Chicago Tribune Editorial - Morality and the military
Chicago Tribune Editorial - Morality and the military
Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune
Published March 14, 2007
The Pentagon's top general created a ruckus this week with his candid remarks to the Tribune's editorial board about whether gays should serve openly in the U.S. armed forces. Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he doesn't support lifting the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy --which allows homosexuals to serve as long as they keep quiet about their sexual orientation--because to do so would condone "immoral" behavior.
"I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way," Pace said. It was his personal viewpoint, expressed with conviction, and the general is certainly entitled to his opinion. But he's out of step with the evolving sensibilities of U.S. troops and the American people, who are increasingly willing to accept the reality that gay men and women are serving capably and honorably, and that efforts to keep them in the closet hurt the military.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell was adopted in 1993 because it was clear the country wasn't ready to drop the long-standing ban on gays in the military. The belief at the time was that allowing openly gay troops would compromise combat readiness by lowering morale, recruitment and unit cohesion.
John M. Shalikashvili, who held Pace's job when the policy was adopted, called it "a useful speed bump"--a way for the military to buy time until the public was ready to lift the ban entirely. Earlier this year, Shalikashvili said that time may be here.
About the same time, a Zogby poll of service members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq found that 73 percent have no problem serving alongside gays and 23 percent are sure they already have. There were about 65,000 gays in the armed forces in 2004, according to an Urban Institute study. A bill that would allow them to serve openly has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a costly policy. A Government Accountability Office study last year said the military has spent $191 million to recruit and train replacements for gays who have been kicked out since the policy took effect. Last year, 742 were removed. Especially in wartime, it makes no sense to turn away capable soldiers.
When it comes to judging homosexual behavior as immoral, Pace is certainly not the last man standing. And yes, the military can and does hold its personnel to higher standards of conduct than those that apply to civilians, as the general pointed out. Those rules are necessary not to enforce a particular standard of morality but to prevent behaviors that undermine military cohesiveness. Thus a soldier who sleeps with another soldier's spouse or an officer who has sex with a sergeant could face discipline or even court-martial.
With few exceptions, though, the Uniform Code of Military Justice doesn't prohibit specific sexual behaviors. Most such breaches come under Article 134, a catch-all provision against "all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces."
Some may argue that anything more adventurous than monogamous procreative heterosexual sex is a discredit to the armed forces. Rank-and-file military personnel will tell you they are no less inhibited than their civilian counterparts. But if they're engaging in private, consensual sex that doesn't compromise their military mission, Uncle Sam leaves them alone. Gay personnel deserve nothing less than the same treatment.
Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune
Published March 14, 2007
The Pentagon's top general created a ruckus this week with his candid remarks to the Tribune's editorial board about whether gays should serve openly in the U.S. armed forces. Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he doesn't support lifting the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy --which allows homosexuals to serve as long as they keep quiet about their sexual orientation--because to do so would condone "immoral" behavior.
"I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way," Pace said. It was his personal viewpoint, expressed with conviction, and the general is certainly entitled to his opinion. But he's out of step with the evolving sensibilities of U.S. troops and the American people, who are increasingly willing to accept the reality that gay men and women are serving capably and honorably, and that efforts to keep them in the closet hurt the military.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell was adopted in 1993 because it was clear the country wasn't ready to drop the long-standing ban on gays in the military. The belief at the time was that allowing openly gay troops would compromise combat readiness by lowering morale, recruitment and unit cohesion.
John M. Shalikashvili, who held Pace's job when the policy was adopted, called it "a useful speed bump"--a way for the military to buy time until the public was ready to lift the ban entirely. Earlier this year, Shalikashvili said that time may be here.
About the same time, a Zogby poll of service members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq found that 73 percent have no problem serving alongside gays and 23 percent are sure they already have. There were about 65,000 gays in the armed forces in 2004, according to an Urban Institute study. A bill that would allow them to serve openly has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a costly policy. A Government Accountability Office study last year said the military has spent $191 million to recruit and train replacements for gays who have been kicked out since the policy took effect. Last year, 742 were removed. Especially in wartime, it makes no sense to turn away capable soldiers.
When it comes to judging homosexual behavior as immoral, Pace is certainly not the last man standing. And yes, the military can and does hold its personnel to higher standards of conduct than those that apply to civilians, as the general pointed out. Those rules are necessary not to enforce a particular standard of morality but to prevent behaviors that undermine military cohesiveness. Thus a soldier who sleeps with another soldier's spouse or an officer who has sex with a sergeant could face discipline or even court-martial.
With few exceptions, though, the Uniform Code of Military Justice doesn't prohibit specific sexual behaviors. Most such breaches come under Article 134, a catch-all provision against "all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces."
Some may argue that anything more adventurous than monogamous procreative heterosexual sex is a discredit to the armed forces. Rank-and-file military personnel will tell you they are no less inhibited than their civilian counterparts. But if they're engaging in private, consensual sex that doesn't compromise their military mission, Uncle Sam leaves them alone. Gay personnel deserve nothing less than the same treatment.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 8:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home