DADT: Why I Question Repealing Morality, Part II

“DADT: Why I Question Repealing Morality,” Part I (“Why I’m Questioning”) is online at Big Peace.

I had intended the writing of Part II to be a rather short endeavor, but the more I wrote the more I realized how much there is to say on how wrong repealing morality from the Armed Forces is. Nevertheless, that is for another time. And so the version I present here is an abbreviated version that presents some of the most relevant points.

Why Repealing Morality Is Wrong:

The same society that tells us that sodomy is “healthy and normal,” and something that must be forcibly institutionalized upon society (the Armed Forces included) also tells us that chocolate milk is harmful and must be banned. My argument against repealing morality from the Armed Forces could stop here. Even still, it won’t.

Repealing Morality Destroys Unit Cohesion, Readiness and Capabilities:

Fellow Big Peace contributor, Michael Yon, recently posted a government report on his own web site entitled, “A Crisis of Trust and Cultural Incompatibility,” which should be required reading (in conjunction with John Bernard’s three-part series on how jihadists have thoroughly infiltrated and subverted the U.S.) by every American. The report addresses the epidemic of our Afghan “allies” murdering U.S./ISAF Troops and examines why this epidemic occurs. In doing so, it implicitly shows that the U.S.-led counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy in Afghanistan is a failure (which is killing our Troops and losing the war) because of the cultural divide–a cultural divide that stems from moral differences and outright immorality in many cases. The report details repeatedly that this cultural/moral problem has utterly destroyed trust, unit cohesion, and even capability of U.S./ISAF Troops to interoperate with Afghani forces. The report states in its conclusion (after noting problems and issues on the U.S./ISAF side) (emphasis mine):

However, this is not a call for appeasement to a highly toxic culture (such as the U.S. Army’s ‘encouragement’ that its female soldiers wear a hijab instead of their Kevlar thus placating Afghan perceptions of women’s lower social status as well as putting them at additional unnecessary risk). All too often, ISAF political and military officials as well as the international media have prostrated themselves before the alters [sic] of multiculturalism, moral relativity and political correctness and have excused inexcusable behaviors on the part of the Afghans (witness one senior ISAF official who described a riot that included an Afghan mob’s heinous murder of seven UNAMA workers, beheading two, in Mazar-e-Sharif in response to a copy of the Koran being burned in Florida as “understandable passions”). Such ethically challenged apologist perspectives hinder any movement towards advancing the Afghan culture beyond its toxic medieval mentality or curbing a violent and unquestioning ideology. Rather, this is a recommendation not to add fuel to the fire of cultural incompatibility by unnecessarily offending Afghans with various abrasive policies or coarse behaviors that most any people would find offensive.

As long as ISAF political and military leaders are committed to the ‘partnering’ program with ANSF, more decisive efforts towards developing procedures and protocols, and perhaps most importantly, cultivating appropriate attitudes and mindsets specifically tailored to meet and satisfy Afghan cultural and theological sensitivities and normative demands are vital components towards improving the safety of ISAF soldiers. This is admittedly an extremely difficult task given that the mutual feelings between ISAF and ANSF personnel is quite often one of a very strong dislike, even contempt. Namely one group generally sees the other as a bunch of violent, reckless, intrusive, arrogant, self-serving, profane, infidel bullies hiding behind high technology; and the other group generally views the former as a bunch of cowardly, incompetent, obtuse, thieving, complacent, lazy, pot-smoking, treacherous and murderous radicals. Such is the state of progress in the current ‘partnering’ program. Less this seem an exaggeration refer back to the first few pages of this report as well as Appendix A on the rate of deliberate fratricide-murders that are taking place.

Undoubtedly, there are some people who have ignored the above parts about appeasement, the altars of multiculturalism, moral relativity, and political correctness, and therefore are now yelling, “You have just undermined your own argument! You’re the one who wants to keep the military from progressing by maintaining an immoral policy that discriminates against the LGBT population! You’re just like the Afghanis!” But that screeching outburst just further underscores my point: repealing morality from the Armed Forces is an all-or-nothing game where the anti-morality crowd says that to oppose their immorality is “immoral,” “backwards,” and equivalent to racism (it’s not; such an argument is a logical fallacy) while pro-morality proponents argue that it will become impossible for the Armed Forces (indeed society) to both legitimize immorality and allow us to retain our beliefs while remaining a part of “polite” society.

In other words, the anti-morality proponents cannot tolerate any opposing views. Indeed, merely providing the evidence that sodomy is harmful is “hateful.” Thus, the end state of repealing morality will be that the anti-morality proponents will see the morality proponents as “hate-filled, immoral bigots,” and the morality proponents will see the anti-morality proponents as “hate-filled, immoral bigots.” Only one side will be correct in their assessment and only one side will win. Regrettably, the side likely to win will not be the side that is correct.

And so, repealing morality from the Armed Forces cannot have anything other than a detrimental effect which will undermine unit cohesion, destroy trust, and ultimately destroy readiness and capabilities. This alone is enough reason to oppose the repeal of morality from the Armed Forces. Yet things get worse.

Repealing Morality Will Physically and Mentally Harm Troops:

The DOD says that the physical and mental well-being of its Troops is paramount, yet implementing morality repeal from the Armed Forces will prove otherwise. In fact, it will demonstrate yet again that political correctness (sometimes called, “diversity”) is the top priority of the DOD. But what the DOD fails to acknowledge about repealing morality (in addition to the harm that it will inflict on Troops and the readiness of the Armed Forces) is that implementing it will also set up the DOD and government for lawsuits that inevitably will follow.

Some of the forthcoming lawsuits will come as the result of the increased sexual assaults and depression that repealing morality will cause. The government will have no defense from these lawsuits since it knows that male-on-male sexual assaults in the Armed Forces already are a problem and are underreported. Allowing open sodomites into the Armed Forces will only exacerbate this plague and thus the DOD will be knowingly increasing abuse and violence against its Troops. I would have thought that the DOD and government would have had enough of sexual assaults and lawsuits.

Furthermore, the Center for Disease Control explicitly states that male sodomites are the largest spreaders of HIV/AIDS, and that high school sodomites are more inclined to do riskier things than those not engaged in deviant sexual behavior. On top of these physical harms, there is the ongoing problem of depression and suicide in the Armed Forces. Repealing morality will compound this problem through forcing Troops to compromise their consciences and deal with the harassment and assault from the worst bullies of all.

Other Nations and Morality Repeal:

One of the common arguments I hear in support of the repeal of morality is that other nations (particularly our NATO allies) have successfully implemented it in their armed forces. To this I immediately ask, “Why would the United States, home of the best Armed Forces in the world, look to other nations on how to ‘improve’ our Armed Forces?” That question rings particularly loud when I look at current events and examine the readiness and capabilities of these politically correct NATO allies we wish to emulate.

And how does the disintegration of NATO readiness and capabilities relate to repealing morality from the Armed Forces? Sodomy is one of the gods of political correctness, and political correctness is at the heart of why the majority of NATO nations no longer can mount a sustained, competent defense.

Leftists use political correctness to weaken nations and national defense so they can advance their agenda. Repealing morality from the armed forces of a nation undermines unit cohesion, demoralizes troops, encourages corruption, and ultimately generates increased loathing for the armed forces (and the nation in general). This eases efforts to further defund defense so that leftists may push ever-increasing amounts of money to the socialist-welfare state, which further weakens defense by consuming constantly increasing amounts of money and resources. This is what has happened to our NATO allies–PC has led them to intentionally gut their militaries in order that they might throw ever larger sums of money at their own, failed socialist states. And this is what will happen, over time, to the American Armed Forces should the government implement morality repeal.

Repealing Morality Institutionalizes Inequality and Injustice:

Political correctness has slowly cut away at American society for decades, and the pending repeal of morality is simply one last nick of the PC knife that will destroy the last remnants of foundational America. So it comes as no surprise and I therefore am somewhat at peace with it. But there are still a few things in life that irritate me and one of them is that this pending repeal promises to usher in a new era of official, institutionalized inequality and injustice (apart from the inequality and injustice that is inherent in repealing morality). Here’s what I mean.

The DOD allows officials and commanders to ignore the current law that bans sodomites from the Armed Forces. Even when commanders surely know that a servicemember is a sodomite, commanders and the DOD often look the other way and ignore the law. In order for the DOD and commanders to maintain equality and justice if the pending new policy goes into effect, they would have to allow the same disregard for the new law as they do with the current law. But that won’t happen. The Huffington Post column I mentioned in Part I proves this–it shows that troops breaking the current law are being consulted and quoted as arbiters on if law-abiding Troops are thinking “correctly” about the not-as-of-yet policy. Additionally, there is the fact that sodomite military members are planning a group conference in Las Vegas in order to “formulate strategies” on what they are going to do next. How can there even be such a thing as a “gay military member group?” Doesn’t the very existence of such a group break the current law? And then there are the three Army colonels in South Korea who were punished for doing a “gay” skit even as, “. . . the officers did not violate any regulations with their performance. . . .” So if inequality and injustice already exists in the DOD with regards to morality, how bad will it become once morality is repealed and enforcing immorality becomes the standard?

And it is this inequality that bothers me . . . particularly when someone lectures me on how Servicemen must obey any changes to the law regardless of whether they agree with it. What an Orwellian nation we have become.

In Closing:

This Isn’t about Dissent:

I didn’t start this fight–I’m just now fighting back. And I’m not even doing that really. I’m simply noting the absurdities, the contradictions, and the forthcoming consequences for what is about to happen. In other words, I am vocalizing my opinion on this for the same reason I vocalized my opinion when I wrote, “Why women shouldn’t be allowed to serve in combat:”

. . . although the American armed forces currently are the best in the world, if we want them to follow the lead of (by inference) inferior armed forces through politically correct maneuverings, we must be prepared for our armed forces to become like those inferior ones. In other words, if we choose to strive after that which is inferior, we must accept inferiority. People may question who will fill the void once the American armed forces are no longer dominant, but that’s not for me — or anyone else in the military — to determine. After all, the armed forces are subordinate to and should follow the will of the American people.

Therefore, my reason for speaking up is not dissent (although I understand why The Washington Times interpreted it that way). I oppose this pending morality repeal but that is not to say that I won’t follow it if/when it is implemented.

Let me also explicitly state that I would hope that all Servicemen would follow any new policy on morality without hesitation regardless of their beliefs on the matter, just as I would hope that Servicemen would follow any other order regardless of their beliefs. Allow me to demonstrate what I mean by this with the following illustration.

Suppose, hypothetically, that many people in America (including Servicemen) supported a certain Middle Eastern nation ruled by non-Arab peoples. And suppose that many Servicemen viewed this nation as an ally, with some having worked and trained with its military members, developing close bonds and friendships with them. I would hope that all Servicemen would follow any hypothetical executive order to attack and invade this hypothetical nation should the president decide that we have a Responsibility to Protect the Arab peoples living in that nation if the president concluded that the nation was not doing what he thought it needed to do. I would hope that Servicemen would obey such a hypothetical order, regardless of Troop beliefs on the matter (and the friendships they would have developed personally with the non-Arab peoples), just as they obeyed the president when he issued a unilateral, executive order to attack and invade Libya when he concluded that the U.S. had a Responsibility to Protect the people living in Libya from their government. We are, after all, professional Warriors. And part of being a professional Warrior is being one who puts his “service before his own objections.” Furthermore, I would tell any civilian that would encourage dissent from any such hypothetical scenario to “cool it” with their fretting, whining, and protests.

Simply put, while Servicemen have a right to disagree with policy and offer reasons for their disagreement (which I have done with my two-part explanation), in the end, once the decision is made, we have an obligation to obey our superiors and above them, the American People who run this nation. And since this is the rule we’ve all agreed to play by when it comes to implementing morality repeal, then it’s going to be the rule that we will all play by when it comes to everything else as well. If not, then we no longer are a society or a nation of laws. Instead, at that time, we might very well have become an anarchic land of full of worthless people and ruled by a tyrannical government.

.