One thing that I know about Freepers since I have been here is that they understand that the Military is not the same as civilian life, nor do we want it that way. There are countless threads discussing how Clinton and others have tried to use the services as social experiments, how they have lowered standards in the name of political correctness, and how they have weakened our National Security through a political prism of tolerance.
This is why it is shocking to me that so many here would excuse what (if true) is a blatant violation of U.S. Military law. As Conservatives, we know that the law is more important than any individual in our society. The actions of Col. West may have indeed saved lives. This is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. The UCMJ is what separates our services from the rest of the world. We have a standard that every person who serves swears to uphold. For officers it is most critical that they live up to the UCMJ, as examples of leadership.
In war, lives are lost. Each life is precious, and tragic if lost. However, when the UCMJ is violated, our nation stands to lose much more. It loses all that we claim to hold dear; our ideals, our values, our position of respect and leadership in the world. We cannot afford to bend, nudge or ignore our laws for even the slightest infractions. Once we do that, then the UCMJ is conditional, and for all intent and purposes, meaningless.
If laws are to be meaningful and respected, we cannot claim embarrassing exceptions because an officer stands to lose much through his infraction. Do we respect law? If we respect it conditionally, then we have no business expecting others not to create their own exceptions at their convenience. When other countries break laws and claim popular excuse, what is our argument? Col. West may become a symbol for what is right in this country by accepting his guilt (if found so) and using it to promote a higher purpose then his own interests.
We as Conservatives occasionally need to remember that the Military is not an environment for grey-area reasoning. The UCMJ is clear and concise in describing the responsibilities that servicemen swear to uphold. If someone can point me to the area where the UCMJ explains exceptions for law-breaking, I would be happy to reconsider my position. As a former career Navy officer, I was at no time unaware of my responsibility to uphold the UCMJ in all my official and unofficial actions while I wore the uniform.
If Col. West is guilty, he must pay the price for those crimes, or we will all pay the considerably larger price of losing the honor and respect of a nation based on laws.
It has been utterly surreal to listen to "conservatives" argue, with a straight face, that officers can pick and choose which orders to obey and which to disobey, without consequence.
We as Conservatives occasionally need to remember that the Military is not an environment for grey-area reasoning. The UCMJ is clear and concise in describing the responsibilities that servicemen swear to uphold.
"He who cannot command himself cannot command others."