I was intending to write an article on this subject myself, but was blown away by a letter I received from a friend who is overseas doing history's work: fighting for freedom. His response is the epitome of logical sequencing and reasoned analysis, scientific in its conclusions and almost mathematical in its preciseness.
In other words, indisputable in its truth, the final nail in the coffin of iron-gripped "Political Castration."
There is no way I could have done better. I am printing it here unabridged, and as per his request, giving no clues to his name or service. Shame, really, that he must fear retaliation for truth. Such a response is supposed to be reserved for the lie.
Advertisement - story continues below
The logical place to begin this discussion is in describing the purpose of the military. Despite recent mission changes that reflect a greater focus on stability operations, i.e., nation-building, the primary purpose of the military is to violently execute political goals that cannot otherwise be effected through diplomacy and other non-violent avenues of approach (sanctions, boycotts, etc.). We exist to destroy those who would threaten our political and economic existence. Any change to the military, whether it is in training, equipment, doctrine or social norms, should be to enhance the lethality of our Armed Forces.
Soldiers are trained to fight as a team, not as individuals. If you look at something as simple as the construction of sectors of fires in a defense, you understand immediately that the primary goal of individual fighting positions is to protect your team members to the left and right of your position. It is not to defend your front. Your front is covered by your buddies to your left and right. In other words, trust and reliance on your team members are absolutely essential. Soldiers live together – at times in conditions that most civilians would find completely uncivilized – sleep together, eat together, shower together and even defecate together in open slit trenches, in order to accomplish the mission. It is a very strange relationship they share because their lives are so open and interconnected. During combat, the intensity and necessity of that relationship grows. You must believe that your team members have your survival and well-being as the second-highest priority during battle. Notice that I said "second-highest priority." The top priority of any military action is to accomplish the mission.
When Congress or the military attempts to inject social engineering, specifically open homosexuality in the ranks, into this relationship, it is a disaster in the making. Now, instead of mission accomplishment being the top priority, it is individual rights and relationships that become the priority. I find it to be very ironic that Congress and the president are choosing to deal with this issue in the midst of a two-front war on global terrorism. It is very revealing that the top military concern of the Democrats is allowing open homosexuality into the ranks rather than defeating the enemy in our wars.
If we take homosexuals at their word, they did not choose to be gay. They are, according to them, born gay and are biologically attracted to people of the same sex. If that is the case, what impact does sexual attraction have on military teams? It has a huge and devastating impact. This is even true with heterosexuals and is why the Army has rules against establishing relationships between heterosexuals within the same chain of command.
Advertisement - story continues below
I have served for 26 years. One of the things I have noticed is when a female is thrown into the mix of a male-dominated world, the males naturally begin competing for her attention. It is not, necessarily, that they are trying to sleep with her, but the natural tendency for heterosexual males is to attract the attention of the opposite sex. It throws a wrench in the relationship between the males. This is why men who serve in Combat Arms branches do not prefer to have women fighting on the front lines. The presence of a female skews the male mentality. Men, by nature, choose to protect women at the expense of protecting their male counterparts. Again, this has deadly consequences when the bullets are flying. If gays are biologically wired to be gay, then they, too, must have this desire to protect the males to whom they are attracted. Instead of focusing on accomplishing the mission and protecting the men to their left and right, they would be more concerned with protecting their attraction.
And how does Congress propose to house gay soldiers? Are they going to billet gay men with females? What would Congress say if the Army started housing heterosexual males with females in the barracks? Is it not the same thing if you house openly gay males with heterosexual males or other gay soldiers? Why should they be given special treatment? (I am quite certain that most heterosexual males who were housed with females would consider it special treatment … in a good way.) If the plan is to provide gay barracks, then why are they allowed to live and sleep with their sexual counterparts and heterosexuals are not? We are also talking about a very small minority of soldiers. If gays are housed separately, then they would enjoy more living space than heterosexual soldiers. If you have one gay in your company, does he get his own tent or own room, even if he is a private? Is that just?
Has the military surveyed soldiers to see how they feel? I receive dozens of surveys from the military in my e-mail every year. I have never been given a survey on this issue. Why? Why has the military refused even to ask those who would be the most affected by this policy? Why are generals more concerned with appeasing politicians than doing what is best for those who fight and die for this country? I am trying to be unemotional about this, but what is occurring on Capitol Hill and even within the ranks of the senior leadership of the military is a disgrace. Thank God the Marine Corps chief of staff spoke like a soldier. But when an Army general echoed the same sentiment as the Marine, he was disciplined. Why? Who in the Army leadership thinks that a general, who is echoing the majority sentiment of soldiers, should be disciplined for stating an opinion that defends what soldiers believe?
The heart of the issue boils down to this: Congress and the president (and I fear some in the military leadership) are more concerned about the sexuality of soldiers than the efficacy of the military in destroying our enemies. This focus is so far off track and incredible that it is difficult to find the appropriate words to describe. It is further proof that American culture is in decline. I would be just as opposed to any move to make heterosexuality the primary focus of the military rather than destroying the enemy.
Advertisement - story continues below
I acknowledge that gays have served in the military since military forces were created in ancient times. I have no issue with someone who is gay and serves in the military. But I do not want to know about it and I do not want my squad, platoon or company to know about it. It is a divisive issue that destroys team integrity. And it will most certainly do this if a homosexual soldier decides it his "right" to flaunt his gayness. I was most disappointed to read an article a few weeks ago when an alliance of milbloggers came out in support of open homosexuality in the service. I understand why they might make this decision. It is, in my view, based on the fact that we all know gays who have served. But I think people who are not currently in the tent, shower, foxhole, latrine … the fight … forget the detrimental impact openly gay soldiers would have on the front lines.
It is truly a sad day in our history when the most talked about issue of our Armed Forces, in the midst of two wars, is about the sexual preference of soldiers. I think it is a sign of just how self-centered and immature the "adults" who lead our country have become. We are more concerned about satiating our sexual desires than we are about ensuring the very survival of our civilization.
Don't ask, don't tell is a policy that has worked. It allows gays to serve in the military. It prevents elevating a soldier's sexual preference above mission accomplishment and what is best for the military. Today, a gay, male soldier can receive the Medal of Honor, reach the rank of general and serve in any military occupation to which he is qualified. There are no restrictions placed upon him, other than the fact that he cannot announce his homosexuality. And why should he? Are gays so insecure in their sexual preferences that they must demand that others accept what, statistically, is deviant behavior? What benefit does the military derive in allowing open homosexuality? How does it make the military better, more effective and stronger? If the answer is that it allows gays to feel better about themselves, then that is the wrong answer.
The military is not about making gay or straight soldiers feel better about themselves. It is about defending our nation. It should be about making our service members feel better about our nation. (But the Cult of Diversity, to which the homosexual debate belongs, has seriously damaged even this aspect of the military culture. See Gen. Casey's remarks after the Ft. Hood jihadist killed 13 people.) If the answer is that allowing open homosexuality does not make the military better, then we should not even be having this discussion. It is the topic of self-centered, immature "adults" who choose to identify themselves by a sexual act rather than the character and qualities that make a person, gay or straight, a truly responsible and mature citizen of this nation.