As I predicted back in April when this story first broke, Sgt. Robert Stout, a decorated soldier from the 9th Engineer Battalion who was wounded in Iraq, has been discharged from the Army. His crime? Stout is openly gay.
The high-minded bigots over at the Pentagon have decided, in the words of our embarrassing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, that Stout is not qualified to serve his country because his presence poses "an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."
That Stout and soldiers like him could be so summarily cast aside at a time when the military is having such a horrible time with troop retention and recruitment is testament to just how vehemently the armed forces cling to their homophobia.
Here's a suggestion: If they want to increase morale and promote good order and discipline, why don't they focus more on their huge torture problem and less on their hateful anti-gay purges? Now, there's a question worth asking.
Article comments
1 - Eddie Martin
If having gays in the US military is "an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability" , then how come Bush has the British military alongside his troops? Has American morale, good order and discipline suffered because some of the British troops are gay? Certainly, the generals and admirals in the UK military predicted the "end of the world" when Tony Blair introduced the law allowing gays to serve in all branches of the British military.
A final thought. The wounded Sgt. Stout received a Purple Heart in recognition of his bravery in action. If this is how American treats its war heroes, then there is something very wrong.
2 - HW Saxton
As long as there has been a military,gay
men have been serving in it and I would
venture to guess that many served in the
World Wars,Korea,Viet Nam etc. giving up
their lives heroically for a country in
which they do not recieve the rights
that they deserve and are fighting for
others to enjoy. Something is wrong with
that picture, methinks.
3 - SFC SKI
The only thing that will get a policy changed is a lot of feedback to your elected representatives.
4 - Silas Kain
A good soldier can be gay, straight, male, female, white, black, multi-racial or a combination of the above. Clinton's 'don't ask, don't tell' was a good starting point. Gays should be welcome at America's military table. Being gay does not reduce one's ability to be a patriot.
5 - SFC SKI
Clinton's policy was window dressing, I doubt it made a significant impact on the end result at all.
Personally, I think there will be a change in policy made, but I wouln't want to bet on a timeline.
6 - Dave Nalle
If gays are a problem in the military, why the hell do we have women in there? Having women in combat should have exactly the same effect as having gays there, but on a much larger scale.
In history some of the greatest warriors have been gay. I certainly wouldn't feel unprotected if I had an army of Alexander the Greats and Richard the Lionhearts defending my nation.
Dave
7 - Silas Kain
And besides, Dave, the uniforms back then were fabulous!
8 - MDE
SFC ... In your opinion, do the folks serving give a shit about sexual orientation overall? Is it a problem or not?
Also, couldn't a Pres call for a 'who cares' policy by executive order?
Mark
9 - SFC SKI
As in the overall population, there are some who absolutely would not serve with openly gay soldiers, and there are some who don't give a damn. I am in the latter half.