Hoping you read Part 1, and before you go assuming I'm a right wing bigot, please keep in mind that I read the Huffington Post just as often as I do the Wall Street Journal or FoxNews.com. I bring this up because I came across an interesting op-ed piece written by a 20 year Army vet and political science professor at the University of Delaware.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-c-wilson/its-the-military-stupid-d_b_790401.html
I agree with the bottom line of the first half. The military does break you down to build you up. Individuality is temporarily lost so that team unity may be found. This fundamental change in thought process is what separates the military from civilian worlds and gives a base-line credibility to all military members in the service. After all, if we weren't taught to place our needs second to those of the mission and our units, what 'service' would we be affording anyone?
I'd like to give you my thoughts on his last three paragraphs, mainly because I believe he uses good points to argue for something of no relation. It'd be like my telling you that pineapples are healthy, and therefor you should not read romance novels. There's an invalid or non-existent connection.
1. "Military personnel also promise to protect and defend the country and the constitution, to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same" country and constitution, and to follow the orders of the president. This oath matters, and each and every service member should be reminded of their promise. That's all it will take to deal with the issue of gays in the military."
--- This is true. We have sworn to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; to bear true faith and allegiance to the same..." Our allegiance is not to a political faction, not to a doctrine, not to a man, and certainly not to a social agenda or someone's views on "fairness" and "rights" unless said rights are spelled out in the Constitution. And guess what? Homosexuality, and homosexual discrimination, are not mentioned in the Constitution. This means any stance members of the military have on the issue are not in conflict with constitutional principles; and those principles, and that document, that are the sole recipient of our allegiance. I don't see this reminder is the answer to the DADT issue. Our dedication to the founding document will not, AT ALL, make people suddenly support homosexuality. I don't know what Mr. Wilson was thinking when he wrote this paragraph.
2. "On a final note, it is dangerous to make military personnel policy based on the opinions of the personnel themselves. Certainly, the military would not have been racially desegregated if internal opinion drove policy, and the same can be said about women and religious minorities. There are already silent policy debates about disabled persons (e.g. combat amputees) being able to serve, and with the Dream Act at the forefront of the political agenda, citizenship will come next."
--- This is a point I could not disagree with more. The military is an all volunteer organization. If it weren't, I'd be speaking out against DADT; but it's not. How can Mr. Wilson believe that it's unfair to honor the wishes and opinions of the people who comprise a voluntary body of individuals? Racial desegregation was an order from the President, but it was also tied to Constitutional rights. The same thing is said for both women in the service and religious minorities (which we've always had, by the way). The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of religious beliefs and practices, so religious minorities are covered. Discrimination based on ethnicity, national origin, and gender are covered under the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1964, and 1991. Black acceptance into the military was guaranteed under the 13th and 14th Amendment as black Americans were full fledged citizens. It was integration that was a social issue, not acceptance (see DADT Part 1). The points Mr. Wilson is making here don't equate to the homosexual issue and are irrelevant. And if you want to see what military members think of the Dream Act, read their opinions here. The act deals with non-citizens, who wouldn't be protected under the Constitution per the 13th Amendment because they're, well...not citizens.
3. "If there is one institution that should reflect the composition of the United States, it is the military. Give service members the respect they deserve; the majority of us are tolerant, understanding, dedicated, and will faithfully follow the orders of the president."
--- No. No no no no no no no. The military should not be forced to reflect the composition of the United States. The military should reflect the composition of the people who serve. I am completely, 100% against affirmative action in the military (and in general) because it is racist. It gives advantages to people who are not of the majority, and this is unfair. It is not the place of the military to be a petri dish for social change agendas proposed by civilians outside the chain of command, nor should the military be strong armed into "reflecting" the kind of harmonious society people think we have. Besides, if you're not in the service, and especially if you haven't served, who are you to tell our finest men and women how to do their job?
Yes, by all means, give them the respect they deserve. Listen to the opposition. Don't blind and mute the answers you don't want. Think the military is chomping at the bit to allow open homosexuality? Think again. 60% of marines and 50% of soldiers deployed think that openly allowing homosexuality will hinder their performance and negatively impact the mission. A negative mission impact has been one of the things that the gay activists have dismissed as fantasy. Yet here we have, from the colloquial horse's mouth, the views of the people who are the ones actively doing the mission. But no- don't listen to the people who are doing the mission as to what will or won't affect accomplishing said mission. Who wants to hear from CEO's how to run a company or from farmers how to grow crops?
On a side not, why do all services have to be equal? Each one has different standards for height, weight, hair, dress, appearance, etc. Why can't the Marines make their own policy? Why do all services have to follow a one-size-fits-all policy? What ever happened to "diversity"? Why can't we "tolerate" each service's different viewpoints?
I completely agree with what Rick Santorum said. As someone currently serving, I can attest first hand that political correctness is reigning supreme (see DADT Part 1). Though we don't currently accept homosexuality, speaking out against it is verboten and supporting it earns silent acceptance and approval. People who are against homosexuality (for whatever reason) are often seen as bigoted, backwards, old fashioned, and wrong. People who are for it are seen as struggling pioneers for oppressed minority rights. It's hard NOT to be against homosexuality these days because you're pressured from without and within to accept it.
Now, do I think DADT should be repealed? Yes, but not yet. I say 'yet' because contrary to what so many people believe, the country is nowhere near unified on the "gay rights" issue. And unlike in 1948, when it wasn't too happy about accepting black people openly, we have no congressional law and no Constitutional amendments making homosexual equality mandatory. Perhaps in the future, when the balance of opinion swings far enough left, we will repeal.
I say 'not' because we, the military, are worn down. We're fighting anti-drug wars in South America. We're fighting PR wars in Europe and Japan. We're fighting posturing wars in the Korean peninsula and with Iran. We're fighting a security war in Iraq and and internal conflict war in Afghanistan. We're fighting the war for deterrence under the ocean and in our silos. We're fighting the war against time as our technological advances slow and our equipment crumbles. And, perhaps soon, we'll be fighting a border protection war with Mexican drug empires.
As a nation, we're fighting each other over taxes, policies, and politics. Our deficit is climbing, and we're nearing bankruptcy. Our unemployment is steadily going up while our government strikes out against the very businesses that power our economic engine. We're hurting, and the pain doesn't look to decrease soon.
As a military, we're juggling too many things at once. Our acquisition system is a festering sore that bleeds us out. We're downsizing, correcting, posturing, trying...and we're valiantly holding our own. With so many other problems that affect so many other people in America, I say now is not the time to fight over DADT. Are we really that hamstrung by the disapproval of homosexual lifestyle that we warrant losing a system which, for now, works?
Like Cogsworth said: "If it's not Baroque, don't fix it."
No comments:
Post a Comment