Should the Generals fight to keep UCMJ authority over Sexual Assualt and other Major Crimes?

I believe the provisions of the UCMJ should remain in tact. If the military justice system is not providing equal justice under the law, then it's an issue for military and civilian leadership in the DoD. The Federal Court system is set up to enforce what I call "civilian" Federal Law. The UCMJ contains provisions unfamiliar to the civilian community, such as "failure to go" or "failure to obey a lawful order," or "misbehavior before the enemy" that recognize the inherent limits on civil rights imposed of those who choose to serve. For example, it's not a violation of Federal Law to walk off your job at Wal-Mart because you don't like your boss. In the military we call that AWOL or possibly desertion. The more liberal minded judges in the Federal system would not hesitate to tear apart and invalidate the parts of the UCMJ that didn't match their political views.

Another impediment to using Federal Courts is application of the UCMJ outside of the United States. If a military member violates the UCMJ in a foreign country, a military court can try him or her in that country. If the UCMJ is handled only in the Federal Courts, then the military member would have to be returned to the US for trial. Major jurisdictional issues will emerge with the Federal Courts contending they have preview over the case, the military saying they have jurisdiction to conduct the investigation overseas, and the host nation possibly involved demanding the service member be tried under local law.

I believe this is a jurisdictional and operational question. During my service, if the offence occurred off station, responsibility for investigation, charges and prosecution was automatically ceded to the civil authorities. It was the military's responsibility to protect all involved if the civil authorities released the individuals involved and they were in a duty status during the conduct of the civil process.
If the incident occurred on base, it was a federal offence and the military , and/or other federal agencies, assumed responsibility for the process.
Now consider the same crime occurring aboard ship, or in an operational situation overseas. Does it make any sense to detach the defendant, the victim and all material witnesses from their duties, transport them to the nearest US court, along with any foreign witnesses considered material by either side, for the duration of the trial? Do we transfer additional personnel into the unit to replace individuals involved in the legal proceedings to accomplish the critical tasks for which those involved were responsible? The only justification for such operational and financial burdens to be required are if a fair and just legal process cannot be provided by the military.
In my 25 years service, things happened where I did not agree with the outcome. Having significant time as a civilian under my belt, I have observed the same results; I do not agree with everything civil authorities decide.
Proponents for civil authorities handling the legal proceedings being discussed are basing their argument on the assumption that the military is incapable or unwilling to fairly adjudicate the cases in question. I do not accept their premise and feel the military processes such cases in as fair and impartial manner as the civil authorities and has a demonstrable requirement to retain that authority.

Civilian jurists are often suspect in their independence and also may have political interests at heart. I think back of the shotgun raffles in Leesville where you would win the shotgun, then get busted for carrying an unregistered gun. I look at Rowan County, where the Sheriff will not take a felony complaint, and at least one of the judges has been rebuked by higher courts because of her extraordinary incompetence and outrageous behavior on the bench.
The military understands reasoning behind the judicial system. What is needed is a check and balance against the corrupt practices including Article 15 contests and personality conflicts. On the other hand, keeping MST within the unit continues to compound the problems because of conflict of interest, inherent threats, cronyism, not fully understanding the law and the context of the case, etc.

I absolutely think it should be tried by the civilian judicial system. Our system in place has failed over and over again. This needs to be taken from the commander ASAP.