Volume 2, Number 6 -- June, 1997
  
|
Lt. Flynn vs. Gen. Ralston
By Dave Lind
The hot topic of conversation
on CNN and across the country has, of late, been the dueling adultery
cases of lst Lt. Kelly Flynn and Gen. Joseph Ralston. As reported
by the major media outlets, the two cases appear to point up a
double standard in place within the military infrastructure.
Lt. Flynn has been accused
of, and has admitted to, having an affair, or "fraternizing
with", an enlisted man, having an adulterous affair with
the civilian husband of an enlisted woman, lying to her commander,
and, when ordered to discontinue the affair, disobeying the orders
of her commander.
Gen. Ralston, on the other
hand, has been accused of having an affair with a civilian woman
13 years ago while he was separated from his wife, with whom he
later reconciled. His commander, when made aware of the affair,
reprimanded Ralston and the matter was settled.
Now, for those who want to
see similarities, both are cases in which military officers engaged
in adulterous affairs, but in one case the male general was reprimanded
while the female lieutenant was discharged.
Of course, to reach that conclusion you have to overlook one critical
fact: Lt. Flynn was not discharged for adultery.
Yes, you heard that correctly. Lt. Flynn was punished not for
committing adultery or fraternization, but for disobeying an order
and lying to her commander, two far more serious crimes in the military,
as anyone who has ever served will attest.
Now, I understand the perception
of the majority of Americans who value freedom and independence
above all else. The average American tends to have difficulty
following orders that don't suit their tastes. The average American,
when ordered by their employer to cease an adulterous affair,
would most likely have responded much like Lt. Flynn. They would
have said, "Yeah, right!" and then went right on doing
what they were doing.
But a Lieutenant in the U.S.
Air Force is not an average American and, like it or not, does
not have the same freedom and privilege bestowed upon the average
American. That is made clear when you sign up and reinforced
regularly throughout your military career. Anyone unable or unwilling
to abide by that set of rules is free to leave at the end of their
term. I, myself, had that choice and chose to leave. Lt. Flynn
was given that choice and chose to stay. She knew the rules,
accepted them, and broke them.
The importance of following
orders in the military can not be overstated. If my boss orders
me to restock the supply cabinet and I do not do it, people have
to do without correction tape for a few days. If a pilot's commander
orders him to provide air support for ground forces and he refuses,
soldiers die. See the difference? Unlike most civilian jobs,
military officers must order their subordinates to risk or even
sacrifice their lives to provide for the safety and security of
others.
Thus, the single most important
thread holding together the fabric of the military is the ability
of a commander to issue an order and have it obeyed. No questions.
Likewise, the worst crime any soldier, sailor, or airman can
commit is to disobey an order.
This is what Lt. Flynn did
and what Gen. Ralston did not do. An order is an order whether
it be to charge a hill., get a haircut, or end an adulterous affair
and compliance is non-negotiable.
We can sit here and argue
the severity of Gen. Ralston's adultery versus Lt. Flynn's all
day long and it simply does not matter. General Ralston did not
lie to cover up his affair, and he did not disobey a direct order
and continue to have the affair. This is the point which continues
to evade all those who wish to make this into a sexual-misconduct
scandal. If Lt. Flynn were guilty ONLY of having an affair, she
would still be flying B-52's and we would not be talking about
this. If Gen. Ralston had disobeyed his commander's order to
cease his affair 13 years ago he would have most likely met the
same fate as Lt. Flynn and again, we would not be having this
discussion.
Does this mean that there
is no "Double Standard" in the military? Of course
not. To be honest, there probably is a double standard and always
has been. Is this an example of such? Absolutely not. The only
way anyone could possibly derive such a conclusion from the facts
of this case would be to do what the media has done, which is
to confuse and distort what this case is really about.
Bottom line, this is not
about adultery, much as the media would like it to be. There
were four separate charges leveled against Lt. Flynn, with adultery
being among the lesser of the charges. To say she was punished
for adultery would be akin to saying Timothy McVeigh was punished
for illegal parking. Lt. Flynn's punishment fit her crimes and
Gen. Ralston's fit his, no more and no less.
Why can't we just leave it at that?
|