c. 1996 Religion News Service

(Rabbi Rudin is the national interreligious affairs director of the American Jewish Committee.)

(RNS)-The tragic suicide of the Navy’s top officer, Admiral Jeremy M. Boorda, raises disturbing questions about America’s love affair with the armed forces and about the meaning of the term”honor,”which is so much a part of the military creed.

I say this as a former Air Force chaplain who served in Japan and Korea. My brother served in the Army, and my father, a retired Army officer, is buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

Did an investigation by Newsweek magazine on why Boorda wore two possibly unearned citations for valor in combat push him to such desperation? Did a terrified admiral kill himself because he feared public dishonor and humiliation? Did Boorda, a”sailor’s sailor,”perhaps offer himself in death as a personal sacrifice, a vicarious atonement for the sins of a beleaguered Navy?

During the memorial service for Boorda at Washington’s National Cathedral, President Clinton spoke of the admiral’s”deep sense of honor which no person should ever question.”Fair enough, but what is honor and who defines it?

We may never know all the reasons why Mike Boorda committed suicide.

But his death leads me to wonder whether Americans expect more from the military than from any other segment of society. I also wonder whether military leaders expect a higher sense of honor and morality from themselves and from the men and women they command than from the rest of us. If so, this double standard is a disservice to both the military and the general society.

Senators, representatives, mayors, presidents and even members of the clergy have publicly misbehaved, repented and have been forgiven. But morally and politically, we not only demand more of the military as individuals, we also assume their martial experience provides them with unique political skills.

It does not.

Throughout history, American voters have frequently favored political candidates who have served in the armed forces. General George Washington, our first president, became a model for future candidates.

Andrew Jackson and Ulysses S. Grant carried the aura of military heroism to the White House, as did Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower. John F. Kennedy, George Bush, and the presumptive Republican candidate Bob Dole all were decorated heroes of World War II.

But Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, or Franklin Delano Roosevelt never served in the armed forces. Ironically, Wilson and Roosevelt led the nation to victory during two World Wars.

The reality is that military leaders are no more perfect than the rest of us. And it is time for America to recognize that the military is simply a reflection of our total society. No better, no worse. We are the military and the military is us.

Wearing the uniform should provide no political advantage. Not to have worn it should provide no political penalty.

If drugs and cheating are part of today’s college campuses, why should we be surprised when these problems appear within our military academies? If sexual abuse of women by men is widespread in America’s offices and factories, why should we be shocked when naval aviators do the same thing at a Tailhook reunion bash?

If waste and inefficiency plague the private business sector, why not the military? If the maintenance of some civilian airliners is shoddy, why not military aircraft as well? And, if America is perplexed, even bewildered, by the increasing public presence of homosexuals in society, can the military be any different?

With the death of Admiral Boorda, the Navy and the entire nation have suffered a huge loss.

And in that loss is a profound lesson. We should always honor the men and women who assume the critical, dangerous and necessary task of defending America. But ethically and politically, members of the military must be judged,-and they must judge themselves-by the same weights and measures we employ for the rest of society.

MJP END RUDIN