From 1985 until 1989, I had the honor of serving in the United States Marine Corps. During those four years, I spent virtually every working hour with “my boys”— young enlisted troops ranging from age seventeen to thirty. We served together in garrison, and “in the field” for more days and nights than I care to recall, occasionally onboard Navy ships, and at one point in a little peacetime hell hole called Camp Schwab, Okinawa, Japan.
I knew my boys, and they knew me. I knew which ones needed the carrot, and which ones needed the switch. I knew which ones were mature, and which ones were still kids. I knew which ones would be stone killers in combat, and which ones would be shaky when the bugle sounded. I knew them better than their mothers, and we were a team.
It was, of course, my job to know them—not because they were fun to know, which they were, but because there might come a time when I would need to order some of them on an attack from which there would be no return. As a peacetime Marine, I didn’t have to think about this too much, thank God—but I can guarantee you there are hundreds of Platoon Commanders and Company Commanders who are dealing with this reality in Afghanistan and Iraq: Higher headquarters is ordering them to carry out extremely dangerous missions, which in turn tasks them with picking which men will go and possibly die.
Today, 20 years after I departed my beloved Corps, I read that Admiral Michael G. Mullen, chairmoron of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it’s time to allow openly gay men to serve in the military. Colin Powell has said so, too. Why? I guess at some point these Generals had to decide whether they would remain warriors, or become political stooges. Clearly they made their decision, which probably explains their fourth star. I hope it was worth it.
So, since neither of these four-star politicos can explain why having openly gay men in my beloved Corps is a bad idea, that leaves it up to me. As I’m a Marine, I’ll opine only about the Marines—but I’m fairly confident that the men who do the actual gun-fighting in our sister services will agree with my logic.
Before I get started, let me address a situation that trips a lot of people up: Integrating the Marines racially is nothing like integrating the Marines with gays. Here’s why: The Marine Corps is, of course, an uber-macho gun culture. As a result, it takes a Dark-green Marine about one day to win the respect of a Light-green Marine. That’s because performance is performance is performance. What you see is exactly what you get. The honor-grad of my Basic Officers Course was a Dark-green Marine, and he was a total stud: Smart, a great leader, maxxed the physical fitness test, a superior marksman, top in the class at Land Navigation—He was the best of the best. And what we saw was what we got—he was one of us, lock, stock, and barrel. On the weekends, he was with us, drinking beer and chasing girls. Had he been waving good-bye to us on Friday evenings as he headed off to gay clubs, I doubt there would have been as much unquestioning admiration.
Is that right? Enlightened? Sensitive? Progressive? I guess not. But why would that surprise anyone—we all joined the freakin' Marine Corps, where our profession revolved around training to kill people and blow things up. I’m sorry that we fail to pass the “soft, warm, sensitive, and vulnerable” test that seems so important these days.
So, wherein lies the real-life problem with gays in the Corps? The issue is easiest to comprehend if you understand the impact gays would have on the good order and discipline of a fighting unit. Not the 22nd Software and Clerks Battalion, but an infantry unit.
The infantry operates mostly as a Marine Company, with a Captain serving as the Company Commander. Under him are four Platoons– three “line” Platoons, and a “weapons” Platoon. Each platoon is led by a Lieutenant. In combat, it is the Lieutenant and the enlisted troops in his platoon who take the hills, plant the flag, and do the dying. When a dangerous mission arises, it is the Company Commander who is burdened with making the decision about who does what.
Example: Hill 101 needs to be taken, and the enemy is a bunch of very bad dudes. In a situation like this, the Company Commander would probably have two platoons (plus the weapons platoon) lay down “a base of fire,” while the remaining platoon charged up Hill 101. The guys actually charging up the hill are likely to get dead.
Problem: No one is in a hurry to get dead—and allowing yourself to be ordered to your death is a tough thing to swallow.
Now, let’s take a look at the makeup of this new, gay-friendly Marine Company.
Company Commander– Openly gay
1st Platoon Commander– Straight
2nd Platoon Commander– Straight
3rd Platoon Commander– Openly Gay.
Weapons Platoon Commander– Straight
Now, it’s time to give the orders, and one platoon must be ordered to charge up the hill—and take heavy casualties. But with this “new” military, the Company Commander has a “new” problem. Does he pick the best leader for the job? Or does he now have to consider the ramifications of doing that?
If he picks the gay Lieutenant’s platoon, will the troops in that platoon think, “He’s picked us because our Lieutenant is gay, and he doesn’t want to appear gay-biased to the higher-ups. He’s sending us to die just to cover his own ass.” Might they refuse to attack?
If he picks one of the straight Lieutenant’s platoons, will those troops say, “To hell with that. He’s picked us because he’s likes that gay Lieutenant, and doesn’t want to get him killed.” Might they refuse to attack?
Do you understand how unacceptable this is in a combat environment? It is literally breathtaking that we as a nation would have the nerve to even consider putting our commanders in a situation like this—a situation that could cause “political doubt” to enter the minds of the troops. Or worse yet, into the minds of their Lieutenant leaders.
People who’ve never served in the military love to say, “That’s an issue of discipline. You have to do as you’re ordered.”
To these civilian arm-chair quarterbacks I say, “Bite me. You have no idea how a Lieutenant feels about his Marines. If I, for one second, thought my commanding officer had ulterior motives when ordering my Marines into battle, he’d need to shoot me in the head and pass the order himself.” I can say that as a fact.
And regarding the troops? Listen up, Mr. Community Organizer: Troops are not robots, and they are not morons. They are men willing to fight and die for their country—and because of that they deserve to serve in scenarios so completely above-board that questions of perception cannot arise. We should never put them in a situation where they have any reason to question the motives of those who lead them. Whether they should question their leader is irrelevant… it happens, especially if the mission looks to be a one-way mission. Again, they are men, not robots.
If you served in a combat arms unit and disagree about openly gay men serving in combat arms units, please post. If you counted skivvies or typed in the military, post away anyway. But if you’re civilian, with no experience whatsoever on the topic on which you want to speak— and were confused by the term "weapons platoon," please-- don't bother. You haven't earned the right to comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment