Box Turtle Bulletin

Log Cabin’s Fight Against DADT Goes Forward

Timothy Kincaid

July 1st, 2009

In a split ruling, a federal court determined that Log Cabin Republicans could proceed with their lawsuit challenging the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell law. (pdf, 24 pages)

On June 9, 2009, Judge Virginia A. Phillips of the Central District of California denied the U.S. Government’s attempt to dismiss Log Cabin Republicans’ lawsuit challenging the U.S. military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy as unconstitutional.

After a 4 1/2 year process, this case is moving forward.

The Court has scheduled a hearing for July 6 to discuss, in detail, the scope of discovery and a schedule for the case going forward.

HR 1283 Gets New Sponsor

Timothy Kincaid

July 1st, 2009

The bill introduced in Congress to remove the ban on open service in the military, HR 1283, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act was sponsored by Rep. Ellen Tauscher. However, Rep. Tauscher was confirmed on June 25 as the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.

The Morning Call is reporting that upon her resignation, the bill was assigned to Iraq vet Patrick Murphy. You may recall that Murphy skewered Elaine Donnelly’s anti-gay rantings in Congressional testimony.

Murphy is likely to be an ardent advocate for overturning DADT and the underlying ban. I hope that he will take prompt action on this bill but it appears that he does not anticipate rapid passage.

He said he anticipates a drawn-out battle to rally enough support to bring the bill to the floor. The legislation, first introduced in 2005, has never made it out of committee.

“This is going to take months and months, but change is going to happen,” he said.

DoD: Looking for Flexibility in DADT

Timothy Kincaid

June 30th, 2009

The American Forces Press Service is reporting that the President and Defense Secretary Gates are looking for ways to find flexibility in the Don’t Ask - Don’t Tell law that bans openly gay servicemembers. (transcript)

“What we have is a law, not a policy or regulation,” Gates said. “And as I discovered when I got into it, it is a very prescriptive law. It doesn’t leave a lot to the imagination or a lot of flexibility. So one of the things we are looking at is, Is there flexibility in how we apply this law?”

Gates cited the example of someone who’s been “outed by a third party,” possibly the result of blackmail or a jilting.

“Does that force us to take an action?” he questioned. “I don’t know the answer to that. I don’t want to pretend to. But that is the kind of thing we are looking at.”

It sounds as though the community’s very vocal and visible disgust with the administration may be beginning to give impetus to some action. If nothing else (and it is a bare minimum) the administration may be acting on the demands of 77 members of Congress who wrote a letter insisting that the military honor the “Don’t Pursue” part of the law and that witch hunts not be initiated based on “tip”, slurs, and insinuations from people outside of the military.

And if there’s one more thing the President can do, it is this:

1. Pick up the telephone and call Rep. Ellen Tauscher Rep. Patrick Murphy. Tell her him you’ll support HR1283, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act and that he should move forward.

2. Call a meeting with Rep. Taucher Murphy, Senate Majority Leader Reid, and Speaker of the House Pelosi and tell them that it’s time to pass this bill.

3. Announce in a press conference that you’ve heard the will of the people, Democrat and Republican, Liberal and Conservative, all of whom support overturning the ban. Use language about discrimination and the best interest of the military. Tell the stories of the men and women who were linguists and medical personnel who were sorely needed but sacrificed to bigotry.

Come to think of it, if you go that route you don’t have to worry about flexibility at all.

(hat tip Stefano)

Update: The lead on this bill has been assigned to Rep. Patrick Murphy

House Members to Obama: Don’t Pursue

Timothy Kincaid

June 22nd, 2009

Although now generally known as “Don’t Ask - Don’t Tell”, the policy on gay servicemen signed into law sixteen years ago once also had a third don’t: “Don’t Pursue”.

Today 77 House Members (15% of the membership), including some in leadership, have requested that the President at least uphold the law as it was intended until DADT can be reversed:

The House lawmakers are asking Obama to direct the military leadership not to initiate any investigation of personnel to determine their sexual orientation and to instruct military officials to disregard any accusations made by third parties with the regard to sexual orientation of personnel.

“We request that you impose that no one is asked and that you ignore, as the law requires, third parties who tell,” the lawmakers, led by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) wrote. “Under your leadership, Congress must then repeal and replace don’t ask, don’t tell with a policy of inclusion and non-discrimination.”

Not exceed the law by aggressively pursuing gay service personnel based on third party gossip? Hmmm, that sounds reasonable.

Let’s see how the President will respond.

Military Paper Confirms HRC’s Deal to De-Prioritize ‘Don’t Ask - Don’t Tell’

Timothy Kincaid

June 22nd, 2009

Early this month we told you of a report by Jason Bellini which claimed that HRC had derailed the repeal of the military’s anti-gay ‘Don’t Ask - Don’t Tell’ policy in favor of fast-tracking the bills which they support. HRC strongly denied the claim.

However, the military paper Stars and Stripes is confirming the claim:

An official with the House Democratic leadership said the House is committed to repealing “don’t ask” but has agreed with civil rights groups to put new hate crime legislation and a workplace nondiscrimination bill on the legislative calendar before taking up the military issue.

Stars and Stripes also reminds us that legislation is ready to go and just waiting for the President’s support:

The House of Representatives has had a bill to overturn the law pending since March, but no hearings have been scheduled on the measure. Bill sponsor Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., collected 147 co-sponsors for the legislation but publicly said she wouldn’t push for passage without support from the president.

And they raise an interesting observation about the limitations on the new benefits announced by the President last week:

But planned changes don’t contain any privacy or anonymity guarantees. Edmund Burns, spokesman for the Office of Personnel Management, said everyone applying for benefits is essentially “outing” themselves and their partners.

That means a Defense Department employee with a same-sex partner in the military could run afoul of the “don’t ask” rules.

Pentagon officials said they are not aware of any plans to adopt special guidelines shielding benefits information from “don’t ask” investigations.

Even the White House Press Secretary Is Paying Attention

Jim Burroway

June 19th, 2009

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs seems unusually prepared today when LGBT issues came up during the press conference. This is very different from previous press conferences. They really are worried.

Click here to read the transcript

Reid: DADT Repeal May Happen “This Congress”

Jim Burroway

June 16th, 2009

That would be sometime between now and 2010. According to The Advocate, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid clarified his remarks from yesterday:

“We do not have a DADT bill introduced in the Senate yet, but a number of senators are working on a bipartisan approach to get DADT repealed,” Senator Reid said in a statement Tuesday. ”We would welcome a legislative proposal from the White House on repeal so as to provide clear guidance on what the president would like to see and when. With presidential leadership and direction, I believe we can find the time to get repeal done in this Congress. We need all the troops we can get right now.”

Reid’s comments are the first intimations from congressional leadership on a time frame for accomplishing repeal, and are in line with those made earlier this year by Rep. Barney Frank.

In this statement, Reid still appears to be waiting for the President to take the lead, while the President has been putting the ball firmly in Congress’ court. But this is better than yesterday’s statement, with Reid suggesting that he was waiting for Obama to issue a Stop Loss order, something that Obama has refused to do.

In Today’s Army, Neo-Nazis Are In But LGBT People Are Out

Jim Burroway

June 16th, 2009

This is what is so particularly galling about the foot-dragging and finger-pointing going on between President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid over repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” While more than two hundred American servicemembers have been discharged from the armed forces in a time of war since the start of the Obama administration simply for being honest about who they are, neo-Nazis — complete with neo-Nazi tattoos and criminal records — are sailing right on through.  This is Forrest Fogarty. He decided to become a Nazi at the age of fourteen:

For the next six years, Fogarty flitted from landscaping job to construction job, neither of which he’d ever wanted to do. “I was just drinking and fighting,” he says. He started his own Nazi rock group, Attack, and made friends in the National Alliance, at the time the biggest neo-Nazi group in the country. It has called for a “a long-term eugenics program involving at least the entire populations of Europe and America.”

But the military ran in Fogarty’s family. His grandfather had served during World War II, Korea and Vietnam, and his dad had been a Marine in Vietnam. At 22, Fogarty resolved to follow in their footsteps. “I wanted to serve my country,” he says.

Army regulations prohibit soldiers from participating in racist groups, and recruiters are instructed to keep an eye out for suspicious tattoos (PDF: 188 KB/25 pages). Before signing on the dotted line, enlistees are required to explain any tattoos. At a Tampa recruitment office, though, Fogarty sailed right through the signup process. “They just told me to write an explanation of each tattoo, and I made up some stuff, and that was that,” he says. Soon he was posted to Fort Stewart in Georgia, where he became part of the 3rd Infantry Division. [Hyperlink in the original]

Fogarty’s ex-girlfriend even tried to disrupt his military career by sending photos of him at Nazi rallies and performing in his band. The military brought him before a commission and he was asked to explain himself. But despite the photographic evidence, he denied the charges and the commission refused to take any further action. He went on to serve as a military policeman in Iraq, where he learned to add yet another group to his long list of people to hate: Arabs. “Them and the Jews are just disgusting people as far as I’m concerned,” he told Salon’s Matt Kennard.

Conservative talk radio and Fox News howled with protest when a Homeland Security assessment on right-wing extremism warned about a very tiny minority of military veterans joining extremist groups after leaving the military (PDF: 2MB/10 pages). Pundits demanded — and got — an apology from Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano. But all of that attention ignored the fact that in 2005, the Defense Department concluded that the military had become a training ground for these very same extremists (PDF: 672KN136 pages):

Effectively, the military has a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy pertaining to extremism. If individuals can perform satisfactorily, without making their extremist opinions overt through words or actions that violate policy, reflect poorly on the Armed Forces, or disrupt the effectiveness and order of their units, they are likely to be able to complete their contracts.

Except there isn’t a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy with respect to extremism — at least not in a way that LGBT servicemembers would recognize it. The “Don’t Ask” part of the anti-gay policy is routinely violated by military investigators. Many LGBT servicemembers were identified via their use of LGBT web sites, yet the mlitary doesn’t do any sort of organized internet screening for supremacists among Nazi or Klan websites and forums. They also don’t follow-up when presented with evidence that a servicemember is a member of a Nazi or Klan-style organization.

Furthermore, right-wing extremists routinely flaunt the “Don’t Tell” part of the policy with no repercussions. Fogarty revealed that other members of his outfit knew about his Nazi affiliations, but it just became something of a joke among fellow soldiers and commanding officers. A police officer in Fayetteville, North Carolina who used to be a paratrouper at nearby Fort Bragg said this:

[Hunter] Glass says white supremacists now enjoy an open culture of impunity in the armed forces. “We’re seeing guys with tattoos all the time,” he says. “As far as hunting them down, I don’t see it. I’m seeing the opposite, where if a white supremacist has committed a crime, the military stance will be, ‘He didn’t commit a race-related crime.’”

Fogarty left the military in 2005 with an honorable discharge.

A 2008 FBI report on White supremacists in the Military (PDF: 118 KB/14 pages) found:

Military experience—ranging from failure at basic training to success in special operations forces—is found throughout the white supremacist extremist movement. FBI reporting indicates extremist leaders have historically favored recruiting active and former military personnel for their knowledge of firearms, explosives, and tactical skills and their access to weapons and intelligence in preparation for an anticipated war against the federal government, Jews, and people of color. FBI cases also document instances of active duty military personnel having volunteered their professional resources to white supremacist causes.

…A review of FBI white supremacist extremist cases from October 2001 to May 2008 identified 203 individuals with confirmed or claimed military service active in the extremist movement at some time during the reporting period. This number is minuscule in comparison with the projected US veteran population of 23,816,000 as of 2 May 2008, or the 1,416,037 active duty military personnel as of 30 April 2008. It is also a small percentage of an estimated US white supremacist extremist population, which, based on FBI investigations, currently numbers in the low thousands. However, the prestige which the extremist movement bestows upon members with military experience grants them the potential for influence beyond their numbers. Most extremist groups have some members with military experience, and those with military experience often hold positions of authority within the groups to which they belong.

Fifty-eight of the 2003 individuals identified by the FBI were members of the National Alliance, the group where Fogerty got his start before joining the military. Another 44 of the 203 individuals were members of the National Socialist Movement, the same group which protested at PrideFest in Springfield, Missouri over the weekend. The FBI report describes the National Socialist Movement as being relatively stable and cohesive. They have also been very successful with their strategic decision to target returning Iraq war veterans for recruitment:

In contrast to the NA [National Alliance] and other white supremacist groups, the NSM—although not immune to factionalism—enjoyed a greater degree of stability during the post-9/11 period and benefited from the membership exoduses of other struggling organizations. This relative stability included a sustained campaign to recruit current and former military personnel overseen by a respected figure in the extremist movement and unverified former Marine, who left leadership roles in the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and Aryan Nations (AN) to become a Colonel in the NSM and Director of its “Stormtroopers” (the NSM’s security force) from 2002 until his retirement in December 2007. The NSM’s military structure also adds to its recruitment success by offering a familiar organizational context for veterans, including a system of rank that serves as an incentive for joining the group. In addition, NSM literature has outlined the development of a Special Projects Division consisting of “Werewolf Units” intended for special military operations and with a membership favoring those with military backgrounds.

According to sensitive and reliable source reporting in October 2006, the NSM received a number of queries from active duty Army and Marine personnel stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan expressing interest in joining the organization or inquiring about chapters located near domestic US military bases. This report followed—and was consistent with—December 2005 source reporting on the NSM stressing the need to place units close to military bases nationwide in order to recruit military personnel. Whether as a result of group recruitment efforts or self-recruitment by active military personnel sympathetic to white supremacist extremist causes, FBI information derived from reliable, multiple sources documents white supremacist extremist activity occurring at some military bases.

Read the whole article by Salon’s Matt Kennard. It’s an amazing eye-opener. It describes supremacist leaders encouraging members to enlist in the military so that they can be trained at taxpayer expense for what they see as a coming “race war,” which is central to their beleifs.

Rachel Maddow and Howard Dean: Obama’s DOMA Defense Is “A Huge Mistake”

Jim Burroway

June 15th, 2009

Study shows DADT hurts military readiness

Gabriel Arana

June 11th, 2009

I have an article in The Advocate about a major university study that shows concealing one’s sexual orientation affects mental and physical performance:

Gay and lesbian study participants who were asked to conceal their sexual orientation performed 20% worse on spatial reasoning tests and 50% worse on physical endurance tests as compared to those who were not given this instruction. The findings have clear implications for the battlefield. Gays and lesbians — even those who follow the policy — are prevented from performing optimally, which may affect the readiness of military units.

What is interesting about this study is that the participants don’t have to feel distressed about concealing their sexual orientation and it doesn’t matter how much practice they have. Of course many of us assumed that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affected gays’ performance, but it’s good to have some scientific confirmation that can be used to argue for a policy change.

(The study isn’t published yet, but it will be posted when it is.)

Rachel Maddow On Obama and the Supreme Court Decision on DADT

Jim Burroway

June 9th, 2009

SCOTUS Refuses to Hear Case on DADT

Timothy Kincaid

June 8th, 2009

AP

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed with the Obama administration and refused to review Pentagon policy barring gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.

The court said it will not hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

This does send a signal that the Court is not at this time willing to hear challenges to the policy. However, the decision was not a validation of the constitutionality of DADT and the Pietrangelo case was not the only one working its way through the legal system.

This refusal of certiorari does highlight the need to push our elected officials to do what is both ethically correct and the will of the people.

Everybody Favors Ending Don’t Ask - Don’t Tell

Timothy Kincaid

June 5th, 2009

A new Gallup poll shows that everyone is sick of the ban on gay men and women in the military. Every measured demographic answered the following question favorably:

Do you favor or oppose allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military.

The highest level of support came from “liberals” at 86%. But open service was favored by 60% of “weekly church goers”, 58% of “Republicans”, and 58% of “conservatives”.

As best I can tell, the only demographics who are not in favor of lifting the ban are “White House occupants”, “elected representatives”, and (perhaps) “HRC lobbyists”.

Kevin Naff: HRC Blowup “Much Ado About Not Much”

Jim Burroway

June 5th, 2009

Washington Blade editor Kevin Naff has a blog post which extensively covers about a year’s worth of comments by various politicos and activists which peg the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to the end of 2009 or early 2010. He points out that the priority has always been for passing the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act first, with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” following sometime later. So he thinks the latest report from The Daily Beast is “much ado about not much,” mostly covering the same ground that we’ve already covered. But what is new is the LGBT community’s growing frustration over the slow pace of progress:

If Congress wakes up and finally passes some of these long-suffering bills, then HRC will claim victory. If, however, our so-called Democratic “allies” can’t pass ENDA and hate crimes and a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal is off the table come December 2009, then the entire movement is a bust and everyone working in it should resign and make way for more effective leadership. There will never be a better time to advance these measures. The Democrats have made lots of promises to LGBT voters and, more importantly to them, to gay donors. We’ve waited patiently for those politicians to deliver. Come December, my patience runs out. The clock is ticking.

HRC Feels the Heat, But Still Doesn’t Get The Message

Jim Burroway

June 5th, 2009

One popular blog reported yesterday that the Human Rights Campaign cut a deal with the White House to withhold public pressure on repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” until sometime next year. HRC immediately issued a statement calling the report “an outright lie” and “recklessly irresponsible.” Nevertheless, many grass roots LGBT activists weren’t convinced.

I had already observed that when the HRC met with the White House following the removal of key commitments from the administration’s LGBT civil rights web site, they basically handed the administration a blank check to delay away. HRC Director Joe Solmonese simply told reporters that he was “pleased” and that they have a plan.” With that, there was no further pressure or call to move forward on repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” or the many other issues that President Barack Obama had once advocated. That milquetoast statement told me everything I needed to know about HRC’s sense of urgency.

So when yesterday’s report appeared on the Daily Beast, LGBT activists and bloggers all around nodded and shrugged. Sound about right, we thought. And the HRC’s subsequent denial sounded hollow. After all, we’ve been complaining that we’ve gotten a lot of great words from the Obama administration with little actual movement. Why would we consider HRC’s words any more important than their actions?

Radio talk show host Michelangelo Signorile had long complained that HRC appears to have gone completely underground following that White House meeting. He tried over and over to get someone from HRC to appear on his program, but he was rebuffed every time. Other journalists complained about the same problem.

But all that changed yesterday. Signorile got a call from the HRC yesterday that they wanted Solmonese on the program that day — within a few hours. (Signorile has posted audio of that interview with more background information.)

It’s very clear that HRC sees that they are being left behind. The massive nationwide Join The Impact protests following passage of California’s Prop 8 caught everyone off guard. Since then, two prominent lawyers bypassed the traditional LGBT leaders and launched their own lawsuit against Prop 8. Others have called for a march on Washington to show their impatience. People are impatient and they are voting with their feet. The HRC is being being bypassed.

Joe Solmonese appeared later yesterday on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews. While he’s definitely feels the need now to answer for the perception that HRC has given the White House a pass on DADT, he’s still not much of a fierce advocate. Consider this exchange, where Solmonese dutifully mouths the White House’s talking points.

SOLMONESE: Well I think on any measure of issues we are working on right now with the White House, whether it’s movement on the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill or the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the White House is working on these issues. But Lorre Jean brings up an incredibly important point particularly with regard to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” There’s overturning the policy which I believe the administration will do in the course of the year or so, and then there are good hard working people like Dan Choi, and Arab language interpreter who potentially could be thrown out of the military in the next few weeks, and the President has the opportunity to stop that from happening. We’ve asked him to do that and pressed him to do that and hope that he will.

MATTHEWS: But if he does that by executive order, what is he worried about? Why is he not doing it? Joe?

SOLMONESE: Well, we don’t know… he may do it and he has the opportunity to do it and it may be that… I don’t know why he wouldn’t do it, but I mean with regard to overturning the policy generally, I mean you brought up… I don’t think its the case he want to not necessarily upset these military leaders, but he understands there’s an implementation part of this policy that has to be worked through, and I think on any measure that he’s working on with us, and I see we’re working daily with them on getting the hate crimes bill to his desk right now, is that he approaches these things in a way that they will be sustainable and will work in a way that’s going to work for the community in opposed to an expeditious manner which I think you saw President Clinton undertaking the first days of his administration that actually got us “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

The only difference between Solmonese answer and the near-nonanswers coming form White House Press secretary Robert Gibbs is that Solmonese is a bit more articulate. Maybe Solmonese should become Press Secretary instead.

Contrast that to Lorrie Jean, of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, who also appeared on Hardball:

Getting rid of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” doesn’t change what’s been happening. Gays and Lesbians have been serving in the military for decades, for hundreds of years and those kinds of problems don’t exist. While they figure out how they’re going to work out all those permutations, the President could take a very simple step. He could issue a Stop Loss Order and could say, hey look, right now our country is under attack by terrorists around the world. We need every able body that we can have, every valuable person. And so let’s stop drumming people out now while we figure this out.

You can watch the video here.

Has HRC Sold Out Gay Servicepersons?

Timothy Kincaid

June 4th, 2009

Many of us have been wondering why the President has not taken steps to protect service men and women who are being expelled from the military when they are needed most. And we wonder why Congress isn’t proactively responding to the change in administration to throw out the hugely unpopular Don’t Ask - Don’t Tell policy. With overwhelming majorities of Americans offended by the mistreatment - and even a majority of Republicans opposed to DADT - why does it still exist?

Jason Bellini, reporting for the Daily Beast, has a surprising explanation. He says that HRC told them to wait.

Now HRC may think that their Hate Crimes lobbying is vastly more important than the lives of an estimated 231 gay military folk who have lost their livelihood, pension, and homes since President Obama took office. I don’t.

And if HRC is cutting deals behind the back of other groups like the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network so that they can get their legislation passed first, then I have no use for them. And neither will the new young activists who are rising up to take the fight for their liberties and freedoms into their own hands. The more that HRC appears to be a secretive, back-room dealing, insiders club, the more they will be blamed for the failure of the “establishment gays” to win rights, freedom, and equality for the community.

Update: HRC is denying the story

“This story is not only an outright lie, it is recklessly irresponsible. HRC never made such a deal and continues to work with congress and the administration on a full range of equality issues including a swift end to the military’s shameful ban on gay servicemembers.”

Trevor Thomas
The Human Rights Campaign

White House Questioned Further On DADT

Jim Burroway

May 22nd, 2009

Air America’s Anna Marie Cox is holding Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’ feet to the fire:

Another DADT Discharge

Jim Burroway

May 20th, 2009

This time, it’s a highly decorated 18-year veteran fighter pilot, Lt. Colonel Victor Fehrenbach. Meanwhile, the Pentagon says they are not drawing up any plans for dismantling “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Robert Gibbs on DADT: Then and Now

Jim Burroway

May 16th, 2009

This is White House press secretary Robert Gibbs’s response back last January in answer to a question submitted via email about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the ban on gays serving in the military:

A one word answer on getting rid of the policy: yes. That seemed pretty clear and straightforward to me.

But this is what Gibbs looked like when he tried to answer a similar question this week:

John Avarosis wonders if this hemming and hawing is “because he secretly knows that we’re on the path to getting screwed.” To be honest, I’m wondering the same thing.

Uruguay To Remove Ban On Gays In Military, U.S. Still Dithering

Jim Burroway

May 14th, 2009

Uruguay — Uruguay! — is about to lift its ban on gays in the military. Defense Minister Jose Bayardi has signed a decree lifting the ban imposed by the 1973-85 military dictatorship.

Meanwhile, President Barack Obama promises to study the move for the U.S. military. He’ll get right back to you on it.