General Pace Explains Unit Cohesion With a Morality Sound Bite
General Peter Pace
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of StaffMarine General Peter Pace supports our law that states, homosexuality is incompatible with military service.
“I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.” General Pace then says, “I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.”
Because this would undermine unit cohesion.
Trust is the foremost component of the bonds that bind a small military unit together.
Trust, in that I trust you with my life. I trust your word.
Undercover homosexuals in the armed forces are living a lie. Where their first act in the military is to hide, to deceive, to circumvent the law: Homosexuality is incompatible with military service.
If your first act on joining the military is to lie, what makes us think that you would not continue to lie.
The best indication of future performance — is past performance. If the homosexual deceived in the past, the homosexual will deceive in the future. Living the lie destroys unit cohesion — no one will trust the homosexual.
The Department of Defense Directive, 1332.14, 28 January 1982, said,
The presence of such [homosexual] members adversely affects the ability of the Military Services to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among service members…
The presence of homosexuals destroys mutual trust.
…to ensure the integrity of the system of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of service members who frequently must live and work under close conditions affording minimal privacy…
Service members do not want to be in close, intimate quarters with any gender who would be sexually attracted or attractive. Heterosexual men do not shower with women. (The military is not a college campus.)
…to recruit and retain members of the Military Services; to maintain the public acceptability of military service…
What mother or father would knowingly send their son off to a San Francisco bath house?
The Gay, Lesbian, BiSexual and Transgender genders are demanding that the military accept their morality. They are more interested in fighting the culture war. And less concerned about losing the war against the Islamofascists.
There are many ways homosexuals can serve our country:
The Peace Corp,
but not the Marine Corp.
The Salvation Army,
but not the US Army.
There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
Thank you (foot)notes:
Also see Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell and The Ban on Homosexuals in the Military
PUBLIC LAW 103-160 – NOV. 30, 1993
UPDATE: So what did General Pace actually say? Listen to the clip here.
See Peter LaBarbera, Praised.
Your Business Blogger is a former Armored Cavalry Officer.
1. It is not the place of the military to determine what is and what is not moral. This task is reserved only for the people, who may write their views into law and policy through the legislative branch and the process of representative democracy.
2. Homosexuals in the army would not need to be secretive if they wern’t faced with being discharged. If the policy were to be removed, then new homosexual recruits would not need to decieve anyone.
3. The army (I dont know if other branches are included in the statistic) is down approximately ten thousand men who have been discharged for being found to be homosexual. Thats from a reliable 2005 government audit. Ive seen a less reliable estimate of as many as 40,000 ready to join up if the policy is repealed.
If one of your main arguments is that there would be a recruitment crisis because people would refuse to serve in an army alongside homosexuals, please back it up with some figures. I suggest commissioning a survey of the general public (You are looking at recruitment rates from them, so dont survey those already in the military) and ask two questions: ‘Would you consider joining the military with dont-ask-dont-tell in place?’ and ‘would you consider joining the military without DADT in place?’ Then tell be the percentage of people who answer both yes to the first, and no to the second.
1) Our elected representatives have determined by statute that, “Homosexuality is incompatible with military service.”
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue” is an expendable regulation that can be and should be eliminated by executive fiat. And leave the underlying legislation of ‘heterosexual’s only’ in place. Congress does indeed regulate this: To provide for the common defense.
The moral code of the military is based on ancient traditions of chivalry. “Conduct unbecoming an Officer” is grounds for dismissing a service member.
These traditions are continued through the oath of office and the officer’s commission issued by Congress.
(One wag suggested that it took an Act of Congress to make Your Business Blogger a Gentleman.) (As in an Officer and a Gentleman.) (Quaint tradition, no?)
2) Current homosexuals in the military forced to lie is a circular argument. Start at the beginning: Congress has decreed that homosexuality is incompatible with military service — work backward, or forward from there.
3) Discharged homosexuals make the military better with improved unit cohesion — well worth the trade off on the small numbers that would need to be replaced.
Thank you for your thoughts,
Owing to the unique function of the military in a democracy Congress via the Constitution has determined that (it bears repeating), “There is no right to serve in the armed forces.”
Restrictions have and are placed on the type of person eligible to enlist; height, weight, age, education, criminal record (which is very germane to this topic as admission of homosexual contact is the admission to a crime in the USMCJ).
And as 10 USC Sec 654 points out many of these restrictions are such “…that would not be acceptable in civilian society.”
Even the Athenian hoplites, the notorious boy lovers of The 300, had very strict rules concerning homosexuality while campaigning. Because the hoplite phalanxes were made up of equals and homosexuality was seen as a relationship of a superior to an inferior.
Jack: The ‘Small numbers’? Ten thousand does not sound like ‘small numbers’ to me. The US military is big, yes, but… ten thousand is still significent.
Who is in charge of this USMCJ? Whoever this is, they can change it. They should do so. I find it strange that members of the military are subject to a law which would be found unconstitutional if it could be challenged in the civilian courts.
“Congress has decreed that homosexuality is incompatible with military service.”
They did, some time ago. Congress has declared a lot of things over the centuries, some of which seem quite rediculous by standards now. They are quite capable of changing their position to account for changing circumstances and newly-discovered facts. Anything congress does, a later congress can undo.
The changing circumstances now are simple enough: The army needs recruits. Homosexuals can be as patriotic as anyone else, and just as capable in war. The proportion of the population which would refuse to serve with homosexuals is far lower than it once was, and falling rapidly. It is becoming frowned upon to discriminate based on sexual preference without very good cause.
The strongest argument against allowing homosexuals in the military is that it would harm unit cohesion. Yet I dont see any evidence given to support this – those who make the argument tend to assume that most people share their own disapproving views. Many other armies allow homosexuals in the military – us Brits do, for one – and they dont have any problems from it.
I remind everyone that the subject here is homosexual preference, not homosexual acts. I see no reason that sex between homosexual members should be treated any differently than sex between two members of opposite gender. As long as the response is exactly the same in either case, there is no discrimination problem. But they are not – a bit of heterosexual activity might get a soldier in trouble, but it will not get them a dishonerable discharge.
Someone stop me before I misspell again. It’s not USMCJ but UMCJ and the relevant passage concerning homosexuality or rather sodomy is Subheading 925 Article 125.
Pat, I believe that you may have been thinking of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, UCMJ,
(de minimus non curate ex is Blogger)
Thanks for commenting,
It is indeed odd, but 10,000 over 10 years is a small number when considering the millions in the armed services over the same time period.
10K would be a small price to pay to maintain unit cohesion in our culture. Goodness, even Hillary and Obama could not condemn Pace for his remarks. The democrats would rather alienate the homosexual base than endorse homosexuals in the military — which would loose the voters in the middle.
Dishonorable Discharges would be deserved, but I believe most homosexuals separated from the service get a General Discharge — conditions less than honorable, but not Dishonorable.
Thank you for your input,
“It is indeed odd, but 10,000 over 10 years is a small number when considering the millions in the armed services over the same time period.”
I dont have statistics, but I get the impression it includes a significent number of translators. Those are in short supply right now – with the occupation in Iraq, and the continuing investigation into documents siezed during the initial invasion which may contain details of WMD programs or past war crimes, there is a lot of arabic to be translated.
“10K would be a small price to pay to maintain unit cohesion in our culture.”
True. However, you have not been able to show that the loss of those 10k was nessicary to maintain unit cohesion. How many units will suffer just from the knowledge that one member is homosexual? I just dont think that anti-homosexual feeling in the military can be so widespread or so strong that a soldier could consider the sexual preferences of their unit a decising factor in combat. And if they do, the training needs to be adjusted to make them a bit less shallow.
Besides, its just a repeat of the old race argument… everything you said regarding homosexuals in the military would make just as much sense if you substituted ‘colored’ and postdated it by a few decades.
“Dishonorable Discharges would be deserved, but I believe most homosexuals separated from the service get a General Discharge — conditions less than honorable, but not Dishonorable.”
My mistake. I assumed that being thrown out for a breech of the rules would be considered dishonerable.
I blame dyslexia. Now if I just had been diagnosed then that would explain everything.