I thought some of the points were interesting but number five seemed to be a bait and switch. It starts with the summary in bold: “5. The US military is no place for gay men questioning their gender.” But the paragraph following this point seems to me to argue that the US military should have no place for gay men questioning their gender.
“Seeking a lower sentence, Manning’s defence team argued his senior officers missed a number of “red flags” that should have led them to revoking the young soldier’s security clearance. Much of his psychological instability stemmed from the military’s harsh treatment of those who do not conform to the mainstream. As a gay man, who additionally was struggling with gender identity disorder, Manning felt ostracised. The evidence presented in court made it seem at least plausible that, with proper support and care, he might never have turned against the army.”
But, even if we set aside the odious pan-sexualized assumptions about sexual practice in this paragraph, why assume the Army is the place for all the “struggling” people to get tax-supported therapy? I thought the army was supposed to protect national security? Is that the mission? Does the military exist to protect us (leave aside our Orwellian “defense” posture at the moment) or to provide help for troubled soldiers?
How on earth is the army supposed to cater to “those who do not conform to the mainstream”? I, like millions of other Americans in history, despite seeing possible advantages to military service, decided to pursue other vocations because I didn’t think I would “fit” well in the Armed Forces. Maybe I was wrong, and I cast no judgment at all on those who were the right stuff for military service. In fact, in many cases I respect them for it. But I don’t have “gender identity crisis”; I just tend to be stubborn and distrusting—which, not being stupid, I suspect would be real liabilities to fellow soldiers in many situations. So, if I’m right, I didn’t belong in the military. I have no business joining and then demanding “proper support and care” from the Armed Forces.
But since pan-sexualism is the cause of the day, the media takes it for granted that the army has a responsibility to solve all their problems and accommodate their needs. Other people “who do not conform to the mainstream” for other reasons are on their own. The latter situation makes perfect sense. Special treatment for “gender identity” issues does not. The Guardian actually makes the case that the military never should have recruited Manning, or that they should have discharged him. But they don’t seem to want to follow their own argument. “Chelsea” removes their capacity to follow their own argument.
I am worried that Bradley’s new “Chelsea” plea is going to be used by the Left to forgive Obama for all his national security crimes. The real issues of the Fourth Amendment and domestic spying will be forgotten in favor of the manufactured “GLBT ‘rights’” crusade. Obama could even pardon Manning and do so on pan-sexual grounds, leaving him free to continue to punish and threaten all other whistleblowers.