The New York Times features an op-ed today (3/5/10) by Gen. Merrill McPeak, a retired Air Force chief of staff, arguing against allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military. It’s not much of an argument, really–there’s not much more to it than the assertion that “warriors are inspired by male bonding, by comradeship, by the knowledge that they survive only through relying on each other,” and the claim–presented completely without evidence–that acknowledging that not all soldiers are heterosexual will “weaken the warrior culture.” You can’t really describe the piece as an attempt at persuasion–it’s more a statement of prejudice and a demand that that prejudice be given respect.
McPeak’s op-ed does mimic the form of an argument by beginning by stating a premise–but that premise is wrong. After asserting that the discussion over changing the military’s anti-gay rules “should start with the question, ‘What are armed forces for?,'” he continues, “Assuming the services exist to fight and win wars, those seeking fundamental change in the composition of combat units carry a special burden of proof.” Elsewhere, he restates this idea by saying that the military services “have no higher responsibility than to organize, train and equip formations that are effective on the battlefield.”
But the rationale for having a military is not to win wars; it’s to keep your country free. (McPeak may recall that his oath as an Air Force officer began, “I will support and defend the Constitution…”–that’s the military’s actual highest responsibility.) Even if one believed that an ethnically cleansed military motivated by a racist ideology would be a more effective fighting force–with a stronger “warrior culture” and greater “unit cohesion”–that would in no way justify reorganizing the Defense Department along supremacist lines. No military is a democracy, of course, but a democracy can only have a military that is consistent with democratic values.
Which leads me to wonder: When President Harry Truman ordered the desegregation of the military, did the New York Times publish an op-ed from a retired officer arguing that only a racist military could be counted on to win wars? (Glancing through the New York Times‘ archives, I didn’t see any, but they’re somewhat awkward to search.) If they did publish such an op-ed, are today’s editors proud that their institution included the racist point of view? If they didn’t, are they sorry that their predecessors failed to be so inclusive?
It’s a good bet that in 60 years, the homophobic policies of the military will be seen in the same light as military segregation is today. And people looking back on the history of how it changed will see that the New York Times allowed homophobia to have its say. I doubt that this will be seen as a proud moment.
Not all objections are from a Homophobic standpoint, or actually, maybe they are – but part of it is a privacy issue.
The Military isn’t like staying in the Hilton. You frequently sleep in open squad bays, take showers in group shower facilities. Heck, my Office Candidate School facilities didn’t even have bathroom stalls. You sat on the pot and stared at other people sitting on the pot.
If you were Heterosexual, and knew someone who was Homosexual, would you feel comfortable in this environment?
If so, then we can save a lot of money by eliminating separate male and female restroom facilities.
== John ==
John, the military is already full of gay people. The average heterosexual soldier, sailor, air[wo]man, or Marine knows this and doesn’t give a damn.
Also, it’s hilarious that so many people wring their hands about how the “predatory” gays in the military are always leering at, peeking at, groping, and assaulting innocent heterosexual servicefolks. I never hear anywhere NEAR the amount of concern from your ilk for the massive amount of rape and sexual assault on heterosexual women. Except when you start blithering about how they don’t belong in the military in the first place.
IMO, men who freak out about how gay men might stare at them or attack them are projecting how they treat women onto gay men.
While winning wars isn’t the only justification for a military, it is certainly a prime reason, isn’t it?
And if this country’s freedom (such as it is) were at stake, and the only way to defend it was to fight, and it *was proven* that keeping gays out improved the chances of winning, and thus preserving whatever freedoms all of us, gays included, have outside the military, then that would be a legitimate, if regrettable, argument, wouldn’t it?
Thing is, the above’s all horseshit. The US doesn’t fight wars for our freedom – it fights them to take away others’ freedom, doesn’t it? Other militaries allow gay members to serve openly, with no loss of “cohesion”, don’t they? So the only reason for exclusion would be blatant prejudice, wouldn’t it?
So I think Jim’s premise is faulty, but his conclusion’s spot on – if that makes sense.
Oh, and b.g. …
As the hepcats are wont to say:
“Solid, Jackson.”
Does McPeak call for kicking women out of the military? Because it’s hard to understand how they contribute to “male bonding.” Except maybe when they walk by and all the males with the sloping brows whistle and shout “hubba-hubba.”
Racists, sexists, and homophobes out of the military!
While I do not agree with McPeak’s argument and fully support the open participation of gays in the military, I still believe the NYT is right to publish McPeak and others who take the opposite view. Democracy means everyone should have a right to express their opinion. And good journalism reports on all sides of any controversy.
Terri, I’d say it’s a question of where you draw the line, and of what’s journalism about.
McPeak’s prejudice is something that should be covered, obviously, just as racial supremacists’ actions and comments should be reported.
But isn’t that different from providing a forum for their racism? Would you say that the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan should be given space to advocate for “killing all the niggers”? How about those claiming it’s God’s will that abortion providers should be murdered?
Those are extremes, but at some point a line must be drawn when it comes to giving space to promote prejudice, don’t you think? I can’t say precisely where that line should be drawn, but I think McPeak’s on the other side of it, as much as, as with Jim’s analogy, someone arguing for racial segregation or exclusion in the military.
As an aside, though, while I support equal rights in the military, the ‘tude among many liberals on this issue celebrates diversity while ignoring just what the US armed forces do. A bullet or bomb fired by a gay serviceperson has the same horrific impact as one fired by a straight soldier, doesn’t it?
We need a military whose mission is to defend freedom within and without its ranks – stating the literally bleeding obvious.
“Racists, sexists, and homophobes out of the military!”
How belittling. As if everyone that doesn’t believe homosexuality is “good” and “right” and “moral” are homophobes. You should listen to yourselves as well.
If it is repealed, there will be a mass exodus or there will be many more incidents. Just what our military needs to maintain its strength. You might say “good, let them leave”. You haven’t even come close to thinking it through.
It isn’t a perfect policy but it works. Stop trying to sexualize the military.
Robert
The problem with too many Americans is that they put promote their ‘beliefs’ as facts. The Judeo-Christian US belief on human sexuality is Medieval nonsense. Its fitting that the US military is teaching the tactics of Alexander the Great and calling him the best commander ever but he would not be able
to serve! Who cares about your ‘belief?’ Its based on what? What are your beliefs on human sexuality based on? Nothing that has its place in the 21st Century.
What about bisexuals? And what sort of absurdity is it to try and desexualise the military as if this is the Knights Templar? Only in America would someone ‘beleive’ that soldiers looking for whores or screwing each other to be obscene. If you want to be Asexual thats your business. Castrate yourself and leave the rest of the world alone.
The homosexual issue would disqualify all the Greeks and Macedonian hoplites we are partially taught about in US schools as the ‘Founders of Western Civilisation.’ Not a single Spartan hoplite would be able to serve in the US military. Certainly not any of the Theban Sacred Band considered more elite than the Spartans. None of those Athenian Hoplites at Marathon. Not a single Athenian serving on the Triemes.
Alexander the Great and his companions? No.
Achilles? No because he dressed as a girl to escape going to Troy.
Hercules? No because he dressed as a girl to. But these are legendary heroes.
If Alexander the Great is not good enough to be a US Marine or soldier then stop teaching his strategy and tactics in your military colleges.
Your ‘beliefs’ on human sexuality comes from a small number of celibate men who go to great lengths to avoid sexual contact with women. I know none of you have anything approaching a rational position on homosexuality. It all comes down to a childish ‘Because god said so.’
Here’s the deal. There is no Draft because of the cowardice of the govt to call one. The so-called Gays and Lesbians in the military are highly skilled and almost impossible to replace specialists. And the tough guy some of you believe is a ‘real man’ is that closeted homosexual while the seemingly effeminate sissie is a Casanova with the ladies.
Its the 21st Century. Time for us to put aside these Medieval notions about sex which has no bearing in fact.
There is a very strong religious influence in the military and it is promoted by the upper ranks flowing down, that in turn create homophobes.
I have recently entcounted them in the administration team of the Military times forums where I was in a heated debate about this issue with one of these individuals. I have a signature line on my account that read…”I love a women that gives good oratory” (I am a women) and the administrator demanded I remove it. When I refused and gave him the meaning of the word oratory, he replied with …..it has been removed due to the fact it is ambiguous……I was then banned.
Just outrageous in this day and age.
Archilles, Alexander the Great, Spartans, The Knights Templars, gay.
Compared to these guys, modern day warfare is cowardice.