- The Washington Times - Friday, January 14, 2000

Oh, dear. We're falling behind our European cousins again. The shame of it all.
The European Union, wiping away all vestiges of "discrimination," wants to make the barracks safe for sodomy. Britain, "the sceptr'd isle" that has been home for centuries to a race of kings, submitted to the Europeans this week and agreed to open the barracks to men and women, gays and lesbians, known and unknown. Maybe even queens and cross-dressers, given the English taste for the royally erotic. Rule, Britannia.
This follows rulings that the Germans, who have heretofore restricted women to jobs in hospitals and musical organizations, must open their military ranks to women, even assigning them to combat, if any, and if that's what they want.
The feminist and homosexual advocates of dismantling the American military, eager to render it inoperable for the convenience of puffs and poofs, will no doubt cite the European rulings as needed guidance for the Pentagon. The New York Times, no friend of a rough, tough military, observes that the latest ruling "brings Britain into line with almost all other NATO nations, including France, Canada and Germany," and adds primly: "The United States, with its 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, is at variance with that trend."
What most of us are too diplomatic, too polite, just too darn nice to say, is that except for the English it probably doesn't matter very much. From the record in World War II, the last real test of military prowess for the Europeans, we can reasonably conclude that European women may be better fighters than European men, anyway. A little gay spooning after "lights out" isn't likely to hurt troops nobody counts on.
The NATO nations will continue to depend on the sons and grandsons of the men who bailed Europe out twice in the 20th century. Why fight when you can get someone else to do it for you, and have fun kibitzing, too? France fell in 1940 after only 40 days of rout and retreat, and its soldiers had to go home to contend with German occupation soldiers for tables at the sidewalk cafes. Life on the home front was tough, though. Sometimes the croissants were stale, the coffee weak and only lukewarm.
This left the Americans and the British, bereft of the armies of the Netherlands and Luxembourg, which quit early, and of such great powers as Portugal and Monaco, which didn't want to fight at all, to do the best they could against the Germans. Germany's fighting prowess will now be diluted by the European Union rulings as well, so it's an ill wind that doesn't blow somebody some good.
The British the happy few, the band of brothers, now reduced to the miserable few and a band of sisters caved in with reluctance, having finally come to terms with the new reality of life under French supervision after centuries of taking guff from no one. The generals of the British defense ministry, like their American counterparts, know better than to believe the stuff that, under civilian pressure, they ask everyone else to believe. The generals have argued for years that an army, unlike a government bureaucracy, depends on fighting spirit and disciplined morale to accomplish its assigned tasks of killing people and breaking things. Like good armies throughout history, it tolerated nothing that damaged pride and discipline.
In the spirit of the Gelded Age, only the bravest of old coots are willing to stand up to state the obvious. "I believe and have always believed that we should follow the advice of the armed forces," said Iain Duncan Smith, the Tory shadow defense spokesman. "The advice has always been that lifting the ban would adversely affect operational effectiveness."
Just like over here. But the folks who want to make the military over in the image of the Tuesday Afternoon Ladies Literary Society aren't concerned with "operational effectiveness." Most of the them are at one with Bill Clinton, who famously told his Hot Springs draft board that he was dodging the draft because he was "too educated to fight."
Of course the military discriminates, and should. (They won't take me, for example; too old and decrepit.) Mixing four sexes will result in more, not less, violence against homosexuals. Soldiers are by definition a bit rough, if not coarse, and not always just around the edges. An instinct for violence is refined in an army, and prized as an attribute to be shaped to positive ends. If a soldier isn't "macho," he might as well be shipped off to the European Union. Only someone who has never been in a barracks is unable to imagine what will happen when a randy gay caballero starts making eyes at a straight who is making eyes at that cute little gruntess in the next bunk. This bit of seduction patter is not necessarily what they mean by the Maginot Line.

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2020 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide