The military is fast becoming a torn image. They are trying to retain their old values, and keep the tradition of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and at the same time cater to modern views, which are most certainly influenced by the liberal media. As for me, my opinion doesn't matter, necessarily. What I do know is, the military cannot function on both ends of the spectrum, and expect to achieve a positive or progressive end result. Consider some of their controversial issues:

A Marine enlisted man refuses to take the Anthrax vaccine on the notion that a fraction of the recipients have horrible reactions. He states that he could not, in good faith, take the vaccine without it being researched. He was arrested, confined to a barracks, and set up for a court-martial. Later, a court rules that the military cannot charge any military member that refuses to take the vaccine. The court ruling later is terminated, within weeks, based upon 'evidence that supercedes the former decision.'

An army officer learns of an impending attack on his unit in Iraq, and interrogates a suspect to find out how to tactically confront his looming situation. He discharges a weapon by the suspect's head, and learns how to avoid bloodshed and the potential ambush on his unit, and his suspect is alive and well, and is arrested. The officer is later reprimanded, and discharged by the military for conduct unbecoming an officer, and for other various UCMJ violations.

Another officer spends time with his troops in war. Since they are a reserve unit and finish a tour, they are to return home for a specific amount of time, and cannot be recalled within one year. Prior to that year being over, he and his troops were recalled to battle. He protested, and stated that it was against policy to reinstate the troops so early. He was relieved of his command, and discharged. All he did was debate a policy that was created to inspire and motivate the soldiers.

Two air force pilots killed Canadians by friendly fire. They were given poor intelligence, and had the freedom to attack targets within their zone. They attacked a perceived threat in a combat zone, and killed our allies, and were prosecuted. One major, in a daring move, denied his letter of reprimand and discharge, and requested a court-martial on the grounds of innocence. He faced a sentence to the brig if he failed to prove his case. He won, but was still found guilty of misconduct (on behalf of the Air Force), and discharged, but exonerated of his letter of reprimand.

The reason I quote these incidents is to portray the wide assortment of cases and the extremely various outcomes. The military in previous years has had a huge range of freedom to do what was needed. As the days of the media and accountability increase, less and less instances are tolerated. But when do they become counter-productive in the theater called War? Many years ago, nearly the entire populace would cringe if they found out a man, who discharged a weapon by the head of a potential hostile in order to save his troops, was treated as a criminal. And on the same tangent, a Marine who refused to take a vaccination would be treated as an outcast, and would be prosecuted.

The military is trying to retain their old ways, while trying to play the media and PC game. This will never succeed, and the reason why I can say this with confidence is because of two major facts:
1) the officer/enlisted hierarchy will never be equivalent to our current society. The power struggle dates back to the days of lords and serfs, with very little voice of reason making it to the top, especially when the officers 'get each other's backs'.
2) the UCMJ is archaic and outdated, and totally backward from our current society. The military can bring its members up on any charges, using the 'catch-all' article of the UCMJ, and all members are guilty until proven innocent. All members of the military can request a court-martial, but if they fail in their quest, they face immensely worse charges. The general outcome is, quite naturally, the lesser of the two evils.

Today's military is struggling to balance itself with today's society, while using antiquated laws and customs. But the military relies on those laws, customs, and tradition to keep itself functioning. Should we allow the media and current society to impose their view on the military, or should it reform? Until that question is answered, many more service men and women are going to have their career stripped away from them simply for trying to please the system. That same system is the extreme left and military right, trying desperately to form a cohesive unit.

I can't offer a solution. I pose the question to let you, the reader, answer for yourself, and question yourself, and try to search for the morally right solution. As a service member, I have pledged to serve and to obey the orders of my superiors, and to stand by my mates in times of peace and extreme duress and war. But in war, nothing is clear, and the rules fly right out of the window. And accountability is no longer a virtue, it is something to be afraid of. It can strip away your honor and your integrity. But it can also progress this nation. Which one is better and at what cost?

My final comment is to remind the readers that many of our enemies have not practiced the humanities of war, as defined by the Geneva Convention, and actively torture, starve, mutilate, and rape POWs. They purposely do the same to civilian bystanders, and even their own people. They have no regard to our 'rules of engagement'. But we, being the 'better', are held to a higher standard, and justifiably so. But when do we draw the line where our support for our troops ends, and our prosecution and accountability begins? That line needs to be defined, or our military is going to upend hundreds of years of history and tradition, and question the very virtues that our nation has come to rely on in its brief history.

I'm eager to hear voices of opinion.