General (Pace) Comments

"I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral, and that we should not condone immoral acts."

Since none of you threatened me with death for my stance on gay marriage, I thought I'd give you my take on General Pace's comments. I thought I'd missed the relevant media cycle, but since he said more today, I'm back on topic.

My biggest problem with the above comment is the pronoun switch. Quite honestly, I have no problem with Gen. Pace saying, "I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral." His opinion, and he's entitled to have it and express it. That's one of the American freedoms he has defended, and I appreciate it.

So what's this "we"? As my Dad would say, "Did he have a mouse in his pocket?" Most likely he meant the military or military commanders. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, he probably has the authority to use "we" for either. Mixing his opinion and the party line in the same sentence, however, was at best inelegant and possibly downright sneaky.

He tried to make up for it today:

"In expressing my support for the current policy, I also offered some personal opinions about moral conduct. I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views."

I almost bought this, but take a look -- this time the pronoun stayed the same, but the verb is a little off. The morality comment wasn't an attempt to "support" the current policy. It was an attempt to "justify" it. If you don't believe me, look back at the rest of the original speech.

"I believe that military members who sleep with other military members' wives are immoral in their conduct...I do not believe that the armed forces are well served by saying through our policies that it's OK to be immoral in any way, not just with regards to homosexual acts...So from that standpoint, saying that gays should serve openly in the military to me says that we, by policy, would be condoning what I believe is immoral activity."

Translation: "I" also think adultery and homosexuality are equally immoral (for military members -- what about the rest of us?). Immorality and the armed forces don't mix. So "we" should not condone what "I" think is immoral. Again with the pronoun swap.

My point is that you "support" a policy with data, or at least anecdotes. How has the policy benefitted us? What would happen if we get rid of it? What if we don't?

Instead, Gen. Pace attempted to "justify" the policy in an almost mathematical model. And he couldn't even make it through the first sentence without switching from his morality to what the military should do. For you geometry fans: GIVEN

A = Homosexuality
B = Adultery
C = Military
D = Disaster

Gen. Pace basically told you:

"A = B. Since we know B + C = D, then it must also be true that A + C = D". Logically correct, if you believe his assumptions. Unfortunately, he doesn't give us a pythagorean theorem to show that A = B or that B + C = D. For the former he gives us his morality and some pronoun switching. The latter he just throws out there.

Frankly, I don't buy either assumption. I'll take on the adultery first. First of all, let's face facts: it has happened, continues to happen, and probably will always happen. And it's not that simple. Doubt me? I cuddled with a gay guy who's been "married" to a woman twice for better money and living quarters. I'm not even sure what "adultery" would be in this scenario -- her sleeping with her girlfriend? Her husband? At whose place? Yet we have the finest military in the world.

My best guess is that that the adultery rule, at least at this point, has little to do with morality and the victimized spouse. More likely, it's to discourage fraternization, especially between people of different ranks, which CAN present a problem. It's probably overkill, but given scandals like Tailhook, you can imagine the urge.

I also don't buy that homosexuality = adultery. "I" think homosexuality is better compared to segregation and gender inequity, and "we" should view it as such. In which case there are two precedents where integration of a new group worked out just fine.

Gen. Pace can't prove that A = B any more that I can prove that it doesn't. If he bungled policy and opinion due to unexpected questions and the glare of the lights, I'll forgive him. If he planned it, shame on him. Regardless, I'm more upset with Sen. Clinton's dodge: "Well, I'm going to leave that to others to conclude". Who, exactly? Probably a wise response for a candidate, but I had hoped for more from the wife of the man who made at least a half-hearted effort to integrate gays into the military. Especially when she was supposed to have been the more liberal of the two.

Here's one more thing I can't prove. I don't think the people who support the ban on gays actually believe (or care) that it would make our military less effective. They're just clinging to reasons for thinking of gays as something less than men. I think they look at whom little boys idolize, other than Dad: cowboys, soldiers (and police/fireman), and sports stars. They already lost on the cowboys. They can't allow their sons to see GI Joe and the next Babe Ruth kicking ass at work and pounding ass at home. Because then their grandsons will regard them the way I saw my Grampa when he talked about Brazil nuts -- with a respectful, amused, pity -- like an old dog that you love, even though it can't hunt anymore. And they'll be alone with their hatred and intolerance.

Until then, no matter how many doctors they need, I'll stay a civilian -- like 50 Arabic linguists and the lady in this poster:

PS - Since I have a reader/commenter with a request, the next post will be my take on Walter Reed and the VA. Maybe I'll ramble less.