Frontlines: The Latest from OutServe-SLDN

A Few More Questions

Okay, let’s start with the basics and work from there, shall we? What is the purpose of the military? Why exactly does a miltary exist? The first thing that may come to mind for you are statements like “to defend the nation,” or perhaps something more vague, like “defend freedom”. Close, but no cookie; that still doesn’t answer the question completely or correctly. “Defending the nation” or “defending freedom” are merely mission statements and those can be changed. So what exactly is the first principle of any military, around which is draped all the purple prose about heroism and patriotism? Every military in the world exists to kill people and break things. After that, it’s all spin. Now that we got that out of the way, let’s move on to the next question. Is killing people and breaking things “moral?" The short answer is, of course, no! Just like mommy and daddy taught you, it is not nice to hurt others or destroy their property. It is, however, lamentably necessary, because of the world that we live in and who we are as a species. We need a strong military in order to survive and protect our interests. This is not a unique idea by the way . . . every country in the world has “interests” and therefore needs a military. The rules that govern a military are in place to ensure that armed forces can perform their primary function. Unit cohesion is an important part of that and so is leadership. Like it or not, America is made up of many different types of people who have many different sets of values and ideas. Patriotism is not the preserve of only one segment of our society. To be effective, the leadership of the armed forces must be able meld a vast array of men and women into a cohesive fighting force. Contrary to popular belief, recruits do not lose their individual qualities. In fact, good leaders get their units to bond and perform by incorporating the uniqueness of every individual. Morality has nothing to do with any of this. It is purely a matter of cold hard pragmatism. Having rules against adultery is a good thing, particularly when the adulterer might find himself in a combat situation with the other guy holding a loaded weapon near by. The difference here is that adultery is an act, just like robbery or murder. Homosexuality is an innate quality, like being black or asian. It is fine to regulate acts to a point, it is not fine to regulate innate qualities. In fact, it is bigotry to go after someone just for who they are. Troops have sex all the time in and out of marriage, because it’s an innate drive and they aren't sanctioned for it, nor should they be. Sex is sex, gay or straight; it’s very hard to live without, precisely because it is an innate quality. It will not undermine unit cohesion if we let the troops just figure out their sex lives on their own. So to sum up my point with an example, when the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy goes away, I will happily live with restrictions on two married gay men not being able to cheat on each other with “questioning” straight boys in their unit. General Pace’s comments to The Chicago Tribune set a new low in stupidity and arrogance. I mean, he really just sounds like a self-righteous buffoon. His reasoning is the equivalent of Krusty the Clown debating string theory with Steven Hawking. I am amazed he was allowed to get off so easily. Had I been that reporter, I would have asked the following questions. Since the British allow gays to serve openly, are we immoral by association? Should we drop them as allies? Is the Vice President immoral because he sired a lesbian? Can you be around him knowing this? Having been raised in Brooklyn, possibly one of the most bohemian areas of New York, and arguably the planet, who do you think you are fooling when you act as though your childhood was right out of an episode of Little House on the Prairie? Is General Shallikashvilli immoral, and can you ever go golfing with him again? What about Senator Warner and the other 100 or so congressmen and women who want to revisit the policy? Will you be able to testify before the Armed Services Committee in the house and senate? We wouldn’t want you to sully yourself. now would we? Upon reflection, perhaps the reporter thought that engaging the Chairman in a substantive discussion would have been like asking a spider monkey to recite Henry V. If you want change, all of you better get angry as hell and then get involved. Ann Coulter, Gen. Pace, Elaine Donnelly and all the rest of the Bigot Brigade say this kind of crap because they think they can get away with it. Don’t make them right! - Major Jeff McGowan

Labels: Pace

-----

03-16-07