|
The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy has been repealed, and many are celebrating this as a victory for gay rights, while anybody who voices opposition to the repeal is labeled as a homophobe. While homophobia is certainly a reason some people protest this repeal, there are legitimate reasons for the exclusion of open homosexuality. I was in the Air Force for over twenty years, and I understand that in the military the individual is far less important than the whole. Article One of the Military Code of Conduct states, “I am an American, fighting in the forces that guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.” Civilians often don’t understand just what this means.
Military members have to completely trust each other and have to exist as one entity in the fight against our nation’s enemies. Allowing homosexuals to serve openly would disrupt this. Stripping away all reasons that appear to be homophobia, there are two valid reasons this is true. The first is that openly homosexual members would damage the cohesion of a fighting unit, an argument that John McCain, a military hero and former prisoner of war, agrees with. Imagine you are in an open shower and a person of the opposite sex comes in and starts to shower in a way so that you and that person can see each other’s naked bodies. In most cases, this would be an uncomfortable situation for both parties, whether or not there is reciprocal or nonreciprocal sexual interest. It is a tense situation without any provocative actions, and one that could only be worse if there were any.
The second reason is that homosexuals may be accepted too easily. By this I am not suggesting that accepting others’ lifestyles is wrong, but that by condoning them in the military, it opens the doors for relationships between troops that are non-beneficial to our fighting capability. If a soldier develops romantic feelings for another soldier in his unit, the soldier’s war-fighting capability is compromised, as he would be likely more concerned about his paramour than his paratroops.
You might have noticed that I have used masculine pronouns, and this has been purposeful. The valid reasons I stated to disallow homosexuals to serve openly would also preclude persons of opposite sex serving, so I think we should also remove this obstacle. Some might say that declaring it is females that should be removed is misogynistic, and for that I apologize, but there are reasons. That is not to suggest that women are less able to kill somebody than men. However, the makeup of the military is mostly masculine, and it only makes logistical and economical sense to excise the minority.
So we now have an all-male military with no openly homosexual members. You have probably already seen a flaw in my logic, though. Although disallowing open homosexuality and females in the military, it is true that I have not fully eliminated obstacles in the path of our military’s war-fighting capability. While immediate obstruction has been removed, there is still the possibility that an American soldier might have his mind focused on matters far from the battlefield, whether it be a spouse or parent or child. As long as the soldier has ties outside the fighting arena, he will be unable to provide full focus. I have spent much time determining the best course to counteract this and believe I have come up with the solution.
When a man is selected for service (and forbidding females might mean we will need to reinstate some version of the draft, which I will touch upon soon), there will need to be an intensive psychological examination to not only judge each soldier’s suitability, but also their ties in the civilian world. While it might be beneficial to have soldiers who do not have these ties, it is likely that the psychological exam would show us that soldiers without prior emotional attachments would be ineffectual soldiers. So we must endure the fact that soldiers come in with these ties and remedy this. The regrettable but inevitable conclusion is that those ties must be removed. We should of course do this as humanely as possible, and we should also allow the new soldier sufficient time to become emotionally and psychologically conditioned to this change.
Such a change in our military enlistment policy affects not only the soldier, but his family, so we will need to captain the process. All males born during the course of a year (excluding those born with defects or diseases) will be entered into a lottery, with a certain percentage chosen for duty (plus an additional percentage to account for deaths, service-preventing injuries, or other unforeseen incidents). The families of those chosen will be compensated financially and will be well aware they need to get all affairs in order before the soldier’s eighteenth birthday. Any friends or romantic interests are to be made cognizant that an existing relationship with the soldier as of the eighteenth birthday will result in uncompensated termination.
There are many benefits to this plan, such as population control and poverty lessening, but I want to focus on the benefit to the military. I do sense, however, another objection, in regard to my second reason to not allow homosexuals to serve openly, in that such openness might lead to inappropriate relationships between soldiers that are incompatible with military might and cohesion. While removing females and preventing open homosexuality might suggest an end to this issue, the simple human fact is people have sexual urges and may succumb to temptations they might not generally when their ability to satisfy their urges is blocked. This could lead to rape by soldiers, as seen in some third world nations, or a form of institutional homosexuality, as has been seen in prison. Saltpeter has proven unreliable and something as drastic as castration is inhumane and unlikely to result in soldiers with true fighting power.
Rather than allow such deplorable actions to occur, I propose we initiate a stress relief program for our soldiers. Like the policy on removing emotional ties for soldiers, this plan is also financially and socially beneficial. We allow welfare recipients or those receiving unemployment benefits for extended periods to be volunteered for this program, as well as of-age children of those heavily in debt. The volunteers will be chosen, as with the soldiers, by lottery. Upon selection they will be flown to a forward location. There they will be presented to soldiers, who will review them alone and make the selection of their choice. The soldier will then go to a private room with his volunteer and relieve the stress that comes with defending his country. Because of the privacy of this selection the soldier will be free to select either gender, as this choice will not be known to his fellow soldiers, so any homosexual incidents do not interfere with the cohesion of the military. Also, upon request (which will, of course, be anonymous) different races, ages, body types, or other qualifiers will be met, if possible. The soldier will be made aware that after transactions the volunteer is terminated, to avoid any possible emotional connection on the soldier’s part . Once termination is completed, any bankruptcy or debt owed by the selected’s family will be properly nullified by the Internal Revenue Service and other government entities.
As you can see, allowing open homosexuality is detrimental to the military force. This is not a matter of homophobia, but of putting the needs of the country over the personal lives of our soldiers and those of our citizens. The soldiers and citizens of the World War II era are sometimes called the Greatest Generation because of their patriotism and willingness to sacrifice for the good of the country. That is a noble trait we need to apply to our citizenry, so that such sacrifice of self leads to the reestablishment of the most feared and noble military on the face of the earth.
Military members have to completely trust each other and have to exist as one entity in the fight against our nation’s enemies. Allowing homosexuals to serve openly would disrupt this. Stripping away all reasons that appear to be homophobia, there are two valid reasons this is true. The first is that openly homosexual members would damage the cohesion of a fighting unit, an argument that John McCain, a military hero and former prisoner of war, agrees with. Imagine you are in an open shower and a person of the opposite sex comes in and starts to shower in a way so that you and that person can see each other’s naked bodies. In most cases, this would be an uncomfortable situation for both parties, whether or not there is reciprocal or nonreciprocal sexual interest. It is a tense situation without any provocative actions, and one that could only be worse if there were any.
The second reason is that homosexuals may be accepted too easily. By this I am not suggesting that accepting others’ lifestyles is wrong, but that by condoning them in the military, it opens the doors for relationships between troops that are non-beneficial to our fighting capability. If a soldier develops romantic feelings for another soldier in his unit, the soldier’s war-fighting capability is compromised, as he would be likely more concerned about his paramour than his paratroops.
You might have noticed that I have used masculine pronouns, and this has been purposeful. The valid reasons I stated to disallow homosexuals to serve openly would also preclude persons of opposite sex serving, so I think we should also remove this obstacle. Some might say that declaring it is females that should be removed is misogynistic, and for that I apologize, but there are reasons. That is not to suggest that women are less able to kill somebody than men. However, the makeup of the military is mostly masculine, and it only makes logistical and economical sense to excise the minority.
So we now have an all-male military with no openly homosexual members. You have probably already seen a flaw in my logic, though. Although disallowing open homosexuality and females in the military, it is true that I have not fully eliminated obstacles in the path of our military’s war-fighting capability. While immediate obstruction has been removed, there is still the possibility that an American soldier might have his mind focused on matters far from the battlefield, whether it be a spouse or parent or child. As long as the soldier has ties outside the fighting arena, he will be unable to provide full focus. I have spent much time determining the best course to counteract this and believe I have come up with the solution.
When a man is selected for service (and forbidding females might mean we will need to reinstate some version of the draft, which I will touch upon soon), there will need to be an intensive psychological examination to not only judge each soldier’s suitability, but also their ties in the civilian world. While it might be beneficial to have soldiers who do not have these ties, it is likely that the psychological exam would show us that soldiers without prior emotional attachments would be ineffectual soldiers. So we must endure the fact that soldiers come in with these ties and remedy this. The regrettable but inevitable conclusion is that those ties must be removed. We should of course do this as humanely as possible, and we should also allow the new soldier sufficient time to become emotionally and psychologically conditioned to this change.
Such a change in our military enlistment policy affects not only the soldier, but his family, so we will need to captain the process. All males born during the course of a year (excluding those born with defects or diseases) will be entered into a lottery, with a certain percentage chosen for duty (plus an additional percentage to account for deaths, service-preventing injuries, or other unforeseen incidents). The families of those chosen will be compensated financially and will be well aware they need to get all affairs in order before the soldier’s eighteenth birthday. Any friends or romantic interests are to be made cognizant that an existing relationship with the soldier as of the eighteenth birthday will result in uncompensated termination.
There are many benefits to this plan, such as population control and poverty lessening, but I want to focus on the benefit to the military. I do sense, however, another objection, in regard to my second reason to not allow homosexuals to serve openly, in that such openness might lead to inappropriate relationships between soldiers that are incompatible with military might and cohesion. While removing females and preventing open homosexuality might suggest an end to this issue, the simple human fact is people have sexual urges and may succumb to temptations they might not generally when their ability to satisfy their urges is blocked. This could lead to rape by soldiers, as seen in some third world nations, or a form of institutional homosexuality, as has been seen in prison. Saltpeter has proven unreliable and something as drastic as castration is inhumane and unlikely to result in soldiers with true fighting power.
Rather than allow such deplorable actions to occur, I propose we initiate a stress relief program for our soldiers. Like the policy on removing emotional ties for soldiers, this plan is also financially and socially beneficial. We allow welfare recipients or those receiving unemployment benefits for extended periods to be volunteered for this program, as well as of-age children of those heavily in debt. The volunteers will be chosen, as with the soldiers, by lottery. Upon selection they will be flown to a forward location. There they will be presented to soldiers, who will review them alone and make the selection of their choice. The soldier will then go to a private room with his volunteer and relieve the stress that comes with defending his country. Because of the privacy of this selection the soldier will be free to select either gender, as this choice will not be known to his fellow soldiers, so any homosexual incidents do not interfere with the cohesion of the military. Also, upon request (which will, of course, be anonymous) different races, ages, body types, or other qualifiers will be met, if possible. The soldier will be made aware that after transactions the volunteer is terminated, to avoid any possible emotional connection on the soldier’s part . Once termination is completed, any bankruptcy or debt owed by the selected’s family will be properly nullified by the Internal Revenue Service and other government entities.
As you can see, allowing open homosexuality is detrimental to the military force. This is not a matter of homophobia, but of putting the needs of the country over the personal lives of our soldiers and those of our citizens. The soldiers and citizens of the World War II era are sometimes called the Greatest Generation because of their patriotism and willingness to sacrifice for the good of the country. That is a noble trait we need to apply to our citizenry, so that such sacrifice of self leads to the reestablishment of the most feared and noble military on the face of the earth.
