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.
He told the Senate Armed Services Committee that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military would breed friction and undermine unit cohesion in the armed forces. Asked by Senator Carl Levin whether other nations, like Britain and Israel, had suffered as a result of ending their nation's bans on gay military service, the general said "yes."
Sheehan pointed to the Netherlands, which he said embarked on a process of social engineering in the Dutch military once the Cold War ended. "They declared a peace dividend and made a conscious effort to socialize their military. It included open homosexuality. That led to a force that was ill-equipped to go to war," he said.
In fact, the Netherlands was among the first nations to end discrimination in the military based on sexual orientation, affirming the right of gays to serve years before the fall of the former Soviet Union.
Sheehan backed his contention that gay soldiers undermined Dutch combat readiness by pointing to the massacre of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica in 1995. Four-hundred Dutch peacekeepers protecting the area were overwhelmed by Serbian forces, which killed an estimated 8,000 Muslim men and boys.
Linking the massacre to the Netherlands allowing gays in the military prompted this exchange with Senator Levin, who seemed perplexed by Sheehan's assertion.
SHEEHAN: "That [Srebrenica] was the largest massacre in Europe since World War II." LEVIN: "And did the Dutch leaders tell you it was because there were gay soldiers there?" SHEEHAN: "It was a combination ..." LEVIN: "Did they tell you [that gay soldiers were to blame], that is my question." SHEEHAN: "Yes." LEVIN: "They did?" SHEEHAN: "They included that as part of the problem."
Asked for comment, Dutch military officials expressed astonishment. The spokesman for the Netherlands Ministry of Defense, Roger van de Wetering, told VOA Sheehan's assertions are "total nonsense" and that he "cannot believe that a man of that rank is stating such a thing." He added that he had never heard Sheehan's allegation before from any source in the Netherlands or anywhere else.
Many historians have argued that Dutch peacekeeping forces in the Balkans were under-equipped and hampered by operational limitations imposed by the United Nations.
The Senate hearing is being held two months after President Barack Obama called on Congress to repeal a law mandating the U.S. military expel gay service members who do not keep their sexual orientation a secret.
Since then, many of the nation's top military officials and commanders have voiced support for changing the policy after a thorough review process. Some have expressed their personal opposition to repealing the law, but have pledged to enforce any new rules set forth by Congress.
I am really upset by this guy's attempt to cover up the complete and utter failiure of the 2 main countries (US and F) and blaim it on the queer guy... [:-boring]
CNN may not have contacted Henk van den Breemen, the general to whom Sheehan was apparently referring, but the Dutch newspapers, BBC and others have reached him. He says that Sheehan's comment was a LIE. It appears that Sheehan's comment has outraged most of The Netherlands. Sheehan is a disgrace to the US military.
Sorry to hear that you're offended by a report. I simply can't place much, if any, interest in a "he said, she said" sort of story. Evidence and facts, please.
Rich, this is not "he said, she said", this is a US official making a statement in an official context. The transcripts of the Senate Armed Services Committee are open to the public. Even better, here's the video of him saying this:
The general made an accusation and it was denied. The snag here is that his accusation went unchallenged at the testimony. "Exactly who told you that?" would have been the appropriate question to ask the general at that exact moment.
So an accusation was made and not challenged. Bad on the questioners - not the accuser. Which is why it fails to capture my interest at this point.
Originally posted by HuwR on 19/03/10 @ 20:53 you mean you don't even find the fact that he even made the statement slightly disturbing ?
In the US, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. How can I make a judgement?
If the general is lying, and it can be proved, then yes I would find that disturbing. If he's telling the truth and can back it up, then yes I would find that disturbing.
At present it's only an accusation. I find it somewhat curious and would find it interesting if some evidence were to be presented.
Generally, Americans don't realize that in parts of Europe that someone accused is guilty until proven innocent. (Such as Amanda Knox in Italy) In that respect the American culture is somewhat brutish in it's sensitivity toward accusations. I think the General easily falls into that category. Too bad for him.
what has it to do with innocense or guilt??? The guy said it, that is a fact, and it is also fact that it is a biggoted accusation which frankly has no place in society. How can any sane person even think that what he is intimating has any grain of truth in it. Quite frankly I think it is appalling that a general in a countries armed forces could even think such a thing let alone say it out load.
So, yes, it's appalling, but yes, he can say this. It's his freedom of speech, and freedom of speech also includes the freedom to lie....does it? Well, sometime it does, sometimes it doesn't. Let's first have a look at what's happening in this story:
1: Sheehan uses his freedom of speech to blame the fall of Srebrenica on the homosexual men to serve in the military apart from the unionization and a decision to take a peace dividend because the Soviet threat was gone. That's one ; that's an opinion, and an opinion is not true or false. It can be ridiculous, appalling or insane, but true/false does not exist with opinions.
2: However, Sheehan also testified under oath that according to him a non-existing Dutch general by the name of Hankman Berman told him they lost the battle because of the gays. The name 'Hankman Berman' isn't even an existing Dutch name....he may have intended to say the name of General van den Breemen, the Dutch chief of staff at the time of the Srebrenica genocide. Van den Breemen has already (furiously) stated that what Sheehan claimed was utter nonsense (ergo: Sheehan lied!) If those lies can be proven, Sheehan has committed a crime, as lying under oath has a special name ; perjury.
And no, the First Amendment does not protect perjury, just as it doesn't protect fraud, defamation, libel, slander, etc.
Thank you to Fetze for bringing the story to light. I didn't mean to hijack the thread into a freedom of speech issue. And it should be interesting to see if anything more develops from the General's political poop.
I believe what Sheehan meant is that there were some high ranked military gays in the Dutch army and that in some way their sexual preference could be used to force them to influence their decisions.
I'm really upset by this one
