“Personal Moral Values”
The Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James Conway, has courageously defied the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and his Commander-in-Chief with public testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee opposing lifting the ban on homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces. “Ban,” of course, hardly describes the current policy. Homosexuals who keep their inclinations relatively quiet may wear our country’s uniform and have been able to ever since President Clinton created a policy that could have served as a motto for his marriage: “Don’t ask; Don’t Tell.”
Writing in Chronicles in July 1994, I explained why the policy prompted my resignation as an officer in the Marine Corps. I expected evil from President Clinton; what saddened me was the capitulation of the Commandant at the time, a man named Gen. Carl Mundy. My complete piece lamenting General Mundy’s failure to hold the line on a grave moral question is below. Here is the paragraph that cuts to the chase:
The most tragic casualty of a peacetime military is the abandonment of moral courage. It is in peace that we need courage most, for it is the virtue that prevents the political culture from intruding too deeply into the military culture. Because the military is the violent arm of the Republic, it must never become corrupted by politics. The military, more than any other organization, must resist change until the case is compellingly made that the change is good. Once progressive sociology invades the military sphere, an institution where tradition has practical value, it renders the military no longer warlike but confused and weak. The conspicuous absence of moral courage today has landed the Corps behind the soup line in Somalia and has cost the lives of 240 Marines in Beirut.
For a change to our Armed Forces to be “good,” the change, as I argued, can only mean one thing: It must make us better at winning wars. In his testimony yesterday, General Conway asked this very question: “Do we somehow enhance the war-fighting capabilities of the United States Marine Corps by allowing homosexuals openly to serve?” Senator Joe Lieberman answered that he thought lifting the ban would, in fact, increase battle readiness. Perhaps he is lying. Perhaps he is insane. Or perhaps the senator’s law-school draft deferment from Vietnam service gives him some special insights into questions of combat readiness that a man with battlefield command experience in two wars lacks.
To be sure, General Conway is fighting a rearguard action. Long, long ago, the Armed Forces became a laboratory for social progress. When I was ten and my brothers and I were playing Marine Corps in the backyard of our Maryland home, diving over my father’s boxwoods, taking a few branches along the way, and rolling across the grass before letting forth a burst of automatic rifle fire, Republican Sen. Pete Dupont was sponsoring legislation that would sexually integrate the Service Academies. We were imagining Iwo Jima and Chosin, and the government to which the Constitution entrusts the security of the American people was dreaming of career opportunities for women. Conway must know that a Pentagon that puts women in the cockpits of fighter jets, or gives them hand grenades that they cannot throw beyond the blast radius, or commissions Muslims, is not serious about national defense, but Marines have a proud history of rearguard actions. Moreover, such actions are one of the staples of Christian life.
Here is my original piece:
Letter From the Marine Corps—“Personal Moral Values”
Marines are a direct lot, not much given to subtlety. Their simple nature enables them to spot a ruse from the 500-meter line, and, on the issue of sodomites, they have quickly identified as nonsense Mr. Clinton's doublespeak about "status" and "conduct." Marines, well known for advertising their "status" by their "conduct," know that the two are by no means separable. Still, it is not Mr. Clinton's equivocation that upsets them. They expect as much from a man many view as a liar, a dope-smoker, and a draft-dodger. What disappoints the men of the Corps is their betrayal by the senior officers of the Armed Forces who are attempting to pacify the legions while satisfying their Commander-in-Chief.
Knowing in their hearts that ultimately they cannot do both, the ranking officers in Washington have made it clear that they have chosen the path of political expedience. A "Message for All Marines" from the Commandant, packed with such phrases as "diverse walks of life," "privately held preferences," and "respect for human dignity," can only be interpreted as an effort, thin as it is, to pave the way for the inevitable. A Christmas card from a colonel at the Pentagon suggested that the moment Clinton was elected, the staff there began planning how best to lift the ban on homosexuals. Advancing the inherently dishonest "don't ask, don't tell" scheme to permit homosexuals eventually to serve openly in the Armed Forces will be easy. The courts are aptly doing so today. But selling the President's policy to the men in the trenches will be impossible.
Sadly, many officers will try, and in so doing will fail to exhibit moral courage and will sacrifice their credibility as they attempt to conceal their spinelessness with talk of "status versus conduct," "loyalty to one's commander," "soldierly obedience," "diversity," and "preference." Talk of this kind reveals the worst form of coward. It not only shows an unwillingness to stand up for what is right; it also exposes a hollow effort to justify inaction by appealing to inferior or irrelevant "virtues." Some Marines will be fooled, most will not be, and another strand of the fraternal rope that binds all Marines will be broken.
Marines are the last group to whom one should suggest that "status" and "conduct" are separable. To Marines they are identical. Marines are fighters, drinkers, and fornicators, behaviors for which they not only make no excuses but which they wear on their sleeves. How do you convince a man who bases his reputation on last night's exploits that a homosexual is not going to pursue his inclinations with equivalent vigor? Good luck.
Although appeals to loyalty will be more successful than the "status versus conduct" mumbo-jumbo, they also will fail because loyalty runs both ways. Officers must constantly guard against viewing loyalty only as something due them. The loyalty of their Marines is something for which they must work daily, yet the greater loyalty, and the one less spoken of, is that which proceeds downwards, from officers to men. A self-absorbed politician may not understand this simple precept of leadership, but could it be that the Commandant of the Marine Corps, once an enlisted man himself, has forgotten so critical a principle? Marines will be enjoined to be loyal to their Commander-in-Chief. In fact, they must be loyal to the office but not to the destructive silliness of the occupant. Loyalty to their Republic requires them to make the distinction.
Where loyalty treads so does obedience, but like loyalty, obedience must be merited even as it is expected. The claim that the ultimate course of a good warrior is to accept orders, salute smartly, and continue to march assumes that the orders merit such obedience. Marines love obedience. They learn to love it at boot camp, and if they are well led they grow in their appreciation for it. However, if their obedience is abused by foolish orders, they soon grow resentful and skeptical. A good officer quickly learns that if his orders are wise and just, he will earn the trust of his Marines, so that when the shrapnel flies, they will not doubt but obey. An officer with a reputation for unreasonable or unjust orders might be tolerated in garrison but will be ignored under fire. In his heart, the Commandant must know these things. Has his head been so filled with the inverse truths of politics that he not only accepts them, but also believes that he can persuade his Marines to accept them, too?
His method suggests that he does. He employs the already tired rhetoric that has replaced the precise language of natural law. Where once we read "deviance" we now read "diversity." "Preference" has replaced "profligacy." Marines, however, have a strong sense of natural law. They know that sodomy is wrong and see right through the Commandant's transparent words. The responses from Marines range from a lance corporal's "I'm unhappy with the Commandant's stance on homosexuals . . . He seems to have backed off from his original position. . . . I hope Congress will be stronger" to a sergeant's "Sir, this is bull---t!"
Politics should not be the business of any Marine. Some of the greatest heroes of our Corps are well known for the contempt they harbored for politicians. Does the Commandant think Chesty Puller would have penned a message like his? Who can imagine Dan Daly agonizing over how best to integrate sodomites into the Corps? These men thought about war and how to win it.
The most tragic casualty of a peacetime military is the abandonment of moral courage. It is in peace that we need courage most, for it is the virtue that prevents the political culture from intruding too deeply into the military culture. Because the military is the violent arm of the Republic, it must never become corrupted by politics. The military, more than any other organization, must resist change until the case is compellingly made that the change is good. Once progressive sociology invades the military sphere, an institution where tradition has practical value, it renders the military no longer warlike but confused and weak. The conspicuous absence of moral courage today has landed the Corps behind the soup line in Somalia and has cost the lives of 240 Marines in Beirut.
The Commandant writes, "The greatest contribution our Corps has made to this Nation, or will ever make, is not that we win wars, but that we make Marines." A cleverly veiled lie. That the Marine Corps produces disciplined patriots well equipped to shoulder leadership in American society is to its eternal credit. Marines don't get to "guard the streets of heaven" simply because they are vigilant warriors. They earn that right because they are good men. Nevertheless, once the Corps is no longer recognized principally for its unequaled ability to vanquish our enemies on the battlefield, but is instead praised as a factory for producing good citizens, the sociologists have taken over.
Does the Commandant imply that he can take a queer and make him a Marine? Should the Corps turn in its cannons and open a charm school? Perhaps such a plan is one of the alternate uses of the Armed Forces that the administration is considering. I, for one, refuse to support any such agenda. I did not accept a commission from the Marine Corps, nor did those officers with whom I served, to advance the agenda of homosexuals, anymore than we did to rebuild homes in Dade County or to subordinate the pursuit of success under fire to the career aspirations of feminists.
But mine is a small voice. Surely, there must be one man among the senior officers of the Corps who will muster the courage to say, "I will not count myself among those who allowed sodomites to wear the Eagle Globe and Anchor and will do all in my power to resist so wretched an indignity." Though he may lose his career and his pension, he will preserve his credibility and self-respect. Do not hope for such a man, however. After all, only one English bishop stood up to Henry VIII, well aware he had more at stake than his pension.
The Commandant concludes his message with this plea: "It is not characteristic of Marines to quit their posts, either under fire or when things are not to their liking. Those of you whose pride in the Corps, sense of duty, honor, and personal moral values run so deep, are exactly the ones needed to remain on watch to provide a steady hand." Understanding quite clearly what the Corps' position on the issue of sodomites is to be, I wonder which of my "personal moral values" still interest the Commandant.
This article appeared in the July 1994 issue of Chronicles.
Entries(RSS)
There is such a strong current of idolatry in the Corps' ethos that I'm not sure it matters much from a Christian perspective whether the empire is pro or neutral toward homosexuality. The complaint that the incense being burned to signal fealty to the emperor has a tinge of pink to it now rather misses the actual idolatry that the incense is being burned at all.
But was the old policy wise either? My father, a retired USAF Colonel, said in the old days they used to practically do witch hunts for homosexuals - now mind you he doesnt agree at all with this upcoming policy change. Being only a military brat, I never saw the 'old' policy pre-Clinton nor do I know how much of it my old man saw either.
I understand the gist of the following paragraph:
"Marines are fighters, drinkers, and fornicators, behaviors for which they not only make no excuses but which they wear on their sleeves. How do you convince a man who bases his reputation on last night’s exploits that a homosexual is not going to pursue his inclinations with equivalent vigor? Good luck."
But let's pray for our Marines, and let us hope that any among them who practice fornication will see it for what it is.
Even U.S. Marines will have to kneel before the Adorable Face of Our Lord Jesus Christ in their judgement. I will not be proud of my sins at that time. I also know that if I truly understood their gravity right now, and of not loving Him, and all of the times that I have caused Him pain in His crucifixion, I could do nothing but die of a broken heart.
May God have mercy on us for all of our sins, and lead us to live in a way that is in accord with His Most Sacred Heart.
A very moving letter!
More than a decade ago, I gave a paper at the National Press Club as part of a project sponsored by the Center For Defense Journalism. I argued that empire building has a corrosive effect on the soldier's soul and that soldiers in the service of a bad cause are more likely to do wicked things (on and off the battlefield). I offered as evidence, anecdotally to be sure, the rape of Columbia, South Carolina, and suggested that, today, the ill treatment of women (as sexual objects and in terms of assigning them to roles that are contrary to their nature) and a confusing of loyalty and integrity among senior officers, were symptoms of the same affliction.
Since that day, I have given that paper in various forms to places as far flung as Belgrade (to the Serbian Writers Union) and Saint Paul, Minnesota (to the American Chesterton Society) where one member of the audience, a National Guardsman accused me of "trashing the military."
On the contrary, I responded, I respect and admire, in the main, the men who serve in our Armed Forces and so I am troubled by the effect that service in an imperial army has on their souls. In other words, fsd and Joseph Taylor, make points that I do not argue with. That being said, I would not significantly change the sentiments I wrote when I was a much younger man: What Mr. Taylor calls a current of idolatry is, is in fact, a strong sense of history and fraternity that is rooted in principles of virility and fortitude and manifested in bloody engagement after bloody engagement throughout the Corps' magnificent battlefield history. I very much recommend Martin Russ's BREAKOUT, which came out on the 50th Anniversary of the Chosin Reservoir. The Marine Corps story is real, and it is not so distant.
Yes, the Corps has some very slick advertising, but even that tells a truth: compare the Marine Corps' TV commercials with those of the of the other services--we do not promise anything other than mud and pain and yes, if you make it, you will be a Marine: Blue Dress Alphas, Mameluke sword, Tun Tavern, etc. We don't offer job training for success in the civilian world.
Having worn the Eagle, Globe and Anchor, and more than that, having been given the gift to lead and look after young Marines, I am honored to identify with the legacy of Dan Daly and Chesty Puller: courage, yes, but also selflessness. I object to that legacy being tarnished by political expedience and the advocacy of unnatural vice. I'd rather see, as a colleague of mine offered at the time of the Clinton policy, our colors furled and stowed in a foot locker for some great grandson of a Master Gunnery Sergeant to discover and unfurl in the stiff breeze of a more deserving age.
MR. Check,
Marines have always had their own way of doing things, and for the most part the best way of doing things for the accomplishment of their mission: "Locate, close with and destroy the enemy by fire and close combat." It is a hellish and tough task when called upon to be actually performed. Because of this, it took good men and still takes good men to do it. My anger is toward those who don't know this, don't recognize it and in their ignorance, abuse the privilege of leading such men. Sure, in a Puritan ideaology there was decadence in the Marine Corps from the beginning. There was also valour, love of ones friends, annonymity in heroics and high mindedness in its leaders. There is still decadence of course and evidently from this article, a remnant of real love at the highest level. This gives me hope for the lasting qualities of the old Marine virtues even if they are no longer the broadly practiced, admired and inspiring qualities throughout today's Corps. Thank you for this good article.
Just very recently I gave some solicited advice to a young man considering the military. I told him no self respecting, white,heterosexual young man of promise should subjugate himself to the PC military rife with geriatrics, girls and gays. His gender and race, and soon his sexualality would be an impediment to advancement. The empire still needs young strong men like him to actually do the fighting, another words fodder. The young man has yet to subcome, but economic pressures are mounting and the enlistment bounties(bribes) could become the only alternative. Come to think of it the same methods and circustances were utilized by Lincoln to fill his ranks in 1861-62.
Bryan,
There seem to me to be at least two difficulties with what you say. First of all, the claim that race, sex, and heterosexuality would impede advancement of a young man is not supported by the data. The vast majority of senior military officers and Staff NCOs are white, married males. Indeed, marriage is important to advancement in the general ranks. If the demographic makeup of the Service Academies is any indication, and I would argue that it is a strong one, the future general and fleet grade officers of the American Armed Forces are going to be largely white males who will be married.
The second problem you raise is one that cannot be tackled so briefly. It is a complex moral question without an easy or obvious answer. Many young men desire to serve their country in this honorable way. The desire is good and so is the office. What makes the matter morally difficult today is not so much the social laboratory that the Armed Forces have become: the fact is that the need to maintain a fighting force will keep a good deal of the silliness at the margins. When I was in the Marine Corps it was easy enough not to work with women by selecting a combat-arms specialty.
The bigger problem is the likelihood that a young man will be required to serve in an enterprise that is morally dubious.
The current and previous Popes, as my friend Scott Richert has shown to the consternation (I hope, anyway) of neocon Catholics, have been explicit in their disapproval of America's Iraq War. What is the Catholic soldier currently serving supposed to do, especially when there has been so little consideration of the question from American prelates, consideration that might result in practical guidance. The matter spins on questions of remote and proximate cooperation with evil, fulfillment of the duties of an office to which one has bound himself with an oath, even the need to support a family. Moral problems, as Tom Fleming has shown in his book, do not always admit of easy answers, but they do need to be discussed with more reason and discernment than is perhaps present in the threads of many internet writebacks. I have four sons. I generally discourage them from a future of military service, but if one of them were determined to be a Marine would I forbid it? Probably not.
It would be quite wrong, even reprehensible, to indict men who wish to be brave and patriotic for not having the intelligence and learning to make correct decisions about whether or not to enlist.It is not idolatry for a soldier to want to do his duty to his comrades, his officers, and his country. John the Baptist did not tell Roman soldiers--presumably non-observant Jews--to quit army. He told them to be just and not oppress the people. It would be quite easy for me, a draft-avoider without shame, to tell my friends and their sons they were fools to enlist or, in the old days, not to flee the country when they received their order to report. We can all see the mote in our neighbor's eye, it is only the beam in our own that is invisible. A man ought to be willing to fight for his country and to denigrate such a motive, simply because the country is not as good as it ought to be, is morally dangerous.
The desire to serve is an honorable motive that one should hesitate to undermine. But, is there not a distinction between fighting for one's country and fighting for an evil government? It may be doubted whether serving in the militarty today is defending one's people. Rather the opposite.
Christopher
I will acquiesce to your statistical analysis. However, you cannot deny the agents of change are hard at work to make the military anything but the mantra "rough men stand watch".
Mr. Fleming,
Morally dangerous? Is that code talk for un-American, traitor? I've been called both and not been cowed. I'm not denigrating those who actually enlist in the military to serve for honorable intentions. Fighting for our country in Iraq and Afganistan does not amount to a hill a beans to daily lives in America. I've always believed young men should actually fight for the defense of the country.
One question-were the combat forces 1941-1946 inferior to the present day military personnel? I ask for a combat veteran of WWII and Korea whom I was close to believed that is the modern implication.
Professor Wilson, as always, adds to the conversation by showing that the question is a morally complex one, and, Bryan, I think it was good of you to raise it. Nothing I've posted on this thread denies that wicked people are trying to remake the Armed Forces into an institution where their evil view of human nature is given expression. I am not certain, however, that knowing these things eliminates out of hand the prospect of service, even today.
I suppose one question that might help focus our thinking is asking, "Is taking any position in the Federal Government morally problematic?" I do not see how the answer can be yes. There are legitimate functions of our Federal Government that need to be discharged by good men. This is not, of course, an apology for our bloated state, only a recognition that civil authority is legitimate. Indeed, it is legitimate because it comes from God.
Drawing up a set methods or principles by which we might evaluate the moral merits of various government jobs is something that would be of great use to good hearted Americans. I come from a family in which mother, father, and all three sons have worked for government at some point (two state, three federal) out of, primarily, a sense of service, an attitude that my parents were at pains to cultivate in our home. In any case, where to begin is probably not with particulars, but I would see service in something like the DEA or the BATF, today, as more morally problematic than service in the Armed Forces. We should be reluctant to cause harm to our own: I would not want to testify against my wife in a courtroom (even if she were guilty), and I would not want to go around collecting firearms from fellow citizens.
I have never served in the military, so I certainly not setting myself up in judgment over those who have, who as a class are undoubtedly better men than I am, but I, like Mr. Taylor, was a bit taken aback by the off-handedness of the reference to fornication. It seemed especially strange in an article otherwise devoted to an uncompromising stance on sexual misconduct.
Why would one serve when the ruling elites consider military personnel nothing more than cannon fodder for their Imperial fantasies?
Ilana Mercer posted a good column this week that pertains to this subject. Her blog is carried here at Chronicles on the Blogroll. She is a strong woman, insightful writer, makes no excuses for her femininity its merits and limits and wishes men could only recognize their own. In doing so she writes with a more complete understanding of Chaucer's tales than most of us can muster, although I am not sure she has read them.
Here is the offending passage; is it really misleading?
Marines are the last group to whom one should suggest that “status” and “conduct” are separable. To Marines they are identical. Marines are fighters, drinkers, and fornicators, behaviors for which they not only make no excuses but which they wear on their sleeves. How do you convince a man who bases his reputation on last night’s exploits that a homosexual is not going to pursue his inclinations with equivalent vigor? Good luck.
Frankly, the very use of the word "fornicator" is an explicit judgment. The point, however, is that the language of "status" and "conduct" that was used by Mr. Clinton made very little sense to folks who live conduct-driven lives, if you will. A moral theologian, of course, would make a distinction here, and it would be correct one: simply because a man suffers from same-sex attraction does not mean his conduct needs to reflect that affliction (the inclination is not the sin). If this is what President Clinton meant, then perhaps he had more training from the Jesuits at Georgetown than I give him credit for.
There is another reality, however, which I point out with reluctance since I have already been suspected of endorsing fornication. It is this: sodomy is a sin against human nature at it's most fundamental level. Fornication is a sin against the social order. In any case, the Armed Forces tolerate fornication; that is not the same as saying expecting them to say that that unnatural vice is not unnatural. I think these distinctions are clear enough.
I think maybe you missed the point of the reference.
Also, is it wrong to suggest that sodomy is a particuarly disgusting sin? The Bible seems to treat it as such. To do so isn't to suggest that we're not sinners too.
I don't know who Bryan is or even if that is his name, but men who say reckless things without proper consideration are getting themselves into deep water that may flow over their heads. His self-referencing response--I did not refer to him but to arguments been made--is a good example of the sort of irresponsibility I suspected when I made my comment. There are two extremes into which unstable youth seems to be attracted these days. The first is the knee-jerk chauvinism that calls for total war against anyone who seems to stand in the way of this empire of human rights being set up by an exceptional nation that is exempt from original sin--in other words, the insanity associated with VD Hanson. The other is the hysterical hatred of the United States as an evil country. Neither judgment will bear much scrutiny; indeed, they both spring from an excessive and uncritical evaluation of the US. The United States is not the Kingdom of Heaven doing business in North America nor is it Stalinist Russia or the army that Atilla led. I don't know which position is sillier, the chauvinism of the young recruit or the syndrome Gilbert described: "The idiot who praises with enthusiastic tone/ All centuries but this and every country but his own." This later silliness leads to such morally reprehensible tendencies as civil disobedience, which is merely a form of low-grade treason. If one decides to remain in a country, he needs to obey the traffic laws, pay his taxes, and treat with some small respect the traditions and symbols of his country. I don't much like this country, or at least what it is becoming, but as a citizen I owe it and the government that represents it a certain degree of allegiance. If that burden becomes intolerable, then I shall leave. I do not say that it is easy to draw such a line, only that a certain degree of moral restraint is necessary in this sort of discussion, especially when we consider the light-brained fowl that flit from website to website.
In one respect I actually agree with the advocates of lifting the ban: Institutions such as the military do serve a purpose aside from combat-readiness, and efficiency should not be the only criterion determining the shape of the military.
The difference between the traditionalist's perspective and the Left's is that for the former the quest for efficiency is defined and limited by the traditions, customs, and principles of the military as a VOCATION in the context of the Western heritage.
The vocation is of course a concept for which the modern world has little to no imaginative space, so for the Left the guiding telos of an institution is instead found in the rights of the individual – regardless of how expensive, disruptive, or inconvenient, everybody must be guaranteed equal consideration when applying for a JOB with the military (or a job in the clergy, for that matter).
As usual the Left has long since seized control of the terms of debate, by forcing conservatives to argue from combat-readiness. How many big-name conservatives would explicitly argue against, say, the feminization of the military on the grounds of it being unnatural and against Western principles to send a child's mother into harm's way?
None, because that is the one argument which is simply not allowed.
The Left, on the other hand, shifts from the argument from principle to the argument from efficiency as deftly as a prestidigitator running a shell-game. Whenever it is a question of doing away with some inconvenient, archaic and (seemingly) useless practice that testifies to a remaining vestige of Christendom, leftists invoke efficiency and play themselves off to be cool-headed rationalists. Leftist principles are acceptable and within the pale, chivalry is not, and all that's left for the conservatives is to feebly complain about the impracticality of the Left's agenda, as opposed to attacking the actual agenda itself.
To the Left anybody who objects to women in battle ON PRINCIPLE is beyond the pale and must be excluded from any serious discussion; whereas I feel the same way about anybody who is not revolted by the sight of some man (I use the term loosely) standing on a pier, holding a baby in his arms, waving at his wife's cruiser as it sails away to the Gulf.
Of course, since I don't rule the world, my sensibilities don't much matter.
As to the question of what young men should do, I concur wholeheartedly with Dr. Wilson. I know of friends and former shipmates who are still in uniform, and would not waggle my finger at anybody – after all, unless one lives completely off-grid, I don't know where any of us would get off casting the first stone at somebody for participating in the system.
Nonetheless I feel obligated to warn off anybody considering enlisting or taking a commission – to my mind it seems one thing to quietly obey the laws of the regime, another thing entirely to volunteer to go off and kill people on its behalf.
One of the most pernicious aspects of modern America is the extent to which all outlets for legitimate expressions of human impulses – such as esprit de corps and patriotism – have been poisoned.
Dr. Fleming, I apologize since this question is off-topic, but I ask since a friend is contemplating this path: I appreciate what you have written regarding the culpability of those who serve in the military; what do you think, though, of private military contractors? (And does it matter as to whether the one who is becoming a PMC is ex-military or not?)
While PMCs do not have the same jobs in Iraq and Afhganistan, I think generally one should not become a PMC operating in either of those countries. In addition, those who are working in the US may be able to avoid this moral quandary, but it seems to me that they are paid an excessive amount of money (usually close to $100,000/year or more) for doing a job that the military should be doing. This money of course comes out of the pocket of the American taxpayer. Are they receiving a just compensation?
Defense and justice are the common. Interests of a people and should not be privatized. Contracting out prisons and military duties is one of many libertarian quack remedies that turn out to be poisonous. Military contractors are mercenaries, even if they are veterans released early for special criminal assignments as in Bosnia. A mercenary is a volunteer for hire and thus assumes responsibility for whatever harm he may cause. If he is fighting for what he believes to be a just cause, he must take serious measures to make sure he has not been misled. Years ago I met two mercenaries who had a case. They were black vets from Vietnam and had gone to Africa to defend regimes threatened by communists. Yes, they signed up to fight for Ian smith. In retrospect, they were correct on the facts. I do not say it was their business but as African Americans they felt they were doing double duty in fighting the enemies of their country who were going to enslave comparatively well off Africans.
Thank you, Dr. Fleming. If you don't mind, I have a quick follow-up question--is someone who is offered a salary that is too high obligated to decline the offer and negotiate for something lower? (The military is hiring PMCs to train soldiers here in the U.S. how to use certain equipment, a job the military should be doing, and the salary is usually at least $80,000/year.)
Mr. Check,
I am wondering what Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler would think of the idea of openly inviting homosexuals to serve in the military services? I would doubt that he would approve, and I do not for all the reasons that heretofore have been clearly understood. You also allude to the problem of women in the military and I would again love to know Gen. Butler's advice regarding the role of women in the armed services, of course the general has long passed off the stage, so we will never know the answers to my questions. But perhaps you would like to comment on women in the miltary?
It does seem to me that our country and its military leaders have entirely lost their moral bearing and have totally cast aside natural law. This may be our greatest peril.
Thank you for a very good and challenging article. I am an Air Force veteran.
Sorry; I didn't mean to imply that you were condoning fornication, just that I thought it could have been better phrased. But after reading your explanation, I realize it was my reading rather than your writing that was flawed.