speedracer
03-13-2007, 05:27 PM
General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave an interview to the Chicago Tribune in which he made comments about the morality of homosexuality. Mr. Pace has every right to feel however he chooses about homosexuality. The subject is a very emotionally charged issue in contemporary America and no one should be forced to espouse a position in which they do not agree.
However, Mr. Pace was not interviewed. General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was interviewed. As the highest ranking serviceman in the US Armed Forces, Gen. Pace knows all too well that no personal statements are to be given while in official capacity. Additionally, no subject outside the sphere of duty is to be broached while in official capacity. Gen. Pace's comments:
"As an individual, I would not want (acceptance of gay behavior) to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior"
This is a painfully disingenuous statement. It is true that the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) prescribes punishment for soldiers that have sexual relationships with married soldiers and dependents. What is not true is that this rule is prosecuted with any realistic amount of vigor. In fact, only in those cases that are so flagrant that it causes media attention or extreme tension in the unit will the rule be invoked.
How do I know? My last year of duty for the US Army was at Camp Casey, South Korea. Camp Casey is an isolated base, outside of the main urban areas and close to the border with North Korea. As such, there is little for soldiers to do. Bars featuring prostitution are rife (and realistically, the only possible place off post to hang out), and even sexual slavery was present literally yards from the main entry to the base. Well, when you put boys and girls together with each other and give them nothing to do, thousands of miles away from loved ones...
There's a saying that soldiers know well: What goes on TDY, stays on TDY.
For the General to suggest that the two are in any way synonymous or viewed with the same lens is absolutely absurd. The comparison was made in order to frame his opinion as part of a wider scheme of moral uprightness in the military. I refuse to believe that the highest ranking soldier in the US military understands the reality of soldiering less than a four-and-out scrub that never even bothered to go past the rank of E-4.
There is a forum for politics, and the US military has a long standing tradition of maintaining a distance from politics. This is a proud tradition, one rooted in the belief that with a politicized military comes the threat of coups. Judgment calls are for people elected and paid to make such decisions. When the uniform is on, a soldier is an instrument of the US Government, without pride or prejudice, with a singular focus: to protect the Constitution from all enemies. General Pace has failed in that capacity, and he must do the right thing, in accordance with the best of American military tradition. He must offer his resignation, and that resignation should be accepted by a President that understands the difference between Gen. Pace and himself.
However, Mr. Pace was not interviewed. General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was interviewed. As the highest ranking serviceman in the US Armed Forces, Gen. Pace knows all too well that no personal statements are to be given while in official capacity. Additionally, no subject outside the sphere of duty is to be broached while in official capacity. Gen. Pace's comments:
"As an individual, I would not want (acceptance of gay behavior) to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior"
This is a painfully disingenuous statement. It is true that the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) prescribes punishment for soldiers that have sexual relationships with married soldiers and dependents. What is not true is that this rule is prosecuted with any realistic amount of vigor. In fact, only in those cases that are so flagrant that it causes media attention or extreme tension in the unit will the rule be invoked.
How do I know? My last year of duty for the US Army was at Camp Casey, South Korea. Camp Casey is an isolated base, outside of the main urban areas and close to the border with North Korea. As such, there is little for soldiers to do. Bars featuring prostitution are rife (and realistically, the only possible place off post to hang out), and even sexual slavery was present literally yards from the main entry to the base. Well, when you put boys and girls together with each other and give them nothing to do, thousands of miles away from loved ones...
There's a saying that soldiers know well: What goes on TDY, stays on TDY.
For the General to suggest that the two are in any way synonymous or viewed with the same lens is absolutely absurd. The comparison was made in order to frame his opinion as part of a wider scheme of moral uprightness in the military. I refuse to believe that the highest ranking soldier in the US military understands the reality of soldiering less than a four-and-out scrub that never even bothered to go past the rank of E-4.
There is a forum for politics, and the US military has a long standing tradition of maintaining a distance from politics. This is a proud tradition, one rooted in the belief that with a politicized military comes the threat of coups. Judgment calls are for people elected and paid to make such decisions. When the uniform is on, a soldier is an instrument of the US Government, without pride or prejudice, with a singular focus: to protect the Constitution from all enemies. General Pace has failed in that capacity, and he must do the right thing, in accordance with the best of American military tradition. He must offer his resignation, and that resignation should be accepted by a President that understands the difference between Gen. Pace and himself.