The Coward's Ethos

Machinations of a Christian Soldier in the Age of TACO

Recently the Department of Defense, led by our Christian Soldier Pete Hegseth (he/him), had the John Lewis class replenishment vessel, USNS Harvey Milk, stripped of its name in favor of a yet to be determined moniker, that according to Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell (he/him) is “reflective of the Commander in Chief's priorities, our nation's history, and the warrior ethos.”

Let us set aside for a moment that the so-called Commander in Chief, Donald J. Trump (or TACO, “Trump Always Chickens Out”, for short), was a draft dodger, and has on numerous occasions ridiculed veterans of foreign wars, calling them suckers and losers, and focus instead on two things. One, how naming the USNS Harvey Milk possibly violates some basic tenet of our nation's history, and two, whether or not a gay or LGBTQ+ person can embody the warrior ethos as it is stated on numerous DoD platforms and by our military institutions.

Harvey Milk, for those of you who might not know, was a civil rights activist, a Naval veteran who served during the Korean War, and was a city supervisor in San Francisco, California. His activism began in the 1970s and was controversial at the time for supporting the rights of gay and lesbian community members like himself, and pushing city legislation that banned employment and housing discrimination based on sexual orientation. His tenacious pursuit of gay and lesbian rights gained him national attention, and made him an inspiration for generations of LGBTQ+ Americans to come. At the time, (and sadly up until this day) there were (are) many ignorant, bigoted people who did not want to see Harvey Milk’s message of equality spread. When Milk served in the military being gay was a cause for dismissal, regardless of service record, accomplishments, or military distinctions. He in fact was forced to resign from the Navy on the threat of a court-martial, and take an “other than honorable” discharge on account of his sexual orientation. Having been treated in this way by his country's military may have led to his activism, we can only speculate, however, it appears clear at some point that he refused to remain a second class citizen, and was determined to throw off the secrecy of his existence in favor of liberation. After a few unsuccessful attempts to gain political office in San Francisco, he was finally elected in 1977, and only eleven months later, assassinated by a former city supervisor, who later claimed the attack was caused by depression brought on from eating too much junk food. In 2009 Milk was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his fight and sacrifice for equal rights.

Does Mr. Milk’s biography sound like it reflects what the Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell (he/him) terms “our nation's history”? Reflective of what exactly? Harvey Milk, gay rights, the LGBTQ+ movement, and numerous other developments following and related to Mr. Milk and his causes, are in fact part of American history. Which leads us to wonder the intent of including this phrase in the Pentagon’s statement. In there estimation should Harvey Milk, and his like, be thought of as regrettable national history? On the order of slavery? Or the massacring and displacement of Native Americans? Should it be removed therefore from the national consciousness in favor of something more mythologized, gilded, and in accord with the values of the founders? (Like heterosexuality, Christianity?) The Pentagon and it's leadership, TACO and our Christian Soldier, seem to think that anything that makes them uncomfortable or gives them an icky feeling can simply be excluded from the national narrative. In a Totalitarian state this may be true, the despot and it's lackeys may get to erase history in favor of versions more to their liking. But in America, at this time, Milk's contribution to the pursuit of justice and equality, like John Lewis's, maybe some of the only national history we can truly be proud of. To deny him, or others like him the honor they are due is more reflective of the ugliness and bigotry of an American history this administration seems hellbent on reliving.

As for the Warrior Ethos, the US Army expresses it as follows,

I will always place the mission first.

I will never accept defeat.

I will never quit.

I will never leave a fallen comrade.

Similar statements are made regarding this ethos across several other branches of the military. There doesn't seem to be any mention of ones sexual preferences, ones preferred pronouns, or gender assignment and/or re-assignment. In fact, these statements could be applied without any liberal interpretation to the very actions and deeds of Mr. Milk in his dogged fight for his and his fellow gay and lesbian community members. He clearly faced danger by outing himself and pursuing a public position in city government. His mission may have been self-directed, but it bares no less merit on that account, and was unwavering in its aim. He never conceded defeat, and faced mortal violence in the furtherance of his cause. He did not quit, but was tragically murdered by a coward and bigot, who, not unlike TACO, suffered from fast food addiction and mental disorder. Nor did Mr. Milk leave his comrades behind, but thought not of himself or the danger that he faced, but of lifting his fellow citizens out of the shadows and into the light of equality.

So, if we can find no rational argument for excluding Mr. Milk from our national history, or any way in which he violated the warrior ethos per the US Army's definition, then that leaves only the so-called Commander in Chief's priorities as a cause for this policy. What are TACO’s priorities in this regard? Does he feel intimidated by men and women who served honorably despite possibly facing discrimination for who they are? Does he hate veterans, as may be suggested by his gutting of the VA and other programs that benefit veterans and their families? Is TACO simply a homophobe who struggles in secret with his own narcissistic desires for the masculine body. This may be a better psychoanalysis of our Christian Soldier than TACO at his ripe age, because it seems to us that Hegseth’s metrosexualism, coupled with his intense desire to express his faith through masculinity show's clear signs of repressed homosexuality. TACO in his earlier stages of grotesque caricature exhibited the same hyper masculine narcissistic tendencies; ostentatious womanizing, gross locker room talk, and an idolization of male figures of authority. Which is not to impugn the nature of homosexuality, but just to recognize that sometimes it's opposite is a terrified compensation for the perceived possibility. TACO is a chicken, despite all his tough talk, and certainly could not and would not endanger his image by admitting his true sexuality. He also would fail miserabley to live up to the warrior's ethos just by the simple fact that he would never hesitate to leave a comrade behind if it meant improving his chances even in the smallest amount.

TACOs priorities are base and cowardly at best, and bare no resemblance to any American ideal we would ever countenance. It is a shame for the service members, for our country, and for the Civilian Mariners who man the USNS Harvey Milk to be led by such a crass and unworthy group of cretins. Yes, we say unworthy, even of our Christian Soldier, who has used his combat record as a cudgel to beat down his fellow service members. Wearing a uniform and being shot at in a foreign war does not entitle anyone to make across the board determinations on what it means to be an American and worthy of national praise.