The Backlash! - January 1998

Kelly Flinn, or Kelly Flim-Flam?

A conversation regarding Lieutenant Kelly Flinn between Gene Hopp, publisher of the Men's Advocate, and E. Rowan S. Trimble, publisher of The World of Aviation Poetry. Both served with distinction in the US Air Force.

E. Rowan S. Trimble	Gene Hopp
The vindictive attitude of the leadership in the U. S. Air Force toward Lt. Kelly J. Flinn should not be forgotten. The only people duped were those who believed she had done anything serious enough to either be dishonorably discharged or criminal enough to warrant serving 9 and half years in a penitentiary. This is not Nazi Germany in which a military police state can destroy a person on the whim of a Gestapo order.	True, this was not Nazi Germany, it was the U.S. Military, an agency required to maintain more discipline, unit cohesiveness, and morale than a civilian society. She was neither threatened with anything even remotely resembling a Gestapo order nor deprived of other recourses.
The Air Force offered her and she accepted a General Discharge under honorable conditions as opposed to being offered an Honorable Discharge after AF General Ronald Fogleman testified to members of the U. S. Senate, concerning the charges against her.	General Fogleman did testify, and then very shortly thereafter had the dignity to resign from a U.S. military in which the leadership (primarily civilian although this includes many active service officers) refuses to support its people while fully expecting traditional loyalty from the service membership. He too was an underclassman (1963) from a time when loyalty was more in vogue.
His testimony clearly predetermined the hardball manner in which the Air Force had decided it was going to deal with the lieutenant. No practical options that favored the lieutenant's defense or retention were left open. The lieutenant had not committed any crime to suggest prosecution befitting one who had committed treason.	Flinn was in no way or at any time threatened with any action similar to that of a traitor, and her case escalated only after she blatantly lied and refused to obey lawful orders. The military simply can't have officers poaching the spouses of enlisted people.
Common sense would have dictated that serious efforts should have been made, first, to retain the outstanding skills, taxpayer investment and career of the Air Force's premiere female B-52 bomber pilot.	The "investment" is supposed to be recouped by requiring her to repay part of her tuition. She may yet get another opportunity to show her integrity, or lack thereof. She still remains far better off than 8% of my class (and many others) who paid their tuition with their lives by the age of 30 either in Vietnam or training for it. While no female graduate is, to this day, required to serve in combat, all males are subject to the whims of the military for any assignment. Being female should have nothing to do with it, and if she is or ever was "premiere" anything, that only imposes a greater obligation upon her to perform in an exemplary manner. Instead, she did a great disservice to the rest of the women in the military.
Many practical alternatives were possible under military law, such as a transfer to another base or command or an Article 15. Instead, the leadership evidently chose an action that they believed would make a negative example of the lieutenant.	The military is very often stuck with making a "negative" example as quite obviously every breach of conduct cannot be ferreted out and pursued. That may have been the case here, but, given the 67 other USAF personnel (60 men, 7 women) who, in 1996, were subject to courts-martial for adultery, it is not clear this is the case.
This breach of justice has left a bitter taste in the mouths of members of the public toward the current leadership in the U.S. Air Force.	There already is a very bitter taste in the mouths of most members of the military because of the double standards based upon sex in the military. All men and no women are required to register with the government and be required to serve, as assigned, when called. Women in the military enjoy the freedom from the more onerous tasks in which lives are seriously at risk. Even most female members say they "would not enlist" if combat were a likely possibility for them. As a result, it is the male pilots who are flooding out of this now corrupt organization.
Was the decision to prosecute Lt. Flinn in the best interests of the Air Force and the country? The evidence in the public domain certainly does not indicate that it was. The rational that the AF leadership used to discredit Lt. Flinn was very weak at best. The pomp and pious attitude toward fraternization are out of touch with reality.	The reality in this case required loyalty to Airman Gayla Zigo, the wife of Flinn’s lover, who was rightfully aggrieved and asked for help from her superiors. She had every right to go to her superiors and ask to have an officer kept away from her husband. Perhaps this is one additional little quirk of women in the military as two men would have handled it themselves, although even not likely in this case as one "competitor" for the same "lover" was enlisted and the other was a commissioned officer.
They are nothing short of insults to the dignity of any enlisted person who ever honorably served or fought for his or her country in the armed forces.	Sorry, but no unit can survive effectively with the officers picking off the contracted spouses of the enlisted people.
I feel sure that the creditability of the Air Force as a consequence has been damaged for some while to come because of what has happened to Lt. Kelly Flinn. Those responsible should now be held accountable for their lack of good judgment. It is not only Lt. Flinn who should have been held accountable. Those who have sat in moral, ethical and legal judgment also should be held accountable by the same measure. It is time for the Air Force to get over it and get on with the job of putting the best of the best in positions of leadership. I can imagine that Lt. Kelly Flinn was the best of best when it can to aero-discipline; perhaps she made a mistake in her personal life, but the Air Force blew it when it came to fixing what was broken.	There is simply no reason to believe Flinn was the "best of the best." It is more likely that her sex provided advantage as the services are all trying to kowtow to the corrupting civilian leadership turning the military into a social laboratory. Although it could have been her preference, flying bombers happens to be one of the least popular assignment among pilots. If she was unable to get into higher performing aircraft such as fighters or the training command T-38's, it is more valid to suspect she would have selected transport aircraft as a prelude to a civilian airline career.
The professional and career military person is a totally different breed than the citizen soldier. The professional is always eager to enhance his or her career with whatever it takes. Wartime offers the best of all opportunities to win medals and improve one's career files. The province of the military dictatorship becomes the professional's forum and cause.	I don't buy it. I've been on active duty and in the Colorado guard. The reserves are made up of people looking for a good part time job, that pays well enough and, often, gives them a way to avoid service.
It is his one place on earth to exert his absolute and unquestioned authority over people all in the name of duty. Unfortunately, the so-called military discipline is often abusive and has nothing to do with one's combat performance. I have often characterized this exaggeration by telling a little joke about the "schizophrenic who thought he was an officer and a gentlemen." Or by asking, "How many so-called career people in the Air Force would do what they do out of love for country? (Cut their paychecks in half to obtain the correct answer.)"	You're right on this point: virtually none, active or reserve, are there solely to "serve their country."
Or by making the observation that "No enlisted person belonged in the Air Force, for it was designed by officers for officers. It was like Larry, Curly and Mo building their own house." Or by saying that "The worst of the lot wanted to be identified as Sir." Or by recounting the story of the toothbrush brigade in front of Second Air Force Headquarters: "General Flunky directed Colonel Corn to talk to Major Problem. Major Problem passed the order to Captain Marvel. The captain then ordered Lieutenant Gung Ho to supervise the removal of bird droppings from the sidewalks in front of 2nd Air Force headquarters with toothbrushes. It was a case in point of the arrogance and insensitivity of the officers corps toward the enlisted ranks. The purpose for this humiliating treatment was considered appropriate because the officers did not wish to step on the bird droppings when entering or leaving the building. Some of the men doing the cleaning were 20 year master sergeants."	Kelly Flinn was not a "citizen soldier." She was a professional (of sorts, anyway). The type who would make enlisted personnel "wipe up bird doo with a toothbrush."
By contrast, the citizen soldier does his or her time and hopes to get out of the military unharmed after fulfilling a citizen obligation to serve. He does not get bonuses or extra pay for medals won. He does not get free medical or all the other earned perks and entitlements.	Editor: No "free" medical care, promotions, access to the PX or other perks for "citizen soldiers" in the military? Perhaps this is not what you meant.
He has the satisfaction of knowing that he answered his country's call to duty - not for money, not for career, not for retirement, not for medals or self-aggrandizement. He is not bound to the unreasonable expectations and dictates of superior officers as a way of life. It is quite human to make mistakes. That is the reason erasers are put on pencils, and an ordinary citizen knows this. The military needs to be retrained in its concept of this human quality.	Editor: I'm sure Timothy McVeigh would now agree he made a mistake, too. What the heck, he's only human, let's give him another chance? I don't think so.
Lt. Kelly Flinn made a mistake. Instead of providing a swift solution to the problem by transferring all the parties involved, she was given an order that lacked discretion. It proved to be a bad order. A bad order is one in which an officer orders another person to do something obviously illegal, like stealing, or something stupid which consequences are obvious to all reasonable people. In other words, the differences in our vantages are in philosophies. I do not advocate throwing the baby out with the bath water.	They didn't, just the "baby." Her name was Kelly.
That is what the Air Force did to Lt. Kelly Flinn, and it demonstrated what needs to be done to enhance discipline in the military today. The problem is something like another story I tell to demonstrate my point: "The lieutenant claimed that he was superior in every way to any of us enlisted 'trash.' He even claimed to be a superior human being until he broke his ribs while trying to lift weights with the big boys one day. Of course, we understood his inferiority complex. All of us enlisted 'trash' belonged to MENSA."	Lieutenant Kelly Flinn will quite likely do fine. I predict she will be flying captain for a major air carrier of her choice, with her opportunities enhanced by this fiasco, within 10 years. It took me 21 years, 10 of those because, as a male, I was required to serve my country. Kelly Flinn had all the opportunity in the world. Even though she wasn't one of the "enlisted trash," she simply chose to waste it. Was it feminine emotion? Far be it from me to say.

On December 16, 1997, Kelly Flinn was in Seattle where she was featured on radio and television talk shows. She has become a celebrated "victim" who, like Anita Hill, will likely profit from her status for years to come.

Home Boutique Directory Links Definitions Backlash Books

Email to the Editor -- If you don't want it published in the "Email to the Editor" column, say so. Otherwise, it may be published.