The Island of Misfit Boys

I love debating issues with people. I love hearing people debate issues. In the normal mix of websites I traffic every day there is a mix of political sites, some very conservative, some very liberal. I think it’s great to read what well-educated people have to say on an issue, even if I disagree with them.

When military issues are being discussed and debated, I tend to pay attention. This weekend I stumbled across two very different articles on the controversial “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy. The New York Times ran a piece that had a collection of various scholars and professionals from across the political spectrum discussing the policy (unfortunately, I’m currently unable to find the link). It was well written and informative, exactly the kind of thing I enjoy reading.

The other I found was linked to off the front page at salon.com, and written by a Kent Pitman.  His article expertly mixes ridiculous conclusions and offensive comments.

However, before I go into the article, a bit about myself:  I’ve always described myself as a “conservative democrat,” (though minus the connotations I’m told the term carries in some parts of the US). I’m in the military. I also don’t care about people’s sexual orientation. We have rules against sexual harassment and sexual assault and we enforce them. If someone wants to serve in uniform, I couldn’t care less who they go home to at night.

At the same time, the military has a history of being the punching bag for people who don’t know much about it. I went to an extremely liberal school and actually had the administration actively try to prevent me from being able to join the military. No kidding. I’m not saying that the military has never messed up or that everyone who serves is an angel, that’s certainly not true. But I take offense to the crap from the far-left (I apologize for the generalization, as I have many extremely liberal friends who are very supportive of the military and/or also serve, but this is sadly where this particular kind of crazy tends to come from) that treats us like a bunch of uneducated bigots.

So back to the venerable Mr. Pitman, who likes to talk about things he doesn’t know a lot about. His bit of writing is framed around Lieutenant Dan Choi and his upcoming hearing about “the crime of being gay.” He opens by talking about how the military could “educate its way” out of this issue. He talks throughout about how easy it would be for the military simply to change this policy. He then wraps things up with a ridiculous parallel to the Nazi’s. I’m not kidding and please note: if you draw a parallel between the US Military and Nazism, and then say that obviously there are differences, you still said it. Much like saying ‘No offense but’ before you say something offensive, it doesn’t make it less offensive.  

The comments to the article? Were even worse. The author continues to waltz in and out of the discussion with quips about how the military could just wave its hands and make this issue go away. Military members are called hypocrites. At one point a comment talks about the “poorly educated” “farm hands” that make up the enlisted ranks, and how we need to brain wash them to get them to serve their country (by “hitchhiking on emerging sexual feelings” no less). The military’s policy is blamed for September 11th (really), the author talks about how gays will be forced out of the military with a “dishonorable discharge,” and no one ever bothers to bring up the truth about the matter.

So here are some facts: Lieutenant Choi may be administratively separated from the US military. This is because the military currently has a policy prohibiting homosexuals from openly serving in the military (a policy that as previously stated, I personally do not agree with) and he chose to go on a television show to talk about his sexual orientation. An administrative separation is not a criminal trial, it’s how someone is fired from the military. Believe it or not, Lieutenant Choi has not been charged with a crime, he will not be charged with a crime, and he will not receive a dishonorable discharge (Because you can only receive a dishonorable discharge if you are charged with and convicted of a crime! Which he hasn’t been!).

Moreover, the military cannot change this rule. It’s pretty simple, but seems lost on everyone mentioned above. This is a federal regulation that we are bound by. The President could set it aside with a stroke of the pen by ordering the military no longer to make the determination of whether someone is homosexual or not. It would be that simple. Congress could pass a law repealing the policy. The military cannot just decide not to follow it. This was a political policy, it remains so. Since the dawn of the republic we have had a system where civilians control the military, and that system has worked pretty damn well.

Mr. Pitman (and aforementioned commenters): I am an officer in the US Navy. I’m educated, not responsible for September 11^th (that was actually a terrorist attack, you may have seen something about it on the news), and have never been brainwashed. I’m the third generation of my family to proudly serve my country in uniform. I may not like this policy, but I am bound to follow a code that involves following the orders of those appointed over me. In my time in the military, I have met some of the most wonderful people you could ever hope to come across. They didn’t need to be brainwashed to serve their country, they wanted to. They signed up for it.

I hate to sit here on my soapbox and complain, and my next post will most likely be back to my normal happy self, but very fine people (much better than myself or Mr. Pitman) have laid down their lives to protect his right to freely say the first dumb thought that enters his mind. The least he could do is 10 minutes of research before maligning the people and institutions that have provided him with so much.