Everyone has sexual perversions. However, publicly demonstrating perversions undermines the effectiveness of military units. Homosexuality is a perversion, and thousands of homosexuals have served honorably in the US military. They simply kept their perversion in the closet, just like perverted heterosexuals. The issue of homosexuals in the US military resurfaced as two retired Army generals and a retired Coast Guard admiral came out of the closet. They hope to influence the Bush administration from the defining a harsher policy against homosexuality in the US military.
The old policy of considering
homosexuality a major crime was
absurd. Thousands of honest GIs were followed, interrogated, and
threatened because of anonymous tips. Criminal investigators wasted hours in
bars looking for military homosexuals while lawyers gathered evidence for
discharge. Numerous cases of bias arose. A Navy Captain (O-6) was arrested for
soliciting sex from an undercover police officer, yet he was
allowed to retire. However, a top performing E-8 aboard a submarine faced
court martial when someone's wife determined that his e-mail address
containing the word "bysrch" indicated he was a homosexual, which he
admitted under questioning.
The Clinton administration introduced a more practical policy called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". New GIs were no longer required to swear they were not homosexual, and investigations were limited. However, the "Don't Tell" aspect is difficult to interpret and enforced randomly. Some commanding officers don't care if homosexuals serve in the military, while some zealous commanders seek and destroy them. For example, in November 2002 nine soldiers undergoing Arabic training were discharged by the Army after two of the soldiers were found together in a barracks after curfew, while the other seven admitted their homosexuality during questioning. They were all discharged because the the Army determined that: "integrity was compromised by not being honest with their heterosexual colleagues."
Many Americans thought that violated the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" standard, but the Bush administration remained ambiguous and evaded this issue. Former four-star Army General Wesley Clark stated he supports the "right" of homosexuals to openly serve in the US military as part of his presidential campaign. However, a better policy policy would be: "Don't Ask, Don't Disrupt", meaning the military doesn't care if someone is homosexual so long as his behavior does not disrupt the effectiveness of his unit. If homosexuals remain "in the closet", then commanding officers cannot order investigations. However, if at least two members of a unit complain that perverted sexual behavior of one of their team disrupts the unit, then the Commanding Officer (CO) must informally investigate.
This is best done quietly by the senior enlisted man in the unit who questions the accused GI and two complainants, then asks others in the unit if anyone is causing conflicts. Perhaps he determines there is no evidence, just a personal conflict. Perhaps no one thinks he is really homosexual, but that the GI is dropping hints in hopes that he will be transferred to avoid a coming deployment. Perhaps there is some evidence, but the GI has caused no trouble so the CO just issues a verbal warning. Perhaps the CO determines the GI is homosexual or bisexual, but that he is good GI needs to be more careful, and perhaps a transfer is the solution. Keep in mind that it can cost over $100,000 to recruit and train a serviceman, so kicking someone out for a minor incident is wasteful. Since homosexuals rarely marry, they save our military money too.
However, the CO can recommend immediate discharge of any servicemen whose co-workers have complained in writing that his sexual behavior has disrupted the unit. Most likely, he had been warned before, or transferred to his unit for past complaints, or the homosexual decided that he just can't stay in the closet anymore. Such discharges will also be allowed for openly perverted displays by heterosexuals, such as public masturbation. There will be no criminal investigators involved these cases; it will remain an internal unit affair. Discharge recommendations will be forwarded to the Commanding General level for endorsement after his staff determines the CO followed proper procedure.
A new policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Disrupt" will provide a rational guideline for addressing homosexual behavior in the US military. Homosexuals will have better protection against those who hate homosexuals since only their CO can investigate and recommend discharge, and only after receiving two written complaints from different GIs in his unit. This is similar to the "community standards" logic now used with pornography. For example, a Marine Corps infantry unit may have less tolerance for homosexuality than an Air Force supply unit. However, no CO is likely to allow homosexual kissing in the office, which would be a irritant if homosexuals are allowed to serve "openly." This policy is pure common sense; homosexuals can serve so long as their sexual behavior around the workplace is not found objectionable by their fellow servicemen. This also frees military investigators to focus on counterterrorism rather than hanging out at "gay bars".
Carlton Meyer editorG2mil@Gmail.com
©2004 www.G2mil.com
Notes on English
You might have noticed that I refuse to use the politically correct term "gay", but the correct term of homosexual. "Gay marriage" is not an issue, it is just an effort by a large group to force others to accept their perversion as "normal". As I noted, everyone has perversions, and I don't care so long as they don't harm anyone or demand that others accept their perversion and demand the "right" to sue anyone who disapproves.
One of the worst movies in recent times was "Philadelphia" with Tom Hanks, which won numerous Academy awards. He plays an homosexual lawyer with AIDS. His firm knew he was homosexual, but didn't care. His firm learned that he had AIDS, but didn't fire him. However, as the disease progressed and Hanks began to look sickly and his work performance slipped, they insisted he leave. Hanks then sued them and won lots of money. So some sickly pervert destroyed his own law firm because he succumbed to a fatal disease as a result of his perverted sexual acts. I don't see how that could be awarded "Best Picture."