General Pace: US not "well-served" by the constitution
Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 08:51:31 AM PDT
Been a while since I've written a diary. Many of you have far more to say than I do, and most of it is said well. But this latest zinger from General Pace compels me to speak. I agree with the standard reasons for opposing "Don't ask, don't tell" - it is discriminatory, impossible to apply in any way representing a uniform manner, and it deprives us of thousands of desperately needed troops during a time of war. But I want to expand on his statement, "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is okay to be immoral in any way."
So, General Pace, are you saying that you do not believe we are well served by the constitution? The constitution absolutely protects our right to be immoral except where specific acts or words are prohibited. Unless we as a society pass laws about a certain topic, then one man's immorality is another man's devout faith. It would not be much of a stretch to suggest that the establishment clause specifically protects immorality!
Oh, that's not what you meant, is it? You were referring to a military policy, and your use of the general term the "United States" was not intended to refer to everyone? Fine, let's look at that. You do not want "acceptance" of immorality to be our policy - your words. Well, I have to admit that while I am not an expert, I believe that the history of the U.S. military and its rules backs you up in terms of the letter of the law. If I'm a well-trained, badly needed officer - let's say special forces - in whom the army has invested six figures over many years, and I decide to sleep with my neighbor's wife while on leave at home, I could theoretically be court-martialed (note: someone correct me if I'm wrong about this).
Is that wise? Am I really undermining morale? Is the country safer now that I am not available for combat? I don't think so. But wait, you say, we don't really go after people every time something like this happens. We use our judgement. Ah, judgement. You mean the judgement of one man that something is immoral and the judgement of another that something is not? I agree, we as Americans rely heavily on the judgement of the men and women in our armed forces. And we really have no choice, given the horrific nature of the battlefield.
General Pace, the concept of prohibiting immorality among the troops is not new. But it has always been inconsistent with the consitution these troops are protecting. You cannot expect people to make correct judgement calls if you try to force them to adhere to a stricter standard of behavior than that envisioned by the constitution and our national laws. I know many veterans (I am not one) will disagree with this observation, and my intent is not to offend them. Most soldiers DO make good judgement calls, but it is in spite of, not because of this policy. With this kind of strict discipline, you can get unit cohesion, sure, but you would be stupid to expect that when faced with the harsh reality of battle, they are fully prepared to use the independent judgement required of any person confronting new and horrible situations.
The tighter you crack down, the harder you try to force morality on people, the more you create bottled up tension that ends up exploding. We as a society can't even agree that killing is wrong, so how can we possibly expect to have any policy about something as personal about who you sleep with?
So, General Pace, I close with a question for you. In light of the fact that you believe the military is served by a policy that violates the constitution and undertrains the critical skill of judgement, it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask you "WHY DO YOU NOT SUPPORT THE TROOPS?"
Permalink | 9 comments