Dutch fury at US general's gay theory over Srebrenica

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Gwar!**

Dutch officials have rejected a retired US general's claim that its forces failed at Srebrenica because of poor morale over openly gay soldiers.

A defence ministry spokesman dismissed as "complete nonsense" the remarks by John Sheehan, a former Nato commander.

Gen Sheehan had been speaking at a US Senate hearing on allowing gay people to serve openly in the US military.

He said Dutch leaders had told him that the presence of gay soldiers had contributed to the Bosnian massacre.

Srebrenica was a UN safe haven under the protection of Dutch peacekeepers when, in 1995, Bosnian Serb forces overran the town, killing some 8,000 Muslim men and boys.

Gen Sheehan said the former chief of staff of the Dutch army had told him that the presence of openly gay soldiers in the Dutch peacekeeping force were seen as "part of the problem" which contributed to the fall of Srebrenica.

He argued that since the end of the Cold War, European militaries had changed and he concluded "there was no longer a need for an active combat capability".

'Totally off-target'

This "socialisation" process, Gen Sheehan said, "included open homosexuality" and led to "a focus on peacekeeping operations because they did not believe the Germans were going to attack again or the Soviets were coming back".

"It is astonishing that a man of his stature can utter such complete nonsense," Dutch defence ministry spokesman Roger van de Wetering said in response.

"The Srebrenica massacre and the involvement of UN soldiers was extensively investigated by the Netherlands, international organisations and the United Nations.

"Never was there in any way concluded that the sexual orientation of soldiers played a role."

The Dutch ambassador to the US, Renee Jones-Bos, added in a statement on the embassy's website that she "couldn't disagree more" with the claims by the former general, who retired from the military in 1997.

In the US Senate itself, Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, told Gen Sheehan he was "totally off-target".

Several countries - including Britain, Canada, Australia and Israel - allow gay people to serve openly.

All I can say is:

**Emperors Faithful**

**Wrexasaur**

NSFW version...

**Ahtman**

**sebster**

Srebrenica was declared a UN safezone due to the overwhelming humanitarian need of the situation, but the location was not sound (Canadian forces had left the region just days before, declaring it indefensible). The Dutch stepped in to provide troops, but provided too few and did not secure ready access to air support in case of emergency. It was believed the troops’ presence alone would be sufficient to deter attacks on the refugees, that an actual ability to defend the refugees wouldn’t be needed. When Serb forces came and began separating the men from the women, the UN did not interfere, largely because it had little ability to do so.

There were important lessons to be learned in the wake of Srebrenica. It is to the great credit of many involved that they could come forward and honestly discuss what happened and accept blame. If the Dutch forces had been given the strength to properly operate, the air support needed, and the operational orders to fight to protect civilians the massacre would not have happened. The cold reality is that deterrence by presence doesn’t work, you need operational strength with every deployment.

But for all that honest, meaningful debate on the issue, you get some wangrod claiming it was because the soldiers were upset about serving with gay people. Absolutely pathetic.

**dogma**

Sheehan also cited statistics from the Pentagon’s fiscal 2009 report on sexual assault that he said showed 7 percent of the 3,230 incidents recorded were male-on-male, though the actual figure in the report is closer to 5 percent. And in arguing that repeal of the military ban would undermine good order and discipline, he told the story of a male-on-male foxhole sexual assault in his unit during the Vietnam War, and its divisive impact.

Source.

Funny. This implies that, even with the ban, men (and not necessarily homosexual men) find ways to sexually assault one another. If we assume that all incidences of man-on-man sexual assault involve at least a single homosexual, then we're left with a scenario in which man-on-man sexual assaults would rise only if the number of enlisted homosexual would significantly increase. I don't think that would happen, for two reasons:
1: Homosexuals make are estimated to up 2-7% of the population, so any percentile increase in the number of homosexual enlisted men will be very small in terms of gross units.
2: Serving in the military as a homosexual is difficult, but feasible. Given that so few people enlist as is, it shouldn't be assumed that there will somehow be a surge of interest in the gay community.

Of course, sexual assault isn't necessarily an erotic act. Plenty of straight men have been convicted of sexually assaulting other men; many hazing incidents immediately come to mind. As such, its possible that the repeal of "don't ask don't tell" would cause an increase of man-man sexual assault involving only straight men, or involving straight men sexually assaulting a gay man.

I also find it amusing that Sheehan only discusses man-man instances of homosexuality as disruptive.

**jp400**

I can see where this thread is going.........

**PS**

EF, where did you find that Pic... its freaking funny as hell!

**Kilkrazy**

Given that the general comes from a tradition of homophobia simply due to his generation, one can easily assume that is the reason for his statements. I mean no insult to him, we are all formed by the environment in which we grow up.

Some of history's toughest and most successful fighters have been gay.

**sebster**

Kilkrazy wrote:Given that the general comes from a tradition of homophobia simply due to his generation, one can easily assume that is the reason for his statements. I mean no insult to him, we are all formed by the environment in which we grow up.

Sure, and if it was some random dude making the comment it wouldn't be that ridiculous. But Srebrenica is a really important piece of modern military history, and for a General to ignore the real reasons it was allowed to occur, and instead go off on some wingbat theory is absurd. It's what he does for a living, homophobic upbringing or not how does he not know about what really happened?

I mean, if someone on the street said that we should return to trial by combat because the standard for a conviction is so high that no-one has been convicted of a crime in the last five years, you'd think he's crazy and go on with your day. But when if a Supreme Court Justice said the same thing?

**Wrexasaur**

This is so ridiculous it really lives far beyond words. I can honestly say the combo facepalm, at the beginning of the thread is as decent a response, as any could be.

General Sheehan, you sir, deserve a classy image. Let me see what I can scrap together...

**mattyrm**

I know im starting to sound like a broken record, but hear me out. I think there is more homophobia in many areas of the USA than in Western Europe as a whole. America is one of the most religious western nations, ranking only above Turkey with regards to the amount of Creationists residing there. All of the big 3 mono theisms practice open dislike of gay people (except the good old church of England branch!)So i put it to dakka that this guy is a practicing Christian, and there will be a proven link between open dislike of gays and religiousity. I shall look into his background, but i will be stunned if i am wrong. The fact is, a man of his rank and status has to be intelligent. That is not a rank gained easily, and what he has said is so stupid and irrational, he can only be a man of faith as It is the single thing that can cause people to forget everything they have learned and trust in the beliefs that they are hardwired to belief in after indoctrination as a child. One of my closest friends is a devout Christian and he is intelligent and well read, but when im arguing about religion with him, his common sense goes out the window for a moment, and i can only presume it is the same here.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would point out KK, that older generation also tend to be more religious, which lends weight to my argument if you are talking about the guy coming from a generation that tends to dislike gay people. My generation is far less likely to be Religious, and funny thing, is far less likely to be homophobic. Indeed, i had no religious upbringing and im pretty much as gay friendly as you can be without playing with a guys nuts. :-)

**Albatross**

NOW this is appropriate:

**Emperors Faithful**

@jp400: I can't remember what movie it's from.

It is an epic expression though.

sebster wrote:
I mean, if someone on the street said that we should return to trial by combat because the standard for a conviction is so high that no-one has been convicted of a crime in the last five years, you'd think he's crazy and go on with your day. But when if a Supreme Court Justice said the same thing?

Now there's an idea...

@mattrym:

Bad, mattrym, bad!

**J.Black**

It's from No Country for Old Men iirc

**JEB_Stuart**

Matt, concerning your statement, why is it a bad thing that my religious convictions disagree with a gay lifestyle? I may be wrong, but it sounds as if you find it almost criminal to hold such beliefs, not even including your decidedly anti-Creationist sentiment.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
@EF: Yeah J. Black is right. That pic of Mr. Jones is from No Country For Old Men. A great film by all accounts, and one that you should see as soon as you possibly can.

**dietrich**

I realize that I'm not the smartest man, but how does the presence of openly gay soldiers contribute to the events? You might as well blame global warming (well, it was hot, so they were more lethargic).

And I think it interesting that he's passing it off onto someone else. He didn't say it was the reason, he said that someone else said it was the reason. And I'm sure he wouldn't ever give up that name.

I don't think the apparent homophobia bothers me as much as the general stupidity of the statement.

Of course, somewhere, I'm sure there's some long dead US officer who blamed the failure to drive the Chinese out of North Korea because Truman de-segregated the military.

**Mannahnin**

Matty, you absolutely do sound like a broken record.

As for the original topic:

dietrich wrote:Of course, somewhere, I'm sure there's some long dead US officer who blamed the failure to drive the Chinese out of North Korea because Truman de-segregated the military.

This wins the thread.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

**sebster**

JEB_Stuart wrote:@EF: Yeah J. Black is right. That pic of Mr. Jones is from No Country For Old Men. A great film by all accounts, and one that you should see as soon as you possibly can.

Even if you've already seen the movie, you need to see it again. Then when it's over and you're thinking 'damn that's a good movie' the thing you most need to do is watch that movie again.

It's really quite good.

**Corpsesarefun**

JEB_Stuart wrote:Matt, concerning your statement, why is it a bad thing that my religious convictions disagree with a gay lifestyle? I may be wrong, but it sounds as if you find it almost criminal to hold such beliefs

Funnily enough over in the good old united kingdom it is highly frowned upon to be homophobic and there are several laws against the abuse of homosexuals (violent or verbal).

So yeah if you disagree with homosexuality publicly it could in fact be criminal.

**JEB_Stuart**

corpsesarefun wrote:Funnily enough over in the good old united kingdom it is highly frowned upon to be homophobic and there are several laws against the abuse of homosexuals (violent or verbal).

So how do you define homophobic? Would the Rt. Rev. Sentamu, Bishop of York, be considered homophobic for stating that homosexuality is wrong? The problem with saying, "This idea is illegal" is that is ill defined, and frankly quite stupid.

**youbedead**

JEB_Stuart wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:Funnily enough over in the good old united kingdom it is highly frowned upon to be homophobic and there are several laws against the abuse of homosexuals (violent or verbal).
So how do you define homophobic? Would the Rt. Rev. Sentamu, Bishop of York, be considered homophobic for stating that homosexuality is wrong? The problem with saying, "This idea is illegal" is that is ill defined, and frankly quite stupid.

The idea itself is not wrong its when you use the idea to treat gays as lesser people and don't treat them equal, i could care less if you think i'm immoral just don't mess with my rights.

**JEB_Stuart**

You still lack clarity of definition with that. What rights does a gay person have vs a straight person? What are defined as rights? How are rights decided? For example I don't consider marriage a right, but many gays would disagree. More to the point though, in Canada for example, you cannot even print anything that is critical of or condemns a homosexual lifestyle. That is stupid and infringes on what is universally agreed upon basic rights: speech, expression and religion.

**Corpsesarefun**

JEB_Stuart wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:Funnily enough over in the good old united kingdom it is highly frowned upon to be homophobic and there are several laws against the abuse of homosexuals (violent or verbal).
So how do you define homophobic? Would the Rt. Rev. Sentamu, Bishop of York, be considered homophobic for stating that homosexuality is wrong? The problem with saying, "This idea is illegal" is that is ill defined, and frankly quite stupid.

Yep saying homosexuality is wrong is the deffinition of homophobia.

**youbedead**

JEB_Stuart wrote:You still lack clarity of definition with that. What rights does a gay person have vs a straight person? What are defined as rights? How are rights decided? For example I don't consider marriage a right, but many gays would disagree. More to the point though, in Canada for example, you cannot even print anything that is critical of or condemns a homosexual lifestyle. That is stupid and infringes on what is universally agreed upon basic rights: speech, expression and religion.

I believe in equivalent rights so I should be treated as your equal in the eyes of the state. So a married gay couple should be allowed the same rights as straight spouses. (ability to see each other in the hospital etc.) I don't believe i should retrieve special treatment but treated the same. someone could speak ill of me all they want they can be critical if they like, the moment it becomes illegal is when they prevent homosexuals from being treated as equals. same way that neo-nazis can hold all the rallies they want and say that whites are the master race but they can'y actively do anything to enforce their ideologies. Rights are what is defined by state and federal law. so on the topic of marriage it can be called the something else if you want but in the eyes of the state it should be seen the same as a heterosexual marriage.

**CptJake**

If the Dutch forces had been given the strength to properly operate, the air support needed, and the operational orders to fight to protect civilians the massacre would not have happened. The cold reality is that deterrence by presence doesn’t work, you need operational strength with every deployment.

If they had the WILL to fight they could have made a difference. They used the excuse of no orders and no air support to stand by and allow the masacre. They had enough troops that they could have done something. And if they were in heavy contact and taking casualties they would have forced NATOs hand and gotten support.

**sebster**

CptJake wrote:If they had the WILL to fight they could have made a difference. They used the excuse of no orders and no air support to stand by and allow the masacre. They had enough troops that they could have done something. And if they were in heavy contact and taking casualties they would have forced NATOs hand and gotten support.

200 troops with no supporting gear, operating from an historical fort with or no defensive value, against an enemy several thousand strong with armour support. And you want them to launch an attack in the hope that air support would come, without any established lines of communication to immediately access that air support, with no pre-planning as to what that air support might consist of. When there were strong political reasons for the French general to deny further air support (to ensure the release of French UN troops).

And remember they were so badly outmatched they couldn't even properly patrol the area to see what was happening - they couldn't confirm the killings were happening.

What you've said is so far from the situation I can guess you've read nothing on the topic and are basically making it up as you go.

**Marshal2Crusaders**

Im so glad so many people on Dakka Dakka were actually there and can make an on the ground informed decision....

**sebster**

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:Im so glad so many people on Dakka Dakka were actually there and can make an on the ground informed decision....

I'm just going by what people who were there on the ground said afterwards, what else can we do?

**Marshal2Crusaders**

It was more important for the Dutch soldiers to go home to their families than stop centuries old religious feuding. At the same time it sucks people die, and genocide is never good, but I would bet my left nut if the people who claimed they wouldve done something about it had been there they'd have done the same thing as the soldiers.