LETTERS From CAMP Rehoboth |
CAMPTalk: Support Our Gay Troops, Too |
by Bill Sievert |
A woman who works in my office asked me the other day to sign a petition supporting President Bush. "But I don't support him," I said, perhaps a little sharply.
"What, you don't support our troops?" she asked, aghast. "It's not the same thing," I replied with a sigh, and she was clearly confused. "Why do you feel obliged to personally support Bush?" "Well, he's our President," she said. "I suppose so," I said. "Though, as a resident of Florida, you know how questionable that election was." "Yeah, I'm a little embarrassed to admit it, but the only reason I voted for him was because I thought it would be cool to have a son follow his father into the White House." Now it was my turn to be aghast. The reason we are in an unnecessary war opposed by the vast majority of earthlings from the Pope to the lead singer of the Dixie Chicks, as Michael Moore put it at the Oscars is because a handful of not-so-deep-thinking Floridians thought it would be "cool" to anoint a chip-off-the-old block as commander in chief. I bit my lip in an effort to let a cooler head prevail, but the continual drone of drivel has driven me to distraction. "Support our troops," the current regime in Washington demands. "Now that the war is underway, we've got to support our troops!" the jingoistic commentators of talk radio and Fox Cable News cry over and over again. "Anti-war demonstrators don't support our troops," complain the Polly-Parrot followers of whatever their leaders tell them, falling in line without so much as a question as to where their government is taking them. It's so much simpler to be a part of the team, to yell rah-rah for the obvious, than to invest in any critical thought processes. Questioning authority seems to be as out of fashion in America today (including among the leaders of both major political parties) as it was in the Germany of the 1930s. Well, surprise to those of you who disrespect dissenters. EVERY ONE OF US supports our troops, anti-war people perhaps more than most. And, despite claims to the contrary by people with faulty memories, that's the way it was during the Vietnam-era peace movement, too, when a major rallying cry was "bring 'em back alive." What better way to support our troops than to remove them from harm's way, saving their dedicated service for a time we really need it. On the other hand, to waste their young lives in an ill-conceived crusade to foist change upon an already disabled country is a highly suspect way to champion our military volunteers. This little war originally touted as a one-round sparring match with a price tag of a mere (cough) $75 billion and its long aftermath are likely to bedevil us for the better part of a decade. We're making even more enemies in the region, and according to latest projections the cost to our treasury could easily reach one trillion dollars (that's $1,000,000,000,000, in case you've never seen such a gargantuan figure enumerated before). A lot of American senior citizens could receive affordable health care with that money; a lot of children could have smaller classrooms and hot lunches. Sure, we all support the troops. But that doesn't mean we can't fight like hell against the policies that endanger them and threaten our nation's future. Then there's the troubling predicament of "supporting our gay troops," which is almost an oxymoron based on government policies and practices. The government our gay troops work for doesn't accept their right to participate openly in the military. Yet they are supposed to dutifully sacrifice themselves for the military that routinely oppresses them. We've been hearing a lot about Fort Campbell, Kentucky, because of casualties suffered in Iraq by soldiers headquartered there. But there has been other suffering at that base, as well. The anti-gay atmosphere at Fort Campbell resulted in the 1999 murder of 21-year-old PFC Barry Winchell. A report by the Army's inspector general subsequently discovered troublesome anti-gay attitudes among members of Winchell's company in the 101st Airborne Division, and research by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) found that "anti-gay harassment and threats are as common as the uniform" at the base. Yet, despite all the publicity surrounding the case, there was no outburst of public sentiment to "support our gay troops at Fort Campbell." America's only major ally in this war, Great Britain, allows gay soldiers to serve openly. However, even with an increased effort to retain military personnel, the Pentagon's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law remains in effect, and gay service members continue to be discriminated against and discharged solely on the basis of sexual orientation. SLDN received a record number of 170 requests for help by gay military personnel between January 1 and March 1; that's a 30 percent increase over the same period last year. Despite facing sharp criticism for discharging seven Arabic linguists for being gay, the armed services are expelling more gay linguists at an alarming rate. And the Department of Defense still refuses to issue a department-wide directive to make clear that mistreatment and harassment are unacceptable, as required by the original "Don't ask..." compromise, which was forced upon President Clinton by homophobic military brass. The best we have achieved at Fort Campbell, as reported by the SLDN, is a little "sensitivity" training during which soldiers have been urged to report rather than beat up anyone who is seen engaging in such acts as same-sex French kissing. Given the government's current disdain for anything French, perhaps the homosexual nature of the act is less bothersome to military brass than its nation of origin. Even though the systematic persecution of gay service members continues, patriotic lesbian and gay Americans remain willing to serve on the front lines. And I have yet to hear a single word of endorsement for them from any of the government officials, broadcasters and talk-show callers who are most vocal about supporting our troops. Isn't there something wrong with this picture? What's most wrong with the big picture of Washington's war against Iraq is the failure of so many of our citizens to do their homework about the consequences of this particular war. Few of us take the time to carefully read a variety of newspapers or books on the subject of Middle Eastern culture and politics, or even to spend a couple hours a night surfing among network and cable news broadcasts. We might miss Survivor or American Idol. As some of us old-timers learned during Vietnam, the more people study war, the more they are likely to demand peace. The anti-war sentiment domestically will certainly grow louder the more body bags come home to Dover Air Force Base. But what a sad way to relearn an old lesson. Americans will begin to wonder why we didn't give the United Nations a little longer, why we have shattered so many lives (American and Middle Eastern) and why we've blown so much of the next generation's financial resources for so little gain. My father used to say that history is destined to repeat. I would argue that point with him, maintaining that humanity can learn from its mistakes. But, maybe he was right. Contrary to the best efforts of tens of millions of anti-warriors around the globe, the boys who pull the strings in Washington have no interest in listening or learning at least not yet. Don't let anyone intimidate you. Read, study, get organized and respond. Light a match at a candlelight vigil. Or, sit down to block an intersection of a major highway. Whatever you choose to do, support our troopsstraight and gayby bringing them back alive. Former Rehoboth resident Bill Sievert has written about social causes since the 1960s; send your hate mail to him at allforthecause@aol.com. |
LETTERS From CAMP Rehoboth, Vol. 13, No. 3, April 4, 2003 |