Messing With DADT & The UCMJ

The Warrior Class

Okay this is the last post that I’m going to do on this.  Now what sparked this little rant was reading Russell Simmons on Twitter talking about he had the gay Army officer dude that got drummed out of the service for violating the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy by his office for an interview. 

There are a couple of things that I would like to assert as my premise for taking such firm root on the position that a violator of the DADT policy should be expelled from the service, officer or enlisted.  First is the notion that there has always been a warrior class of individuals that have given honorable service to this country since the inception of the Continental Army.  With that being said, homosexuals have also always been a part of a proud tradition of service to this country. 

I, personally, have no quarrel with homosexuality in the United States Armed Services.  I view it as an eventuality based solely on statistics, with no noticeable detraction of dedication of the entire membership.  What is at issue is the DADT policy and the conduct of military officers and the ability to follow the law as set by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  If an officer is to have any chance at all at reversing the treatment of homosexuals in the military he or she would must realize that the only hope is attacking the DADT policy. 

There is no progress that can be made in that way of advancing a military career if you are questioning the laws that you have already sworn to enforce.  The Uniform Code of Military Justice offers no recourse for the enlisted man or officer that refuses orders from a superior: the penalty is death, in times of war instant death.  There is no Bill of Rights in the military constitution and it is an entity entirely to itself –it requires a forfeiture of liberties associated with civilians.  Military officers know this well, and are held to an even higher standard as a result.

The second thing that I would like to assert is that there is a rather substantial portion of that warrior class that could be characterized as undereducated, bigoted, racist, sexist people of varying degrees of ignorance.  My mind is firmly fixed on my own memory of the great bulk of the enlisted corps that fills the most numerous ranks of military service, from say E-1 through E-6.  I do not mean to infer that such undesirable qualities are found in such great quantity because the United State military services would like it that way. 

I do think that people that don’t have a lot of options might be more likely to risk their life in service, but that is not that warrior class that I have in mind.  I am thinking of the real Massachusetts Minutemen and their modern incarnation as third, fourth and fifth generation service members.  I am thinking of National Guardsmen and reservists with careers but do it anyway because something deep drives them to take up arms for their country.  There is something to be said for the men and women that would risk their lives for causes that they believe in.  Usually those types never really have to be recruited.  Some of them could be extremely educated religious zealots, who if they thought about God enough they might have no further use for weaponry.  Some could be so mired in religion with enough diminished mental capacity and may not even believe in science-backed evolution.

If you have an issue with whatever drives them into the service of their country you should first look into replacing them.  The last time that I checked, we still call those brave individuals, men and women, Patriots here in the United States of America.  We have relied on them time and time again and while they have faltered, our policies (collective mismanagement) have failed them more than they have ever done to fail us.  The United States Military suffers from dwindling membership and lower retention than at any point in our history.  Removing the less than ideological undesirables might amount to a corps stripped bare of military might that we have become all too accustomed to.

On paper critics of DADT have great points regarding the fairness of the policy but the military has always operated outside of the law and exploited the fact that any homosexuals were outnumbered by the ignorant.  The question has been raised in several different ways whether or not the warrior class would continue to join the military in sufficient numbers if we started asking them to serve within the context of their sexuality –whatever that might be.  The leadership of the military has instead hedged a bet and has instead opted for the neutral and utterly absurd middle ground of denying sexuality, altogether, in lieu of that service.  Who can blame them?  The United States military had never had a history of making sexuality public in the first place.

Will you, Mister or Misses educated blog reader, send yourself or your children to the potential meat grinder that is military service to make up for the dumb ass who won’t join for no other reason that there could be a slight chance he or she has an openly homosexual superior?  I didn’t think so.  I don’t think that Russell Simmons would do it either.  I have news for all you: military intelligence is a real oxymoron.  Following orders is not a thinking person’s game, and there are more people following the orders than there are folks giving them out.  Here we are, as a country, going on year nine of warfare in the Middle East theatre and the tours for those in Central Command rotations are extended and the same people are overworked carrying out orders that you voted on.

I say this as member of a family that has sent young men and women to every branch of service, myself included: if you’re really about something then you’ll vote, write your congressman, or join up.  Really you should be doing all three, anyway, but I’m going to save my calls to service for another day.  Russell Simmons is a deep brother that gets out there and wants you to be engaged in the process, at least.  I just think that he was a little misinformed as to the true nature of the beast.  I don’t think that people understand that the fact that we have a military at all is akin to holding a lion by the tail as a means of directing it; Whereas we equals “the people.” 

This little thing called a military-industrial complex could perhaps undergo the transformations necessary to accommodate all of the comforts of the Constitution of the United States.  It might also collapse as a result of disturbing the culture of the most dedicated fighting force that the world has ever seen since the Crusades.  Christian overtones certainly account for much of the derision of a service that could include homosexuals as equals.  (Onward Christian soldiers even though killing is wrong, even in the name of the Lord, is a rather difficult concept to embrace unless you are a barbarian or an idiot in the first place.)  There is a lot that I could do with the Crusader analogy but I’m going to save that for a different day as well.  Check me out.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: