The U.S.'s military establishment is about to become a tool for progressive social change or, at least, is about to provide a platform for it. If the military is lifting the ban on LGBT people, it will actively contribute to destroying one central pillar of Western social culture – the fundamental value of distinctive gender relations. If a powerful societal entity like the military organization puts gays and transgender on level par, it will contribute to the termination of the traditional binary gender code and accelerate the ongoing process of social decline.
However, those who object to the abolition of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" on the part of the military follow a treacherous line of argumentation, merely based on considerations of utility and efficacy. High-ranking representatives of the U.S. Military, i.e., Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, and U.S. Marine Corps General James Conway, use exclusively utilitarian and consequentialist arguments. Conway, who disagrees with Mullen and goes up against Barack Obama's plan to repeal the ban, judge the issue from the viewpoint of whether or not openly serving gays would enhance or diminish the warfighting capabilities of U.S. Forces. But the political side uses the same shortsighted reasons. As but one example, Senator Joe Lieberman expects to find out from the current policy review process if allowing gays to serve openly would bolster the military's battle readiness.
But neither the ongoing warfighting in Iraq and Afghanistan nor the combat readiness question should decide the issue. The primary reasons for continuing the policy of banning open gays from serving in the military are much more profound. They rest beneath the superficial surface of expediency and useful practicality and have to do with our cultural identity. With the dissolution of a coherent societal order due to the increasing infiltration of arbitrary notions of individual hedonism and personal gratification into our social, political, and legal life, the moral decline of western societies has already reached new and alarming heights. As one of the last bastions of traditional order in any political community, the military establishment must not subject itself to undifferentiated equal treatment policies. It is paramount that it resists the onslaught of all those forces that promote social engineering and moral deconstruction. We have to be aware that gays and transgender people's claims are not exclusively about their desire to satisfy individual sensitivities and personal preferences. They also aim to create new power structures and identity designs that intend to alter our societies substantially.
However, those who object to the abolition of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" on the part of the military follow a treacherous line of argumentation, merely based on considerations of utility and efficacy. High-ranking representatives of the U.S. Military, i.e., Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, and U.S. Marine Corps General James Conway, use exclusively utilitarian and consequentialist arguments. Conway, who disagrees with Mullen and goes up against Barack Obama's plan to repeal the ban, judge the issue from the viewpoint of whether or not openly serving gays would enhance or diminish the warfighting capabilities of U.S. Forces. But the political side uses the same shortsighted reasons. As but one example, Senator Joe Lieberman expects to find out from the current policy review process if allowing gays to serve openly would bolster the military's battle readiness.
But neither the ongoing warfighting in Iraq and Afghanistan nor the combat readiness question should decide the issue. The primary reasons for continuing the policy of banning open gays from serving in the military are much more profound. They rest beneath the superficial surface of expediency and useful practicality and have to do with our cultural identity. With the dissolution of a coherent societal order due to the increasing infiltration of arbitrary notions of individual hedonism and personal gratification into our social, political, and legal life, the moral decline of western societies has already reached new and alarming heights. As one of the last bastions of traditional order in any political community, the military establishment must not subject itself to undifferentiated equal treatment policies. It is paramount that it resists the onslaught of all those forces that promote social engineering and moral deconstruction. We have to be aware that gays and transgender people's claims are not exclusively about their desire to satisfy individual sensitivities and personal preferences. They also aim to create new power structures and identity designs that intend to alter our societies substantially.
Therefore, it is apparent that the policy of banning openly gay and transgender people in the military ought to stay in place. However, implemented policies must support the prevention of abuse to escape from mission duress and warfighting tasks. A "well-timed revelation" of gay sexual orientation to that effect must result not merely in immediate and opportune discharge from the military but also in severe penalties that serve as a deterrent and serious obstacle against abuse.
