Homosexuals in Combat – Reality Check

Statements by military leaders that there would be no problems with allowing openly homosexual men to serve in combat zones would be more convincing if the military wasn’t having a problem with its male personnel sexually assaulting its female personnel.

Female veterans on a recent PBS documentary said that women were afraid to go anywhere on their bases alone in Afghanistan and Iraq because of concerns about being sexually assaulted. The Service Women’s Action Network and others have filed a lawsuit to obtain military records dealing with the extent of this problem.

The main problem with allowing openly homosexual men to serve in combat zones won’t be them attacking others, but others killing them because of concerns about being attacked. Some homosexuals claim that they look at other men the way men look at women. Many could interpret this claim as indicating homosexuals might attack other men the way some men attack women. .

A woman who is concerned about a sexual assault will take defensive measures such as finding someone to accompany her when she goes some place. Men are sexual predators and when predators are concerned about being attacked they may respond with a preemptive attack, particularly when they are in a combat zone where they have to be prepared to kill or be killed.

In Vietnam, the term “fragging” was coined to refer to one American killing another particularly by using a grenade. Sometimes the target was an officer who was considered overly aggressive in combat and thus a “threat” to the life of whoever decided to attack him.

I recall reading one news article about an enlisted man in a rear area who killed his first sergeant who he claimed was putting too much pressure on him.

In Vietnam I knew some infantrymen who smoked marijuana in the rear area who said they would kill someone for smoking it in the field. There was a case just before I left Vietnam of a man who was accused of killing other members of his unit for using drugs in the field.

Rape is often associated with warfare. Soldiers released from the moral controls that discourage killing may also lose the controls that discourage sexual assault.

There is the possibility that homosexuals in a combat situation might attempt rape. A more likely situation would be a false perception that a homosexual might attack. Such a perception could lead to action against the homosexual who seemed to pose a threat.

Women know that some men sometimes misinterpret an act of friendship as an indication of sexual interest. An act of friendship by a known homosexual could also be misinterpreted, with potentially fatal consequences.

One of the motivations of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was the murder of homosexual PO Allen Schindler by shipmate Airman Apprentice Terry Helvey in October, 1992, while Schindler was awaiting discharge for homosexuality. Helvey insisted he killed Schindler for “bossing him around” when he reached a plea bargain to avoid the death penalty.

The murder of PFC Barry Winchell at Fort Campbell, Ky., in 1999 has been blamed on anti-homosexual sentiment, but the instigator of the killing, SPC Justin Fisher, may have been motivated by jealousy because both were interested in a transsexual female impersonator who was undergoing treatment to become a woman.

The killing of Seaman August Provost while he was on guard duty at Camp Pendleton was believed by some to have been because he was homosexual. An aunt even suggested that he was killed by another homosexual to keep his sexuality secret. However, the official Navy report stated that the suspect PO Jonathan Campos, who committed suicide while in custody, killed Provost because Campos was on a crime spree.

Incidentally, Federal Judge Virginia A. Phillips violated the Constitution when she ruled against the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The Constitution explicity assigns the powers to raise, regulate and direct the military to the legislative and executive branches. Congress and the President are free to exclude anyone from the military based on physical traits, personal characteristics or for engaging in behaviors that the Congress or President believe might interfere with military operations.

The President even has the authority to deny freedom of expression to those who wish to serve in the military as President Barack Obama did when he fired Gen. Stanley McChrystal for making negative comments about Obama. The courts can only intervene if punishment for military infractions involves something like imprisonment or death.

Don’t Cut Wall Street Bums’ Taxes

The Wall Street bums who demanded bonuses for wrecking their companies and the U.S. economy, don’t deserve a tax cut. Congress should even consider raising taxes on them and other members of upper income groups to replace the money that would otherwise be collected from those earning far less.

Republicans who argue that cutting taxes for the upper income group would allow small business owners to create new jobs, ignore the fact that most of those who make over $250,000 a year don’t own small businesses. Executives of Wall Street and other large corporations aren’t going to reinvest their money to expand their business. If they invest in stocks, it will be to bid up the prices of existing stocks.

Neither overpaid athletes nor entertainers.are likely to use their money to create jobs.

Congress can encourage small business owners to invest in new jobs without giving everyone else a tax cut. All Congress has to do is authorize small business owners to deduct investment in buildings and equipment immediately instead of requiring them to spread out the deduction over several years through depreciation.

Congress has already “rewarded” the Wall Street bums by giving them bonuses for wrecking their companies and the economy. It shouldn’t reward them again by cutting their taxes.