US Military on Trump Election: Like the Day Osama was Killed
The Washington Post (repeated at the Stars and Stripes) spoke with a variety of US troops following the election last Tuesday (anonymously, due to restrictions on active duty troops speaking on political topics), and it seems many were supportive of President-elect Donald Trump. In one case, the feeling within the military was equated with “the day Osama was killed.”
While noting the US military tends to lean conservative anyway, the Post drilled this apparent positive reaction down to two issues: the shrinking budget and forced social change [emphasis added]:
Service members interviewed for this report spoke of what they see as a groundswell of potential for Trump reversing the effects of the 2013 sequester and an announcement that same year by the Obama administration that opened all combat jobs to women.
Opening combat roles to women wasn’t the only change that some called a “social experiment” in the US military, however. One of President Obama’s landmark changes was getting Congress (in its last Democrat-controlled lame duck session) to allow openly homosexual individuals to serve. The second landmark change was much simpler, when the Obama administration’s DoD simply decided on its own that transgenders could also openly serve (and receive whatever gender treatment they wanted).
“Heavy-handed social engineering” has previously been cited as one reason President Obama apparently isn’t terribly popular within the US military, so it is logical that abating that trend would create the opposite reaction.
The possibility that President Trump might reverse those social “advances” has worried some in the homosexual and transgender movement. Chris Rowzee, a retired Air Force officer who was once courageous enough to convene a staff meeting to announce her sexual lifestyle to her subordinates, now says she’s “afraid” of what might happen with respect to the recent ‘advances’ for the LGBT movement.
What’s the basis for their fear? Perhaps the LGBT movement is looking back at President Obama, who promised to “fundamentally transform” America — and they believe he did. Now, President Trump will be empowered with the same “pen and phone” to, in his worldview, “make America great again.”
The power the LGBT movement once loved when it was used for them they now “fear” will be used for others.
It is true Trump could restore some of those military policies — just as easily as President Obama reversed them.
It is tragic some US troops feel scared over such a policy return. No one should have to live in fear of the actions of their government (save those who have committed legitimate transgressions). With that in mind, perhaps some in the LGBT movement will begin to understand how their Christian peers have felt for the past few years.
Consider, for example, how then-LtCol Rowzee’s Christian subordinates felt to be ordered into a room to hear her tell everyone she was a lesbian. Consider the implications such a statement from a superior officer had for those who morally disagreed with her.
For Christians, it hasn’t even been hypothetical. Christians have been jailed for acting according to their beliefs, even when they weren’t preventing or restricting anyone else’s rights. Christian companies have been sued and have been run out of business not by the free market, but by the government for attempting to run their business in accordance with the dictates of their faith. The government threatened to bankrupt companies if those companies insisted on running their businesses in manner that comported with their religious beliefs.
Even within the US military, Christian troops have been sanctioned not for how they’ve treated anyone or how they’ve behaved, but for what they believe.
As with any political scenario, there is no guarantee President Trump will fulfill his campaign promises. However, if President Trump does as little as protect the liberties of religious citizens to conduct themselves in accordance with the dictates of their faith — as the Constitution requires the government to do, and as Trump has promised to do — homosexuals and transgenders lose nothing.
Sure, they may have to suffer through the knowledge they’re serving alongside a Christian who disagrees with their lifestyle choice. Sure, they may not be able to force a business to support their lifestyle — or have the government bankrupt them if they won’t.
But US troops serve alongside all kinds of people with whom they have disagreements, and the free market ensures they’ll always have other businesses to go to that will enthusiastically support them.
The only thing the LGBT movement would lose in this case would be the ability to force their beliefs on others.
Kind of ironic, isn’t it?
ADVERTISEMENT
If a company owner believes it is wrong to support mixed race marriage, and refuses to employ people in such marriages, would you be opposed to a government policy that said the federal government would not buy from that company?
That question is an “apples and oranges” fallacy. I could be wrong, but I think it is also cum hoc, ergo prompter hoc.
Wow. Ignoring your horrific Latin, I do always enjoy a nice round of “My religious objections are different to his religious objections because of unstated reasons”
@Donalbain
Your comment has nothing to do with the post above. Presumably you meant to address the Russell Amendment to the 2017 NDAA, which as been discussed elsewhere. If that isn’t the case, what in the world are you talking about? If that is the case, you have a gross misunderstanding of what the government is either trying to do or should be doing.
American religious organizations are already exempted from these kinds of hiring or business requirements under the law. The federal contract exception is different only because President Obama didn’t sign a law to enact this requirement.
Thus, the Russell Amendment simply extends protections already provided in law.
More to the point, though:
If an organization produces halal products — and requires its employees to be Muslim to achieve that end — should the US government punish that company by not allowing it to compete for contracts to provide US military Muslim chaplains with halal products for the religious exercise of US troops?
Must an organization that produces kosher products affirmatively state they will hire employees who cannot produce kosher products in order to provide kosher products to US troops?
Must a Catholic organization tell the US government they are willing to hire homosexuals before they can fulfill contracts providing Catholic religious materiel to the US military?
And as usual, you don’t answer a simple question.
I read this in Stars and Stripes, and I will reiterate what my reaction was to this quote from a commissioned officer:
“After I post this, I’ll be taking down the flag on my wall. I’m resigning my commission tomorrow.”
I’ll happily take his place.