Love triangles in the military


As the military is forced to accept open homosexuals in its ranks,
and expands the places where women can serve,
the problems and issues that the civilian world has due to sexual competition
will, without a doubt, be introduced to the military.
A significant one of those issues is the existence of “love triangles”.
This post is a brief look at those,
and how their existence poses far more significant problems
to the military than it does in the civilian world.

In the recent past, two of those have been quite highly publicized.
One was revealed in the court martial of Brigadier General Jeffrey Sinclair,
where it was revealed that one source of his accuser’s anguish
was that she discovered that he and another woman were having an affair.
A second case,
where two of the protagonists were in fact retired from the military,
involved retired General David Petraeus,
Paula Broadwell
(a former Army military intelligence officer, like the accuser of General Sinclair,
and at the time of the affair a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Reserve)
and Jill Kelley.
There is no evidence that Jill Kelley and General Petraeus had any sort of sexual relationship,
but Ms. Broadwell viewed Ms. Kelley as a competitor for General Petraeus’s affections,
so she (Ms. Broadwell) sent Ms. Kelley emails
which Ms. Kelley considered threatening and harassing,
and so reported to the FBI.
By the way,
each of those situations could more properly be regarded as a “love tetrahedron”,
since in each case the male figure was already married,
so the women mentioned above were competing not only with each other,
but also with the wife.

In the civilian world, a notorious case of a love triangle was
that between Dr. Herman Tarnower, Jean Harris [then headmistress of the Madeira School], and Lynne Tryforos,
which ended with Ms. Harris killing Dr. Tarnower.

In classical mythology,
there was the triangle between King Menelaus, his wife Helen, and Paris of Troy,
which, in the mythology, led to the Trojan War.

In the Hebrew Bible, or Torah, there is the case of King David, Bathsheba, and her husband Uriah the Hittite.
(Those Jews who advocate for putting homosexuals and women in the military
might care to reflect on that example.)

There have been many more such situations in history.
There common feature is that two (or more) people compete for the affections of a single person.
Sometimes the competition leads to one of the competitors using unfair or even criminal means
to eliminate his or her competitor.
Note also that in some cases the competing individuals may be in a superior/subordinate relationship,
say if an editor and a reporter or a university dean and a professor
compete for the affections of the same individual.

Unfortunately, and ominously, that could still hold true in the military,
but with the ominous fact that the superior, in some situations,
will literally hold life-or-death power over the subordinate.
This was exemplified in the biblical David/Bathsheba/Uriah triangle,
where King David sent his rival (and Bathsheba's husband) Uriah to be killed in battle.

The above was, I believe, all grounded in facts (or, where noted, mythology).
Let me now move to giving my personal opinion.
My forecast and opinion is:
There can be no doubt
that these situations will play out in our new "PC" military.
there will be cases where superiors and subordinates vie for
the affections of the same person.
In those situations, all decisions of the superior can be and will be questioned by the subordinate,
as to whether they were made for valid military reasons
or to gain advantage in the romantic competition.
In the worst cases, a loyal and obedient subordinate may be sent to his death
simply to eliminate him (or her) as a romantic rival.

Do you think I am fantasizing about this?
I am not an expert on criminal history,
but some people are.
Are there not many examples in history of people causing their romantic rivals to be killed?

Let me move up from describing the problem (as above)
to examining how the media has (not) treated this matter.
So far as I am aware, they have never mentioned this as a problem.
On the other hand, they (or at least the Washington Post and New York Times,
the media outlets with which I am most familiar)
have run story after story, opinion piece after opinion piece, editorial after editorial,
claiming that expanding the role of women and open homosexuals
is a virtue (in their eyes) that the American military should embrace.
Is this not clearly an unarguable example of biased media coverage,
and one which is truly going to cause great harm,
harm far more than what would be caused if the women and homosexuals
were simply kept away from combat roles?

Labels: ,