Fort Hood, Texas, Summer, 1995:
“Sir, we have a problem.”
It was my First Sergeant, approaching me tentatively on this sunny Texas morning, with bad news. One of our sergeants was absent without leave.
AWOL happens. So does desertion. Indeed, it can rightly be considered a normal feature of military life. After 30 days of absence, the charge of absence is converted to one of desertion. Though our rates of these charges were low in the mid-90s, they were not as low as they are today. But AWOL is usually something that first-term enlistees do, not prospective career sergeants.
“Sir, I think I know why Sergeant M___ took off,” said my Top.
“Yeah, well, out with it.”
“Uh, sir, I think I ought to let the men tell you.”
With a nod, I accepted this indirect route. My First Sergeant always had his reasons, and his reasons were almost always good. Besides, only a fool contradicts their own First Sergeant unless given good cause. Four soldiers filed into my office from where they had been waiting outside. All of them good troops, first-termers mostly, near the end of their own enlistments. Experienced and steady men, like Sergeant M___, they had been with him on Saturday night when the five of them had left Fort Hood for the social opportunities of Austin.
What came out was a simple story. The five arrived in Austin at around 21:00 hrs and agreed to meet back at the car at 02:15, not long after the bars had closed. Then they split up, with Sergeant M___ going his own way. At some point in the night the other four had rejoined. When the bars closed, they left in a pack and headed back toward the car. Halfway there they all saw Sergeant M___ coming out of a “blue” bar. That is to say, an exclusively gay bar.
Nobody said a word during the entire ride back to the barracks.
On Monday morning, at the 06:30 Physical Training and Accountability formation, Sergeant M___ was not in his normal position, on the right end of his squad. He was not in the barracks. He was not in the motor pool. He was nowhere to be found. At the end of 30 days, he was listed as a deserter, and I lost one damned fine Heavy Wheeled Vehicle (88M) mechanic and potential leader of men.
What a f@#$ing waste.
In 1995, had you asked me, I would have expressed the opinion that I was against gays openly serving in the military. Not on moral grounds, because I do not believe that human genetics is subject to morality, but because it would just have been too damned expensive to prosecute the majority of soldiers who would have done something stupid against openly serving gays. Those prosecutions too would have been a waste, and their probable numbers would have greatly exceeded the potential benefit of having more gay men and women in uniform. Yes, it would have been a moral effort (because nobody should be forced to conceal their preferences, let alone preferences determined by their DNA), but it would have been a wasted distraction nonetheless. My job as a company commander was to create a unit of men which could be used by the nation in war. Period. Any distraction — in money, time, or effort — from this central mission was counter to what the nation needed me to do.
Today, and for roughly the past four years or so, that calculus is inverted.
Today most soldiers could care less about the sexual preference of a serviceman. Call it the Will & Grace effect, call it whatever you want, but the acceptance level of our soldiers has multiplied four-fold in the past decade. Now, the potential cost of prosecuting idiots who act out on their personal opinions about human sexuality is much lower than the actual cost (in terms of lost human potential and sunk-cost of training) of banning gays from service to the nation. Now this law, written by Congress, stands in the way of effectiveness. It is time for this law to go.
We are, ladies and gentlemen, in a global war that will last decades. You may not like this fact. You may want to say that it should not be. That is not my concern. What is my concern — because that is why you create people like me — is that we may once again live in peace. My part of that equation means winning the combat part of war. There are, of course, other elements to this complex equation, but those too are not for me to decide. I am just one simple infantry officer. But my simplicity gives me clarity in some areas. To do so, to win, I know that we will need every damned swinging Richard we can get in the infantry (and gender irrespective, in the military as a whole). Bullets do not care what your gender may be, nor your preferences. We cannot, and should not, tolerate the loss of combat effectiveness that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” now imposes upon our armed forces. This. Law. Must. Go.
I am a soldier. I am sworn to support and defend the Constitution, and to follow the orders of those appointed (or elected) over me. I cannot change a law created and enacted by the legislature. I cannot lobby Congress.
But you can.
5 Comments
Mark, it would be nice if you added “Digg” links to your posts. I know DIgg is useless for educational posts, since it doesn’t even offer that category, but much of your blog involves news and opinion that deserves an even wider audience than you have.
Historians should recall that the ancient Greek phalanx formation had at its core, officially sanctioned homosexuality. Its successful implementation provided the military conquest of the known world.
The place of homosexuality in Greek culture was different than it is in U.S. society. The point of Bateman’s argument, I think, is that a ban on gays only makes sense if it affects morale, and our society has come to the point where that is not an issue. I’ve certainly noticed a change in attitudes among undergraduate students over the past ten or more years.
Mark Stoneman:
I realize that. My comment merely placed the issue of homosexuality into a historical perspective.
You bet ancient Greek culture was different than contemporary Western culture! I’ve taken issue with Victor Davis Hanson repeatedly, on his assertions regarding the issue of Sparta. I’ve pointed out to him on many occasions, that the ancient Spartans officially sanctioned sex between men and boys, to foster a relationship of devotion within their hoplite phalanx formation. Can you imagine the horror felt at Thermopylae by Iranian officers and men upon their discovery of this awful truth? Perhaps that was one of the reasons for the burning of Athens. We’ll never know, the Iranian history was likely lost during the Arab invasion of the 7th Century. If somehow it survived that catastrophe, the history was certainly lost during the Mongol invasion of the 13th Century.
LTC Bateman,
Judging by the date on the last post, I’m not sure if you’ll see this or not, but it was suggested I read your post. You see, I wrote an article I posted on my blog supporting just the opposite of your opinion.
I must say I agree with some of your logic here. I was just a simple military man (25 + years) with a mission and had to make the best with what I had and I agree we have spent too many resources chasing this issue, and good military people from the service.
My position is simple. It does not come from science, religion or even a moral objection. I do not think it has anything to do with their ability. My position is based simply on my observation of human nature in the military. You know, as most military members know, serving in the military is not a Boy Scout trip. Simple things can become major issues within a battle-tired unit. Things that once were overlooked or were not really an issue can become hot issues for troops who have experienced war, death and days without sleep. It is not like we are asking our troops to work at the bank from 9 – 5 and then go home. They have to live, sleep, shower, shit, and everything else together. Why do we separate men and women in showers and bathrooms? Both are professional soldiers, right? Because we now there would be an issue with PVT___ looking at SGT ____’s ________. Maybe there needs to be four different showers, bathrooms and sleeping tents, but as a career logistician, I doubt that would ever happen. But then again, who knows?
I agree Americas and soldiers have come a long way with this issue and you may be right, they probably could care less about someone’s sexual orientation. That is, until they have to stand naked in a shower with them.
We both know the loss of time, money and resources spent on this issue. However, what amount of resources would be spent on the above example? The media would have a field day with any type of story alleging misconduct or even assault that they could link to the repeal of the current law. Sexual harassment reports would be probably be off the charts and moral & discipline would be affected.
Your narrative of the 1SGT not coming back could turn into the tragic story of PVT ____ not coming back because everyone thought he was just homophobic when he reported he did not like the way SGT ____ looked at him in the shower.
America does not force men and women to shower or use the same facilities together for a good reason. Why should the military be forced into a science project during war when we, as Americans are not ready to try our own experiment in a peaceful environment?