Thank You General Pace
For proving once and for all something is seriously amiss among the top echelons of our military. For dispensing with the old word games about “unit cohesion” and telling us all how you and other relics of a largely disgraced generation of leadership really feel about gays in the military.
I have served alongside countless sailors and Marines who were admitted homosexuals. To a (wo)man, their sexual orientation did not in any way affect the “unit cohesion” or professionally offend their comrades. They shared the professionalism, dedication and honor that most members of the US military adhere to.
The highest ranking military figure in our chain of command condemns them as “immoral” (while in uniform and in an official capacity) and noted last year that:
“The U.S. military mission fundamentally rests on the trust, confidence and cooperation amongst its members. And the homosexual lifestyle does not comport with that kind of trust and confidence and therefore is not supported within the U.S. Military.”
Coming from the man who has sat idly by for years while the war in Iraq was short-changed (at a fatal cost to thousands of Americans) in more ways than I can reasonably fathom, while also contributing to the drastic lowering of standards and unit cohesion by approving the expansion of the “moral waiver” program*, a seriously flawed short-term solution to a more hostile recruiting environment, this is pretty rich.
Remember my fellow servicemen and servicewomen who are gay or lesbian (especially those overseas in Iraq & Afghanistan), in the America people like him believe in and want to force upon the rest of us, your sacrifices and dedication mean squat. You are unfit for service. Untrustworthy. Unreliable. You are not worthy of the uniform you wear. You’re “immoral”.
The military wants more Private Steven Greens. No more Staff Sgt. Eric Alvas.
Between this and the shaft wounded servicemen were/are getting at Walter Reed and elsewhere, is the military jumping the shark or what?
*which I have personally seen the nasty ramifications of, like the “reformed” white supremacist and prolific substance abuse user that we had to kick out of the Navy last year)
10 Comments »
Leave a comment
About Hidden Unities
A constant learning experience.
-
Recent Comments
tdaxp » Blog A… on Thoughts On Obama And Hon… Eddie on Thoughts On Obama And Hon… tdaxp on Thoughts On Obama And Hon…
It is a sad commentary that a policy based upon fear and misunderstanding has led to the discharge of over 10,000 service men and women who willingly signed up to serve their country.
[...] Con: Hidden Unities: Thank You General Pace . . . [...]
Pingback by General Pace Leaves Us With A Question « My View from the Center | March 15, 2007 |
BW Jones,
Its a shame the uproar over this stupidity isn’t enough to toss his useless ass out and help repeal this nonsense.
Eddie,
I agree. It is interesting that other NATO countries (including navies) not only have co-ed crews, but they also have completely integrated military service regardless of gender or sexual orientation. It could also be argued, that some of those naval units are mighty effective with the German and Norwegian sub crews being among some of the best.
Well, doesn’t sexual maturity have something to do with it? We’re still quite sensitive and squeamish on all manners dealing with sex in this country. Its just silly honestly. Its misplaced priorities with mixed up morality. When you’re slandering your own troops to make a political point, eh….
I agree about the stupidity of Pace’s remarks. I’m also amazed that a serving officer of high rank should consider it appropriate to raise, or respond to, such matters in a media interview. A simple answer along the lines of “The policy is x and as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff I uphold that policy” should have sufficed.
Under the past two administrations (Bush & Clinton), the military has become way too politicized. What happens in the next administration will be most interesting, because the military has suffered dearly for it and its image in American society will not long remain sanctified for much longer. The consequences of the military being viewed increasingly by the American public as just another flawed or corrupt wing of the government will be nasty for all sides.
“Under the past two administrations (Bush & Clinton), the military has become way too politicized. What happens in the next administration will be most interesting, because the military has suffered dearly for it and its image in American society will not long remain sanctified for much longer. The consequences of the military being viewed increasingly by the American public as just another flawed or corrupt wing of the government will be nasty for all sides.”
Interesting point, Eddie. I don’t see that though—I think everyone has aimed the criticism at the Bush administration. “The troops,” as politicians say, haven’t really suffered much public criticism, nor do I see a scenario in which they would.
But I’m a journalist, and my perspective is really limited. You are on the inside. How do you see the public souring on the military?
How long before leaks from the White House and the Hill blame generals and admirals for the various scandals (Gitmo, “moral waivers”, torture, outpatient care, etc.)? The political self-preservation gene is the most dominant of all obviously. As things get worse and more dirt is exposed, I see all manner of embarrassing hearings and revelations for the military in the future.
The military shares much of the blame for the fiascoes it has experienced in the past decade, and yet in public it remains “sainted”. Far too many senior officers and mid-level manager types have swallowed their integrity and pride and willingly gone along with these various misadventures and errors in good sense and the military should suffer for it. That’s the only way the lifers in the military will learn. Otherwise, the up and comers are going to mythologize this as another “the politicians and the public failed us” type deal and make the same mistakes years down the road.
Of course, this is not just about Iraq. This is about what civil-military relations are supposed to mean, what “torture” is, what kind of military this country really needs, what’s the best use of the taxpayer dollar, etc. With the Duke Cunningham scandal, the fact that American troops are aiding and abetting in ethnic cleansing in Baghdad by working with the Shia government and now with Al-Sadr, etc.etc., that halo is going to fall off sooner than later.
That’s a very plausible scenario. Another thing that I think is likely is the regular military essentially being replaced by mercs. Considering that public tolerance for interventions is down, we could see a greater reliance on PMCs, given that their deaths don’t make as much news as regular military.