Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 11:00:04 EST
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2
From:         James Sheldon <U7636JI@DOES1.BITNET>
Subject:      RECENT DISCUSSION TOPICS RE "DRAFT DODGING" & MILITARY GAYS

FROM: James Sheldon
 As a new subscriber, I've read the "discussion" with some amusement.  I'd like
 to offer a few comments/observations.

 First, it's fairly apparent most of you engaged in the cross talk have little
or no military experience. (On the other hand, I can speak from more than 23
years as an Air Force Officer, and 21 before that as the son of a career NCO(Th
at's an enlisted person for those of you who don't do acronyms.))  The net resu
lt is you lack a factual basis for many of your comments.  Now to substance.

Regarding President-elect Clinton's, Vice President Quayle's and President Reag
an's "draft dodging."  I really don't have any problem with Clinton having avoi
ded military service, or with Quayle going into the National Guard.  They were
like many young men of that time who sought ways of avoiding the draft (Why do
you think we have so many middle aged, male teachers out there?)  What I do hav
e problems with, is the way Clinton went about it and comments attributed to hi
m regarding his abhorrence of the military.  By failing to serve, he has no pra
ctical experience with the military environment.  That's okay for the ordinary
citizen, but not for the "commander-in-chief."  Like it or not, the United Stat
es remains the world's super power and when a President has to call on the mili
tary to carry out the national interest (and don't think Clinton won't have to
at least look at that possibility in the next four years) it's nice to know the
guy making the call has at least walked the proverbial mile.  For all his short
 comings, at least VP Quayle's National Guard time has given him exposure to th
e military environment.  And lest you deride the National Guard's capabilities,
 I would invite you to look at the record of the "citizen soldier."

Incidentally, for those of you "Quayle-bashers,"  I'd ask which one of you has
the ambition, intelligence and perseverance to rise to the second most importan
t job in this country?  He may not be the smartest bear in the woods, but those
of you who criticize from the cozy "ivory tower" can't even say you've tried.

Finally, to gays in the military:

First, as a member of the military, you do not have the same full use of consti
tutional rights that you do in the private sector.  This is a position Supreme
Court and Congress have taken in recognizing and legislating the Uniform Code o
f Military Justice.  The UCMJ is the legal statute of the military and sets for
th offences punishable by fine or imprisonment which may/may not have a civil c
ounterpart.

There are gays in the military - that's a given.  Just as there are child abus
ers, drug users and alcoholics.  They're facts of life, but not necessarily acc
epted lifestyles.  As a practical matter, homosexuallity is considered to be pr
ejudicial to the good order and conduct of the service for a number of reasons:

-  In the modern military, homosexuals have been viewed as a security risk, sus
ceptible to blackmail.  The KGB often targeted homosexuals for espionage recrui
tment because they were deemed vulnerable and their feelings against staright s
ociety's attitudes could be exploited.  Admittedly, a person who acknowledges h
is/her homosexuallity voids a significant part of the risk.   However, as long
as society does not consider it an acceptable lifestyle, there will be those wh
o won't acknowledhe it.

-  Another concern, and one I've witnessed first hand, is aggressive homosexual
seduction.  Many young people join the miliatry because they lack a directio
n in life.  They join up and travel to basic and technical training.  For many,
 it's their first time away from the comforts of home.  They get depressed and
someone offers a shoulder to cry on.  The next thing they know, they're showing
 their gratitude by sleeping with someone of the same sex, and entrapped in a s
itaution they weren't prepared for.  As I said, this is something I've seen hap
pen - it's not a fantasy.  This type of activity, coupled with the advance of A
IDS (and let's get real - homosexual males are the population "most at risk.")
makes homosexual activity incompatible with the military.

The bottom line, I think gays will end up being allowed in the military, but on
ly after they make a confidential disclosure of their status.  What they do of
f duty, and off camp will be their business.  However, any efforts to prosletiz
e the lifestyle, engage in homosexual activity or recruitment, will be met with
 punitive action.

Some food for thought - Uncle Ernie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU