« The Separation of Church and Hate | Main | Parliament Funkadelic »
July 30, 2006
A Stupid Way to Lose 11,000 Soldiers
I'd heard before that some Arabic language specialists were being fired from the military for being gay. What had somehow slipped my attention was that we had lost 55 of them this way. In fact, the gay ban has been quite destructive to our military: "Since 1993, more than 11,000 service members have been dismissed under the gay ban, according to the Department of Defense." This isn't just a nondiscrimination issue -- it's a national security issue. I'm happy to see that John Edwards has pitched it that way: "As the recent discharge of Arabic language specialists demonstrates, the current policy does not serve our national interests and should be changed."
Fortunately, American voters have come around on this issue. According to the most recent Pew Poll, Americans support allowing gays to serve openly in the military by a 60-32 margin.
July 30, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
I never did understand the philosophy that homosexuals should be exempted from serving their country in harm's way : perhaps some kind right-winger trolling the site can help me with that.
Posted by: opit | Jul 30, 2006 8:04:51 PM
Oh, the argument is all about "unit cohesion" and the danger of introducing sex into the military situation. Problem is all of the same things were said about integrated units before Truman desegregated the armed forces. The integration of the army is actually one of the great (and ignored) sucess stories of the civil rights era. I'm sure that gay soldiers would also mesh just fine into military life.
Posted by: Gabe | Jul 30, 2006 8:20:53 PM
There's also the fear that singing and dancing could erupt.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | Jul 30, 2006 9:01:44 PM
Well we do know that since women were introduced into mixed gender units in the Navy, that sex has been rampant, leading to something like a 40% unplanned pregnancy rate in the female soldiers.
I guess in some ways gay males in the military would be better than females, because at least that way you dont have to worry about pregnancy, which is a major disruption to military logistics and command/control operations.
Posted by: joe blow | Jul 30, 2006 9:03:09 PM
In the short term I think having openly gay males in the militray would be a disaster. There will be tons of scandals about gungho heteros leaving gay men to die on the battlefield cause they are "fags" and other homophobic idiocy. I guarantee you thats going to be a major problem if we move to a "open sexual orientation" policy.
In the long term though, it could be a good thing, just as racial integration was problematic in the short term (due to white soldiers being openly hostile against their black comrades) but extremely beneficial for both the military and society at large in the long term.
Posted by: joe blow | Jul 30, 2006 9:05:44 PM
Also, let's not forget that large parts of the rest of the world are also allowing gays intot he military at this point.
The conservative, if you want to call them that, argument was indeed issues like unit cohesion. But, I would argue that Andrew Sullivan, for a change, gets it right- all these issues from gays in the military to gay marriage, are at base, about one thing, and one thing only: denying the existence of gays in any other context other than as sinners. If you start to think of gays as military men and women who go out there to defend the country, then what other flood gates may open? If you think of gay people as not immoral degenerates who are not less than common criminals (remember at the same time this is occuring they are letting in people with criminal records right now because they are so desperate for warm bodies) then how can you make the other blank statements about them? Indeed, this has been the game with every minority in this country. Once you keep them out, as long as you can, then it's easier to make stupid racists, homophobic or whatever arguments against them. Once you start seeing real world images other than that, it becomes harder and harder to make that claim (well, unless you are mel gibson, then you are impervious to reality, but really we aren't trying to convince that 20 percent of the population- rather we are trying to convince 50 plus 1). It seems on this issue we already have the numbers and it just requires someone to have the courage to say this allowed who is in power. Although given the current crop of chicken shit leaders out there- good luck with this one.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 30, 2006 9:07:45 PM
joe
that's not the way the military works. the reason why those arguments about treatment is bullshit is because the military is, first, and foremost, a top down enterprise. soldiers 99.9 percent fo the time do what they are told. it was that way with blacks, it was that way with women, it would be that way with gays. don't buy into the bullshit propaganda put out by the political right.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 30, 2006 10:26:50 PM
David Rees's take, for those who haven't already seen it.
Posted by: no name | Jul 30, 2006 10:32:00 PM
David Rees's take, this time with a link that works (I hope).
Posted by: no name | Jul 30, 2006 10:34:04 PM
I'm surprised I don't remember hearing more about that poll when it came out. On gay rights issues, it's a slew of good news. Everyone acts like gay marriage is the giant boogey-man Democrats must sell their soul to deflect because the super-majority hates it... but only 51% of Americans oppose gay marriage? Ha, well I guess when you're a Republican 51% is a super-majority.
Pretty bad news on the abortion opinions though.
Posted by: Tony V | Jul 30, 2006 11:44:45 PM
According to the most recent Pew Poll, Americans support allowing gays to serve openly in the military by a 60-32 margin.
Sure, now that it's really dangerous.
Posted by: DonBoy | Jul 31, 2006 12:23:28 AM
I wonder how much of that 55,000 was truly gay expulsion. I have to wonder how many people just claimed to be gay to get an early release because they won the lottery or something. (kidding about the lottery, not kidding about thinking lots of people might fake it to get out of their service agreement.)
Posted by: Chuck | Jul 31, 2006 9:32:41 AM
chuck
most of the cases were under the 'don't ask' part of the policy at least as I remember according to the servicemen defense fund
Posted by: akaison | Jul 31, 2006 10:35:10 AM
If you think it's difficult to recruit now, just start allowing homosexuals to serve and see what happens.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jul 31, 2006 11:27:48 AM
If you think it's difficult to recruit now, just start allowing homosexuals to serve and see what happens.
I'd be less surprised than usual if you're right about this. I watched "Boondock Saints" with a friend of mine. This friend was in ROTC at the time — we've since graduated, and now he's on a naval base somewhere — and he was very shocked and disgusted by the scenes of Willem Defoe in drag, far more so than the at least semi-sympathetic treatment given to mass-murderers.
Once again though, Fred, you're making an assertion but not bothering to back it up by facts. Neil's post referred to a poll of a number of attitudes on political/sexual issues. Americans supported gays in the military by a 60-32 margin. In the 18-29 age group, that margin widened to 72-23. So have you found flaws in the methodology of that Pew Poll? Do you have some reason for believing that the above 23 percent would make up a significant portion of people who would otherwise enlist, but would change their minds based on this factor alone? Or are you just talking out your ass?
Posted by: Cyrus | Jul 31, 2006 11:59:09 AM
and- again it needs to be emphasized that peo attitudes are irrelevant to whether the military would be effective with gays in it just as it was irrelevant when blacks integrated (b/c then the majority was against it and were similarly apalled- it assumes that the military is a static when in fact do to its top down approach it can not be)
Posted by: akaison | Jul 31, 2006 1:24:15 PM
Or are you just talking out your ass?
Generally the safe pick when it comes to the Fredster.
Posted by: Thlayli | Jul 31, 2006 4:35:09 PM
Americans supported gays in the military by a 60-32 margin.
Yeah, I'm for homosexuals in the Merchant Marines. However, I don't have a chance of actually serving with any of them so it's easy to answer some dweeb's questrionairre....just as those polled don't serve in the military.
Tell me again how this is a postive for the military mindset and they will surely all want to re-enlist...
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jul 31, 2006 10:34:25 PM
The great thing about this blog is the tremendous satisfaction that comes from knowing that no matter how you slice it, on almost all issues, I am getting my way and it is *you*, the frustrated leftist, that doesn't get to ram your minority agenda down the throats of the voting public.
heheheh.....I'm lovin' it®
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jul 31, 2006 10:43:26 PM
I'd rather be a frustrated leftist than a homophobic righist.
Posted by: Adrock | Aug 1, 2006 11:37:51 AM
Yeah, I'm for homosexuals in the Merchant Marines. However, I don't have a chance of actually serving with any of them so it's easy to answer some dweeb's questrionairre....just as those polled don't serve in the military.
Tell me again how this is a postive for the military mindset and they will surely all want to re-enlist...
Good answer. In fact, it would make a good template for you:
"Ambiguous statement that seems to contradict my previous positions. Typographically-challenged ad hominem....followed by assertion I don't bother to support.
Unanswerable question that moves the goalposts while ignoring questions I have been asked that don't..."
The great thing about this blog is the tremendous satisfaction that comes from knowing that no matter how you slice it, on almost all issues, I am getting my way and it is *you*, the frustrated leftist, that doesn't get to ram your minority agenda down the throats of the voting public.
heheheh.....I'm lovin' it®
Fellow frustrated leftists, I'm at a loss: would you describe Fred's attitude as the Golden Rule — "whoever has the gold makes the rules"? Or is it more fair to summarize the position Fred often falls back on as "It's my ball, I'm going home!" Truly, we have among us a dizzying intellect worthy of the institution that inspires him: McDonalds. Did the Hamburgler tell you the APA was radically changed by a "tactical takeover by activists"?
Fred, most people here are polite to tigerhawk, for example, when he shows up here. Ask yourself why the same isn't true of you.
Posted by: Cyrus | Aug 1, 2006 11:57:27 AM
Ask yourself why the same isn't true of you.
Mmmmmm....because I don't agree with much of what you believe. I then become the enemy just as joe blow and Captain Toke did. Yeah, opit and a few of the others lauded me for that post on the APA. Go and check it.
Yes, it's all about the echo and I don't echo, sorry.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Aug 1, 2006 2:37:01 PM
Your idea of a response:
because I don't agree with much of what you believe. I then become the enemy just as joe blow and Captain Toke did.
Apparently not noticing the sentence before the one you quoted, where I gave an example of at least one conservative who earns and is given more respect than you. (Which is, admittedly, not saying much.)
But on the other hand, your definition of "lauding":
Ordinarily, I don't think much of feeding the trolls.
This time around, I'd like to thank Fred for a much more thoughtful and courageous position.
I still think he lost and his positions suck but at least it was a repectable try.
So maybe I should just feel sorry for you. (To be fair myself, Stephen had nicer things than that to say about you. So, yes, people did salute your courage for "answering a difficult question honestly". I just thought it was funny that you cited opit instead of him, though, because it's either a very cursory reading of the above thread, or scraping the bottom of the barrel.)
Posted by: Cyrus | Aug 1, 2006 3:15:06 PM
So maybe I should just feel sorry for you.
Har-de-har-har!!!
Is that really the best you can do?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Aug 1, 2006 8:26:24 PM
lose wieght lose wieght
Posted by: lose wieght | Aug 6, 2006 4:44:18 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
