Queer Circumstances

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was officially fully implemented a couple days ago. Many people who haven't the slightest clue about military efficiency, or the intricacies of a military unit, much less ever served a day of their life in the military, have been arguing with me, a veteran, over the last couple days over what is best for the military. Collectively, these liberals have determined that the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is a good thing, and necessary. After all, the "right" to serve in the military, these people tell me, should not be refused to anyone.

The last time I checked there was no "right" to serve int he military. The military must have the choice on who to accept and reject when it comes to the full efficiency of the fighting units.

Sure, gays are capable of fighting as well as any other member of the armed services. Their abilities are not the problem here. The problem is the overall cohesiveness and effectiveness of the military units, both physically, and psychologically.

"Don't Ask Don't Tell" was signed into existence by President Clinton as a grand compromise. It served to compromise our national security, it served to compromise our nation's identity, and it served to compromise our social morals.

When homosexuals began to form the framework of the modern gay agenda, they taunted marriage, rejected the church, and were staunch anti-military activists. Now, they demand marriage to be redefined to fit their agenda, have infiltrated the church only to convince congregations and denominations to admit gays as members of the clergy, impose themselves into the school system forcing the teachers to teach the gay lifestyle as "normal" (California AB 48), and now it is suddenly important that gays serve in the military with full prancing allowances intact.

I realize that most gays could care less about marriage, serving in the military, and don't wish to give the church the time of day. However, the militant gay agenda has realized that it is politically to their advantage to demand these "rights" in the name of fairness, and protecting the poor prancers from "homophobia" (a term they created themselves to encourage sympathy for their alleged plight).

Conservatives really don't care what you do in your bedroom, and do not believe in passing legislation to control "The Gay." The problem is not your gayness, but the fact that the homosexual lobby is working to change definitions, justify the deviant sexual behavior, and force upon society through unscrupulous means the argument that the sexual deviation is somehow "normal."

As for "Don't Ask Don't Tell," it never had anything to do with the ability of a gay service member to perform his or her military duties. From a military point of view, "open" gayness creates a hazard to the military code of conduct, unit cohesiveness, discipline, and combat readiness. The repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" compromises the complexities of the military model.

Military readiness and discipline is at stake here, and is something not understood by civilians, no matter how much they try. Non-military persons don't understand what it is to be a military member. There is no quick way to explain the process of breaking down a recruit, and reforming him into a fighting machine capable of being a team player with his brothers in the field, while killing the enemy without experiencing severe psychological damage. Training is key, and being able to operate without hesitation is paramount to the survival of the service member, and the members of his unit.

Operational readiness is a combination of training, discipline, and the proper planning by the chain of command to carry out the operation as designed. The variables on the battlefield are constantly changing, so the planning of operations changes as well. A superior unit is able to adjust with these constant changes. A unit that can quickly adjust to the changing parameters of the battlefield situations is one that experiences no distractions, and maintains a brotherhood rooted in the similarity of individual experiences in regards to training, combat history, and unit morale. Who you were, and who you would be if you were not a part of the unit, is something that must be set aside. You are a member of a fighting unit. The weapons, training, and the unit itself is your new identity. You are nothing else - you are an individual cog in a much larger machine, and your individual quirks are best left to the outside world, there is no room for them in combat.

The lack of definable standards aside from unit unity, except as they arise under the changing parameters of the battlefield, is part of the reason that individual differences cannot be embraced. A white service member is not openly white, he is a member of the unit. A black service member is not openly black, he is a member of the unit. A Hispanic service member is not openly Hispanic, he is a member of the unit. An Asian service member is not openly Asian, he is a member of the unit. And so on, and so forth. Those that demand that their differences are entertained become detrimental to the unit's cohesiveness, discipline, and battle readiness. Minor uniqueness may be tolerated, but after all is done and said, the unit is not about any of the individuals, the unit is about the unit.

Such an attitude is necessary if the unit is to survive, and perform successfully during the stresses of battle.

Homosexual members of the U.S. Military, by allowing their gay lifestyle to become common knowledge, pose a significant risk to their unit because, like it or not, the members of that unit are human, and the openness of the lifestyle will create distractions. Don't get me wrong, members know there are currently gay service members around them, but if it is kept mum, somehow that makes it less distracting.

In a perfect world people may be able to look the other way, but in a military unit of men who are supposed to be a cohesive unit that is trained to kill the enemy, the distraction of a unit member that may have sexual attraction to some of the members of the unit creates a number of complex issues that is more likely to weaken the battle readiness of a unit, than to strengthen it. Simply put, those kind of distractions, and unsure feelings about the cohesiveness of the unit, creates hesitation.

And hesitation kills - not just the individual, but members of his or her unit, as well.

The restrictive rules of engagement in place already have our military fighting members thinking more than fighting. Openly gay service members adds on to an already fragile situation. Simply put, forcing the U.S. Military to accept openly gay members, and to allow them to prance around as homosexuals while in uniform, is dangerous, and will prove to be fatal in the long run to a number of military personnel.

Unfortunately, the ability to investigate the concept of homosexual effects on military readiness, and to clarify some of the misconceptions by the civilian world, will be near impossible due to the infiltration of political correctness, and the unwillingness of the brass to properly address this issue. Military capabilities, down the road, will falter, and at that time the leadership will literally ask, "I wonder why?" rather than trace the drop in discipline and readiness to this point in time. Perhaps someday the military will be able to counter the effects of openly gay personnel in the military, but by then, the damage will be done, and our forces will be no more effective than those of European nations. And considering the voracity of the enemy we face, when it comes to the Islamic Jihad, any drop in our capabilities is another notch in the belts of the advancing Muslim cloud of darkness.

Openly gay service members present issues to the present framework and taxonomy of readiness, ultimately compromising our ability to be a superior fighting force. Service members will lose their lives as a result of this dangerous decision. Military readiness already has to battle political correctness, as well as the relationship between budgets and training. To force the units to also accept openly gay members will result in the death of some of our personnel. If the homosexuals truly appreciated our military, they would stand down, and leave their personal temper tantrums behind.

As a side note, Article I, Section 8, Clause 14 tasks the Congress with the authority to make the rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. The courts do not have that authority, so the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" through judicial activism is unconstitutional. The repeal through the Congress is the Constitutional path. Or, at least that is what the law says.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary