 |
Presage Analytics Research Initiative |
 |
|
|||||||
|
White Paper- September 20, 2012
The 1.4% Doctrine
By: William Campbell
The repeal of Don’t ask, don’t tell (DADT) in September of last year demonstrates the power of minority politics to drive the levers of power in a country that finds itself increasingly disconnected from its leaders. Congressional job approval has sunk to 13% since December 2010, as reported by Gallup. According to a joint federal study released in March 2011, only 1.4%[1] of the population identifies itself with same-sex attraction, yet this amazingly small percentage seems to possess a de facto litmus test on governing policy in the U. S. Moreover, the release in April 2011 of a Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD IG) report shows the fractured process that led to the repeal and highlights the need for a strategic countereffort.
CRWG Report: Perception vs. Reality
The Inspector General report centers on the Comprehensive Review Working Group Draft Report (CRWG) and the circumstances around its disclosure. It was ordered by Secretary Gates after the release of selected information to the Washington Post that was then used to spin the word “mixed” in a pro-repeal way. The Post story stated that the majority impact of repeal as viewed by the military would be positive, mixed, or nonexistent. The IG reported that early evidence suggested that someone with a “strong” emotional attachment was responsible for leaking the fabricated figure of 70% to the Washington Post.[2]That figure, according to the report, combined mixed respondents who surveyed at 32.1 % for inclusion in the 70%. Further it states that the leaker could “have combined four results categories from the same survey question to conclude that 82 percent of respondents said the effect of repealing the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy would be negative, mixed or no effect” (see table 1).
Table 1: Response to Survey Question
Obviously mixed is not neutral but the leaker did not see it that way. This seemingly collusionary element of the Washington Post story communicated falsehood that the majority favored repeal, thus enabling the deception.[3] The 70 percent disclosure is part of a collage of leaks that are becoming more apparent. As the FBI continues to investigate other leaks, Americans should demand congressional hearings concerning the flawed process that led to the 70 percent junk outcome. Meanwhile 96 of the 101 individuals who had access to the report prior to its release have all denied under oath leaking the information. Congress should subpoena the 5 who have not given statements (see Appendix A).
Bizarre Actor: Jeh Johnson
The formation of the basic tenor and narrative of the CRWG Executive Summary was primarily authored by Jeh Johnson, despite the involvement and contribution of others.[4] Appointed as a co-chair of the CRWG, Mr. Johnson was responsible for a number of disclosures that are highlighted in the report. The probable inception of the seventy percent figure can be found in a October 7, 2010 memorandum he provided as an “update” within ten days from the conclusion of the survey.[5] As noted above, there seems to be no scientific reason behind the methodology employed to come up with this seventy percent number. Four times the Inspector General Report states that “We identified no evidence that the Secretary of Defense (authorized or approved) ……” in connection with a disclosure Mr. Johnson enabled. Likewise there is his bizarre (on or about) July 4th, 2010 meeting where he disclosed early draft information to a former news anchor prior to Service members receiving the survey .[6] As the primary legal counsel for the DoD, Mr. Johnson’s disclosure is even more troubling since he must have been aware of the 1st amendment immunities that journalist often enjoy.
Countereffort: Federal and State
A new administration should use the IG report as the basis for an executive order to repair the damage. This should require (a) frequent health checks of homosexuals based on the CDC designated “high risk” group and (b) bi –monthly security checks. A reversal effort should include a military directive to tolerate those who disagree with homosexual conduct and make transfer allowances that do not adversely impact future promotion[7]. The executive order should include enhanced security clearance criteria for those in the at risk group. State legislatures should establish competing state endorsed entities that reestablish homosexual behavior as a psychopathology to neutralize the American Psychiatric Association monopoly on DSM classifications. Once states have established their own standards and endorse/license psychiatrists to diagnose and treat the disorder, the Pentagon will recognize the renewed classification criteria.
Manning Incident Irony
Those who are not convinced of the security risk posed by the repeal of DADT should inquire of a statistician why a representative of the 1.4 percent happened to be the causal factor that gave material support to the WikiLeaks meltdown.* While the damage caused is still being assessed, news reports indicate approximately 250,000 records were leaked by Bradley Manning. The Army intelligence analyst, who had access to classified cables, was transferred to Fort Leavenworth in April, 2011. The politically correct minority nevertheless in December 2010 were able to ram the repeal of DADT through a lame duck congress while the Manning incident was still front and center. Any cursory review of open source posts Manning had written would have immediately raised red flags. According to Frontline his homosexual status was readably transparent on Facebook. His supervisor worried he was “a risk” before he was posted overseas to begin work in intelligence. The question of whether security was overridden by a lax culture of pc activism should be reviewed by Congress. It is ironic that had the pre-1993 law been in place, Bradley Manning would not have been eligible to serve in the military and thus compromise national security.
Conclusion: Moving the Rubicon
Congressional oversight should establish what role a culture of collusion had for the repeal of DADT. Secretary Gates frustration at the events surrounding the leak and the investigation by the Inspector General have begun the process of accountability necessary to ensure future security. While the 1.4% have a disproportionate amount of power, a countereffort which implements the above outlined steps, will offer an effective remedy to their ability to maintain control.
* Though correlation does not inevitably mean causation, the correlation should not be automatically dismissed.
Appendix A
Points for Congressional Inquiry
1. Was the CRWG Executive Summary portion pre-programmed? 2. What links exist or existed between the social corporation retained for the survey and the DoD, media, and others? 3. Was Jeh Johnson’s “sharing” in conformity with the access controls established? 4. It appears a culture of collusion led to a systemic disregard for security since it is evident mistakes were not made but the record indicates they were enabled by design. 5. Explanation of the process that led to the 70% figure in the October 7, 2010 memorandum Jeh Johnson provided.
William Campbell is an American writer, the son of the Pulitzer Prize nominee Thomas Campbell.
[1] Michael Medved, “Does it matter if only 1.4% of people are gay,” USA Today, May 24, 2011.
[2] Although the person responsible for the leak has not yet been identified, 5 of the 101 not interviewed by the I.G. all worked in the White House.
[3] The Inspector General (IG) report notes that e-mails from the Washington Post suggested that the source was not a “disinterested party.” P.20.
[4] IG Report, p.15.
[5] IG Report, P. 5-6.
[6] IG Report, P. 5.
[7] George Washington’s operational standard should be normative i.e. someone who adheres to Washington’s ethics should not be damaged. The George Washington papers, March 14, 1778, Library of Congress. |
||||||
|
||||||