for some reason no one seems to have gotten the impression that they're a bunch of pushovers.
There's a lot of justifiable outrage about this, but it's worth pointing out how damaging something like this is to the anti-repeal argument. It's so absurd as to be immediately discrediting. Rather than enhance the perception that allowing gay soldiers to serve would be dangerous, it makes such concerns sound really ridiculous. Opponents of repeal have the near-impossible task of convincing a country that wants to end DADT that their position isn't a matter of simple anti-gay bigotry. Blaming the gay soldiers for the deaths of thousands at Srebrenica just rips the mask of respectability right off.
-- A. Serwer
