An Illinois Reader Writes on One Danger of Military Homosexualization

 
Re: “Lt. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, the Last Man Left in the Army’s Ranks of General Officers, Driven Out for Opposing Homosexualization.”

“The risk is a breakdown in morale and unit cohesion,” [Gen. Mixon] added, referring to the bond that warriors share on the front lines. “Everyone has to have total confidence in each other” in combat, he said.

Perhaps I am wrong about this, but NONE of these high ranking general or officials EVER makes the case properly. There is one primary and overriding reason why you do not want homosexuals in the military. They have a bad tendency for suicide. And who wants a suicidal person running around in the manner of the common soldier, with an assault rifle and four hand grenades. Or flying a B-52 or at the diving controls of a submarine, etc.

You might want to ask your psychiatrist friends and associates about this. Are gays much more prone to suicide than others?

And ask yourself this too. Why would a gay want to join the military when it is an institution that historically has been so hostile to them?

This don’t ask don’t tell as well if repealed is not enough. Homosexual acts for anyone in the military is a court martial offense under law, UCMJ. The UCMJ has been repealed, or that aspect of it? I think not.

The same reader added, in a second letter:

The general, by doing what he did, was also in violation of the UCMJ, Uniform Code of Military Justice. Article 88 and Article 134 both. Article 88 no criticism of the Pres or members of Congress. And Article 134, any action or words that creates dissension in the ranks or creates an atmosphere not conducive to good discipline.

Career men are allowed the option of resigning or being subject to courts martial.
In the military, you are expected to just jump, and that is that.
* * *
NS: I dealt previously with some of the issues raised by this reader in:

“Seven Days in May: Rumsfeld and the Generals”; and

“The Generals, Donald Rumsfeld, and the High Cost of Free Speech.”

Note, however, that neither the Bush Administration nor the media raised the matter of the UCMJ ban on public dissent by active duty officers five years ago. In the case of the administration, this may have been because no one in the White House was familiar with the UCMJ (not bloody likely), or George W. Bush’s allergy to confrontation (likely, as Ralph Nader noted already in 2000), while the media had contempt for America’s laws, both military and civilian, besides which, the critics were Democratic generals. Meanwhile, the Clinton Administration took action against four active-duty generals who criticized the then-President.