Don't Know Much About
Many of my peers in the newsroom expressed indignation when they read the story of Robert Stout, a combat-wounded veteran of Iraq, and by all accounts a fine soldier, who said he likely will be drummed out of the military for going public with his sexuality: He's gay.
I think it's a shame, too. Many of the 10,000 or so people forced out of the services by the "don't ask, don't tell" policy since 1993 probably were a sad loss to our military.
But I also had some questions about Stout's story, and the issues surrounding the policy. And the indignant wire editor couldn't answer them. Nor did the AP story answer them. He accused me of being "disingenuous" in raising these questions, but I honestly didn't know. Perhaps I'm just ignorant, but the other editor couldn't answer the questions, either, so maybe a lot of people are ignorant. And the news wire services aren't giving us enough information.
The gist of my question is this: Stout is quoted in the news reports as saying he's already out to most of his 26-member platoon. He's "openly gay" to them, and they have no problem with that.
So what more is it that he wants to do?
What more than that, I mean? If he could stay below the radar of "don't ask, don't tell," why wasn't that enough? Did it have something to do with what he wanted to do off-base? I could understand that, but none of the stories I saw indicated there was a problem with that.
He's gay, and he's serving, and nobody hassled him. Apparently, though, he, or someone, took it to the next level and made him "publicly gay," as in media coverage. And that doomed his career. Which is a shame.
I'm no expert on any of this, obviously, but it seems the key to the military's policy is "conduct." That is, you can be gay, but you can't publicly live as a homosexual. But when you join the military, you give up a lot of freedom of conduct, including in sexual matters. You can't do a lot of things, sexually, when you're in the military.
I would hope they don't dismiss people simply because of their desires. Desires ought to mean nothing to the world; it's what you do with them that counts as character, and that ought to be the military's concern.
I imagine the military code would dismiss a man if he was caught in a polygamous marriage. But I don't think they'd boot a soldier for dreaming of a threesome. Is a gay soldier more dangerous to military discipline than a heterosexual, but masochistic, one?
I have another question about that. The groups actively trying to overthrow the current policy describe it as a "ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual service members." Except, in these circles, in other crusades, "trans-gendered" usually is part of the coalition.
Are trannies off the civil rights bandwagon for this one? Was that decision made at a collective level?
"The Defense Department insists the policy must stay or recruitment will suffer among those who wouldn't want to serve with gays," is one way the policy is justified.
Well, if we're taking the integration of blacks into the military as the model here, perhaps its time for the next step: separate all-gay units. I've read enough classical history to be familiar with the story of Epaminondas and the Sacred Band of Thebes, which was made up of 150 male homosexual couples.
This was a perfectly logical expression of the philosophy of the ancient world: no one would be more brave than a man in love, fighting under the eyes of his lover. The Thebans were not the first to make use of the Platonic connection on the battlefield. They simply did it most effectively. Xenophon tells of Spartan boys stationed beside their older lovers in battle. As Plato wrote,
Plutarch explained the thinking of the leader who established the Sacred Band, a Theban named Gorgidas:
The Thebans initially dispersed the Sacred Band among their other units when they went into battle. The notion was that the example of the Sacred Band fighters would inspire the others, but it had the effect rather of dilluting their force, because, as Plutarch wrote, it “made their gallantry less conspicuous; not being united in one body, but mingled with many others of inferior resolution, they had no fair opportunity of showing what they could do.”
But when Pelopidas succeeded Gorgidas as military leader in Thebes, he united the elite unit under his friend and former lover, Epaminondas. The policy succeeded spectacularly. At Tegyra a mere 300 Thebans, including the Sacred Band, faced more than 1,000 Spartans -- the awesome Spartan infantry that had never been bested in equal combat, much less by an inferior force. But the Thebans, instead of waiting to be attacked, rushed out at the Peloponnesians, killed the Spartan captains, and routed their foes utterly.
All Greece was agog. The Sacred Band followed this with an even more spectacular victory at Leuctra in 371 B.C.E., "the most decisive battle ever fought by Greeks against Greeks," according to Pausanias.
Leuctra freed Thebes from Spartan overlordship. The twin defeats broke the back of a Spartan military dominance that had lasted for centuries. Epaminondas pushed on into the Peloponnesus, liberated Messenia and Arcadia, and pressed the war into Sparta itself, laying siege to the town itself for the first time in 600. Thebes ruled preeminentin Greece, until Philip II of Macedon, an admirer of Epaminondas, as well as a friend of Pelopidas, used the Thebans' own tactics to overthrow them.
Obviously, times have changed, but the core of Plato's observation seems intact. Men fight best alongside men to whom they feel a close bond. American Civil War regiments, each recruited in some town or neighborhood, contained men who knew each other well and shared ties of kinship and community. Historians who studied their cohesion under fire conclude this was a large part of what made them fight effectively. The term "Band of Brothers" comes from a Civil War song, and the words, translated into ancient Greek, with its overtones, would exactly have suited the Sacred Band.
It's not a serious proposal, just an observation of the lessons of history.
I think it's a shame, too. Many of the 10,000 or so people forced out of the services by the "don't ask, don't tell" policy since 1993 probably were a sad loss to our military.
But I also had some questions about Stout's story, and the issues surrounding the policy. And the indignant wire editor couldn't answer them. Nor did the AP story answer them. He accused me of being "disingenuous" in raising these questions, but I honestly didn't know. Perhaps I'm just ignorant, but the other editor couldn't answer the questions, either, so maybe a lot of people are ignorant. And the news wire services aren't giving us enough information.
The gist of my question is this: Stout is quoted in the news reports as saying he's already out to most of his 26-member platoon. He's "openly gay" to them, and they have no problem with that.
So what more is it that he wants to do?
What more than that, I mean? If he could stay below the radar of "don't ask, don't tell," why wasn't that enough? Did it have something to do with what he wanted to do off-base? I could understand that, but none of the stories I saw indicated there was a problem with that.
He's gay, and he's serving, and nobody hassled him. Apparently, though, he, or someone, took it to the next level and made him "publicly gay," as in media coverage. And that doomed his career. Which is a shame.
I'm no expert on any of this, obviously, but it seems the key to the military's policy is "conduct." That is, you can be gay, but you can't publicly live as a homosexual. But when you join the military, you give up a lot of freedom of conduct, including in sexual matters. You can't do a lot of things, sexually, when you're in the military.
I would hope they don't dismiss people simply because of their desires. Desires ought to mean nothing to the world; it's what you do with them that counts as character, and that ought to be the military's concern.
I imagine the military code would dismiss a man if he was caught in a polygamous marriage. But I don't think they'd boot a soldier for dreaming of a threesome. Is a gay soldier more dangerous to military discipline than a heterosexual, but masochistic, one?
I have another question about that. The groups actively trying to overthrow the current policy describe it as a "ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual service members." Except, in these circles, in other crusades, "trans-gendered" usually is part of the coalition.
Are trannies off the civil rights bandwagon for this one? Was that decision made at a collective level?
"The Defense Department insists the policy must stay or recruitment will suffer among those who wouldn't want to serve with gays," is one way the policy is justified.
Well, if we're taking the integration of blacks into the military as the model here, perhaps its time for the next step: separate all-gay units. I've read enough classical history to be familiar with the story of Epaminondas and the Sacred Band of Thebes, which was made up of 150 male homosexual couples.
This was a perfectly logical expression of the philosophy of the ancient world: no one would be more brave than a man in love, fighting under the eyes of his lover. The Thebans were not the first to make use of the Platonic connection on the battlefield. They simply did it most effectively. Xenophon tells of Spartan boys stationed beside their older lovers in battle. As Plato wrote,
“If there were only some way of contriving that a state or an army should be made up of lovers and their loves, they would be the very best governors of their own city, abstaining from all dishonor, and emulating one another in honor; and when fighting at each other's side, although a mere handful, they would overcome the world. For what lover would not choose rather to be seen by all mankind than by his beloved, either when abandoning his post or throwing away his arms? He would be ready to die a thousand deaths rather than endure this. Or who would desert his beloved or fail him in the hour of danger? The veriest coward would become an inspired hero, equal to the bravest, at such a time; Love would inspire him.” ["Symposium"]
Plutarch explained the thinking of the leader who established the Sacred Band, a Theban named Gorgidas:
“Since the lovers, ashamed to be base in sight of their beloved, and the beloved before their lovers, willingly rush into danger for the relief of one another.”
The Thebans initially dispersed the Sacred Band among their other units when they went into battle. The notion was that the example of the Sacred Band fighters would inspire the others, but it had the effect rather of dilluting their force, because, as Plutarch wrote, it “made their gallantry less conspicuous; not being united in one body, but mingled with many others of inferior resolution, they had no fair opportunity of showing what they could do.”
But when Pelopidas succeeded Gorgidas as military leader in Thebes, he united the elite unit under his friend and former lover, Epaminondas. The policy succeeded spectacularly. At Tegyra a mere 300 Thebans, including the Sacred Band, faced more than 1,000 Spartans -- the awesome Spartan infantry that had never been bested in equal combat, much less by an inferior force. But the Thebans, instead of waiting to be attacked, rushed out at the Peloponnesians, killed the Spartan captains, and routed their foes utterly.
All Greece was agog. The Sacred Band followed this with an even more spectacular victory at Leuctra in 371 B.C.E., "the most decisive battle ever fought by Greeks against Greeks," according to Pausanias.
Leuctra freed Thebes from Spartan overlordship. The twin defeats broke the back of a Spartan military dominance that had lasted for centuries. Epaminondas pushed on into the Peloponnesus, liberated Messenia and Arcadia, and pressed the war into Sparta itself, laying siege to the town itself for the first time in 600. Thebes ruled preeminentin Greece, until Philip II of Macedon, an admirer of Epaminondas, as well as a friend of Pelopidas, used the Thebans' own tactics to overthrow them.
Obviously, times have changed, but the core of Plato's observation seems intact. Men fight best alongside men to whom they feel a close bond. American Civil War regiments, each recruited in some town or neighborhood, contained men who knew each other well and shared ties of kinship and community. Historians who studied their cohesion under fire conclude this was a large part of what made them fight effectively. The term "Band of Brothers" comes from a Civil War song, and the words, translated into ancient Greek, with its overtones, would exactly have suited the Sacred Band.
It's not a serious proposal, just an observation of the lessons of history.
