Though largely unreported by mainstream media, the slow-motion collapse of America’s all-volunteer military is a reality of grave importance to national identity and international security. All branches of service are significantly below their essential recruitment goals and have been for several years. The Army is in the most critical shape. This year, it has recruited only 40 percent of the soldiers needed for minimal force replacement, despite ever-lowering standards and ever-increasing enticements for enlistment.
Many veterans have written informed and reasoned articles about what is happening with the military. In general, they attribute the shortfall to declines in patriotism and willingness to serve a government that is hostile toward the very social groups that have always contributed the most soldiers to the nation’s defense: conservatives, religious and rural families, and especially people from the South. While these observations are accurate, there is another dimension to the failing military that has not received enough attention: its rapidly expanding homosexual culture.
The leaders of our armed forces used to understand that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The 48th edition of the Army Officer’s Guide—the edition I studied upon receiving my commission—is quite clear in explaining this reality:
The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order, discipline, and unit cohesion, which are the essence of military capability. The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to those high standards. (p. 111)
In the 1951 edition of the Officer’s Guide—the edition my father received as a newly commissioned Army officer—there are lengthy discussions of what constitutes behavior requiring disciplinary action or separation from the military, such as alcoholism, excessive gambling, or marital infidelity.
But there is no mention of homosexuality at all. Was this because homosexual behavior was much rarer? Or was it merely unmentionable? Yes, and yes. But more importantly, it was so self-evident that homosexual behavior is incompatible with military life that the subject did not merit an explanation in the Officer’s Guide, even though it was most certainly mentioned as a Court Martial offense in the 1951 Uniform Code of Military Justice.
In addition to the aforementioned morale and discipline factors, the health problems related to some homosexual practices were always considered sufficient reason to bar enlistment. I remember this being clearly explained in ROTC Basic Camp when two cadets were sent home after a medical examination revealed signs of prior homosexual activity.
I have not looked at a recent edition of the Army Officer’s Guide to see what editorial changes have taken place since the repeal of all sodomy prohibitions under the Obama administration. But there is no need. It is impossible not to recognize how drastically attitudes have changed toward homosexuality, at least among the top brass and in the policies they enforce. It is simply a fact that homosexuality (along with its more bizarre avatar of transgenderism) is becoming entrenched in the military, openly displayed, and aggressively promoted.
When my son finished his Basic Training at Ft. Sill some years ago, the graduation ceremony was marred by homosexual displays of affection that divided the auditorium full of families like the parting of the Red Sea. Most families shielded the eyes of their young children and turned their backs when couples of male soldiers jumped into each other’s arms and kissed openly. It was one of many instances in the past 20 years when I felt some gratitude that my father did not live to see what has happened to his beloved Army.
In the past, families often relied on the military to transform an undisciplined or unfocused son into a more motivated and stronger man. But having worked as a recruiter myself, and after more than two decades in reserve components of the military, I no longer advise any parent or any young person to look to the military for guidance, training, education, or motivation. In fact, unless a young person is already extremely well-grounded both spiritually and psychologically, the military now represents a grave danger.
The Army, in particular, is becoming a playground for homosexual grooming, both male and female. I know more than one Catholic family who happily sent a child off to the Army, only to learn that he or she has now developed homosexual feelings, or even contracted a homosexual “marriage” (known to be an easy path to an increase in housing allowance and benefits).
When people are forced into very close quarters and cannot avoid contact with such perversity but are required to demonstrate acceptance of such behaviors, the result is chaotic, disorienting, and demoralizing. It is very bad for unit cohesion, for group loyalty, and above all for creating the type of soldier who will put his life on the line for any one of his fellows. It is also producing a soldier no sane person would ever want to lead into combat. And so, experienced non-commissioned and company-grade officers are leaving the military in the highest numbers since the post-Vietnam drawdown of forces.
How will this all end? Very badly, I fear. We are rapidly moving toward a military confrontation with China, the most powerful totalitarian nation the world has ever seen. It is a clash that will be nearly impossible to avoid for geopolitical, economic, and cultural reasons. If current trends continue in the U.S. military, it will be impossible to prevail in this conflict without resorting to the use of nuclear weapons. Without a credible, conventional military deterrence, our options will be surrender or mutual destruction. When people surrender to their worst passions, they end up surrendering their freedoms, and even their very lives.
[Image Credit: Shutterstock]