March 14, 2007
Pace's Comments Bring Dead Debate Back to Life (A.B. Stoddard)
Peter Pace has done more than offend some with his statement about homosexuals being immoral; he may have initiated a bitter and sweeping domestic policy debate. Pace should be allowed to share his personal views. But negative comments about any men and women, gay or straight, who risk and sacrifice their lives for the rest of ours are usually the rhetorical equivalent of dropping a bomb. Those of Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) one week before the 2006 elections, in the form of a “botched joke,” come to mind.
Because of Pace’s comments, the question of the military’s policy for gays and lesbians has suddenly been dusted off and removed from the shelf. It isn’t a great time for the Democratic majority, who are wrangling with Iraq war policy and are not interested in changing the subject to something that could so quickly excite the GOP base. But opponents of “don’t ask, don’t tell” have waited for the right time to make a push for repeal and could see this as their season. When they move forward, they will be joined by presidential contenders like Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) who want to overturn the controversial policy her husband chose to open his presidency with. And there will be new allies, converts like former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), who voted for the policy in 1993 and now wants the ban on out-of-closet gays in the military lifted.
In his Washington Post editorial today, Simpson said he began shifting recently when he learned that despite Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acknowledging that our government needs more Arabic and Farsi speakers, more than 300 foreign-language experts have lost their jobs because of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Moreover, our stretched military is now granting waivers to felons in order the keep up the numbers.
Simpson noted that retired Gen. John Shalikashvili and Lt. Daniel Christman, a former West Point superintendent, “are calling for a second look.” It appears Pace, who supports the policy, has helped open the door.
13 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
If the Democrats want to bring back the debate on gays the military, fine. Just so they 'give equal time' to the fact chaplains get dismissed for praying in the name of Jesus
http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2007/03/kentucky-honors-controversial-chaplain.html
Comment by Kris Weinschenker — March 15, 2007 @ 2:01 am
To compare Peter Pace's remark to that of John Kerry is merge the intended with the misspoken. One reflects the judgement of the conduct of others to their detriment and the latter an ill-executed commentary on the twisted thinking of our current resident in the White House. One can only assume this poor comparison was intended to wound Kerry and take the focus off of Pace.
Comment by nats — March 15, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
It's ironic that you would mention a member of the clergy in relation to this topic, since so many of them, in fact, turn out to be gay.
As for the policy itself, I think it will take a President in office that would issue a Truman-esque executive order to truly remove not just the policy, but the bigotry that's still allowed to be practiced in the military of a nation that's supposed to be about equality. Something like this would do: "There shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to sexual orientation". Pure and simple. Until there is a President elected that would be willing to do that, I don't really see the debate leading to much.
Comment by Derek D. — March 15, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
Peter Pace is "Spot On". His mission is to ensure the military is as effective as it can be to defend your right as Americans. Having served 21 years, I must agree the open identification of homosexuals in the military is an unproductive distraction that has significant negative impact on the military cohesiveness. The dont ask, dont tell policy is a way to allow the qualified persons straight or homosexual to exist together without infringing on their ability to function. When homosexuality is still a national controversy, you can not expect the most conservative component of the government to approve or endorse it. As for other comments I read here…post your full name and stand behind your beliefs publicly.
Comment by Robert Vehe — March 16, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
Mr. Vehe,
Names are unimportant, I doubt many people here are running for office. My question to you is this: As someone who has served in the military for 21 years, don't you think that the discipline is there for soldiers to do their duty regardless of who else happens to be in their platoon? Aren't you supposed to be a cohesive unit of soldiers, sailers, marines, or airmen, who depend on each other for your lives? There was a time when it was thought that blacks serving along with whites would be too big of a distraction as well. Military discipline, however, trumped bigotry; the Commander in Chief ordered that everyone would serve together and the military responded, though I believe it must have been controversial in 1948. Don't you believe that in the military, of all places, the discipline should be there to do your job without letting your personal feelings get in the way?
Thousands of qualified homosexuals have been dismissed under "don't ask, don't tell". Don't you think it would be productive to allow those thousands to serve?
Comment by Derek D. — March 17, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
Mr. D, If I agreed with you I would not have supported the chairman.
As for your Presidential order, first you have to have a country that listens to what the President tells them instead of fighting him just because they sit on the other side of the isle. (haha)
And as a matter of record, military blacks and whites have served the country since the civil war yet they were killing each other in their own barracks in the 1970s, if that is not an unproductive distraction I'm not sure what you want to call it. It wasn’t military discipline that triumphed. it was Americas willingness to finally accept.
When America accepts homosexuality, I am sure the military will too.
A lot needs to be done as a country before the military can be expected to deal with the issue. Peter Pace is doing his job and making those tough decisions to keep the military the strongest and greatest in the world.
The problem I see here is those that never did it, just don’t get it. Have you served? Never mind I know the answer.
Comment by Robert Vehe — March 17, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
Yes, I understand you don't agree with the policy, but you didn't seem to answer my questions. The military is supposed to have a rigorous chain of command. The top of that chain being the Commander in Chief. When he gives an order, you follow it, regardless of which side of the "aisle" you're on. Isn't that true? As a citizen, I'm free to disagree with the President all I want, but if I were to join the military, I would follow his orders.
You seem to be saying that the military will have to wait for public opinion to be united before it will accept this change. If that were true, black soldiers would still be segregated, as there is still a great deal of racism in this country. How long would you have waited to desegregate the troops?
You see, as this citizen sees it, if the President issued the order, the military would have to accept it. Any that didn't would face a court martial. As someone that has served, you do "get" that, don't you?
Comment by Derek D. — March 18, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
Mr. D.
I take great exception to your comment that "so many" clergy turn out to be gay. I thought the Left's incessant attempt to deconstruct 2000 years of Judeo-Christian tenets about sexual morality was to claim that most clergy are pedophiles and that pedophiles aren't homosexuals. Which one is it? As one who has served for 25 years, I believe that Gen Pace should have kept his personal beliefs to himself. He should only comment on public policy while serving. But it is very telling that his personal beliefs are in line with the great majority of those who serve. I know the Left find the few that disagree and parade them around like they represent the norm. I personally don't care how someone lives his or her own life. But I do have my own strong, unwavering, beliefs on what is moral and what is not. I agree with Gen Pace. Racism is based on ignorance. Is the Christian belief on sexual morals based on ignorance in your opinion? Answer this question for me: is 2000 years of Judeo-Christian (and Islamic for that matter) teachings (from scripture) on the immorality of certain sexual conduct wrong? Has the Left found the missing scripture that undoes this 2000+ year old tenet? If so, please show it to me. I would like to confront my parish priest.
Comment by Tim Bailey — March 18, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
Just an observation of the irony, Tim. I won't waste time getting into a religious debate here; the answers to your questions are eloquently answered in Richard Dawkins' excellent book, 'The God Delusion'. Pick it up and let me know if you don't agree with his conclusions, which are based on logic, reason, reality and scientific research. Give a copy to your priest as well, if you'd like; Mr. Dawkins has had discussions with many members of the clergy.
When I first saw this post, I thought it was brave of Miss Stoddard because the debate does indeed invite those that would like to argue religion. There really isn't enough space or time for me to argue against 10,000 year old fairy tales here, so I'll let Mr. Dawkins do that. It is very telling to note that it seems that the only thing that you would look for to disprove your religion would be a "missing scripture", i.e. even more fairy tales. That doesn't make much sense to me.
Comment by Derek D. — March 18, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
Sir - I do not have time to read a book from one obscure author that I have never heard of. I will base my Faith on the teachings of my church; or as you would say "fairy tales." Why don't you try and get on some electronic media outlet and call the teachings of our Faith "fairy tales." I'm sure the American public would greatly appreciate hearing that type of opinion. Again, I don't care how people live thier lives. It is not business. But I take umbrage with the notion that my PERSONAL private religious beliefs are based on "fairy tales." As a military officer I will support whatever policy my government adopts. But I do believe that the 1st Amendment allows me the right (Free Exercise Clause) to believe whatever I wish. … even if the Left says those beliefs are "fairy tales." Is that the next step to legislate Christianity out of existence? Now, I must go. It is Lent and time for church.
Comment by Tim Bailey — March 25, 2007 @ 8:13 am
You can believe in flying purple dragons too Tim, be my guest. However, the 1st Amendment also allows me to call that out as a fairy tale, just as all religions are. I'm hardly the first to do so, either in electronic media or in print. Now I understand that your faith comes from a book that was pushed on you when you were very young. Now that you're older, why not make the adult choice to invest a little time in Mr. Dawkins' book (a best-seller!)and judge for yourself his conclusions? Instead of taking umbrage, you should take a little time to explore some new ideas; think of all the time you might save in the long run that you're currently giving to the church (not to mention your money). It might help you take that first step if you understand that this is not a left/right issue; there are atheists across the political spectrum, just as there are theists on all sides as well.
Comment by Derek D. — March 25, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
Derek - I think we can agree to disagree and accept that conversations like ours make us both uniquely American … able to dialogue in a peaceful and respectful manner. Semper Fi.
Comment by Tim Bailey — March 27, 2007 @ 8:40 pm
Well said Tim; peace be with you.
Comment by Derek D. — March 28, 2007 @ 10:55 am