[UnderseaLcpl]

I have to say, what is most surprising to me about this whole debate is the nature of the debate itself. Obviously, the man is guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer, as is any officer who takes any non-combat action that paints the military in a negative light. I don't agree with that stance, per se, but that's how it is.

What is surprising is the apparent lack of interest in the real questions; "How did this man become an officer?" "Why would he be encouraged to behave in this way?" "Why do we care about his command style if it works?" "Why is this an issue?" The real problem, and the real answers, can be found in the nature of the military itself.

Consider the nature of our military. It is, by necessity, bound to politics. That's how generals and admirals get their shinies, you know. As we are all aware here, the vicissitudes of battle and politics do not mix well. By that I do not mean that representatives and the represented should not be concerned with what the military does, far from it, but there is a point at which the mission must come before considerations of political correctness and the well-intentioned but ultimately foolish and completely unecessary desire for equality for all in the military.

Allow me to clarify. Generally speaking, I am a very socially liberal person. I'm all for equal everything for everyone, as far as opportunity is concerned, but I draw the line when it comes to combat efficacy. I spent years as a fire-team leader and then a squad leader and even a de facto platoon commander on occassion. I do not want women in my unit. They are generally smaller and weaker than their male counterparts, and prone to both emotional outbreaks and the attention of comrades whose attention needs to be pragmatically focused on the situation at hand. Throwing a young female into the midst of a bunch of male twenty-somethings is not what I would call a recipe for battlefield success. I am aware that females have served alongside males with varying degrees of success in the past, but as an NCO I would prefer sticking with whatI know will work in a situation where fractions of a second mean the difference between a successful mission and a lot of dead Marines and a lifetime of regret.

Similarly, I do not want homosexuals of either gender in my unit. I don't even want a man who seems overly effeminate in my unit. It's a big problem when it comes to unit cohesion. I have no problem with them personally, so long as they fight well, show initiative, and handle orders well, but consider who the military is comprised of. We have not made so much progress since the Crimean War as The Charge of the Light Brigade might give us hope for. Amazingly enough, when you draw a fighting force from people who are largely stupid enough to believe that every war you are fighting in is a war for freedom, or that the enemy is always some kind of vile fiend, and then pay them very poorly, you are inevitably going to end up with a lot of narrow-minded people due to ignorance or idealism. I would hate to fight alongside a group of men whose survival depends upon each other if they don't trust one of their number. Perhaps this means nothing to most of you, but for those who have been in urban combat, you know how much of a difference a split-second glance at the guy you don't think is covering his sector can make, and how devestating to morale an unknown watching your back or flank can be. I imagine the situation is the same when you are a captain with a crew of thousands depending upon your leadership.

And then, of course, there is the matter of unit honor, which is crucial to morale, and I stress the word unit. Very few of the people ignorant or noble enough to volunteer for front-line combat are very inclined to be associated with any kind of perceived weakness. In fact, they are often quite resentful of anyone who does not "pull their weight" so to speak. This is true whether in combat or in garrison. Nobody wants to be a member of the platoon with the faggot(s).

I speak harshly, for which those mentioned have my apologies, but I also speak truthfully. This whole conundrum is part of the reason why I favor Private Military Companies over a state military. Unlike state militaries, PMCs are not bound to political whims (or at least, they shouldn't be), and will rapidly seek out not only the best soldiers, but also the best organizational structure. They must do so in order to turn a profit, and their soldiers must be well-paid and professional enough so as not to invite public scorn, which as of late has been far more accurately and less-forgivingly directed than it has towards the state military, which has done far worse. Is not a willing soldier who is paid to be a paragon of professionalism better than an uneducated youth who is decieved by false promises of glory and righteousness as conceived by politicians, of all people!? Is there a uniform approach to the formation of an effective and proper soldiery? So much so that we would put it in the hands of politicians, whose whims we have already seen to cause great and spurious wars? Is it not better to select from a variety of private companies, whose reasons for willingness to fight may or may not coincide with popular desire, than to rely upon one entity that relies upon propaganda, promise, and coercion to get people sucsceptible to such things to fight in the name of a cause they don't even understand? How many times must we see this before we realize what is going on?

In any case, I do not disapprove of Cpt. Honors' actions. In all likleyhood, he was simply accepting the command posture that was most acceptable to his crew. I don't need to read anything further to know that his stance was popular, otherwise he would have been removed from command earlier, and there would be for charges against him. The fact that this is unacceptable is a reflection upon the all-encompassing and seriously skewed viewpoint of the state, rather than his competence or merit as an officer.