This is one of those issues.

I think that reasonable people can disagree on the following...
- Homosexuals in the military (whether they serve openly)
- Flag-draped coffin photos (whether to publish photos of them)
- Decision to invade Iraq (whether it has put us at a strategic disadvantage, thus far)

What stifles meaningful discussion of these issues in the public sphere, outside of SWJ, is that if you take a side of any of those issues, then it leads to foreseeable second-order effects. Generally, most people who have energetic opinions on these matters will answer either yes to all three or no to all three. Those people generally happen to inhabit opposite ends of the political spectrum. They happen to have energetic opinions on the issues above because they feature prominently in the narratives that each side seeks to push. Speaking only for myself...

Homosexuals in the military
- I don't think it should be condoned. But, even if I did, I would not advocate for it. I think it would become overly politicized, drawing service members too deeply into political discourse and creating too much political pressure upon the organization that could take who-knows-what type of form - certainly a significant distraction and probably a detrimental one.

Flag-draped coffins
- I don't think that they should be published, simply out of respect to the families (if you want your son/daughter's coffin photographed, create a blog and do it yourself, in my opinion). But, if we did allow it, as a matter of policy, I suspect that this would fall into the narrative that the current policy existed to "hide the reality of war" or some nonsense to that effect and now we're finally "exposing" President Bush's (insert outrageous allegation). Once again, it would politicize and distract.

Decision to invade Iraq
- I happen to think that it was a wise long-term endeavor. But I also admit that it has put us in a strategically weaker position in the short term. But if you admit to that in a forum less rational than SWJ (which would be just about anywhere), then you've just "admitted" the underlying premise of the argument for why invading was wrong (I don't encounter many folks who are even willing to consider whether it makes sense in the long term; it's short-term, instant gratification, now, me, gimme, more, from what I've observed).

That's not intended to push my views or to draw the forum off topic. I just view all three of these as manifestations of the same beast and I think the similarities help to illustrate a basic point about issues like flag-draped coffins. People cling to their original views on the matter or to their politically-expedient views because to think otherwise and to admit to thinking otherwise draws predictable, intelligently-dishonest, and often shameless counterattack from the other side in order to score cheap political points.

And I'm also not suggesting that folks like me, on the right, are just innocent victims of the left. There are plenty on the right who would behave equally shamlessly if a lefty were to come out against all three of the issues above.

Political correctness has given way to shameless intellectual dishonesty. Instead of just intimidating people into remaining silent about what they perceive to be true, people are now compelled to take it a step further and proclaim what they perceive to be untrue. Instead of being forced into a vocal minority's view of conformity, many are now being repulsed to the ends of the political spectrum out of contempt, rather than drawn there by the strengths of either sides' arguments.

I expect the policy on flag-draped coffins to change simply because reversing it is seen as a dig against the previous administration's defense policy. For that reason, I expect it to be met with fanfare by people who have political motives at heart, rather than human ones. Likewise, I expect proponents of the current policy to voice outrage simply in response to the fanfare.

Well, that's my upbeat thought for the day.