Don't Ask? Do Tell?

Joint Chiefs Chairman Navy Admiral Michael Mullen spoke to a small gathering of Marines in Amman, Jordan, recently and had to bring up the subject himself of homosexuals serving openly in the military, there having been no questions regarding the matter. Instead, he was informed, probably surprisingly, that a greater question had to do with women serving in combat. Of course the question wasn’t raised because Mullen was already on record – the same as an order – of approving the dismantling “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of 1993. Marines follow orders, whether they like them or not.

Defense Secretary Gates is also on the record as approving the change but it bears remembering that officers and bureaucrats who reach the top military positions do so largely by political as well as other means, no matter their personal beliefs. A better gauge of the top brass’s actual feelings was obvious by the glare they afforded the president when he promised (again) during his state-of-the-union marathon speech that the policy would be repealed. He never lets pass an opportunity to let everyone know he is commander-in-chief, the Congress and everyone else be damned. The applause generated by the nitwits sitting behind the officers made the military’s disdain of the CHANGE (yes we can) even more palpable.

The reluctance to even think about the problem of homosexuals in the military is seen in the announced decision that a year would be necessary to study just how the new policy could be implemented. A whole year? The policy could be implemented immediately, so why take a year to prepare for it to kick in? One of the reasons, of course, is the Congress, a great part of which knows better than to change the policy, especially at a time when troops are in action throughout the world. Another reason is that social engineering is not for the military, designed to break things and kill people.

Indeed, what’s to study? In the Clinton administration, Defense Secretary Cohen integrated or reintegrated boot camps gender-wise. This was a disastrous decision that has been undone, the reasons being obvious but the paramount reason being that the men became softer instead of tougher since they were required to do no more than the ladies, who, notwithstanding all contradictions simply were not physically up to the training necessary to prepare troops for combat, sometimes hand to hand.

Gender-segregation should have been a no-brainer but Clinton not only had no idea what was involved in training but also hated the military and thus didn’t care. Actually, the Marine Corps (or “Corpse,” as the president would have it) simply ignored the integration thing.

So…what’s to study regarding the homosexual thing? The boot-camp element provides a point of reference that applies to all subsequent situations in which significant numbers of people are thrown together and living in small spaces, such as in a barracks or on a ship or in living arrangements during deployments. “Straights” more often than not are completely turned off by homosexual behavior and resent being in close quarters with people who participate in such things as oral- and anal-sex, neither of which is actually sex but just an unnatural act.

These biologically perverse behaviors tend toward physical disease or other physical dysfunctions, but a worse issue might have to do with psychological problems for both the homosexuals and the straights. Personal safety for homosexuals could be a problem, also, particularly when GIs get drunk and lose the inhibitions that control their behavior while sober. So-called “hate” crimes could be the result, with perfectly good soldiers paying a high price career-wise (prison) and homosexuals being hurt or killed.

Should straights and homosexuals be segregated in boot camp, as are men and women? Do straights want to shower with or sleep an arm’s length away from guys who do strange things with their genitals and body orifices? What sort of activities would take place in toilet facilities, for instance, among homosexuals? Would there have to be rules prohibiting homosexual behavior on government property? If so, why? Are these questions harsh? Of course, but perhaps they should be studied for quite a long time, as well as many others. The mental aspect has nothing to do with it. No one denies that homosexuals are just as smart as others.

Perhaps the larger problem has to do with right and wrong. Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Marine General Peter Pace said three years ago that homosexual behavior is immoral. He took enormous heat for expressing that belief but probably said publicly what most military people think. It may be that the year that’s been designated for a “study period” of the matter is actually a way of saying, “This won’t happen.” The president has promised CHANGE, with his almost first objective, as was Clinton’s, being the effort to apply social engineering to the military (and payoff for the “gay” vote). Like Clinton, he has absolutely no idea what’s involved – and doesn’t care, apparently – but has his apparatchiks in place. Time will tell.