Pink Parachutes Are Problematic

Civilian leaders and political officers within the Pentagon are anxiously anticipating great social benefit from imposing new concepts of cultural engineering on our armed forces. Our armed services, the most tightly regulated and controlled element of our society, are expected to bear the brunt of a small minority forcing itself upon our culture and demanding respect and equal treatment under the threat of law. The military is not only subject to the law of the land, but more importantly, they are under the Uniform Code of Military Justice: a stern and uncompromising code that dictates a way of life and expectations for members of the military that most citizens and especially liberals would consider oppressive. Rather than earning that respect over time, it is now considered covenant and expedient to subject our service members, who happen to be engaged in a war and face the probability of even more wars due to the foreign policy of strength though weakness and appeasement policies of our current administration, to the implications and repercussions of cultural engineering that have been judged beneficial to the minority pushing for these laws and the politicians who will benefit politically. Since the lives of those under arms are controlled and directed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, their opinions are inconsequential. They are now to submit to the Gay agenda or face prison time in the brig with a Dishonorable Discharge. This is Social and Cultural engineering that would have been envied and applauded by Mao and Stalin, except for one small in-covenant fact, they would have never risked damaging the morale and fighting spirit of their troops over the pathetic whining of a vocal minority.

Whether you approve or not is inconsequential; our soldiers fight and die together because of unit cohesion or esprit de corps a concept that binds them together within a matrix commonly described as morale. Morale re-enforces the unwillingness to let the group suffer because of your poor performance: without morale, a squad or an army becomes ineffectual. Morale is hard to define; yet, good leaders build morale and poor leaders destroy morale. Despite the demanding selection process for officers and non-commissioned officers, a few inferior leaders slip through the cracks of the selection process. Everyone who has served has seen the damaging effects of poor leadership and the downward transition of a unit’s effectiveness.

Beyond leadership, we must consider the plight of the typical recruit who may eventually be called upon to defend our nation, at the risk of his own life. This is a tremendous sacrifice we, as a nation, ask of nineteen and twenty year olds.

Why do they accept this tremendous responsibility and the risk of death? There are the concepts of patriotism and love of country, they can’t be denied, but there is one concept that is rarely discussed and it may be the most important. A young man is often searching for a masculine identity to solidify his own concept of manhood. In other cultures, Rites of Passage are prescribed and the path to manhood is well defined.

In our culture, during the last four decades, traditional roles of gender, especially of manhood, have been purposely altered. An effort that was initiated primarily by feminists and the Liberal agenda; consequently, a masculine identity is often difficult for many young men to grasp.

The military has often provided that identity and enabled millions of young men to feel confident and secure within the masculine identity provided by military life, an identity that has often been absent at home or in school.

Liberals are apt to be derisive about this concept of acquiring a masculine identity within the military, but we have all witnessed the remarkable transformation in a young man returning home after boot camp and infantry training. He inevitably displays confidence, maturity, and poise, some of the most tangible aspects of a mature man.

This change from lowly worm to butterfly took place among a cadre of men, men of distinction and honor, who showed a boy, how to be a man. It has worked over and over for millions of young men. The men who set the example were the best of the best; they exuded the very features of manhood and masculinity that Liberals hate the most and probably the same traits that attract gay men to the services.

Now, because of political correctness, we are to assume that gay men flaunting “Nellie” or flamboyant gay behavior can now instill that same confidence into the typical American young man. It won’t work.

The concept idea of openly gay service men serving alongside our soldiers and maintaining the same esprit de corps that has sustained our men in battle on foreign lands is a Liberal myth perpetuated by many who have never served or who serve as political hacks and “yes men” while still in the military.

It’s obvious that political officers are anxious to please the Obama administration and ‘earn’ promotions by being political hacks and sycophants for President Obama. They do not earn rank by leading men or leading men in combat. They are soldiers who commute to work and face the dangers of traffic and worry over creases in uniforms: in reality, they have lost touch with the soldier who stares the enemy in the eye and faces death from the possibility of steel, lead, and fire on a daily basis.

The real issue is not the advancement of Obama’s political agenda or promoting fairness among the gay population: the real issue is the effect on our soldier who actually faces death. These are red-blooded Americans with traditional values who come from America’s heartland that America depends on so desperately.

They have fought out nation’s battles for well over two hundred years and they have fought this one over and over through multiple deployments. American Liberals assume that this young man who bears the brunt of our political miscalculations and foreign policy ineptness by risking his body and his very life will just accept gay comrades and leaders without a second thought. Unfortunately, the very cultural traits that encouraged these young warriors to step forward will be the same ones that will cause morale problems within the military services. These men don’t rely on connections and fawning over politicians to win promotion; they earn their promotions by walking into Hell and never complaining or showing weakness.

We have asked them to fight under unrealistic Rules of Engagement that appear as if they were written by the enemy to dishearten and weaken the resolve of our warriors; yet, they still stand and fight. The military through the government under the threat of the UCMJ does not allow them to speak out on this issue, but inside their hearts they are wondering if America really wants or expects them to win this war or just make a political statement for the Obama Administration.

These young men have pride, more pride than most of us will ever know: it isn’t a false pride, it is a pride in stepping up and doing the most for their country in the traditions of their forefathers and that doesn’t include serving with openly gay servicemen.

There are inherent problems with gay enlisted men, true enough, but when those gay soldiers achieve rank and they will achieve rank or they will have the military and their immediate officers in court demanding to know why they were bypassed for promotion. Whether they deserved the promotion or not, because they are gay and they will be promoted or it will be blamed on homophobia or some form of gay discrimination. For a straight soldier from the heartland of the US to be led by a gay person will be difficult enough, but when that gay NCO shows favoritism towards a certain soldier because he is cute or dresses well or drinks with the sergeant there will be a major breakdown in morale.

In the officer class, the problem will be intensified; a miscue, mistake in judgment, or weakness will be considered, rightly or wrongly, the result of being gay. Again the morale is destroyed. Men will not follow officers they don’t have complete faith and trust in, that is a fact of military life.

For those who have never been in the military and are skeptical over the term morale, you must trust that a fire team (four men) a squad, a platoon, and a company function on a personal level with the leader of each designation. If there is a weak link or poor leadership at any point the entire unit’s integrity is compromised. Each man must feel apart of the team and be willing to sacrifice himself if need be or expect that his fellow troopers will bring him out if he is wounded and they must have complete faith in every leader up the chain of command.

An infantry company is the basic and powerfully dynamic unit that can accomplish incredible objectives by itself in the field. It consists of four platoons of approximately sixty men, making a total of approximately two hundred and fifty men. A captain leads a company. He and his First Sergeant are the inspiration, heart, and soul of that company; if either of them displays a weakness in character or courage the unit’s morale is compromised. Captains occasionally address their troops to scold them over an issue of importance. This is a rare occurrence and the situation is considered to be important for the “Old Man” to speak. (The Old Man is often barely over thirty.) If a gay captain stood in front of a company formation and delivered an impassioned speech on the gay agenda and of gay rights, that unit might as well be disbanded; its combat effectiveness would be reduced to such an extent that it might as well be two hundred and fifty independent fighters, because the company’s morale would be destroyed. We are well aware of the impassioned and flamboyant oratory by gays stating their feelings of being wronged and of how they must be accepted as contributing members of society. Fair enough they have stated their case and won many concessions and entitlements. These theatrical tactics work well on the political stage, but in the world of fighting men, you only breed resentment and anger. Can you legislate those feelings away: possibly, but it will probably be at the expense of the most powerful military in the world.

Are the needs of gays, lesbians, and transgendered people worth this risk, are we willing to gamble the fighting effectiveness of our military in order to placate a small percentage of our population who have non-traditional personalities and the Liberal agenda.

We now have a generation of fighting men who may be greater than the generation that stood on the wall for WWII, is it fair and right to expect them to deal with societal problems while risking their lives to the treachery of an inhuman enemy and a president who seems sympathetic to our enemies. We ask enough of these men, let the gays who wish to serve and wear a uniform to become mailmen and security guards; there is a real and present danger out there facing our troops and our country. This is not the time to engage in fanciful fantasies of societal engineering.