-
Who’s Politicizing Benghazi?
May 9, 2013 | 6 comments
-
A Tale of Two Teams and Two Stars
January 10, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Mitt Romney Just Got Himself Elected President
October 3, 2012 | 17 comments
-
Obama to Gays and Hollywood: Show Me the Money!
May 9, 2012 | 13 comments
-
Ruinous Obama Austerity
May 9, 2012 | 2 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Of all the military services, the United States Marine Corps is the most politically incorrect, the most militarily certain, the most intellectually engaged and open-minded, and the most faithful to its raison d’être as a fighting force.
This is worth remembering today, on this the Marines’ 235th birthday: Because once again, the Marines find themselves out of favor with America’s ruling class elites and popular culture. And once again, the Marines are in the right.
I refer, of course, to the issue of open homosexuality within the military and whether the armed forces will be forced to accommodate openly gay service. The popular culture and ruling class elites all think this is a moral imperative; the Marines disagree, and overwhelmingly so.
The popular culture and ruling class elites think (or at least purport to think) that human sexuality is a benign or irrelevant force that can be controlled and contained without incident or effect. The Marines, by contrast, recognize that sexuality is a tremendously powerful behavioral characteristic, which can and does shape human action, and in profound and often unpredictable ways.
For these reasons, the Marines have been pushing back against the requirement to accommodate open homosexuality within the ranks. They recognize that if and when the Marines become know as “the few, the proud, the homosexuals,” that the Marine Corps will, in effect, cease to exist.
“I think that the current policy [of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] works,” Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James. T. Conway told Congress earlier this year. “My best military advice to this committee, to the secretary, to the president would be to keep the law such as it is.”
Conway just recently retired, but has said, correctly, that the vast majority of Marines — including his successor as Commandant, Gen. James F. Amos — agree with him.
“There’s risk involved… [to] unit cohesion [and to] combat effectiveness” from changing the current ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy, Amos told reporters last week.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, said that he is “surprised” at Amos’s comments, and surprised as well that Amos spoke publicly about the matter. Indeed, according to the Canadian Post, Mullen
said the heads of the military services had committed to “look at the data and then make our recommendations privately.”
That amounted to a mild rebuke of Amos. Mullen said he had not spoken to Amos about the remarks.
With respect to the Chairman, I think he is seriously mistaken.
As I have argued here at the The American Spectator and elsewhere, in our constitutional democracy, the people are sovereign. They thus have a right to hear what their military leaders think about big, important and contentious public-policy issues, That way, we the people can weigh in on these matters; and our elected representatives can make wise and informed decisions.
So instead of chastising the military service heads for speaking publicly about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Adm. Mullen ought instead, it seems to me, be encouraging them to speak out and to be heard — so that they can help educate the public.
Moreover, the studies or “data” that the Department of Defense is gathering are ultimately useless and mostly a waste of time.
“Feelings,” after all, are ephemeral; they can and do change. And given the cultural indoctrination that has taken place during the past two decades, and that is continuing apace, the day is not far off, I suppose, when even our servicemen and women give the politically correct response to questions about homosexuality.
Sexual yearnings, by contrast, are a much more deeply rooted behavioral impulse; they are thus far harder to alter and change. The problem with openly gay military service is that it puts the full force of the law — the full power of the state — behind an overt sexual dynamic while dishonestly pretending that sexuality doesn’t affect human behavior.
So the Marines are pushing upstream against a very powerful political and cultural tide. The problem is that our popular culture and ruling class elites have convinced themselves that openly gay service is a moral imperative which must, therefore, be foisted upon the U.S. military.
Compromise Measure. Let me propose, then a compromise measure: Leave the Marines alone. Let them be the one military service that is not forced to accommodate open homosexuality within the ranks. That way, openly gay men and women can still serve, just not in the Marine Corps. They certainly can serve, though, in Admiral Mullen’s Navy, and in the Army and Air Force.
In this way, we can achieve true “diversity.” We can have military services and units whose celebration of diversity includes a strong affirmation of homosexuality; and we can have at least one military service, the Marine Corps, that does not.
The Left purports to believe in diversity. Well, here’s their chance to prove it. If they really do believe, as they say they do, in “letting a thousand flowers bloom,” then they’ll agree to let the Marines adopt a different policy, one that is more in accordance with their values and traditions.
This also will allow policymakers and the public to see how open homosexuality within the ranks might affect recruiting.
If, after all, homosexuality really doesn’t matter to our servicemen and women, then the Marines won’t do any better with their recruiting efforts than the Navy, Army and Air Force.
If, by contrast, homosexuality is something that many of our servicemen and women don’t wish to be forced to accommodate or to accept, then they’ll tend to steer away from the Navy, Army and Air Force and migrate instead toward the Marine Corps.
There is, of course, precedent for exempting the Marines from some of the strictures and requirements of the other three military services.
The Marine Corps, for instance, is the only military service that has separate entry level training for men and women. That’s because the Marines recognize that sexuality is a powerful and disruptive force which most certainly would wreak havoc with their training and indoctrination process.
For 235 years, the Marines have always been there for America. It is high past time for America to return the favor. Policymakers should recognize again, as they have before, that the Marine Corps is a unique institution filled with a special group of people.
Indeed, the Marines aren’t like most other servicemen and women; they’re different. And so, in the name of diversity, they should be allowed to adhere to different standards and different requirements. Open homosexuality for all of the military services — except the Marines.
Let a thousand flowers bloom. Let the Marines thrive and prosper for another 235 years. Semper Fi.
View all comments (31) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John R. Guardiano
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/11/10/exempt-the-marines
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
JmsA| 11.10.10 @ 6:13PM
Happy Birthday Marine Corps - May the Lord bless them all.
C Bowen| 11.10.10 @ 6:43PM
They rolled over for women in the military, I assume it just a matter of time until they roll over again.
hmm_contrib| 11.10.10 @ 7:01PM
"The Left purports to believe in diversity. Well, here's their chance to prove it. If they really do believe, as they say they do, in "letting a thousand flowers bloom," then they'll agree to let the Marines adopt a different policy, one that is more in accordance with their values and traditions."
So, let's keep one institution with a discriminatory policy based on religious biases, and the "Left"'s unwillingness to accept this discrimination will prove the Left is discriminatory. Did I get that right?
Occam's Tool| 11.10.10 @ 7:11PM
The Marines have a good success record with their training. America's military accomplishes missions with casualty rates far below what most militaries have suffered in human history. I would be very careful changing policies that our very successful military leaders believe improve unit cohesion and thereby save lives.
When police and attorneys tell me how to practice medicine, I usually tell them to piss up a rope. I am not a military professional. I defer to their knowledge here.
Ryan| 11.11.10 @ 8:57AM
Correct. Being nondiscriminating means allowing discrimanatory beliefs.
In other words, it's an absolutely hyprocritical belief system.
SDN| 11.11.10 @ 3:59PM
I hope you remain willing to apply the "accusation = guilt" standard used for female harassment claims when the complainer is a straight male.
geronl| 11.10.10 @ 7:29PM
exempt all the branches.
Ned the Red| 11.10.10 @ 9:33PM
Remember how the American Cowboy was an icon for American morals and values. Now, after a movie, what is the first thought many think of when two cowboys are seen together? Whether they believe the men to be gay, whether they care, whether they are or not, does not matter, the traditional image is corrupted with the thought.
This is what will happen to the military. This is the intention. It has nothing to do with equality or fairness for gay people. In this instance gays are simply the tool being used by the left to break down another symbol of America. When nothing of tradition is left, then we will be nothing. This is the goal.
Jim Boyd | 11.12.10 @ 6:52AM
Ned the Red is absolutely correct. The Left is hard at work to unravel the fabric of our American society. This effort is just them pulling another handful of threads.
Rich Fisher| 11.10.10 @ 9:46PM
As a 9 year Marine Veteran-1967-1976-I can say unequivocally that even don't ask/don't tell is an abomination to most Marines. Homosexuality has no place in the environment that Marines live in-shared quarters, shared showers and shared just about everything0-and is a definite drag on morale. The Marines are not a social club and certainly not a testing ground for social experiments thought up by the "elite" who wouldn't know a K Bar from a Hershey Bar. When the killing starts they want real Marines standing between them and the enemy not a bunch of panty waists who are more worried about political correctness than destroying the enemy. You are right on, "the few, the proud, the Marines" has no need to change to fit societys most current view of "men". What the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is really worried about is what a wuss he looks like when a real General steps up to the plate and tells the truth. Semper Fi and Happy Birthday to the world's best and meanest.
george| 11.10.10 @ 11:58PM
I was drafted 1969, served 13 months in Vietnam 9 months of that as a medic in a rifle platoon.
You are not going to "train" ground combat soldiers engaged in daily contact with the enemy to accept anybody in their midst. They either will or they won't based on their instinct and gut.
If you try and force them they're going to say here's my g*d rifle and grenades you can take your feel good Army and go fight your war.
Old Soldier| 11.11.10 @ 12:55AM
I applaud Mr. Guardiano's forthright statement of an obvious fact: sexuality is a vital, deep-seated, and immutable aspect of human nature. Liberals, who think they can regulate all elements of life to suit their ideologies, refuse to acknowledge this essential fact. The troops know better.
edgard| 11.11.10 @ 2:28AM
When I joined the belgian Army and later when volunteering for Korea we were not asked about our sexual orientation. Of course some homos were in our mids and some tried to recruit easy prey. I was accosted once by such a lowlife and I kicked the s..t out of him.
The excuse" that they have them in the allied troops" has no merrit, for the systems are totaly different.
You have all voluntaire services, we had a cadre of carreer professionals( NCO and Officers) and we lorded it over the pions that were drafted for a year, 18 months or at the most 2 years and we kept them so occupied that deviants had little time or energy to ply their urges. Also we slept in large bays in contrast where in the US Services now they sleep mostly 2 to a room, which would give the homos a better chance of seducing a (drunken?or with porno ?) roommate. I believe that DADT is a fair system and I can not fathom why they want to come out of their closets? You can bet that some of them will get stomped to death or get maimed after having downed a number of drinks. I hope that the new regime will have the guts to reprimand or fire those in top command that have openly recommended the lifting the ban on DADT, as they have the balls to chastise Commanders that have opinionated against the lifting the ban. There is also the problem of base housing. How can you have them live among families? I would not let my kids play outside where there is a chance they get enticed into their orbit. Then of course there is the religious angle of preaching against sin. ED
Presley O'Bannon| 11.11.10 @ 11:58AM
This will not work. The Marines are reliant upon many Navy personnel who serve and fight along with them. The majority are medical and chaplain personnel, but other personnel such as Naval Gunfire and Aviation personnel also serve in Marine Combat Units. Most Sailors who have been awarded the Medal of Honor in the modern era because of their service with the Marine Corps. Additionally, all of the services are intermingled within Joint Commands.
John Guardiano| 11.15.10 @ 12:09AM
"Presley O'Bannon,"
I'm not sure why you think allowing the Marines to adhere to their own standard re openly gay service is unworkable. To me, the idea seems eminently workable.
Sure, some issues would have to be worked out -- just as some issues will have to be worked out if and when the military moves to accommodate open homosexuality within the ranks.
But the solution is simple, I think: If you're a Marine, or if you're attached to a Marine unit, or if you're wearing the Marine Corps uniform, then you must adhere to the Marines' standards. That means no open homosexuality.
If, by contrast, you're attached to one of the other military services or to a joint command, then you adhere to their rules, which may be different.
I agree that a uniform standard is preferable. That's why I recommend retaining the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which has worked out quite well.
But if our ruling class elites are determined to foist openly gay service on the military -- and they are determined to do just that -- then exempting the Marines seems to me a legitimate compromise measure. It at least allows for a true diversity of approaches to this issue.
Indeed, in this way, people who believe that openly gay service is a moral imperative will have military units that champion their values. And people who find open homosexuality morally and aesthetically objectionable will have military units that affirm their deepest beliefs.
Viola: everyone wins! We can have military units that affirm open homosexuality; and we can have military units that affirm an older Judeo-Christian ethic.
That's the advantage of "diversity." No one gets to force their way on anyone else. Instead, everyone gets their way.
Regards,
John
DRed| 11.11.10 @ 2:17PM
Considering the day, I'd just like to thank Mr. Guardiano and the other vets who have posted here for their willingness to sacrifice for my right to disagree with them completely.
Alex| 11.11.10 @ 6:01PM
Flashback to 1948: "Let me propose, then a compromise measure: Leave the Marines alone. Let them be the one military service that is not forced to accommodate Negroes within the ranks. That way, Negroes can still serve, just not in the Marine Corps."
John Guardiano| 11.12.10 @ 12:14AM
Alex (and Peter),
Thanks for your note, but your comparison of homosexuals with blacks, Jews and other minorities is seriously misplaced.
As Colin Powell has observed, "Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation," by contrast, "is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two [race and sexual orientation] is a convenient but invalid argument."
Moreover, what our servicemen and women think about homosexuals really doesn't matter: because attitudes, as you correctly note, can and do change over time. Human nature and human sexuality, however, are much more firmly rooted.
Putting the full force of the law, and the full force of the state, behind an overt sexual dynamic that many servicemen and women find morally and aesthetically objectionable is, to say the least, highly problematic.
Regards,
John
Peter| 11.11.10 @ 6:07PM
America and the military has come a long way since the last survey like this one. The 1940′s Military Opinion Surveys on Integrating Blacks & Jews.
At the time, the military — along with the overwhelming majority of the country — opposed integrating black service members into the forces and preferred a ’separate but equal’ approach that would have required the military to construct separate recreation spaces and facilities. The survey about Jews was no more promising, with 86% of the soldiers agreeing that “there is nothing good about Jews“
While “no official Army action was being considered with respect to Jewish soldiers,” Truman integrated the forces despite the objections of the troops. He allowed them to voice their opinions but did not let them dictate the policy.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/odyssey/archive/09/0902001r.jpg
SpiderMike| 11.11.10 @ 9:08PM
I served two tours with the Big Red One in Vietnam. I simply cannot believe that the current crop of 18 y/o soldiers are OK with this. If they truly are, then we've got bigger problems and that is an America in a irreversible decline. This will not end well for any of us.
David| 11.12.10 @ 12:42AM
I don't know what it is about the Spectator that it attracts, as writers and commenters, so many who are so terrified of homosexuality. I really don't.
Yet here we have another example of an op-ed by someone who can't reason straight when homosexuality is the topic.
"The problem with openly gay military service is that it puts the full force of the law -- the full power of the state -- behind an overt sexual dynamic"
How, exactly? I ask in earnest because John Guardiano doesn't begin to tell us. In any event, it is difficult to imagine how allowing a homosexual serviceman to mention his boyfriend the way a heterosexual serviceman can mention his girlfriend put the force of the law "behind an overt sexual dynamic."
And if Guardiano really believes this nonsense, then why on Earth is he suggesting his compromise? What -- openly homosexual men and woman forcing the law to serve some " overt sexual dynamic" (while pretending otherwise) is okay for every branch except the marines?
Oh, but he tell us: He want one branch of the service to be a haven for all homosexuality haters:
If "homosexuality is something that many of our servicemen and women don't wish to be forced to accommodate or to accept, then they'll tend to steer away from the Navy, Army and Air Force and migrate instead toward the Marine Corps."
Cute.
David| 11.12.10 @ 12:52AM
Mr. Guardiano,
I see you posted an answer to Alex and Peter while I was posting my comment. Since you are online and paying attention to this page, perhaps you look at my response and come up with some answers too.
"Putting the full force of the law, and the full force of the state, behind an overt sexual dynamic that many servicemen and women find morally and aesthetically objectionable is, to say the least, highly problematic."
You repeat this "overt sexual dynamic" claim in your statement to Alex and Peter, but you haven't explained it any more than you did in your original piece.
Just what sexual dynamic is suddenly going to become overt if homosexuals can talk about themselves, and how is the law going to be put squarely behind it?
How is service members moral and aesthetic reaction to homosexuality different than their moral and aesthetic reactions to blackness and Jewishness?
Stephen| 11.12.10 @ 10:07AM
No true conservative could possibly accept the prejudice parading as patriotism in Mr Guardino's essay. His disregard for history is an astonishment.
It is entirely correct to observe that our military shared equally dim prejudice against Jews and blacks at one time. Those views were repudiated 60 years ago. Today, our military forces are -- proudly -- the most integrated of any in the nation they serve.
An equally dim prejudice kept women wholly separate, unable to serve our country in war and peace. This nonsense has also been discredited, and more barriers fall every day.
Now, conservatives demand that gay men and women be able to serve openly, with honor and integrity, and NOT be required to lie about who they are every day of their service.
Will this affect military cohesion and effectiveness? Try telling that to the Brits and the Canadians. They are on the front lines with us in Afghanistan today. No troops fight more bravely, and their gay patriots have served openly for years.
Young Americans today grow up with openly gay friends, movie stars, businessmen and cops. They are unafraid. GLEE commands its vast popularity for a reason. Brokeback Mountain is iconic for a reason. Our kids are leaving our bigotry behind.
Mr Guardino is afraid of ghosts.
JP| 11.12.10 @ 3:33PM
It's an All Volunteer force. The quickest way to destroy our military to force feed the homosexual life style to it. There would be a mass exodus out of the military. Once sodomy is openly allowed, you will see the gay agenda get implemented step by step. Gay parades, trans-sexual quarters, and a ton of litigation will follow.First sergeants and commanders will lose control, and God help us if we have to fight another war.
And Stephen,
You obviously never served in a combat unit. Gays are not openly allowed in the military for the same reasons women are not allowed in combat. It would be a disaster for morale.
Stephen| 11.12.10 @ 6:58PM
Oh, JP, that's a truly inept reply. It documents your homophobia, but little else.
Your talk of a "gay agenda" is laughable. Ever heard of the Log Cabin Republicans? Sheesh.
Re your laughable assertion that gays serving would be a "disaster for morale", as I explained to another bigot: try telling that to the Israelis.
In their extraordinary Defense Forces, gays have always served. They have served OPENLY since 1993. That's 17 years, if your arithmetic is no better than your logic.
Now, tell us about the "disaster for morale" suffered by the IDF since 1993. Even your craziest pals will laugh if you try. The Israelis enjoy one of the strongest, most unified military organizations in the world. They have no choice. They want to survive. Their morale is stunning.
They fight as ably as any force in the world -- men and women both. Apparently Israeli gays don't scare Israeli straights at all. They fight side by side, every day.
Why are you so scared?
Purple Lips| 11.12.10 @ 3:35PM
"Try telling that to the Brits and the Canadians. They are on the front lines with us in Afghanistan today. No troops fight more bravely, and their gay patriots have served openly for years."
Name one queer who actually served in a combat unit.
Stephen| 11.12.10 @ 6:42PM
You did, or so we suspect.
Ole Sarge| 11.12.10 @ 3:50PM
I find it amusing that the elites are oblivious to reality, openly gay in the military, any branch is a recipe for disaster.
Stephen| 11.12.10 @ 6:50PM
Your comment isn't much of a sentence, and doesn't make much sense, but your "recipe for disaster" is a joke. You simply don't know what you're talking about.
Have you ever heard of the Spartans? The Sacred band of Thebes? The 300? You have no idea what you're saying. You operate from fear and ignorance.
Today, 25 nations allow gays to serve openly. (They have always served invisibly, of course.) A recipe for disaster, you claim?
Tell that to the Israelis. Theirs is one of the most effective, most disciplined, best motivated forces on the planet. Their members serve with tremendous distinction and courage, with enemies on all sides. Recipe for disaster?
Gays have served OPENLY in the Israeli Defense Forces since 1993. Since 1993...
What are you people afraid of? A good deal more than the Israelis, the Canadians and the Brits, it would seem. Pitiful.
Try telling the Israelis about their "recipe for disaster", and see how they answer you, 'Ole Sarge'. You just don't know what you're talking about.
Stephen| 11.12.10 @ 4:10PM
As a group, homophobes don't generally read much. They're too busy inspecting men's washroom stalls, à la Sen Larry Craig.
Anyone wishing to read about the Brit experience allowing gay people to serve openly might want to go back to the NYT of May 2007, and read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05.....itain.html
Any idiot who thinks the Brits are cowards, weak, effete, or lack unit cohesion have never served with them. They are among the bravest men and women on the planet. They appear to have NO problem serving alongside gay people, anywhere.
I suspect their courage on the battlefield is real, unlike the paper warriors on this board who evidently run away from the sight of a lesbian.
Our military is SO MUCH greater than you realize. Gay people have been serving us for centuries. Now, we allow them to do so openly, without having to lie to the likes of bigots.
Don't be so afraid, gentlemen! The lesbians won't make you cry.
Stephen| 11.12.10 @ 9:39PM
For those who wonder what our serving men and women actually think about serving beside gays, here is what the Pentagon's current report has to say: "... the report showed that a majority of active-duty service members and their families did not care if gay men and lesbians served openly." SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11.....mp;emc=a24
Some THIRTEEN THOUSAND troops and officers have been separated from our military since DADT came into effect 17 years ago. What a waste. This foolish policy has cost us $ millions in training, $ millions in lost opportunity, and Lord knows how many more $ millions in lost potential.
We have separated from our services dozens of highly skilled Arab-speakers, for example, trained at enormous expense in Monterey and elsewhere. This has grievously hurt us in the Iraq theatre of operations. Today, we are expelling gay officers who speak Pashtun. This hurts us in Afghanistan.
Acceding to the bigotry and tunnel vision of some poor patriots is, in fact, costing our troops the readiness, capacity and skills we badly need.
Once more: the Israelis, the Brits and the Canadians have shown us how to do it. They have exceptional military services, and their gay patriots serve openly. We must find the capacity to do the same. Anything less hurts our military readiness and success.
No real patriot supports DADT. It has proven to be stupid and self-defeating. Just ask the Israelis.