Recently, there's been a fair amount of news about the court martial of Army General David Hale, who had apparently been conducting unauthorized maneuvers, so to speak, with the wives of four--count 'em four--soldiers under his command. I guess chicks really DO dig the uniform. Hale, who was charged with adultery and lying to investigators, tried to retire, which is a common way out for high-ranking officers who have gotten themselves in embarrassing situations. The Army, however, said "uh-uh, not that easy," and took the rare step of pursuing the prosecution after Hale's retirement. The general was eventually allowed to cop a plea and pay fines and penalties totaling twenty-two thousand dollars. I wonder what that comes out to per tryst?
The story revived the ongoing debates about sexual behavior in the military. We got to hear, again, the saga of B-52 babe Lieutenant Kelly Flinn, who was run out of the service with a less-than-honorable discharge for having an affair with the husband of another officer.
And, of course, there were the predictable comments about how "If Bill Clinton can commit adultery, why can't a general?" One major difference is that Clinton, while Commander-in-Chief, is a civilian and thus not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In a very real sense, the only commander Clinton has to answer to is the American electorate, and they put him back in office despite compelling evidence that he was a hound.
Let us also not forget the aggravating circumstances in the Hale and Flinn cases. There was some disturbing evidence in an Army report on the matter that Hale had threatened the careers of the women's husbands and even told one woman to keep quiet or he would testify against her in a child-custody case. For Flinn's part, after her affair was discovered, her superiors tried to give her a chance and told her to just cut it out. She didn't. Her excuse? "I was in love." Well, that may be, Kel, but it's not indicative of the kind of emotional stability I like to hear from someone who flies around with a plane full of nukes. ("Oh, yes, I put a cruise missile through the window of my boyfriend's wife, but I was IN LOVE!") As another example, look at what happened to Navy Rear Adm. John Scudi. (Since this is a family newspaper, I will refrain from making any of the obvious "rear admiral" jokes. ) Scudi was forced out and lost a bunch of his retirement benefits over his affair, in part because he was steering military contracts to his paramour. All three were doing considerably more than getting a little horizontal R & R on the side.
But, that aside, There's an even more important difference between the behavior of Clinton and that of Hale and Flinn. That difference is that Hale and Flinn were having affairs with the spouses of lower-ranking officers. Hale, according to his own testimony at the plea-bargain hearing, was hugging and kissing on one of his squeezes in the presence of her husband. This, good people, is not just harmful to good order and discipline, it's just plain nuts.
I mean, think about it. Say, for example, you're an Air Force fighter pilot and you've been playing "launch the Sidewinder" with the wife of your wingman. Tell me you're not going to be worried about a REAL heat-seeking missile "accidentally" getting fired up your tailpipe some fine day. "Woops, sorry, I was cleaning it and it went off." I, for one, would be looking behind me so much, I'd look like Linda Blair in "The Exorcist." Likewise, a Navy officer who's been diving his submarine in another officer's harbor had better be a REAL strong swimmer. You can't lead a charge if you're turned around watching your troops to make sure you don't get a bullet in the back. Someone who'd mess around under these circumstances is just too doggone dumb to be in command.
Okay, perhaps I overstate the risks. But seriously, people in the military, by the very nature of what they do, have to operate by different, and in some cases stricter, rules than those for civilians. The real difference between Clinton's dalliance with Monica Lewinsky and a military officer's dalliance with the spouse of a lower-ranking officer is that Clinton and Lewinsky didn't have to trust one another with their lives and the lives of the people who serve with them. If you still can't make the distinction, then I hope you never cook me a pie, because you can't tell the difference between your apples and your oranges.
©1999 Jerry D. Rhoades, Jr.