Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Who Asked? Who Told?

Interesting item on the Fox News site this AM about losses to the military of officers and medical professionals. Drummed Out of the Corps

From 1994 to 2003 the military separated 244 “medical and health professionals” for violation of the euphemistically titled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Wow, that’s almost 25 per year! And, excuse me for noticing that the period ends three years ago—is this NEWS? There are probably more folks drummed out for bad checks each month than over this ten year period.

But, let’s consider the issue here. Does anyone but me click on those links to find out just who or what is this “Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military”? A Narrowly Focussed Center Would it be wrong to wonder if they have a bias or an agenda other than a strong defense for the nation? And is this accurate, “’What advantage is the military getting by firing brain surgeons at the very time our wounded soldiers aren't receiving the medical care they need?’ said Aaron Belkin, associate professor of political science at the University of California at Santa Barbara”? Might it be a bit of hyperbole on the part of ol' Aaron in calling “medical and health professionals” in the military “brain surgeons”? And am I being overly critical if I notice that the good professor is from UCSB, the university hosting the Center for the Study…? These 244 folks over ten years are in large part medical techs--shot givers and blood drawers. Pill pushers, if you will.

Let’s note some things. The military is tasked with fighting wars. That requires some discipline, some sacrifice, some difficult choices and some support. Medical support is obviously a requirement since it is very possible to get hurt while carrying out that primary mission. But, medical people aren’t warriors with rare exceptions. They aren’t “line” officers, NCOs or enlisted. They serve in a separate branch apart from the warriors with different promotion criteria and different qualifications. I”ve often thought it unfortunate that they wore the same uniform and had the same rank as line personnel since that confuses a lot of people, apparently some of them at Fox News.

So, we should admit at the start that the loss of a couple of medical techs who couldn’t quite live with not asking or not telling about their sexual proclivities isn’t a danger to the security of the nation.

But why is sexual orientation an issue in the military? Is it rampant homophobia or is there something else going on? First, I don’t accept the argument about sexual approaches in foxholes, submarine berths or barracks showers. Unwanted sexual advances are inappropriate whether homo- or hetero-sexual. There are regulations and mechanisms to deal with that.

The issue is sociological. Whether we like it or not, our society is still not accepting of homosexual behavior. It doesn’t take a lot of research to demonstrate this fact. While Brokeback Mountain is making shepherds into cowboys, a lot of the nation is saying that ain’t natural and they don’t like it. It’s bigotry and prejudice of course. But it’s real.

In the military, there is a requirement to advance in rank and responsibility. If you don’t gain promotions in specified times, you are separated from the service. With increased rank comes the requirement to lead others. Leadership is a difficult skill to master. Some folks are born with it and some will never be able to lead. For many people, management is adequate rather than leadership. But for warriors, effectiveness in battle will eventually demand leadership. That’s why as long as we live in a society which harbors folks in large numbers who don’t approve of homosexual behavior we will be unable to allow openly professing gay, lesbian, transgendered, transsexual, or whatever to serve in the military.

Maybe in another generation or two attitudes will change. But in the meantime, we will not be charging the enemy led by officers and enlisted who march to the beat of that different drummer.

1 comment:

Gary Cruse said...

"But in the meantime, we will not be charging the enemy led by officers and enlisted who march to the beat of that different drummer."

Shouldn't that be officers and enlisted who ADMIT to marching to a different drummer? I have to believe there are closeted homosexual military leaders today, there were in wars past, and that leadership skills have nothing to do with sexual proclivities.

As you intimate, we have procedures in place already to regulate heterosexual military behavior. I see no reason to treat gays any different.

When I was in the 1960s Navy, I only knew of one guy kicked out for homosexual activity. He was a good guy and a loss to the service.