Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has "outed" himself as an anti-gay bigot, saying:
I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way
Pace's comments were in the context of defending the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, but in any context they were wrong, divisive, and inappropriate coming from someone at such a high level of the military. Fortunately, Virginia has two U.S. Senators who are not letting Pace's comments stand unchallenged. First, here's Senator John Warner (R), courtesy of the Chicago Tribune:
I respectfully but strongly disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral. In keeping with my long-standing respect for the Armed Services Committee hearing process, I will decline to comment on the current policy until after such hearings are held.
Now, here's Senator Jim Webb (D) from a press release by his office last night:
General Pace's remarks were unnecessarily divisive and also inappropriate considering his position at the highest ranks of our military.I agree with Senator John Warner that policy discussions on this issue should be respectful, and that further consideration would be beneficial under the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Armed Services.
Meanwhile, Pace didn't apologize for his beliefs, merely for the fact that "I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views."
In other words, Pace doesn't get it. Fortunately, others do, with legislation having been introduced by Rep. Martin Meehan (D-MA) to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." According to the Chicago Tribune, the legislation already has "more than 100 co-sponsors."
By the way, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that comments like this would come from someone like Peter Pace. As Daniel Byman wrote in a Washington Post book review of Thomas Rick's "Fiasco":
Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the invasion, and his deputy, Gen. Peter Pace (who's since been promoted to take Myers's old job), come off as smiling yes-men who went along with amateurish impulses from the Bush administration's political leadership and who forsook their duty to offer detached, professional judgments, acting instead as administration flacks in both private and public.
Sadly, Pace has once again forsaken his duty "to offere detached, professional judgements here," instead letting his own personal prejudices get in the way. That's unfortunate, but sadly typical of the Bush Administration, filled with "smiling yes-men" like Alberto Gonzales, who by the way should be fired immediately for gross incompetence or worse in the mass firings scandal. Heckuva job, guys!
In my law practice I have encountered numerous gay and lesbian military members, up to the rank of colonel, who are giving this country tremendous service but who live in constant worry that their secret will be found out. I've seen gay marines and soldiers dismissed because their marriages broke up over their decision to come out of the closet and their spouses have filed complaints for divorce alleging adultery with a same sex respondent. That stuff can't be hidden from investigators doing a background check. I've seen members of the military threatened with exposure if they don't agree to comply with the requests of their soon-to-be ex-spouses on child support, property division, and visitation. Many times I have wondered how, if they are subject to spousal blackmail, they can avoid being subject to some outsider's blackmail.
Don't ask, don't tell creates a security vulnerability because it raises the specter of dismissal and loss of pension and benefits for secretly gay and lesbian service members. It's blackmail waiting to happen and it's completely and utterly unnecessary.
So, tell me, what exactly is the GOOD which accrues to the armed forces by having this policy in place?
Cribbed from Wikipedia:
Notable ancient Greek warriors who may have had same-sex love relationships:
* Aristomenes - Prince of the Messenians and Arcadians
* Cimon - leader of the Delian League forces and the Athenian navy, gained notoriety in the Persian Wars
* Asopichus - great warrior and lover of Epaminondas
* Caphisodorus - warrior and lover of Epaminondas whom he died with at the Battle of Mantineia
* Cleomachus - led Chalcis to victory in the Lelantine Wars and introduced pederasty to the area
* Pammenes - general who was supposed to assume leadership after Epaminondas
* Theron - warrior from Thessaly
* Harmodius - credited with bringing about Athenian democracy with Aristogiton
* Aristogiton - credited with bringing about Athenian democracy with Harmodius
* Pelopidas - general of the elite Sacred Band of Thebes
* Epaminondas - Theban general and commander of the Boeotian army credited with ending Sparta's dominance
* Gorgidas - established the Sacred Band of Thebes selecting male couples within the Theban army
* Meleager - infantry commander under Alexander
* Alexander the Great - Macedon King who conquered the Persian Empire
* Hephaestion - top general and alleged lover of Alexander
* Philip II of Macedon - Macedonia King who unified Greece
I'm sure they're are plenty of American Soldiers who lost their lives for this country who happen to be homosexual. I honor and respect those men and women. But in the end, as long as homosexuality is a realm on controversy amongst many of our soldiers, that lifestyle (and the acceptance of that lifestyle) can't be forced on soldiers during times of stress anc combat.
I understand the argument against DADT. But I'm not an Idealist. I'm a realist. I understand the truth behind the situation and really goes on, and sometimes the truth doesn't always make what seems ideologically right the best option.
The last thing people need to be thinking about during combat is sexual preferences. The policy, in theory, is NOT supposed to kick out all gays. It is supposed to discharge homosexuals who make their homosexuality an issue.
That's just my opinion. You are free to disagree with me. But I severly doubt you're going to change my mind on this one. And I doubt you'll change Senator Webb's mind either.
* Argentina
* Australia
* Austria
* The Bahamas
* Belgium
* Bulgaria
* Canada
* Colombia
* Croatia
* Czech Republic
* Denmark
* Estonia
* Finland
* France
* Germany
* Hungary
* Ireland
* Israel
* Italy
* Lithuania
* Luxembourg
* The Netherlands
* New Zealand
* Norway
* Peru
* Poland
* Portugal
* Romania
* Slovenia
* South Africa
* Spain
* Sweden
* Switzerland
* Taiwan
* Thailand
* United Kingdom
Here are the countries that ban homosexuals from serving openly in the military:
* Brazil
* Cuba
* Egypt
* Iran
* North Korea
* Philippines
* Saudi Arabia
* Syria
* United States of America
* Venezuela
* Yemen
That's right, the United States is in the fine company of...Iran, Syria, Cuba and North Korea. And somehow all of our NATO allies, plus Israel - arguably the strongest army in the world, pound for pound - are managing just fine with gays serving openly in their miliitaries. Seems like an open and shut case here that the only reason to keep gays from serving openly in the military is prejudice. There's simply no objective, empirical, fact-based reason to discriminate in this way. As far as "don't ask, don't tell" is concerned, it's one of the only issues where I strongly disagree with Jim Webb.
You and I have agreed on many things, but you're off base on this one. BTW, the Spartans were enthusiastic practitioners of homosexuality. The men spent little time with their women and were encouraged to develop sexual relationships within their units because it was thought they would fight harder for each other if they were lovers.
I think your position is colored by your discomfort and has little to do with realism. Realistically DADT costs a fortune, hundreds of millions of dollars spent training people who are later found to be gay, who then must be discharged and replaced by someone else who has to be trained to take their places, accompanied by the unit disruption caused by losing those people. A few years ago there was a rash of discharges of Arabic speakers from the military, aggravating an already critical shortage. Some of those same people were later re-hired as private contractors to do the work they'd been willing to do more cheaply in the military.
Realistically, when soldiers are under fire they don't tell the gay guy to go away because they don't need his help. All they care about is whether he's doing his job while they do theirs. The same argument against gays in the military was made against integration of the armed forces. The bigots got over it and military integration helped society itself to achieve integration.
That in the last couple of years there's been a significant drop in the number of gays and lesbians discharged from the armed forces is due directly to the armed forces' need for these skilled soldiers. You say you honor the sacrifices of gay soldiers; sorry, it doesn't wash. You can't both honor the gay soldier's sacrifice and make him a second class citizen. If he's honorable enough to bleed for his country then he's honorable enough not to be identified and discharged as a moral defective. You say that others in the military may not want gay unit members. Well, aside from the studies showing that between 55% and 76% of people in the military say they really don't care, when did the military turn into a democracy where everyone gets to decide who they're going to play with? Enforcing integration of the openly gay and lesbian into units will be left to the unit commanders and NCOs. That some of them may be bigots is true, but if it's made clear from the top on down that this is how it's going to be they'll fall in line, just as they fell in line for racial integration.
Our military has critical needs and there are tens of thousands of potential recruits unwelcome because of sexual orientation. Many other countries have successfully integrated gays into their military, including the Israelis. If it's so disruptive to unit cohesion where are the mutinies, the protests, the work stoppages? Gay and lesbian people are everywhere around us serving in every possible capacity. I know gay and lesbian doctors, lawyers, police officers, firefighters, social workers, restaurant workers, teachers, and yes, career military people. I found out a long time ago it's a lot easier to judge people on things of substance rather than on what's going on in their bedrooms. That's realistic.
Then what, may we ask, is his attitude toward torture at Abu Ghraib? Baghram? Guantanamo? What about his attitude toward an illegal order? Or is his attitude like that of Prussian Junkers: whatever the leader orders is good and I agree. With leadership like this, our magnificent military, "the finest the world has ever seen" will not long retain that position. Civilian control is one thing, but professionalism bites the dust when yes-men fawn on their fuhrer.
Also, on the "comfort" issue -- I know lots of men who are uncomfortable around women, too. But that, at least in the federal civilian workplace, is not a legitimate reason to exclude women. And I mean really uncomfortable. (It seems to be generational -- I saw it mostly in males over 55.)
Here's another thing I can't figure out about men who have problems being around gays. Most guys have been in situations where some men were acting like lower animals. Say, your typical freshman dorm. Or your typical male locker room. But some men's discomfort around gays in part seems to stem from distaste for the male-male sex act. I guess what I'm asking -- why are some men all of a sudden sensitive over that physical act when they find humor is other "gross" things? (I don't find the male-male act "gross" BTW.)
I think that if we ever have a real manpower shortage in the military -- a WWII type situation -- all this squeamishness will dissolve.
A 60% majority now favors allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military...http://people-press.... [Pew Research]
Also, Think Progress had this interesting observation.
Think Progress quoted from former GOP Sen. Alan Simpson, who once but no longer supports discrimination against gays in the military:
In World War II, a British mathematician named Alan Turing led the effort to crack the Nazis' communication code. He mastered the complex German enciphering machine, helping to save the world, and his work laid the basis for modern computer science. Does it matter that Turing was gay? This week, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said that homosexuality is "immoral" and that the ban on open service should therefore not be changed. Would Pace call Turing "immoral"?
Think Progress added (I actually knew this small piece of history):
Blogger Towleroad points out: "Incidentally, plenty of people did call Turing `immoral' at the time, and he killed himself with a cyanide apple a year after being convicted of `gross indecency' after it was discovered he was in a homosexual relationship. Following that conviction he was ordered to undergo hormone therapy or go to prison."