Selling the Military Down the River

I am overcome with a feeling that many Americans are selling the US military down the river.

President Barack Obama promised to repeal the military policy "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in his State of the Union address. Since then, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have gone before Congress and agreed with their (and your) Commander in Chief that, at the very least, the military could handle openly gay soldiers. This completely ignores the fact that many still say cohesion is key in the military and homosexuals jeopardize that.

The "many" I referred to are the Republican senators on the Arms Committee who have their jobs hanging by a thread thanks to the rumored conservative 'purity test' coming this fall and/or 2012. The purity test being a list of 10 commandments (lets not shy away the Biblical overtones), that all Republicans must adhere to in able to receive funding from the Republican National Committee. One of the commandments being: defend heterosexual marriage; and the overall theme being: oppose Obama.

This theme of blindly opposing Obama is horrifyingly transparent when former-moderate/reasonable Sen. John McCain can still be against the integration of gays in the military after his 2008 promise that he'd repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" if the leaders of the military suggested as much. Hypocrisy seems to damage politicians as much as glass windows hurt 1980s action movie stars.

The current policy is a cruel joke on gay men and women in the service. It's not like they're going to start patting other soldiers on the butt in the middle of firefight (though butt-patting isn't gay so long as you're playing football--wherein the goal is to chase and tackle other men). "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" means the gays in uniform can't talk about their loved ones back home. It means that can't go to a gay bar when on leave. They can't say, "no, I don't care for your carton of Playboys." Soldiers aren't robots and we don't need them to be, nor do we ask them to be. Soldiers' personal lives very much shape why they fight, how they act, and who they are as people defending the freedoms of other Americans.

The persistent argument that this is a case of rights is asinine. The right to be prejudice is greatly overruled by the right to pursue a life of liberty and happiness. And this can't be a case of "military service is a choice," either. Military service is more than that. For many it's an honor, a tradition and sometimes even the sole opportunity to receive an education. If any of those were denied by the government, there would be outrage. Go figure, they are being denied. Go figure again, there is an outrage.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R) defended his anti-gay views by saying the military is too busy to undertake progressive social reform. Others believed the military should never be a vehicle of social reform (essentially agreeing with the idea that the US military is always busy). The only problem here being that the military is a vehicle of social reform. President Truman integrated colored soldiers years before the Supreme Court ruled the same for public schools. Also he did it during the Korean War. The Civil War saw a boom in women volunteers; and though they were entirely nurses, they found themselves bearing unprecedented and controversial responsibilities outside of the home.

The US military is the perfect vehicle for social reform because they adapt best. They get over their initial difficulties and find new strengths. They are built for adaption in various kinds of warfare and global conditions. So I have little problem throwing new challenges at them when I feel the challenges are necessary advancements. There is no group of 1 million people I would sooner trust to overcome any obstacle than I would the US armed forces. I wouldn't hold back universal translators from the military because it had a complicated owner's manual and I wouldn't hold back 5,000 translators from the military because they're homosexual.

If America is ever going to learn the metric system, it'll be through the military first. And if America is ever going to reach high enough to grasp its ideals, it'll probably be through the military first.

So even if (and this is an arguable "if") the fearful senators are correct and open homosexuality disrupts unit cohesion, I stand by the over-due integration. Because if any group of Americans have to break the status quo by accepting homosexuals and thus be sent down the river, I just assume it be the US military...because I know they are the ones who will come back fastest, and clear the way for the rest of us.