Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, July 27, 1993 TAG: 9309070164
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A5 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: MARK. E. RUSH
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Poor Klinger. If he were in the Army now and knew about President Clinton's new policy regarding homosexuals in the military, all he would have to do is kiss either one of the colonels. He'd be back watching the Toledo Mudhens before his nylons had a chance to dry.
In many ways, it seems that both sides of the debate about homosexuals in the military have turned blind eyes to the fact that everyone else in the world manages to maintain effective militaries without worrying about homosexuality.
Nonetheless, I would like to suggest that in their blindness and intransigence, forces on both sides of the issue have managed to come up with a formula for world peace. In fact, if we sit back and think for a second, the new policy on homosexuals in the military could turn out to be the greatest contribution to world peace in history. Now, if only President Clinton can talk the rest of the world into implementing the same policy.
As the policy now stands, the authorities won't ask about your sexual preferences; you shouldn't talk about them; and the military won't waste the taxpayers' money trying to ferret out the few homosexuals hiding in Pentagon closets. However, if you are accused of improper conduct and cannot refute the accusation or you are caught in flagrante delicto, your military service will come to a screeching halt. Bingo - Klinger found his loophole.
It seems to me that those who oppose homosexuals in military service work from the wrong assumption. They worry that the new ``don't ask, don't tell, don't investigate'' policy will still undermine morale because known homosexuals will have the right to rebut any accusation and, if successful, may continue to serve. Opponents envision a situation in which the morale of an entire platoon might hinge on the outcome of the confrontation between some crusty, hard-as-nails sergeant and the subversive homosexual fellow who managed to infiltrate the squad.
But what if the fellow were neither subversive nor homosexual? What if he just wanted to go home - so he did not try to rebut an accusation of improper conduct? Uh, oh.
Imagine - under the current rules of conduct - if we were suddenly faced with a bona fide military engagement that had all the symptoms of a protracted ground campaign a la Vietnam? Instead of worrying about whether our ranks had been infiltrated by a few subversive homosexuals, we might find out that entire platoons will discover, when faced with the prospects of spending next winter trying to defend parts of Bosnia, they really have been homosexual all along.
One imagines the confrontation. The rugged new recruit (Klinger's grandson) trudges up to some crusty, tough old sergeant, gives him a big hug and kiss, and asks for his discharge under President Clinton's new policy. Behind this fellow stands the rest of the platoon, waiting to kiss the sergeant good-bye.
Suddenly, this poor sergeant would have to do all the rebutting. He would have to come up with a way to prove that all these newly discovered homosexuals were, in fact, just as heterosexual as they were when they signed up. (I may be mistaken, but I doubt that the Sam Nunns, Robert Dornans and Jesse Helmeses of Congress have considered this possibility.)
When someday you see the following headline, remember that you read it here first: ``Peace breaks out worldwide as nations' armies declare homosexual tendencies.''
With a kiss, a hug or an insufficiently discreet holding of a hand, all the Klingers will be home before we know it - unless, of course, we all decide to follow the example set by the rest of the world and let homosexuals serve their country with dignity. On the other hand, there's a lot to be said for world peace ...
\ Mark E. Rush is assistant professor of politics at Washington and Lee University.
by CNB