When the
issue of homosexuality in the US military was front and center, or rather when
the issue of the open recognition without penalty (which in virtually all cases
meant discharge), was front and center, the public concerns raised by both
military and even more so by political opponents of gay equality in the
military always was presented in the context of the issue of "combat
readiness." Ohmygosh, those "authorities" on the subject told us
over and over again, why if gays were permitted, or rather were openly
permitted, in the ranks, combat readiness was sure to suffer. Thus until very
recently open homosexual behavior paved the path to discharge, lickety-split.
So let's deal with the "combat readiness" issue on which the policy
was presumably based.
There have
presumably been homosexuals in at least some military organizations going back
to Biblical times. The Bible famously has its apparent proscriptions on
homosexual behaviors. They would presumably have not been included had there
not been A) homosexuals and B) homophobes to have been concerned with it. (Not
all churchmen, by the way, interpret the Biblical mentions of homosexuality in
the same way. The Baptist Minister P.J. Gomes, one-time head of the Harvard
Divinity School, and gay himself saw the matter quite differently [1]. But that
is another matter.) The peoples described throughout the Old Testament in which
the vast majority of the mentions of homosexuality appear, appear to have been
quite war-like. But none of the supposed Biblical proscriptions on homosexual
behavior appear to have had anything to do with any supposed interference with
"combat readiness."
(Interestingly
enough there is a Biblical concern with homosexuality and marijuana use. It has
been pointed out that (2): "Leviticus 20:13 -- "if a man lays with
another man, as with a woman, he should be stoned." But that too is
another matter.)
In the U.S.
military, there have been homosexuals in the ranks at least since Baron
Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben came to Valley Forge with two young French aides
de camp to train Gen. George Washington's troops during the bitter winter of
1778 (3). Certainly the good Baron markedly improved the combat readiness of
Washington's troops rather than diminishing it. In more recent times, in his
testimony to Congress supporting the repeal of DADT, the former Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs Adm. Mullen told of serving on a destroyer during the Viet Nam war
with known homosexuals, who worked and worked out just fine. In fact, there has
never been any testimony, citing real cases, about having homosexuals serving
in the U.S. military (of whom there have apparently been quite a few over time)
interfering with combat readiness. (And it is a fact that the militaries of all
the other major non-Muslim armed forces dropped any concern with the matter
some time ago. They didn't seem to be worried about the problem.) But boy,
Admiral Mullen to the contrary notwithstanding, has there been resistance to
the open recognition of homosexuality in the U.S. military, particularly among
the officer class and certainly among right-wing politicians.
But then we
come to rape (mainly of men on women but sometimes men on men as well). The
recent demonstration of the resistance to change in how the military handles
charges of rape and other sexual assaults was quite remarkable. Enforcement is
so lax that the vast majority of military rapes do not even get reported (4).
Rape is a crime which, in some states until very recently was punishable by
death. But in the military, in the end, even after a criminal procedure within
the military itself is undertaken, it is often treated administratively.
Commanding officers can reverse convictions by military courts and can reduce
punishments determined by them.
The recent
campaign by Senator Kirsten Gilibrand and others to change this system met with
uniform resistance from a panel of top and highly be-medaled commanders from
the four service branches (5). (All male, of course, except for one female
Admiral. I do not know whether she spoke at all, but if she did her remarks did
not make it into any of the sound-bites that I heard.) And then there was Sen.
Saxby Chambliss. He's a Senator from Georgia who got a "medical"
deferment for a football-related knee injury during the Vietnam War. He first
won his Senate seat by ripping apart former Sen. Max Cleland, a Vietnam vet,
who lost three of his four limbs fighting over there, for being "weak on
national defense" (and Cleland made the mistake of not in turn ripping him
into little pieces, which he could have). Chambliss wrote the rape issue in the
armed services all off to "hormones." The Republicans (except for
John McCain, one has to say) and the Brass all said that nothing had to be
done, except perhaps to beef up a totally non-functional system a little bit.
Not a word
was heard about the effect of rampant rape on "combat readiness."
Except that now that women are going to be going into combat even more than
they already have, one would think that there would be a concern about the
potential problem, would one not? You're in a foxhole (or its modern
equivalent) with one of those habitual sexual predators with which apparently
the military is rife and perhaps your concern is more about being raped than
about taking a hit from the enemy? You would think that that might affect
combat readiness, wouldn't you? Or at least you would think that the brass
might be concerned with the possibility to want to clamp down on the crime,
wouldn't you?
Well
apparently not. Fascinating contradiction, no? Concern about combat readiness
where there is no indication that there needs to be. No concern about combat
readiness where one would think that it surely should be a concern. Jeez. I
wonder if in the military academies and the officer candidate schools two of
the first courses, for the males at least, should be in sex education, and the
socio-psychology, psychopathology, and the law of sex crimes.
(Photo: Sgt. Michael
J. MacLeod )
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References :
References:
1. Jonas, S., The 15% Solution: How the Republican Religious
Right Took Control of the U.S., 1981-2022: A Futuristic Novel, http://www.puntopress.com/jonas-the-15-solution-hits-main-distribution/ ,
pp. 183-184.
2. Aravosis,
J., "Were legalizing marijuana and gay marriage on the same day God's Plan?" America
Blog, http://americablog.com/2012/11/were-legalizing-marijuana-and-gay-marriage-on-the-same-day-gods-plan.html .
3. Arnebeck,
Bob, "Baron von Steuben," http://bobarnebeck.com/baron.html .
(Please note that previously the Wikipedia reference on the good Baron
contained a mention of his having been cashiered from the Prussian Army for
"objectionable behavior" concerning young boys.
That mention has since been scrubbed.
The team of Wikipedia scrubbers working at the Heritage Foundation,
anyone?)
4. Faecke,
Jeff, "The Bad, the Worse, and the Horrible on Rape in the Military," http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/16812-the-bad-the-worse-and-the-horrible-on-rape-in-the-military .
5. McVeigh, K., "Senators critical of military's "convening authority' system to punish sexual assault," http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/13/senators-critical-military-convening-authority .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Jonas,
MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY)
and author/co-author/editor/co-editor of over 30 books. Dr. Jonas' latest book
is The 15% Solution: How the Republican Religious Right Took
Control of the U.S., 1981-2022 :
A futuristic Novel , Brewster, NY, Trepper & Katz Impact Books,
Punto Press Pu b lishing, 2013, and available
on Amazon.
.jpg){kind=link}