No Nazis in the Corp

I served in the United States Navy I participated in the natural inter-service rivalry with the Marine Corps. "Jarheads" they were. And that was on a good day. At other times we referred to the "junior branch" in terms unfit for family reading. But the rivalry was more brotherly than adversarial. Let someone outside the family insult or assault a "jarhead" and we "squids" would defend them tooth and nail. This is one of those times.

　
Unless you've spent the last week chasing wooly mammoths across the Siberian tundra you've seen the photo of a Marine sniper unit posed beside a "Nazi" flag. The "SS" certainly resembles the insignia made infamous in the German Gestapo, the secret police loyal to no one but Hitler, the murderers of millions of Jews who were guilty of nothing more than being born Jewish. Obviously this sniper squad did a poor job of researching their logo choice, thus creating a public relations nightmare. But, does anyone really believe these Marines intentionally posed with a Nazi symbol? You might be surprised.

There are people who not only believe the Marines realized the implications in their symbol beforehand, but actively embrace the evil it once represented. Sen. Dick Durbin would certainly agree that the Marines in question avow Nazism, since he once compared American soldiers directly to Nazis.

　
Friends, this isn't the first time a slanted "SS" has shown up in a public place. Anyone remember KISS? Yes, that KISS, in all of their costumed, blood-puking, skyrocket shooting, overblown, and choreographed infamy. The KISS that wrote one song, recorded it a hundred times and became multi-millionaires. Look at their logo, the basics of which have remained largely unchanged for 35 years. Notice any similarities between the "SS" in KISS and the "SS" on the Marine flag, or on the Gestapo uniform? Certainly KISS generated their share of detractors. But I can't recall their being accused of headlining the Ravensbrück Rock Reunion at the Auschwitz Amphitheatre.

It's one thing to question war, the reasons behind it, and the strategies involved. It's something else to demean our soldiers for innocuous acts. Besides, the U.S. military bends over backwards to investigate alleged misconduct. Eight Marines were prosecuted for their roles in the so-called Haditha Massacre. The result was a single conviction and no jail time. We treated Abu Ghraib like the worst atrocity in human history even while our enemies were beheading civilian contractors and reporters. That's not to say that all American troops are Sgt. York and Audie Murphy. War is a collection of horrors and some soldiers snap under combat pressure. But we have policed our military reasonably well.

Covert racism undoubtedly exists across all racial, ethnic, and cultural lines. That's still no excuse for ignoring or tolerating overt racism within the military, no matter its origin or target. If said sniper unit has an established pattern of Nazism that's one thing. But a bad choice in unit insignias isn't racism and shouldn't be treated as such.

The American left sees the U.S. military as the world's preeminent force for evil and will pounce on any opportunity to demonize our troops. Thus they've seized on this flag fiasco to paint Marine snipers as Nazi death squads. But where's the evidence to support the notion that these Marines have pledged allegiance to der Fuhrer, aside from an errant choice of insignia? Aren't Marines innocent until proven guilty? What's more, they've earned the benefit of the doubt.

Containing Iran and maintaining peace

No serious person can perceive Iran as anything but an enemy. From the Iran Hostage Crisis to the Ayatollahs' vision of a world without America, Iran habitually provokes the United States. Recent events aren't likely to warm the relationship. In fact, the Persian Gulf is simmering toward a boil.

Naval exercises in the Persian Gulf, routine events under normal circumstances, have escalated into threats against Western powers if further economic sanctions are imposed. Iran is testing missiles and issuing warnings to U.S. warships concerning navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has even threatened to blockade that strategic passage, claiming it can accomplish the task with relative ease. Toss in Iran's nuclear research and the match is as close as it's ever been to the Middle East's fuse.
　
The question isn’t whether Iran is an enemy or an ally; she's obviously an enemy. The question is how U.S. interests are best served: confrontation, sanctions, or bombing Iran to the Stone Age. Many adherents to the new age of Republican conservatism prefer the latter option. However, it may not be the best course.
　
First, this rather hawkish writer is weary of Washington's nation-building combat strategies, which send our troops into battle without the political will to achieve a decisive victory. Nation-building is a poor reason for military deployment. In fact, it's impossible until the enemy loses its will to resist. Only after the enemy's surrender did America help Germany and Japan rebuild.
　
Since World War II our nation has been more concerned with approval in the court of world opinion than with winning wars. Our troops won the battles in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, only to be denied their ultimate victory. Half of Korea and all of Vietnam fell to communism. The Taliban survives in Pakistan, ready to again infiltrate Afghanistan once our troops are withdrawn. We removed Hussein from Iraq, which was warranted. But we also helped install a Shiite power base -- Shia also drives the Iranian regime -- and a Sharia-based constitution. Did we engage the Taliban and Iraq to further entrench the theology that prompted 9/11?
　
What about the Iranian people? The Ayatollahs aren't highly esteemed on Tehran's streets. Iranians live oppressed lives based on the tyranny of a self-anointed few. Yet they indulge Western culture whenever possible, far more often than the imams and theocrats would like to believe. Western music, movies, videos, and bikini-clad Barbie dolls are so popular they've been subject to government crackdowns. The West has potential allies among the Iranian population. Attacking Iran would damage that affinity.
　
Besides, destroying Iran's nuclear program won't be easy. It’s difficult to believe Iran learned nothing from Israel's bombing of Iraqi and Syrian reactors. Their facilities aren't likely to be standing in open desert with bulls-eyes painted around them. If Iran has developed a nuclear weapon, or is progressing toward that end, their laboratories are surely shielded from air assault. Furthermore, public support for attacking Iran is tepid at best. How long before it soured completely, especially if a ground war ensued?
　
The benefits in bombing Iran are mitigated by the detriments. We might strike a fortified facility we can’t destroy. What if we bomb a non-weapons facility -- say an aspirin factory -- or inflict collateral damage that poisons the pro-Western sentiments among Iran's youth?
　
Sanctions won’t derail Iran’s nuclear ambitions either. Tyrannical regimes routinely prefer military development over citizen comforts, meaning economic sanctions will harm Iranians while having little effect on Iran's rulers. This scenario is unfolding even now in North Korea. The "people's army" holds grandiose military parades in Pyongyang while North Koreans themselves lack food and electricity. However, you'll notice Kim Jong Ill didn't starve to death in a dark room.
　
Even while recognizing Iran as an enemy, we might legitimately question whether a nuclear Iran poses a substantially greater threat to the United States than have other nuclear countries. Consider the Soviet Union and Pakistan. Russia was an outright enemy and Pakistan is an uneasy ally ruled by unpredictable Islamic doctrines. Yet neither country launched a nuclear attack on us or on our allies, and we've never bombed their nuclear facilities.
　
We have lived with nuclear weapons in the hands of enemies, both secular communist and Islamic theocracies, for 60 years. So Iran is charting no new course; they’re creating no new threat. The only way Iran would launch a nuclear weapon, or share atomic technology with terrorist organizations, is if they believe the United States wouldn't respond in kind.
　
To suggest a bilateral summit with Iran constitutes blasphemy in today’s conservatism. But two-party talks might prove the best option. A summit of proper tone would satisfy everyone from the hawkish neo-con to the peace-through-surrender pacifist, and render military action more palatable if it becomes necessary.
　
America’s history hasn't been to attack every potential source of danger. Yet Iran should face severe consequences for actual, not perceived, belligerence. Let us be blunt with Iran concerning America's position. Place the Ayatollahs on notice: if Iran’s nuclear program adopts an offensive posture, or if there’s the slightest hint their technology is being shared outside their borders, the United States will end the threat even if it means annihilating Iran. No further threats, warnings, resolutions, or sanctions will be necessary, just the response of our choosing delivered at our convenience.
　
The pacifists can be happy. There's no preemptive war with Iran. The hawks can be happy. Iran is on notice concerning their impending doom. Of greater benefit, we aren't further depleting our treasury and committing our troops to another war we're not determined to win.
　
Of course, this solution hinges on one key element; we must fulfill our threat if and when conditions warrant. Otherwise, we solidify the paper tiger perception, a perception that our politically calculated war policies in Afghanistan and Iraq have done little to dispense.
　
Iran's done nothing to warrant our trust. So, when the time comes for war I'll be as hawkish as General Patton. Let's join the battle with the full brunt and force the U.S. military can muster, and continue until resistance fails. But addressing possible threats with military force is a prescription for a permanent state of war, which is an unappealing proposal.

Reagan speaks on deficits, spending, and debt

Government spending and national defense are among the key topics whenever Ronald Reagan's legacy is discussed. Reagan is credited with rebuilding the military into a force capable of projecting America's presence anywhere in the world. He is also criticized for increasing the national debt even though federal revenues increased during his administration, which is an indictment of Congress' long-term lack of fiscal discipline.

Today's America can only long for the late Ronald Reagan's leadership. Then again, perhaps he's still on the job. A portion of his legacy can help us appreciate our military prowess while simultaneously understanding our unimaginable indebtedness.

The Gipper would certainly be pleased with the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76), a state-of-the-art warship right down to the life rafts. The USS Reagan epitomizes the term "supercarrier." With a 90-aircraft air wing, fire and forget missile defenses, and various radar, jamming, and countermeasure systems, the Reagan is adequately equipped to fulfill the former President's defensive strategies.

Since its commission in 2003 the Reagan has indeed impressed America's military might on all who see her. She's a crowning achievement in technology, maneuverability, speed, and reliability. For some Americans the Reagan represents the nation's commitment to excellence and innovation, and complements the former President's "peace through strength" ideology. But the USS Reagan stirs emotions on the other side of defense spending, too.

To Americans critical of military spending, the USS Reagan represents waste and a bully mentality. She is a $4.5 billion floating testament to misplaced national priorities. A progressive peace activist might argue that the USS Ronald Reagan is a budget-busting monument to America's military-industrial complex.

The Reagan is justified in Congress' constitutional duty to "provide and maintain a navy" (Art. I, Sect. 8). Even so, for the purpose of honest debate, a few points must be conceded to the Pentagon's detractors. Certainly there's waste in the defense budget, waste that can be trimmed without sacrificing needed upgrades, unit cohesion, or overall preparedness. Also, $4.5 billion is a pile of bucks no matter how you stack them, meaning the Reagan can illustrate our record budget deficits, federal spending, and national debt. But not in the way defense critics think.

What could each American household do with its share of the Reagan's $4.5 billion price tag? You might take the family out for pizza, but that's about all. Based on Census Bureau statistics for 2003, the USS Reagan cost each American household only $40.43, meaning the ship's construction had little impact on Washington's chaotic finances. However, it can help us understand the vastness of federal spending.

Any attentive person knows the federal deficit has grown unchecked, reaching $1.3 trillion in both 2010 and 2011. What isn't so obvious is that each $1.3 trillion in deficit spending would buy 288 aircraft carriers built to the same specs as the USS Reagan, with spare parts to boot. The federal government spent $3.6 trillion last year alone, a total that could build the Reagan 800 times. Based on the accumulated national debt -- currently $14.8 trillion and closing in on 100-percent of GDP -- we have borrowed enough money to provide the USS Ronald Reagan with 3,288 sister ships, again with spare parts leftover.

If many aircraft carriers are a good policy, are bigger aircraft carriers a better policy? Just how big would the USS Reagan be if its size were measured in federal spending? Dividing the ship's final construction cost by its overall length ($4.5 billion/1092 feet) shows that each foot of the Reagan cost the taxpayer $4.12 million. How much carrier can we then buy? Well, that depends on the chosen model.

The "Annual Red Ink" class, based on our $1.3 trillion deficit, could build a "supercarrier" measuring 315,533 feet from bow to stern. And that's the dove version. A more hawkish model, the "Yearly Expenditures" class (based on $3.6 trillion in annual spending), sails at an overall length of 873,876 feet. Now that's a "super-supercarrier." Not enough? Try the "National Debt" class, a genuine "super-duper-supercarrier," boasting a flight deck 3,592,233 feet long.

The USS Reagan's actual 1092-foot long flight deck is impressive. But the enormity of a carrier deck based on the aforementioned numbers is unimaginable. For ease of comprehension let's convert the feet into miles and apply the results geographically.

The "Annual Red Ink" class of aircraft carrier would be 59.75 miles long, approximately half the length of Long Island, NY. The "Yearly Expenditures" class, at 165 miles long, would stretch from Atlanta, GA to Montgomery, AL. Saving the best for last, a pilot on the "National Debt" class could travel from New York City to Myrtle Beach, SC and never leave the flight deck.

The point of this illustration isn't that America should've constructed 3,288 aircraft carriers. The point is to highlight the central government's disregard for its fiduciary duties. Washington spends a trillion dollars like the rest of us put change in a Coke machine. Slick-talking politicians can continue their lies, pretending to understand the fiscal mess they've created. But thanks to the USS Ronald Reagan and a 13-digit calculator, politicians can't continue bankrupting this country while believing the public is ignorant of the disservice they're committing.

Three rails of pacifism, and each is off-track

No person is easier defeated than one who holds nothing worthy of defense. The board of directors at Goshen College, a Mennonite school in Indiana, fits that category to some extent. But the Mennonite pacifism is at least partially pure. Secular pacifism can’t make that claim.

Mennonites are traditional pacifists, shunning war and confrontation no matter the provocation. In that spirit Goshen has deemed the Star Spangled Banner inappropriate because it incorporates war and military power in national defense. The national anthem therefore violates the school’s religious standards and will no longer be heard at Goshen’s sporting events.

Goshen is within its rights to bypass the national anthem, although their decision will doubtlessly offend many Americans. But simply possessing that right doesn’t mean Goshen deserves a free pass. Their pacifist doctrine contains inconsistencies that warrant examination.

The Mennonite pacifism is based on their understanding of Jesus Christ as a peacemaker. Jesus didn’t kill other human beings; he didn’t fight wars. Thus his followers must also shun violence no matter the provocation. No doubt Jesus was a peaceful man. But did Jesus exemplify a pacifist, peace-at-all-cost attitude? Maybe not.

Jesus didn’t yield when resistance was warranted. He repeatedly and publicly chastised community and religious leaders for their hypocrisies. Jesus was anything but meek when he physically drove the frauds and con artists from the Temple courtyard. Furthermore, Jesus gave credence to the idea of a just conflict when he said, “if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I might not be delivered.”

America isn’t a kingdom. But it is our sovereign slice of this world. Sorry Mennonites, but Jesus didn’t teach absolute capitulation as a tenet of discipleship. In fact, his teachings prevent no one from participating in their own defense.

The Mennonite attitude toward war is a moral pacifism, even if somewhat naïve. Their passivity is based on a quest for spiritual purity; it is their constitutional and ecclesiastical right. Secular pacifists, conversely, practice a pacifism that is unclear, indefensible, and inaccurate.

Intellectual pacifism deplores warfare not because of religious beliefs but philosophical ideals. This person never considers war a valid response to any provocation. War, in the intellectual pacifist’s mind, is invariably based on lies. Not even America’s role in World War II is immune from this viewpoint.

According to intellectual pacifists, Germany posed no threat to the United States, their army couldn’t have crossed the Atlantic, and Americans wouldn’t be speaking German if not for our military adventurism in Europe. But their arguments are untenable.

Germany didn’t possess the amphibious capability necessary to cross the Atlantic and assault America’s east coast. However, Germany’s desire to confront the United States dates to the late 19th Century. That dream became an obsession for Hitler. According to James Duffy’s book, Target: America: Hitler’s Plan to Attack America, Nazi Germany had both ambitions and plans for striking the United States.

Germany’s “Amerika Bombers” were long-range aircraft designed and produced to varying degrees by Messerschmitt, Junkers, Heinkel, and other German aviation firms. As the name implies, those bombers were intended to fly transoceanic raids on the U.S. mainland. Germany also considered occupying the Azores as a refueling station for the Amerika Bombers. Another strategy employed seaplane bombers, with submarines serving as seaborne refueling stations. Germany was also developing rocket propulsion, hoping to produce guided or piloted missiles that could reach New York.

Certainly the value of such raids, had they materialized, would’ve been more psychological than strategic. But Germany unquestionably desired to strike the U.S. mainland. And the idea of a ground assault on the U.S. wasn’t ignored either.

Germany attempted to forge relationships in South and Central America, including Mexico. The objective was to secure a base for launching a ground offensive across our southern border. Was such an invasion feasible? The U.S. military thought so. Furthermore, had intellectual pacifists met the theoretical Nazi offensive the only thing stopping Germany’s northward march would’ve been the Canadian border.

Intellectual pacifism ignores contemporary belligerence, regardless its source, just as it still ignores Nazi Germany’s aggression. Their worldview contradicts the venerable truism, “If there’s nothing worth dying for there’s nothing worth living for.” What, then, is the intellectual pacifist’s reason for being?

On pacifism’s third rail is the immoral pacifist. The immoral pacifist differs from both the moral and intellectual pacifist, but is closer aligned to the later. Neither a thirst for spiritual clarity nor an innate preference for surrender drives the immoral pacifist. Political expediency motivates their attitude, which is personified in the anti-war marcher.

This mindset selectively deploys anti-war sentiment where it can best serve a political goal. For instance, leftwing ideologues used the Iraq War to demonize President Bush, claiming he waged an unauthorized and illegal conflict. Both charges were lies. Congress authorized military force against Iraq and the operation was conducted within those guidelines.

The Iraq War protester has been conspicuously absent since a preferred president, President Obama, joined the United States to the Libyan fray. And Obama is waging an illegal war. He authorized military action without Congress’ consent. He has ignored the timelines for unilateral presidential action outlined in the War Powers Act and obfuscated Congress’ attempts to understand his adventurism. Yet the immoral pacifists are deafening only in their silence.

The moral pacifist can be challenged with their own religious doctrines. Yet they can defend their pacifism on ecclesiastical grounds. For the intellectual pacifist there are fewer defenses. Their pacifism isn’t grounded on a quest for spiritual truth but a combination of foolhardiness and ignorance. No logic is apparent in the intellectual pacifist’s dismissal of all war as unwarranted. There’s no defense whatsoever for the immoral pacifist. Their objectives are political, based on falsehood and opportunism.

Ironically, Goshen College’s ban of the Star Spangled Banner fulfills its commitment to higher education. The board’s decision laid bare the three rails of pacifism, none of which secure a nation’s sovereignty. In fact, any nation trying to run on pacifism’s track is hurtling toward derailment.

Sen. Lindsay Graham: Fool, liar, or historically ignorant?

During a recent appearance on Face the Nation, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) addressed free speech in relation to the current war effort. Apparently, words and activities that could incite or motivate an enemy are beyond the First Amendment's protection. Government can then silence such speech. Frankly, that is a foolish and utterly un-American idea. But it isn't as foolish as Graham's use of World War II to justify his position. "During World War II," Graham explained, "you had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy."

Such a claim would be news to the World War II generation, who weren't the least bit concerned with whether or not their attitudes inspired their enemies. In fact, they went out of their way to denigrate the Nazis and the Japanese at every opportunity.

Has Sen. Graham never seen a poster from the WW II era? Those posters appeared throughout the United States and they were anything but complimentary toward the Germans and the Japanese.

One WW II poster depicts the Axis powers firing on Jesus Christ as he hangs on the cross. On another poster a Nazi is thrusting his bayonet through the Holy Bible. An anti-Japanese poster displayed the "Tokio Kid" (Misspelled intentionally?) with slanted eyes, big teeth, round eyeglasses, and devilishly pointed ears. A war bonds promotion poster shows an aggressive Japanese soldier holding an all-American girl at knifepoint. The caption reads, "Keep this horror from your home."

Inciting? I think so. Obviously, Sen. Graham hasn't paid much attention to WW II posters. He must not have watched cartoons, either. A wide array of animated characters, from Popeye to Donald Duck, took turns poking the Axis in the eye.

In Daffy the Commando, Daffy Duck took on a ranting Nazi officer and his bumbling subordinate, Shultz. In one scene the German commander springs to attention and shouts "Heil Hitler" when a skunk crosses his path. After making a total mockery of the Nazi army Daffy drops in on a Hitler speech and conks der Fuehrer on the head with a mallet.

Popeye the Sailor deployed to the Pacific Theatre in You’re a Sap, Mr. Jap. He tangles with two stereotypical Japanese sailors, each with a penchant for treachery. The Japanese promise peace, but attack Popeye when he turns his back. A not-so-subtle reference to Pearl Harbor, perhaps? Popeye eventually eats his spinach and gives an entire Japanese battlewagon a thorough whipping. You’re a Sap, Mr. Jap poked fun at everything Japanese from their manufacturing quality to their doctrine of honorable suicide. It ended with the Rising Sun being "flushed" in the ocean.

In Her Honor the Mare, Popeye's nephews disguise a horse as a house painter to sneak the nag into the house. The "painter" looks like Hitler -- an obvious insult to Adolf's artistic aspirations -- with the face drawn on the horse's backside. Sen. Graham can draw his own conclusions about inspiring the enemy. But to me, the animators were calling Hitler a horse's ass.

Walt Disney joined the anti-Axis animation parade with Der Fuehrer's Face, in which Donald Duck dreams about living in the Third Reich. The cartoon begins with an unflattering Nazi marching band and a song that resembles someone breaking wind "right in der Fuehrer's Face." Everything in Donald’s home is a tribute to the Nazi police state and he’s forced, at bayonet point, to read Mein Kampf. Then it's off to work for Donald, where he'll "Heil Hitler" in forced servitude at a Nazi munitions factory. The cartoon ends with Hitler being hit in the face with a tomato.

None of these print and animated insults could’ve provoked the enemy? Senator Graham is either ignorant of this nation's attitude toward our enemies during the Second World War, a complete fool, or a dastardly liar. Choose the lesser of the evils, if there is a lesser between ignorance, foolishness and dishonesty. Whichever you choose, there is one certainty; free speech wasn't limited so as to avoid inspiring the Germans and the Japanese. In fact, the Greatest Generation reveled in insulting their enemies at every opportunity and their war ended just fine.

The good guys won World War II, in case Senator Graham needs reminding. There were no focus group plans for appeasing our adversaries. Victory didn’t come from seeking common ground with Hirohito or proving to the Nazis how we meant no harm to their Fuehrer and his concentration camps. We won because we put victory above the nonsensical notion that offending our enemy was off-limits.

Sen. Graham isn’t ignorant of America’s attitudes toward the Axis powers. But he’ll promote a historically false perspective and believe Americans are foolish enough to accept his dishonesty.

The war that will not end

Thirty-five years ago the last U.S. soldiers left Vietnam. Yet the war continues because Vietnam’s veterans returned home to contempt rather than appreciation. Even today a celebration in their honor--held near Ft. Bragg in Fayetteville, NC no less--can’t escape the longstanding divisions.

Fayetteville’s mayor organized this “homecoming” celebration. But he also invited Quaker House to participate in the festivities. Quaker House represents a pacifist, anti-Vietnam War attitude, a fact readily recognized by the organization’s director, Chuck Fager. Fager defended his group’s participation on the basis that anti-war sentiment is a historical aspect of the Vietnam era. While he’s factually correct, he has missed this event’s point.

Not every celebration needs to be a history lesson. The Holocaust is a historical fact of World War II. Selling out neighbors to the British was common during the Revolutionary War. But we don’t recognize Nazis on Victory in Europe Day or Tories on Independence Day. These examples are extreme, yet the inclusion of an anti-Vietnam protest organization in a Vietnam veteran’s recognition ceremony is equally inappropriate.

The mindset represented at Quaker House had its day. Protesters received the hero’s treatment during the Vietnam War. Sure, they had their share of detractors. But media coverage gave protesters far more favor than was their due. Why can’t the Fayetteville celebration honor the soldiers who did Vietnam’s dirty work? Why should they share the spotlight with an organization promoting anti-Vietnam War films featuring the traitorous Jane Fonda, which is Quaker House’s plan?

Mr. Fager, stay home and keep your sympathizers with you. Keep your films in the can and the North Vietnamese Army’s favorite vixen off the screen. This is the soldier’s day, not yours. Fayetteville’s mayor shouldn’t have invited you and you should gracefully butt-out.

People can disagree with why Vietnam was fought and how it was managed. They’re free to question and second-guess Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Robert McNamara, or whoever. But the men who fought, bled and died in those steamy jungles didn’t deserve the anti-war protester’s scorn.

The Vietnam soldier fought the communist expansion in Southeast Asia. They won the battles in a war where political considerations denied them victory. Vietnam’s ultimate outcome wasn’t what their efforts earned. There was no justifiable reason for a misguided generation of Mao disciples and slovenly hippies to spit on them and called them “baby-killers.”

Vietnam veterans gave what they had and proved that America wouldn’t sit idly in the face of communist aggression. They fought under restraining rules of engagement against an enemy that knew no rules. And they did so at the behest of a government that tied one hand behind their backs before sending them afield.

Sure, efforts have since been made to recognize and honor the Vietnam veteran’s service and sacrifice. But they deserved a proper homecoming when they returned from Southeast Asia. A little extra recognition now is more than justified.

A “gay-friendly” military demands a cultural transformation

Our country is based on individual liberty, meaning people can interact as they will. As long as a chosen act doesn’t compromise our neighbor’s liberty our actions remain our personal choice. That includes what two people may deem proper behind closed doors. Gay activists, seemingly, would welcome such a concept. But that’s seldom the case. Cultural norms must yield to accommodate homosexuality.

Gay activists experience problems with the subject of privacy, for they generally aren’t content to interact privately. Gay activists prefer flaunting their sexuality and forcing others to accept and support their sexual decisions. Oppose their lifestyle and you’re instantly equated to the white-robbed segregationists from the early 20th Century. However, open homosexuality presents cultural problems extending beyond questions of right and wrong. These issues will come to a head in our military when “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” becomes “Don’t Ask, Do Tell.”

Politicians, bureaucrats and military leaders have weighed in on both sides of open homosexuality. These high-level dialogues focused primarily on military preparedness and unit cohesiveness under such a policy. While such discussions are valid, they ignored fundamental issues that affect both qualities. Lest we forget amidst the swirl of self-congratulatory open-mindedness, heterosexual and homosexual service members must now interact openly on a daily basis.

Men and women don’t share living quarters, showers and other personal facilities for several reasons, chiefly sexual privacy and cultural morals. Integrating men and women in intimate situations is an invitation to sexual advances, including those of the unwelcome variety. Can anyone believe that similar indiscretions won’t occur between gay or lesbian and straight service members?

Yes, there are methods for dealing with unwanted sexual attention. But such rules can also govern current heterosexual conduct. Therefore, if it’s sensible for straight men to shower and bunk with gay men, and straight women likewise with lesbian women, shouldn’t heterosexual men and women shower and bunk together, too? Isn’t segregating them according to their heterosexuality a form of discrimination? Besides, think of the recruitment campaign we could create.

Integrating straights and gays is a unique dilemma. Can the Pentagon keep everyone free from sexual harassment while simultaneously preserving modesty and privacy? Ordering straight men to room with gay men is equivalent to ordering women to room with men in general. The same holds for rooming straight women with lesbians. Bunking lesbians with straight men won’t work either. Men and women would still be integrated in intimate conditions even though the women, being lesbians, wouldn’t be interested in the men.

Another possible solution is to have gay men shower and bunk with straight women. No, that’s totally unworkable. Women could feel threatened (perhaps aroused?) by the gay men’s presence. Another downside to this proposal is the number of straight servicemen who might suddenly declare their homosexuality so they could join the straight women in the shower. Or, we may have straight women declaring lesbianism so they can shower with the straight men. Each scenario is downright confusing.

Regardless of an individual’s gender or their sexual attraction there invariably exists the possibility of feeling vulnerable, uncomfortable, compromised, intimidated, threatened, or violated from the opposite sex’s presence in personal situations. Every relationship, every interaction, is muddled when time-honored gender and sexual boundaries are erased. And we haven’t even considered the affect bisexual and transgender personnel will have on the aforementioned interactions.

Is there an option that will satisfy everyone? The Pentagon can provide separate facilities for each gender and sexuality. Or, all personnel can exist in one communal environment where accommodations resemble Roman bathhouses. Men, women and transsexuals, heterosexuals, homosexuals and bisexuals can shower to the rhythmic refrain of the Village People’s In the Navy.

Pandora’s Box is open wide. The potential outcome is an abundance of fraternization and sexual harassment charges from and toward all genders and sexual preferences. Only one bet is safe: I’ll wager that gay activists will dismiss any sexual harassment complaint lodged against a gay service member as baseless homophobia on the part of an intolerant heterosexual. Any takers?