Editorial on the news of the Day and Review of the Gridlock around the world.

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Does General Pace's Comments Fail to Support Gay Brigade in Iraq?

The statement issued by Pace earlier this week regarding homosexual acts as immoral and unwelcome has brought down a firestorm of criticism. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) announced today that he supports the remarks of Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace.

Senator Brownback said that he doesn't believe being homosexual is immoral, however he does believe that the acts in themselves are. He went on to say that someone in General Pace's position should be expected to have strong views on many moral issues. Senator Brownback has been a favorite of the religious right for his opposition to the gay marriage issue.

Regardless of the general stance on moral issues, his comments raise the question of whether or not he can maintain the support of the troops underneath of him.  The current policy is "don't ask, don't tell."  That means that it's perfectly okay to be gay in the military, even to engage in physical acts of homosexuality.  His comments essentially alienate him from the gay troops serving in Iraq today and the troops that support those gay troops.

As a former soldier I don't know what those numbers might be today, however based on my experience in the military I would suspect that number is so more near to one in 40 soldiers.  That would be the equivalent of about 3000 soldiers serving in Iraq.

That number is about the size of a Brigade.  Plus that number does not include any of the outsourced soldiers, the private contractors serving in Iraq.  In essence General pace's remarks could diminish his support amongst a brigade sized element of gay troops in Iraq.

Regardless of his personal views about the morality of homosexual acts, General pace is first concern should have been to maintain the morale of the troops to serve beneath them.  His comments in essence has subverted the more I'll the troops, and run counter to current White House policy even if that policy was set under the former Commander in Chief.

No comments: