Let me start by saying that I have no interest in what consenting adults choose to do so long as those activities do not result in corpses, do not scare the horses, and are not otherwise harmful to society in general. Many of us are attracted to individuals that bewilder our friends and relatives.

The question before us is whether or not some sorts of behavior and traditions should be changed to meet the desires of less than two per cent. of the population. I have no difficulty with same-sex couples who want to “live in sin,” a very old term for cohabiting without marriage, although I am against that for heterosexual couples because we all know the enormous damage done to our society by the increase in illegitimate children. In the nineteen fifties the white illegitimacy rate was 5% and that of blacks was 25%. After half a century of welfare the rate for whites is 25% and that of blacks 80%, to the widespread detriment of all of the little bastards, to use the technical term deliberately for shock effect. Does it strike you as odd that the technical term is still one of the strongest insults in our society, while no social force is leveled against those who bear children out of wedlock? Perhaps mandatory health insurance would solve the argument that gays should be allowed “to marry,” a perfectly straightforward infinitive that has never referred to anything other than heterosexual unions for the purposes of procreation, preservation of capital and family power, and perhaps even happiness.

In particular, the questions are whether or not those who are openly gay have a “right” to serve in the military if they wish, with others questioning whether our fighting forces would be better or worse for their inclusion. The arguments are that a sexual deviant can be just as patriotic and competent as anyone else and they should not be denied permission to join the Marines if they want to and can get through Parris Island successfully. I’m quite willing to admit that military prowess and even genius may be — even probably are — independent of sexual orientation. As I recall, Gaius Julius Caesar was at least AC-DC, and many ancient Greeks were of the opinion that a man will fight harder under the eyes of his lover. (If we’re going to take society of two millenia ago as our standard, should modern mothers tell our sons, “Come back with your shield or on it?”)

On my angle of the argument, after a life of having been the wife, daughter, sister, aunt, cousin, niece, and daughter-in-law of career military officers, I keep running into the ancient proscription against “conduct prejudicial to good order” and another about “conduct unbecoming an officer.” There are very clear rules against “fraternization” between officers and enlisted men/women, and against after lights out trysts in the barracks. More recent rules involve “sexual harassment” and rendering one’s self unfit for combat by becoming pregnant, neither of which were an issue when all the ships at sea were manned, period. I think all of us can agree that we would find it uncomfortable to shower in mixed groups, whether that meant those of both genders or those of our own who saw us as sex objects. The situation will be even worse on submarines, where quarters are always tight and it can be difficult to pass someone without touching, a situation that could lead quickly to those so inclined taking advantage of others who did not appreciate being touched inappropriately. Surely we have had enough scandals and ruined careers without openly setting up situations where charges will arise.

I consulted three military men tonight. The gentleman reared in Romania, where mandatory service is required after high school, said in outrage that he thought all homosexuals should be shot, which does seem a little severe, given easier solutions. The former, ah, “black ops” type said firmly that he didn’t want to risk his life in tight situations with someone who saw him as desirable, and Charles spoke bitingly of the Wisconsin and the Wikipaedia mess. If you aren’t familiar with the little emotional tiff, which led to death and destruction, a jealous lover rigged the large gun his boyfriend served to blow up. Such an occurrence can happen, obviously, even under “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Needless to say, both men had broken several regs, and shipmates who were innocent died. Can heterosexual unions end as badly? Of course they can, but have I indicated in any way that I am in favor of mixed crews living together in cramped, dangerous quarters? There are many military jobs that women can do better than men, including being jet pilots. One of our top snipers is a gorgeous little blonde with a sweet smile and a wholesome look about her. Obviously we can handle Air Traffic Control, analysis, and logistics, and even serve in motor pools.

The problem is, do we allow gays to serve on the premise that women can? Do we go to open segregation, with a Lysistrata Corps? I can imagine the furor if anyone suggested that. The Romanian astrophysicist demanded indignantly several times to know if gays would be required to wear an insignia (perhaps the ancient pink triangle?) to identify themselves plainly. My friend from Dracula land is a brilliant, fascinating man with an authentic accent, and he asks good questions. We require military infantry, engineers, pilots, Master Sergeants, and Admirals to wear insignia identifying their specialties and rank, after all. I can’t think of an army in at least a thousand years that has not done so.

We need to figure in the results of several surveys that indicate that something on the order of 40% say they will resign if open homosexuality is practiced, a number very close to the number of doctors who speak of going out of practice under Obamacare. What is the likelihood that there would be increased fragging in combat? In other words, what is the best policy for our military services and our country? How will we handle all the probable lawsuits for Bad Conduct Discharges, demanding back pay for twenty or thirty years?

If all rules are subject to question, why should anything be allowed as a disqualifying factor for military service? I am being discriminated against by a cut off of age 35 to join the Army or Navy, when I feel I have a great deal to offer as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I wouldn’t be surprised if I know more about tactics, strategy, and military history than Admiral Mike Mullen does, and I have a lot more guts when it comes to standing up for what I believe and analyzing consequences. I don’t yield to political expediency; I say what I think before reading audiences of nearly 500,000, and sign my full name to everything I write. I’d make a terrific General, and it is only sheer, blind prejudice that prevents me from serving my country!

Regards,
Linda Brady Traynham
Whiskey & Gunpowder

December 20, 2010

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Act was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder. Visit Laissez Faire Books for the best selection of libertarian book titles.

Fair enough. Let’s think about why a few historical articles about Curtis Lemay fit within a publication entitled Whiskey & Gunpowder.

A Great Story — the Route that History Took

First of all, Lemay played a big role in shaping the modern world, in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. Lemay’s world is, in many respects, the route that history took to arrive at our world today. So Lemay’s life and times make for a great story, and most people like great stories.

Indeed, the muse of history seldom lets go of a great story. Recall the first words of Virgil’s Aeneid. “Arma virumque cano.” I sing of arms and the man. For near 3,000 years, people have liked great stories. And what better place to tell a great story than in the comfort of the Whiskey Bar? Of course, I know that the Lemay story has taken a number of readers out of their comfort zone. Too bad. Have another drink.

It’s All About NOW!

Then there’s the OTHER reason why I’m writing about Lemay — because I’m not just writing about Lemay.

I’m writing about NOW! I keep saying, “Cometh the hour, cometh the man.” And Lemay was the “man” for the “hour” at a certain time. That’s the history. But what about NOW?

Can we in the U.S., today, recognize our own “hour?” Because that hour is upon us — NOW! We live on the cusp of Peak Oil. We live in a world where the U.S. dollar is poised for a crash. The U.S. is a nation that appears more and more unable to govern itself for the long haul. That’s for starters.

Ours is a complex civilization that could quickly collapse — in every sense of the word. Really, we’ve built a society, economy and political process that’s utterly poised for a takedown. It could be the grid powering off (recall August 2003), natural disaster (Katrina writ large) or the dollar cratering (they’re working on it). We’re set up for an asymmetrical hit.

The Hour Is Upon Us

So the “hour” is here. It’s upon us, if only we would collectively look at the clock and tell time. Can we?

And thus I wonder if we, as a nation, can still recognize the right “man” (or “woman”) when that person is needed. So far, I’m not impressed with who I see entering into, and operating within, the ethereal reaches of U.S. governance.

Is anyone out there putting together a comprehensive energy policy with the vision, drive and speed with which Lemay built the Strategic Air Command (SAC)?

At the Federal Reserve, is Ben Bernanke — recently reappointed as Chairman — really the Curtis Lemay of monetary policy, to defend the dollar over the long haul?

Is the Securities and Exchange Commission guarding the capital markets against the looters of Wall Street? Really, SEC is no SAC.

When I discuss how Lemay gave military advice to presidential administrations full of amateurs and charlatans, does it hit any nerves? Has the U.S. endured any, umm… “long wars,” lately?

Condemned to Repeat It

What’s that old saying? If you don’t study history, you’re “condemned to repeat it?”

And do you know something else? You might even die.

So lighten up, shooters. Sit back. Take another nip. Enjoy the cigar smoke. I’ve got more stories. Lots of ‘em.

Until we meet again,
Byron King

September 17, 2009

Why Military History and Lemay: The Story of Now was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder. Visit Laissez Faire Books for the best selection of libertarian book titles.