An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Why is “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Hurting the WoT?
The answer is simple if you can translate it.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
18 Responses to “Why is “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Hurting the WoT?”
So Pace says he thinks homsexual behavior is immoral? Is that the extent of the basis for your assertion that DADT is more based on “personal moral objections than professional conduct”?
So some 50 translators have been forced from service. If we need their services so badly, why not criticize them for not keeping their mouths/zippers shut? They could have stayed quiet and continued performing this valuable service… but no, they had to open their mouths and get themselves kicked out? A lot of good that is doing the country, right?
And even presuming that the GWOT has been hurt because we have 50 fewer translators than we otherwise would have had, you fail to ascribe any benefits (whatever they might be) from the policy of excluding known homosexuals from military service… Ignoring these offsets is not exactly a non-biased thing to do if you’re truly interested in making sure we’re doing the best to battle our enemy and not just interested in advancing an agenda.
Why not make fraternization, hetero or homo, the issue, and punish the actual crime- not just the admission of homosexuality? Other countries- including our closest allies- Great Britain and Israel allow homosexuality in the military, and it seems to be working out just fine for them.
We do have a severe shortage of translators, especially Arabic and Farsi, and it has to be costing us in lives and treasure, when our soldiers can’t tell who the enemy is, can’t interpret captured intel, or can’t communicate with the Iraqis we are attempting to train. The army has lowered its recruiting standards to allow criminals, dropouts, skinheads and folks who are past their prime. No, its more important that our army not be guilty of harboring those guilty of “immoral acts”.
Think of what we have done in the name of winning the GWOT. We’ve tortured, twisted the Geneva Conventions, wasted billions on corrupt officials and inept contractors, armed and trained thousands of men who ended up serving in Sadr’s death squads, spied on our own citizens without their knowledge, and aided extremist groups who we hope will fight other extremist groups of a different sect. We destroyed a country’s infrastructure and removed its citizens’ security.
We’ve done so much that no one can be proud of, because we wanted to win. If we want to win that badly, we should try to keep everyone and anyone enlisted that can help the effort. Period.
Look, Pace’s personal opinion doesn’t matter. The DADT is LAW. He was stupid to give his personal opinion but it doesn’t have ANY effect on the policy.
Frankly, I’d be surprised if it wasn’t changed within a decade. The military was NOT ready for open homosexuality in the ranks – it was barely able to tolerate women. Things have changed a lot though, and I’ve seen many of them personally.
The translator arguments are largely specious. Those translators get snapped up by the NSA/CIA or a contractor once they leave the military at 3-4 times the pay they made while in and they are supporting US operations.
I meant to say the military was not ready for open homosexuality in the ranks in 1993.
You know, Steve,
Some people might argue that honesty is more than about answering questions truthfully and that it’s about being true to oneself and not pretending to be something that one is not. Some people might argue that it’s dishonest for a homosexual to go around pretending he’s a heterosexual.
I’m confused why we would expect our soldiers to honest on some matters and yet expect them to be dishonest on other matters (their sexuality).
You criticize Justin for “fail[ing] to ascribe any benefits (whatever they might be) from the policy of excluding known homosexuals from military service…”, and yet you never go on to explain what the purported benefits of excluding gays from the military might be. Thus, if Justin’s argument is “not unbiased”, then your’s is simply incomplete.
I’m willing to accept there there indeed might be benefits from excluding gays from the military, but I find it hard to believe that these purported benefits would outweigh the very real harms that this policy has been shown to produce. Our military is having a hard enough time meeting its recruiting goals as it is (even to the point of lowering its standards), and yet we’re excluding otherwise qualified patriotic Americans who are willing to fight and die for their country…
And for what? Because they’re gay?
This is a perfect example of our government not having its priorities in the right order.
I think Mr. Simple of the Washington Post (who Justin cited in his blog) raised a good point when he wrote:
Is there a “straight” way to translate Arabic? Is there a “gay” Farsi?
It baffles the mind to think that we’re actually using people’s sexuality to screen out people who are potentially invaluable to our military–particularly given the current circumstances that our government has put our military in.
You write:
If we need their services so badly, why not criticize them for not keeping their mouths/zippers shut? They could have stayed quiet and continued performing this valuable service… but no, they had to open their mouths and get themselves kicked out?
How noble of you, Steve, to speak in a such a way of people who are willing to fight and die for their country, even when the politicians who sent them into war could bother themselves to fight for their country when they had the opportunity to do so. I, for one, can’t understand why gays would want to fight and potentially die for a country that doesn’t treat them all that well, but that’s their decision.
Beggars can’t be choosers, Steve. Our military is stretched too thin as it is. And paraphrasing the words of our beloved former Secretary of Defense:
You go to war with the soldiers you have–not the soldiers with sexual orientations that you might wish or want them to have.
Good statement, Nicrivera.
I can’t help but think about past resistance to allowing blacks in the military. The arguments are hauntingly similar.
Seeing that neither skin color nor sexual orientation is catching, the military is not risking anything by welcoming qualified new personnel.
It is amazing to see that gays volunteer today, just like blacks did in the past, in spite of the humiliating obstacles in their way.
“They could have stayed quiet and continued performing this valuable service… but no, they had to open their mouths and get themselves kicked out?”
They times they are a-changing. Some years ago, the standard was ‘blame Canada’, today it’s ‘blame the victim’. Pathetic.
nicrivera, et al…
if fighting the war on terror is such a high priority and the skills these people bring to the table are so critical that the military needs to abandon its prohibition against open gays serving in the military, then why is it so terrible to suggest they have kept their mouths and zippers shut? What’s more important, helping to win the WOT or letting soldiers freely declare their sexual preference?
and I’m not offering up reasons why gays should be kept out, as I’m not defending the policy, I’m merely pointing our some of the holes in some of the arguments made in favor of changing the policy. when one comes to argue, it’s always nicer if one doesn’t use flawed arguments.
I think Kim’s point about fraternization is a good one. That’s the heart of the issue; that people acting on sexual attractions in certain military situations is a distraction and a discomfort. But speaking of discomfort, the only reason that I’ve held out some small bit of support for the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is that homophobia is an attitude that can’t be legislated away. I guess one could have said the same thing for racism, and I wouldn’t have felt that this justified segregation or disqualification of blacks from serving in the military, so I can sort of shoot down my own argument on that basis. But I guess what it comes down to is that the belief that sexuality is organically determined (rather than being a choice) is not universally accepted (and the science isn’t there yet to prove that it should be); and that homosexuality does inherently cause some discomfort for many people. Why? Because with heterosexuality, the gender roles are defined and for example, we segregate men from women during times when we undress, sleep, etc. There isn’t a practical way to do that when homosexuals are in the mix.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that racism is an attitude which people should be forced to “Get over”, while I see the attitude of homophobia somewhat differently. Is it really right to tell our troops that they shouldn’t feel uncomfortable bunking with homosexuals of their own gender? And when we talk about recruiting goals, could it be that an open policy toward gays would harm recruitment more than it would help it (which is really more to my point, because that’s what I think we need to consider most.)
In the end though, I’ll come full circle to Kim’s point again. Maybe if fraternization (hetero and homo) was more stridently restricted, then none of that would matter so much.
“homophobia is an attitude that can’t be legislated away”
It doesn’t have to, it’s already on the dcline:
“The percentage of Americans in favor has grown from 57 percent in 1993 to a whopping 91 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds surveyed in a Gallup poll in 2003.”
Alan K. Simpson made this point, the Republican senator from Wyoming from 1979 to 1997 who wrote the column this stoy is based on. He originally supported ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’, but thinks that today “This policy has become a serious detriment to the readiness of America’s forces as they attempt to accomplish what is arguably the most challenging mission in our long and cherished history.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301507.html
Now, don’t you think if conservative lawmakers with knowledge of the military are ready to overcome their reservation, maybe you should adjust your opinion to modern times, too?
Gray,
I agree that the attitudes and stats are worth looking at (and in fact I believe the decision in this case should be made on that basis.)
There’s still room for doubt though. If 9% of Americans in the military recruit age bracket still oppose openly gay people from serving (and I’d want to know that the 9% figure is accurate, so need more than one poll to be sure that the sample wasn’t skewed), then how many of those would have considered enlisting but didn’t because of this issue? And compare that to the homosexual population of that age group, how many might be basing a decision not to enlist on the fact that they can’t be open about their homosexuality?
In other words, the purpose of the military is defense and we need to enable recruitment. If changing the policy about gays at this point in time would risk lower recruitments, then I would oppose it. If the stats point in the other direction, then I’d favor a change in the policy.
Shorter CS: I don’t have a problem with discrimination in the US army, my only concern is to maximize enlistment numbers for the Iraq war.
|-(
Gray,
For one thing, asking someone to not talk openly about their sexuality isn’t discrimination in my opinion. If a heterosexual enjoys oral sex, is it discriminatory to have a policy that he/she shouldn’t be discussing this with colleagues? That’s not the same as having a policy that says that people who like oral sex aren’t allowed to serve, it’s simply an acknowledgement that sexual preferences are private matters and best left in private. For the life of me I can’t understand why that is so difficult; my sexuality isn’t my identity, it’s just what I like and what I do and it’s nobody’s business. I don’t want anyone to police sexual behavior but I don’t want to hear about everyone’s sexual behavior either- there’s just no need for that.
If there were evidence that people were on witch hunts to “out” homosexuals, then I would feel differently about the situation. But if they feel put upon by not being able to announce their sexual preferences? I don’t get it because I don’t see why people have to make that so public anyway.
And, yes, I do think that the priority of the military should be to protect the nation in the strongest possibly way, and that includes taking measures to boost recruitment and examining these situations with that in the forefront of consideration.
“For one thing, asking someone to not talk openly about their sexuality isn’t discrimination in my opinion.”
You’re distorting the problem, CS. Troops can be fired for simply admitting they love a partner of the same gender. Love isn’t sexual in the first place, sexuality is only a part of it. Those troops could even be asexual, they would still be out. This isn’t about lewed talk in the workplace, this is discrimination. Period.
Well said, Gray. Saying “My life partner is another man” is not the same as saying “Hey! I love blowjobs”. When a gay person comes out, they’re being open about WHOM they love, not WHAT they do in bed (you can be gay and celibate or virgin). It’s amazing to me the way that many straight people seem fixated solely on the sexual aspect of gay relationships. It might be helpful if we had better language to discuss this — a term like “affective orientation”, although clumsy, would be more comprehensive and thus more accurate.
Re: the question above about why gays in the military shouldn’t just be expected to shut up — one answer is that closeted gays are obvious targets for blackmail. If your keeping your job doesn’t depend on keeping your orientation a secret, then you’re simply not as vulnerable to this kind of thing.
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
All these arguments are carbon copies of debates regarding admiitting blacks, and regarding sexual matters, admiiting women.
Almost any change in any policy will produce some tension. It’s up to the leadership to provide guidelines to get over it and just go on with the mission.
“I think Kim’s point about fraternization is a good one.” Thanks, CS!
“The more things change, the more they remain the same.” I agree, Domajot that the arguments are always the same, as is the process of gradual acceptance of trying something new in the military. I do think we are evolving, and though it may be too suddenly for some, at least we have these kinds of debates over here. I think of the ME cultures we are trying to modernize, where gays have been dragged out into the street and executed, and it makes me feel that we are evolving, and eventually will accept the situation, just as we did with minorities and women. Maybe in 20 years we won’t be having this discussion.
Kim,
And again I’m in agreement with you hear; I simply think that with respect to the military, it’s best to make sure that society has evolved to a certain point in acceptance before forcing a policy on the troops. Maybe that isn’t entirely fair to certain groups, but then again, every one of the troops voluntarily gives up certain individual freedoms in order to serve.