U.S. Military Firing and Hiring: Neither Rhyme nor Reason?
Sep 24th, 2009 | 12 responses
First, a personal story intended as full disclosure for the second part of this post.
I immigrated to the United States at the age of 17 from the Netherlands.
Immediately upon reaching my 18th birthday, I enlisted in the U.S. Air Force.
In those days, the 50s, a legal immigrant could join the U.S. armed forces upon signing a “declaration of intent” to become a U.S. citizen.
Serving in the U.S. armed forces also expedited one’s path to citizenship to three years of military service instead of five years of residence. I took advantage of that great opportunity and I am still enjoying the blessings.
Hold on to these thoughts.
Numerous articles have been written on the persistent and critical shortages of linguists in the organic intelligence services of the U.S. military and how such a lack of translators is hurting the U.S. war on terror, especially in the Pakistan-Afghanistan regions. (The CIA and other intelligence agencies face similar shortages).
Equal press has been given to the fact that an untold number of potential linguists are “weeded-out” during background investigations because they are gay; that many more talented language students at the Defense Language Institute (DLI) and at other language learning institutions are eliminated—after enormous expenditures of personal effort, manpower, time and funds—because they are discovered to be gay; and that, under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” more are discharged after months or years of loyal service when their sexual orientation is “told.”
The number of linguists fired who fall in the latter two categories is staggering.
After refusing to hire and after firing hundreds—perhaps thousands—of linguists because of their sexual orientation, the U.S. military has now come up with a new plan to recruit people with skills in areas where there are critical shortages.
The areas? You guessed it, languages, in addition to medical care.
In February of this year the U.S. military started a new program under which it began recruiting skilled immigrants (including students, refugees and asylum seekers) who have lived in the United States with temporary visas for a minimum of two years, offering them the chance to become U.S. citizens in as little as six months.
According to the New York Times, back in February:
Military officials want to attract immigrants who have native knowledge of languages and cultures that the Pentagon considers strategically vital. The program will also be open to students and refugees.
The Army’s one-year pilot program will begin in New York City to recruit about 550 temporary immigrants who speak one or more of 35 languages, including Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Igbo (a tongue spoken in Nigeria), Kurdish, Nepalese, Pashto, Russian and Tamil. Spanish speakers are not eligible. The Army’s program will also include about 300 medical professionals to be recruited nationwide.
The program will begin small – limited to 1,000 enlistees nationwide in its first year, most for the Army and some for other branches. If the pilot program succeeds as Pentagon officials anticipate, it will expand for all branches of the military. For the Army, it could eventually provide as many as 14,000 volunteers a year, or about one in six recruits.
The pilot program is now in full swing.
Last week, the Los Angeles Times provided an update:
Since the pilot program began in New York, expanding to Los Angeles in May, the foreign recruits have included 34 healthcare professionals and 385 people who speak languages such as Arabic, Polish and Swahili.
More than 200 slots remain for recruits with language skills in the Army’s pilot program, as well as more than 260 for healthcare professionals.
On Aug. 31, Army recruiters in Atlanta, Chicago and Dallas also began taking applications from qualified foreigners proficient in any of 35 languages. (Spanish is not on the list.)
By expanding the pilot program, the Army hopes to reach more people with languages spoken in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other countries. Only 14 of those enlisted so far speak Arabic and one speaks Dari, one of Afghanistan’s two official languages. None of them have tested in Afghanistan’s other official language, Pashtu, according to Naomi Verdugo, the Army’s Pentagon-based assistant deputy for recruiting.
Finally, the pilot program will run until Dec. 31 or until all 1,000 slots are filled. But Army recruiters say they hope it will be extended.
Just as some have concerns about gays serving in the military, this program also has “raised concerns among some veterans groups and advocates for tighter immigration controls, who worry that the policy shift could pave the way for large numbers of foreigners, including ones who may not have entered the country legally, to join the armed forces,” according to the LA Times.
Even though I had to serve three years before obtaining my citizenship, I have no problem with these young people taking an accelerated path to U.S. citizenship. I just hope that the U.S. military and the U.S. government will be at least as “selective” and thorough in the background checks for this program, for national security reasons, as they are in their efforts to “weed-out” American gay linguists and in enforcing “don’t ask, don’t tell”—for whatever reasons.
Note: There are other special provisions under which members of the U.S. Armed Forces who are interested in becoming a U.S. citizen may be eligible to apply for citizenship under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
To review these please go to usmilitary.about.com
12 Responses to “U.S. Military Firing and Hiring: Neither Rhyme nor Reason?”
“First, a personal story intended as full disclosure for the second part of this post.
I immigrated to the United States at the age of 17 from the Netherlands.
Immediately upon reaching my 18th birthday, I enlisted in the U.S. Air Force.
In those days, the 50s, a legal immigrant could join the U.S. armed forces upon signing a “declaration of intent” to become a U.S. citizen.
Serving in the U.S. armed forces also expedited one’s path to citizenship to three years of military service instead of five years of residence. I took advantage of that great opportunity and I am still enjoying the blessings.
Hold on to these thoughts.”
so poignant
thanks dorian
dr.e
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV. TMV said: U.S. Military Firing and Hiring: Neither Rhyme nor Reason?: First, a personal story intended as full disclosur.. http://bit.ly/3jX4Bm [...]
Muchas gracias, dr. e. It's really appreciated
Dorian
Two points no one discusses:
1. Is the military kicking out EOD personnel or linguist at a higher rate than kicking out medics or personnel clerks? Or did the militant homosexual activist just jump on the issue.
2. Are those with valuable training such as farsi, urdu, or arabic speakers using claims of homosexuality to get out and take jobs with DoD/CIA contractors where they will be paid much higher and not subject to military discipline? Having language skills, intelligence background, and a TS clearance is incredibility valuable. Are they claiming to be homosexual just to get out like several physicians have claimed to be conscientious objectors just as they finish their residency?
If we are going to need five hundred thousand troops to secure Afghanistan and the President decides to do such a thing, then we will need a draft.
With a draft the need to fill the ranks is practically eliminated. Lowering standards that would then Allow Gays, foreign passport holders, ect., becomes irrelevant and by and large unnecessary.
The number of linguists fired who fall in the latter two categories is staggering.
I would like to see some real numbers from credible sources on this. The link here just goes to another blog post.
DG:
“That blog post” provides sources for the figures. But, first chance, will try to retireve them for you
Thanks
Dorian
“With respect to such numbers, Frank says that it took a Freedom of Information Act request and pressure from members of Congress to release the incomplete figures of 73 discharges of language specialists from the Defense Language Institute between 1998 and 2004. Of these, 17 were Arabic speakers, 11 spoke Russian, 18 studied Korean, 6 were training in Persian-Farsi, and the rest studied other languages.
And, in February, 2005, a GAO report was released that included figures dating back to 1994 and which showed that “757 troops with ‘critical occupations’ were fired under the policy. These included voice interceptors, interrogators, translators, Explosive Ordinance Disposal Specialists, signal intelligence analysts, and missile and crypto logic technicians. Three hundred twenty-two fired service members had skills in what the military deems ‘an important foreign language.’”
Thanks DE, so it looks like from 1998-2004 we lost about 3 Arabic speakers per year from this policy. To gauge how significant that is we would have to know the total number of Arabic speakers and how many graduate per year. The NYT article touches on that but is kind of vague. They say that in 2002 only 6 people graduated from US universities with a degree in Arabic, but they don't say how many DLI graduates there were.
I am fine with gays in the military by the way, I just question why the Arabic linguist problem is always framed as a gay issue when from a common sense standpoint it shouldn't be. The NYT article implies it's because DLI is 2 hours from San Francisco, but I don't buy that.
DG:
For some reason you have focused on the Arabic linguists, which is fine.
However there were 73 linguists discharged from DLI alone, and according to the GAO report
“757 troops with ‘critical occupations’ were fired under the policy. These included voice interceptors, interrogators, translators, Explosive Ordinance Disposal Specialists, signal intelligence analysts, and missile and crypto logic technicians.”
322 fired service members had skills in what the military deems ‘an important foreign language.
You and I can both do the math as to how much these losses translate into taxpayers' dollars.
“I just question why the Arabic linguist problem is always framed as a gay issue”
Sorry that my posts and all the other articles cited did not make it clear that the issue is not just about Arabic linguists, not just about linguists in general, not just about all othe “critical skills” involved, but about two policies that in the eye of some people are questionable/. Others find them perfectly acceptable.
That's what is called democracy and freedom of speech/opinion..
Thanks for yours.
Sorry DE I focused on the Arabic linguists since they've been the most discussed in the setting of the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. No offense was meant.
No problem DG, and sorry, too, for sounding combative
Dorian