Sex Becomes a Battlefield for an Embarrassed Military

As the careers of senior military officers crash in flames over revelations involving sexual conduct, the Pentagon has announced it will appoint two panels to try to get fresh guidance on issues raised by recent scandals. One commission will look at how the practice of gender-integrated basic training is working and whether, in the light of abuse-of-power cases in which there was sexual predation, the sexes should undergo separate training. The other is to examine the military’s policies on consensual sexual relations. The impetus for this panel comes largely from the admission of two general officers that they engaged in affairs while married, though separated from their wives, in one case five years ago, in another 13 years ago.

To many, in Congress and elsewhere, adultery in any circumstances in the military is enough to disqualify an officer from command responsibilities or, indeed, from remaining in the service. To others, it is the circumstances under which adultery occurs and its consequences that ought to be the determining considerations. Accepting the inherent immorality of adultery as a violation of the marriage vows, the key question nonetheless should be whether the adultery served to undermine good order and discipline. In other words, whether it ceased being a private matter and adversely affected military order and morale.

Former 1st Lt. Kelly Flinn has been quick to raise the charge of a double standard in how the military punishes adultery. In her case, it led to discharge. In the case of Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston, until last week a top candidate to be the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff but who Monday withdrew from contention, it initially elicited the view of Defense Secretary William Cohen that Ralston’s affair with a civilian in the early 1980s would not “automatically disqualify” him from the running.

Hypocrisy in the differing responses to the Flinn and Ralston cases? Well, not quite. Though adultery was one of the court-martial charges facing Flinn, far more serious were her admissions that she made false sworn statements and disobeyed direct orders. Both grew out of her affair with the husband of an enlisted woman, and in the eyes of some officers this was the gravest of the charges against her. For few things are more likely to destroy good order and morale than the abuse of power implicit in an officer’s intrusion into the marriages or other personal affairs of enlisted personnel. Flinn broke the ancient military rule against fraternization. Ralston’s affair was with a civilian. It came to light long after the fact, and so far as is known it had no effect on military order and discipline.

That doesn’t mean it is irrelevant today, as events have shown. In the immediate context of the sex scandals that have shaken the military, it was improbable that Congress would have approved Ralston’s potential nomination as head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, however far in the past his questionable conduct may have been. It can be argued that a 32-year veteran of the Air Force who flew 147 combat missions in Vietnam deserves better than to have his career ruined by an old transgression. The trouble is that few in Congress or in the Pentagon hierarchy were ready to stand up and take the heat for saying so.

And after the Ralston development and last week’s abrupt retirement of Army Maj. Gen. John E. Longhouser following a similar admission of adultery, who will be next? How many more experienced, expensively trained and honored officers might have their careers sidetracked or ended because they engaged in affairs, perhaps long ago, that in no way affected their service performance or harmed the military? Where is the line finally to be drawn? And if that line is a rigid one in the military, if every revealed act of adultery is seen as morally or politically disqualifying, should not the same unforgiving standard be applied to adultery by public figures wherever it occurs--among elected officials, professors and teachers, entertainers and athletes, for example?

The answer, of course, is that the military is governed by its own rules, as it must be, while the rest of society can apply social sanctions to moral misbehavior as it chooses. But in the case of the military, surely it’s time for some common-sense flexibility to apply. If an affair is flagrant or adversely affects order, cohesion, morale or discipline, then of course official intervention is required. Otherwise, as is usual in most of the rest of civil society, consensual sexual behavior ought to remain essentially a private matter. It is not necessary to condone the sin to forgive the sinner. Neither should it be demanded that careers be destroyed to expiate long-ago transgressions.