No.

12% U.S. support for this war equals 36+ million American neocons who are for this insanity.Where are they?Why don't 5% enlist?
Every one of them is a chicken shit coward.

Steve Benen >"...shouldn't the Defense Department at least consider letting capable, qualified gay volunteers wear the uniform?"

Yes, but you are looking for consistency & logic where there has never been any found.

I am a veteran & non-gay human for those that are concerned about such details.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Correct me if I'm wrong Steve, but I thought the prohibition on gays in the military was written into law (e.g., can't be reversed by the President w/o help from the Congress)?

The people who set up & run the anti-gay policies in the US Military are the very people who are now in power. They built their power on these policies. These policies are more important than the war in Iraq, more important than the war on terror because these policies are the underpinnings of their personal power. Yes, it sounds ridiculous, but if you haven't yet read Randy Shilts' Conduct Unbecoming you've avoided reading a splendid preview of the Bush administration -- idiocy, incompetence, nonsense, cruelty, and an overweening sense of righteousness.

I read this as well, Steve. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that the second largest army in Iraq is not the British. It is mercenaries. The "coalition of the willing" are mainly hired killers. In fact, many of the atrocities perpetrated at Abu Ghraib and Bagram AFB in Afghanistan were done by mercenaries. Know what happens when a U.S. soldier commits a war crime? They get court-martialed. Know what happens to a mercenary? They get sent home - no prosecution. Nothing. Robert Greenwald has put together an excellent documentary about this called "Iraq for Sale". If you go to Google and click Videos and then type in "Iraq for Sale", you can watch the whole thing on-line. Very informative.

Foreign citizens serving in the US military is a highly charged issue, which could expose the Pentagon to criticism that it is essentially using mercenaries to defend the country.

Close, but not quite. It could expose the Pentagon to criticism that it is essentially paying citizens of one country to invade and occupy another country.

"Defending the country" has damned little to do with it.

"My grandfather immigrated to the U.S. and became a citizen by virtue of serving in World War I."

And changed his name from Lenin?

/Kidding.

Correct me if I'm wrong Steve, but I thought the prohibition on gays in the military was written into law (e.g., can't be reversed by the President w/o help from the Congress)?

That's a fair point, ugh. But if the Pentagon and the White House decided tomorrow that the current crisis necessitated a lift on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, it stands to reason that lawmakers would give the military what it wanted, particularly as it relates to military preparedness.

The armed forces, already struggling to meet recruiting goals, are considering expanding the number of noncitizens in the ranks

There's something very Roman Empire-ish about all this...

So what if the Mexican who crossed the Rio to join the Marines is subsequently found to be gay? God - these are idiotic times when we worry about one's stateside personal life rather than field the best army we can in that idiotic war. Then again - we have an idiotic President. Just shoot me.

I agree with Albert.

We need a DRAFT - and we need to start with the membership roster of the Young Republicans.

e. nonee moose beat me to it! There is, indeed, something VERY Roman Empire-ish about this. There is also something profoundly un-American about it. Our nation was forged in a fire that included mercenaries hired from Germany by the Brits ... and for most of our nation's history, "mercenary" was a dirty word because of it. The nation's founders knew too well the casual cruelty and disregard of consequences of those engaged in the fight ONLY because someone was paying them.

There was always an exception for those who immigrated to the U.S. and then joined our services (for whatever reason, including accelerated citizenship) ... but to actually go around the world, fishing for enlistees? That's hideous.

I'll third that. I'm late, but had I rang in first I would have ranted about the Roman Empire.

That's a great idea.

I think we should start in Iraq. 5 years honorable service in the US marines and we give an Iraqi and their family a one way ticket to small town America, veteran's benefits, and preferences in hiring/loans. They'll be lining up to get out of that hell hole. If we had started 3 and a half years ago they might have believed our rhetoric.

I always thought a contingent of well-armed man-hating lesbians would be useful in the Marines.

I always thought a contingent of well-armed man-hating lesbians would be useful in the Marines.
Posted by: toast on December 26, 2006 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

The most legendary combat-effective soldiers in human history were the Spartans. Who had a don't-ask-don't-tell policy about straights.

At least the Roman/Byzantine empire lasted one and a half millenia. The empire of the military and diplomatic genius, "Bush The Decider", is falling apart after 3 years.

It's the 230th anniversary of the Battle of Trenton.

Someday a foreign born colonel or general serving in our armed forces will lead a military coup and become our first dictator.

Brojo - they will avoid that by keeping them out of the officer corps. Just like the Romans...

But if the Pentagon and the White House decided tomorrow that the current crisis necessitated a lift on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, it stands to reason that lawmakers would give the military what it wanted, particularly as it relates to military preparedness.

I won't disagree with that, at least as it relates to the new Congress that takes over in January, but I wouldn't have been surprised if it couldn't get through the old Congress.

But I can't help but wonder, if armed forces' recruiting is struggling to the point in which noncitizens would be welcome, shouldn't the Defense Department at least consider letting capable, qualified gay volunteers wear the uniform?

I think you missed what the news was in this article. Non-citizens are already welcome to serve. What is new is that the Pentagon is considering expanding the number of non-citizens, allowing illegal aliens to serve, and they're even establishing recruiting stations overseas.

Sorry... I meant to say they're considering establishing recruiting stations oversears.

Sir,

You shouldn't forget all the non-citizens who fought for the Union in the Civil War.
Apart from that, think of the potential for future movies if America had its own Foreign Legion.
A trest beau geste indeed.

joey

How long before we have a Praetorian Guard?

Actually, this has been suggested for some time.

One of the big problems in Iraq is that front-line US forces don't make for good police; their equipment is designed to make big holes in other armies, not to knock politely. By and large, we don't really have a constabulary force. So when we have to occupy something, the front-line forces get tied up, pissed off, piss off the locals, et cetera, et cetera, and incidentally are unable to go make holes in other people's armies.

Recruiting military units specifically to be second-line occupation units is tough, though. By definition, you're giving the occupation groups less high-tech equipment, less firepower, less armor. Who wants to be in the second-class army? Who'd want to LEAD it? You're not going to get promoted from it to the general army staff - good luck leading combat troops with garrison officers.

A US foreign legion would plug in here nicely. We'd capture some of the illegal immigration, plus arguably some of the legal stuff. US citizenship (for them and their families) is an excellent incentive. Pay 'em well, train 'em hard, give them the tools they need to do the job - which is not making big holes in enemy armies, but to keep the peace in the wake of the front-line army.

With modern military structures, a coup attempt would be futile - you're not going to stage a coup with light mechanized infantry and no armor.

It -is- an imperial solution, naturally; a powerful army composed of the nation's citizens to dominate the battlefield, and other, less powerful units maintained by the client states in order to preserve peace there. We, however, are wealthy enough to foot the bill (especially since the places these guys would be deployed to would be in lieu of front-line troops, which are expensive to keep in the field.)

How powerful can you make them? Good question. Ideally they're strong enough to give anyone a pause at taking them on, but not strong enough that they could shrug off our own armored forces. That's actually a pretty big window in the modern world. Furthermore, the US would have to back them, so if a foreign government decided to roll over a battalion of these guys, they'd be facing the whole panoply of US power later - tanks, carrier groups, Tomahawks, all that stuff.

To answer Kevin's point, we could easily afford to admit gays to the military these days, but that wouldn't obviate the need for additional personnel.

As a veteran who is gay, I can tell you there are many gays actively serving now. Many of them are known by others in their units to be gay. Most active-duty "straights" know the policy isn't really fair or enforceable (except arbitrarily and irrationally), but it's accepted for what it is: a political sop to Christianists both in and out of the military.

It may take a decade or two, but the policy will ultimately wither away because it is increasingly at variance with common sense and simple fairness. Right now, gays serve as scapegoats for modernism. But just how "modern" will disco queens be in 20 years?

We have one. It's called the Pentagon.

Ah, Kevin.

Calm down. We've got gays in the militry now.

Looks like we don't have a lot of military experts in here right now. No surprise. Any military expert would tell you gays can cause problems from a strictly pragmatic standpoint. Ultimately this drives military costs higher because the special needs of the gays need to be met. Strict cost benefit analysis tells you that your better off keeping the gays out -- sorry Randy.

Now if they want to work in the civil service, supporting our military, I think that's especially fine work for them. But say that in public and the PC police would nail you to the wall.

One would think that there would be some among the idiot right who would think of a gay soldier dying for his/her country as a win/win situation.

"...could expose the Pentagon to criticism that it is essentially using mercenaries..."

Considering that the US is already employing thousands of mercenaries in Iraq why would anyone worry about this?

the special needs of the gays need to be met.

Yeah, all that designer cammo, hair gel, and brie.

Jeeze eggy, you are a hemroid on the ass of mankind.

The Romans found this really worked well when they started staffing the Legions and the Praetorian Guard with Germans and other tribesmen with no understanding of how Roman society (even under the emperor) was supposed to work, and whose loyalty was to whichever general commanded them - this made things much easier when coup time arrived upon the death of an emperor.

Where's ex-lib to tell us that recruiting goals are being met and everything's hunky-dory?

Looks like we don't have a lot of military experts in here right now. No surprise. Any military expert would tell you gays can cause problems from a strictly pragmatic standpoint. Ultimately this drives military costs higher because the special needs of the gays need to be met. Strict cost benefit analysis tells you that your better off keeping the gays out

And are you styling yourself a military "expert" egbert? Please explain to me, a veteran, what these extra costs are that gays incur for the military? I'll be interested to see if they're extra costs intrinsic to gays, or to pandering to homophobes.

Oh, and while you're at it, try not to use any of the same arguements that were used for keeping blacks and whites out of the same combat units ever so many years ago. That is unless you're a racsist.

Any military expert would tell you gays can cause problems from a strictly pragmatic standpoint...Strict cost benefit analysis tells you that your better off keeping the gays out

Hmmm...the Israelis and IIRC the British (among others) don't seem to agree with this cost benefit analysis.

I think we should man our "surge" with native sepoy units - Iraqi recruits with American officers and senior NCO's. Just like the British empire. The quality of the units was quite good, after training, and there should be no trouble with discipline as long as you don't use pork or beef lard on their cartridges.

Then we can give Chimp the supplementary title "Emperor of Mesopotamia".

cyntax -

since you don't seem to have much of an imagination, let me help:

- Separate barracks
- Additional restroom and shower area
- Counseling services beefed up
- other

I don't want to get much more descriptive or I'll get pummelled by the PC nazis.

egbert,

why are any of those things needed?

I promise I won't let anybody pummel you egy, go ahead, enlight us.

Now you're just being obtuse.

why are any of those things needed?

Indeed. Do the militaries of other nations need these things for their gay & lesbian soldiers? If not, why not? If so, please provide citations.

Let's put it this way. Don't you see severe problems arising from gays and non gays showering together over extended time horizons? Hearts will be broken, as well as jaws. Morale will plummet.

Obtuse? I thought I was being acute.

No really egert, I don't get it. I served in combat unit and I can assure that there wouldn't be gays having sex in the showers.

So like I said upthread, try and come up some arguements that weren't used for segregation back in WWII. Seperate barracks being one that used to be argued about blacks and whites. Apparently desegregation didn't destroy our military, so pleases explain why this will. That is if you're the military expert you claim this thread is missing.

Morale will plummet.

Same was said about keeping the military racially segregated: balcks and whites won't get along.

Don't you see severe problems arising from gays and non gays showering together over extended time horizons? Hearts will be broken, as well as jaws. Morale will plummet.

Do you have any evidence to support this based on the experience of other nation's who allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in their military?

given that this is the third time I've asked about other militaries, I'm guessing you don't. And that must be because you are making this all up.

walt,
Thanks for serving especially given the adversity you probably faced.

egbert: We've got gays in the militry now.

Yep.

Any military expert would tell you gays can cause problems from a strictly pragmatic standpoint.

Care to offer evidence on what problems gays can cause? Seems to me, it's homophobia that's the problem.

Ultimately this drives military costs higher because the special needs of the gays need to be met. Strict cost benefit analysis tells you that your better off keeping the gays out...

But you said we've already got gays in the military so WTF?! How come our allies like Israel allow gays to serve? How do they do it when the mightiest military in the world can't?

If you had clicked the Carpetbagger link in Steve Benen's post, you would have learned that "the military discharged 20 Arabic and six Farsi language speakers under the “don’t ask, don’t tell� policy." That's nutso. The military needs linguists. Who cares if they're gay, straight, or whatever?

Did some Googling. Zogby offers a new study of Iraq and Afghanistan soldiers and support troops about gays in the military:

...nearly three in four troops (73%) say they are personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians. Of the 20% who said they are uncomfortable around gays and lesbians, only 5% are "very" uncomfortable, while 15% are "somewhat" uncomfortable. Just two percent of troops said knowing that gays are not allowed to serve openly was an important reason in their decision to join the military.

Some troops believe the integration of openly gay and lesbian service members in the military could undermine cohesion, but those who know at least one gay peer are less likely to believe it would negatively impact morale. Of those who know a gay or lesbian peer, 27% said it has a negative impact on the morale of their unit. By contrast, among those who do not know of a gay or lesbian person in their unit, or are unsure of their presence, 58% said it would have a negative impact on their unit.

Prominent supporters of "don't ask, don't tell" have expressed concerns about privacy in the shower, Dr. Belkin said, but nearly three out of four troops said in the Zogby poll that they usually or almost always take showers privately – only 8% say they usually or almost always take showers in group stalls.

For the complete Zogby report [PDF link]

nation's

Apologies to the grammer police. I changed the sentence midstream and neglected to go back and clean it up and remove the apostrophe. D'oh!

Allowing resident aliens to serve in the military and thereby become citizens is one thing, but opening recruiting centers overseas is beyond the pale. It's a bad, bad idea, and also a band-aid for the fact that most Americans simply will not join the military and will not fight. (Not entirely a bad thing considering we are led by lunatics). The Pentagon and the nation as a whole need to face that fact and adjust policy accordingly.

given that this is the third time I've asked about other militaries, I'm guessing you don't. And that must be because you are making this all up.
Posted by: Edo

Well, he may not be making it all up; he might just be projecting his own anxieties about being in close quarters with gays onto others. They used to say there are not atheists in fox-holes, if one were to update that saying for the 21st century, it would be that there are no bigots in foxholes. All you care about in combat is that the preson next you has their shit wired tight. Whether that person is balck, white, gay, or whatever only matters to a few people and even then, it only matters when there's no shooting going on.

Given out recruiting problems, now would be a good time to revisit some of the military's policies around gays in the service.

Eg - Implicit in your assertions is the apparent idea that gays naturally 1) have desires to have sexual relations with those who are not gay; 2) have no ability to forestall any inkling to engage in inappropriate relations with others who are gay; 3) have no ability to put the good of the unit (and the safety of their brothers) ahead of any feelings an individual soldier might have.

Your notions in this regard are wrong. Yes there will be issues, but no studies that I am aware of indicate that these issues can’t be dealt with in a way that leaves the military better off than it is now.

Steve acts as if Lou Dobbs were prejudiced against Mexicans but Lou's never been that because immigrants who fight in wars become LEGAL residence rather than illegal, PLUS for long time immigrants have been able to seek citizenship though fighting in American wars, so there is nothing new there.

This is alot to do about nothing.

cyntax,

Well, he may not be making it all up; he might just be projecting his own anxieties about being in close quarters with gays onto others.

I think it's really the same thing: he uses his projections to justify making stuff up. If (s)he comes back with a reasonable citation, I'll be shocked. Thanks for providing a combat-experienced perspective.

"Overseas Recruiting Stations"

Operation Yellow Elephant has been a failure, so CNN informs me that we're going to start recruiting foreigners into our military.

And, yes, plenty of foreigners already serve but they're currently legal US residents.

-Atrios 4:20 PM

Well you just can’t have a surge without enough willing surgees (or imbecile stooges, whatever,) and because Atrios doesn't mention how Bush might NOT have enough troops for his "last big push" so what is preznut to do?

Bush has gone home to the Ranch to "think" if indeed Bush ever really does that (think).

Bush goes home to rethink Iraq
US President George Bush went to his Texan ranch today to rethink his strategy in Iraq as the US death toll in the country passed that of the September 11 ...

Surely it is so much easier to just walk across the border to get in the US. why risk life and limb?

If only Bush could just round them up and transport them all to Iraq. I mean, Bush's got secret prisons so why not secret illegal alien kidnappings into Bush "foreign legion"? I can just see this black van pulling up beside an illegal alien, "you want a job, I got a job for you, just put on these military garments." That should fix the illegal immigrantion problem.

Thanks for providing a combat-experienced perspective.
Posted by: Edo

Anytime, it's just so damn funny hearing egbert go on about military expertise.

Thanks to you and the others for not letting his crap slide.

Ah, Kevin.

learn how to read.

How about rape?

So let me get this straight.

You libs are for open borders with the illegals coming in for free health care, education, welfare, etc. but they can't get on a fast track to fight in the military?

You people really are shallow and as transparently hypocritical as can be.

u libs are for open borders with the illegals coming in for free health care, education, welfare, etc. but they can't get on a fast track to fight in the military?

huh. another illiterate conservative. i sense a trend.

from the parent article:

If the Pentagon wants to consider a program that would accelerate citizenship for legal residents who volunteer for the military, it sounds good to me.

sounds good to me too.

Defending America: Another job Americans just won't do.

Damn I hate working late, I always miss the fun threads. Good job shutting eggy down, I only wish I'd been here in time to help.

I served with several gay [and lesbian] soldiers during my enlistment & I just have to say- there are gays in the military and the only 'special accomidation' they really need is a box to check on their entry paperwork.

Imagine the cost of replacing all those forms....oh, the horror.

Defending America: Another job Americans just won't do.

Isn't about time to change your name to "TangoMan" and start saying all the things you won't say under your own name, Steve?

"My grandfather immigrated to the U.S. and became a citizen by virtue of serving in World War I."

Yes, but he came here and *then* served in the US military.

Isn't overseas recruitment just one step short of an imperial army?

Aren't we already renting out third world armies on the cheap in Iraq? How is *that* not the stuff of empire?

Hmm. You know I think we already have some recruiting overseas...

I recall reading something about it years ago. Hmm on the army webpage the overseas recruiters they list seem to be where major us bases are, so perhaps they are more for dependents of us military than for foreign people.

The military is big enough to defend the Republic. The military is not big enough to both defend the Republic and fight wars in which no vital national interest is at stake. We should withdraw from Iraq, refuse to involve ourselves in Darfur, and let continental Europe fend for itself. When we realize that the duty of those who serve and die for our country is to defend America, and not to fight perpetual war for the sake of some global democratic utopia that has never existed, we will be surprised at how big and capable our military is, and the debates over whether to let illegal immigrants serve will disappear.

And if we do not realize this vital truth, we will, even though we are not an empire, head down the same path of many empires in history, hiring foreign mercenaries to unnecessary wars.

But I can't help but wonder, if armed forces' recruiting is struggling to the point in which noncitizens would be welcome, shouldn't the Defense Department at least consider letting capable, qualified gay volunteers wear the uniform?

This has nothing to do with gays. If the country's military misadventures are so unpopular that we need to outsource the job to non-citizens, it means we ought to get our troops home and stop invading countries where we have no business being.

I think egbert gave a guy a bj in the shower in boot camp and got kicked out. That's why he wanted his own shower, he just can't help himself. fucking idiot.

or maybe he tried to rape someone and got the shit kicked out of him. kicked in the head would explain alot.

And by all means let us give the contract for recruiting, training, and equipping these mercenaries to Dyncorp or Halliburton.

When all is said and done, what remains is the inescapable fact that the Republicans have lost this war for us.

With regard to the impact of gays on unit morale, the issue is not the fear that straights will be hit on by gays, or even that straights will target gays for abuse (though some will).

The real fear about the impact of openly gay service members is the same one that exists in units of mixed gender - that is, the fear of favoritism, jeolousy, and their effects on unit esprit de corps. Favoritism destoys esprit de corps when it begins to effect duty assignments, chances for advancement, access to advanced training, and any number of other necessary military functions.

egbert's comments about separate barracks, showers, etc., are pertinent, but not for the reason he might suppose. Those methods are precisely the methods used to reduce interaction between genders, not only because of social custom, but also to reduce the likelihood that soldiers of opposite gender do not become romantically involved. However, even with these methods and strong regulations against improper relations between the sexes, improper gender relationships are the perennially most common charge in courts-martial in all the Services and have been since the integration of women in non-combat units. That's the real reason why women are kept out of direct combat units.

No one wants to build separate barracks for gays and it would be nearly impossible to keep gays out of combat units. So the military leadership wants to avoid the entire mess by entirely prohibiting openly gay military members.

pardon, that phrase should read: "but also to reduce the likelihood that soldiers of opposite gender 'will' become romantically involved."

Moose called it right, this is very Roman Empire-ish, and it's happening for the same reasons. The citizens of Rome would not join the military. To maintain an army large enough to be useful, foreigners were brought into the ranks. Bonuses were offered, including--expedited citizenship.

This is the heart of the matter. Americans are not joining the Army or Marines. The reason is that people of age to serve do not believe the nation is in danger.

If we did, there would be no need for inflated enlistment bonsues, the raising of the age limit or these other desperate measures we see, like enlisting foreign nationals.

After a while, the mecenaries decided they didn't need the Romans. And took over.

"After a while, the mecenaries decided they didn't need the Romans. And took over."
______________________

Historically incorrect. The Roman army used foreign auxilaries for centuries, successfully assimilating them into the Roman nation. Though there were examples of foreign-born Roman rulers, they invariably considered themselves Roman. Rome was conquered by successive waves of barbarian hordes, not mercenaries.

Australia is the ONLY nation to have supported the US in ALL its' major conflicts of the 20th & 21st century.

Interestingly, Australia established a policy over 13 years ago giving gays & lesbians full rights within all branches of the military. This has recently been extended, under a VERY conservative government, to include full partner benefits for gays & lesbians - superannuation, veteran widower/widow pensions etc. These policy changes have been achieved without ANY major problems, no need for seperate showers, special accomodation, rape counselling etc. You'd be surprised, Egbert, how BRAVE most soldiers can be...

In fact, the significant ongoing sexual problem in Australian military schools & among serving forces is the tired old one of straight male soldiers sexually harassing female colleagues & subordinates. Significantly, the presence of gay & lesbian officers is now widely acknowledged to be among the most effective deterrents to this problem. Rather than causing a problem, gay & lesbian soldiers can provide a highly effective preventative/buffer role in widespread, ongoing gender-based conflict & abuse.

I seem to recall that the US has had a severe & ongoing problem with the hazing, abuse, rape & resignation of highly qualified female officers in all its' armed services, but particualrly the airforce. If the central problem identified by this thread is the shortage of talented recruits, gay & lesbian soldiers should be valued not only for the personal skills they bring to the US Armed Forces, but also for their potential role in securing & safeguarding the participation of highly skilled female recruits.

Losing a few homo-anxious enlistees like Egbert in the process seems a more-than-fair exchange...

Served on a Kaserne in Germany in the early 60s - One full eight inch SP Battalion, One Group Headquarters, one attached Signal Corps unit.

Could not have fielded a soccer team to play the locals during German-American week if we had not had so many non-citizens on the Kaserne and throughout Seventh Army and VII Corps Artillery.

And there were several gays on base the entire time I was there, some 33 months, Trashy. Only one was kicked out because a fink of a Chaplin decided that he was an officer first and a Chaplin second. The fellow had just been promoted to E-6, given a citation and was Soldier of the Month the previous month. Set the administration area of Group back a ton.

So, how long do you think it'll be before someone floats the idea of a new type of visa, along the lines of the H1B, to allow people to come here expressly for the purpose of joining the military?

thethirdPaul wrote:

And there were several gays on base the entire time I was there, some 33 months, Trashy. Only one was kicked out because a fink of a Chaplin decided that he was an officer first and a Chaplin second. The fellow had just been promoted to E-6, given a citation and was Soldier of the Month the previous month. Set the administration area of Group back a ton.
______________________

Yep, Paul, there are always gays in every large military unit and, provided nothing happens to draw official attention, most people (including commanders) couldn't care less. This is true, even in combat units. In 24 years of active service, I only had to fend of a homosexual (and very drunken) advance one time. That really isn't the problem, as I said.

However, I have seen more than one unit be torn apart by favoritism and jealousy caused by inappropriate heterosexual affairs. The Powers-That-Be reckon the same thing will happen once people can be openly gay within the units. It is that dynamic that they fear, rather than any inherent quality of "gayness."

Foreign citizens serving in the US military is a highly charged issue, which could expose the Pentagon to criticism that it is essentially using mercenaries to defend the country.

Well, they would be actual mercenaries, but the reason they would be "needed" is because the armed forces are being used for tasks at best unrelated to and at worst opposed to "defending the country".

Historically incorrect.

Perhaps, but at any rate less so than your "correction".

The Roman army used foreign auxilaries for centuries,

True enough so far...

successfully assimilating them into the Roman nation.

Er, no. Many of the attempts to assimilate foreign troops only occurred during the later Imperial period as the properly Roman forces became less militarily decisive and the auxiliaries became larger and more important, coming to dominate the military of the Empire, and as the military became increasingly important in deciding the succession of Emporers, and the attempts at assimilation through settlement on Roman lands and other means were an effort to secure the loyalty of the increasingly important foreign forces.

The failure of those attempts directly resulted in the overthrow of the Roman state by its own key foreign forces led by Odoacer in 476.

Though there were examples of foreign-born Roman rulers, they invariably considered themselves Roman. Rome was conquered by successive waves of barbarian hordes, not mercenaries.

This is both right and wrong: it is true Rome was ovethrown by waves of "barbarians" (simply, non-Romans), but the particular "barbarians" that overthrew the Western Roman Empire were those who made up its main military force. Much of the long-process leading up to that collapse of Rome was that "barbarians" were allowed to settle in more and more Roman lands, in exchange for providing the foreign troops on which the declining Empire increasing depended. Rome was finally overthrown by the foederati, the nominally allied foreign (="barbarian") forces that by the late imperial period, made up the bulk of the Roman military machine, and who had previously repulsed Attila the Hun on behalf of the Empire.

It was, precisely, brought down by its own foreign mercenaries, both in the immediate sense, and in the broader sense in which the long downfall was driven by the increasing dependency of the Empire on foreign troops.

We, the people, should be doing everything we can to discourage people from joining the military, not trying to encourage them to obey the authority of people like W. Bush or LBJ.

I suggest we revoke the citizenship of anyone who joins the military and ostracize and separate them from our society. Also, if someone belonged to a foreign military, they should be prevented from entering the country and never allowed to achieve citizenship.

Trashhauler,

However, I have seen more than one unit be torn apart by favoritism and jealousy caused by inappropriate heterosexual affairs. The Powers-That-Be reckon the same thing will happen once people can be openly gay within the units. It is that dynamic that they fear, rather than any inherent quality of "gayness."

What is different, then, about Israel and Australia? They seem to have integrated homosexuals without experiencing the negative "dynamic" to which you refer.

Futhermore, do you argue that the potential negative consequences of this dynamic outweigh the clear negative consequences of not having enough Arabic language specialists? It would seem to me that the latter is much more important in this current environment than the former.

cmdicely wrote (about my comments regarding the Romans):

Historically incorrect.

Perhaps, but at any rate less so than your "correction".
___________________

Almost inevitably so, cm. I could have expanded my paragraph into a thesis, but my point was that Roman history (indeed, all history) is nowhere so clearcut that it can be reduced to single statements. It was just me sticking my oar in, not meant to be definitive.

Brojo wrote:

I suggest we revoke the citizenship of anyone who joins the military and ostracize and separate them from our society. Also, if someone belonged to a foreign military, they should be prevented from entering the country and never allowed to achieve citizenship.
______________________

We could do that, certainly, Brojo. I rather think ostracism is out of step with post-modern inclusist thought, but it could be done. Disband the entire military and ostracize us. Then, about the second Tuesday after having done it, you could learn a new national anthem - the anthem of whatever power conquered us.

Edo wrote:

"What is different, then, about Israel and Australia? They seem to have integrated homosexuals without experiencing the negative "dynamic" to which you refer.

Futhermore, do you argue that the potential negative consequences of this dynamic outweigh the clear negative consequences of not having enough Arabic language specialists? It would seem to me that the latter is much more important in this current environment than the former."
_____________________

What is different about the Israelis and Australians? Beats me, Edo. I'm very familiar with the US military and very much less so about others, particularly their personnel issues.

There are a couple of things to bear in mind, though. Almost any pro-gay article is going to minimize what trouble an organization has in dealing with gays. Perhaps those militaries have felt the dynamic, but didn't make headlines of it. Perhaps they have other, less obvious ways of eliminating the difficulties that we should learn about. Perhaps the authors you've read did not have access to all military court records for those countries. Without citations, I have no way of knowing. The sexual dynamic certainly exists for mixed gender units.

It could happen that a particular skill is of such overarching importance that it justifies a dramatic change in personnel policy. Of course, given the rather drastic penalties for homosexuality in most Arabic-speaking countries, perhaps the sexual orientation of our interpreters should actually be a consideration.

I could have expanded my paragraph into a thesis, but my point was that Roman history (indeed, all history) is nowhere so clearcut that it can be reduced to single statements. It was just me sticking my oar in, not meant to be definitive.

I think you missed the point of my extended discussion, which was that the original poster you dismissed as "historically inaccurate", while perhaps one might pose some legitimate quibble with his description, was substantially correct with his broad statement, while your supposed "correction" was about as far from the truth as you could get: increasing, and at the end near-total, dependence on foreign militaries did contribute to the fall of Rome, and the (western) Roman Empire was overthrown by the foreign mercenaries on which it had come to rely.

However, I have seen more than one unit be torn apart by favoritism and jealousy caused by inappropriate heterosexual affairs. The Powers-That-Be reckon the same thing will happen once people can be openly gay within the units.

This is intensely illogical: allowing overt homosexuality in the military will not make inappropriate relationships within the chain of command suddenly acceptable, regardless of the sex of the partners. It will contribute to the stability of appropriate (i.e., not within units or chains of command) homosexual relationships, and create an increased marginal cost to inappropriate vs. appropriate homosexual relationships, and thus serve to discourage inappropriate homosexual relationships.

I mean, if this position made any sense, it would argue for banning overt sexuality of any sort from the military, in the hopes that would discourage "inappropriate" relationships within units and chains of command: but, of course, anyone with a brain can see what that does is discourage stable monogamous relationships and stimulate furtive relationships of convenience and opportunity, which frequently will be within units or within the power relationships imposed by the chain of command.

However, I have seen more than one unit be torn apart by favoritism and jealousy caused by inappropriate heterosexual affairs. The Powers-That-Be reckon the same thing will happen once people can be openly gay within the units. It is that dynamic that they fear, rather than any inherent quality of "gayness."
Posted by: Trashhauler

Ah, now we get to the heart of the issue.

But as you noted TH, this is a problem that the Army already has to deal with, and although you won't find enlisted women in the combat arms units, we know that women like Major Rhonda Cornum are serving with some pretty forward elements (Pathfinders, etc.) and as such are just as much in the line of fire as men are. To my knowledge these units aren't the worse for their presence, but if you know of some relevant examples, I'm all ears.

Frankly I think the discipline of combat units is robust enough to survive a few female or gay soldiers, as long as everyone is held to the same standards of physical training and discipline. Now this isn't to say I think the military should be used as a social incubator for showcasing the benefits of meritocracies, but when pragmatism demands change the military must adjust. Just like it did with racial intergration. The job being done is too important to turn away willing and capable recruits.

I love Lou Dobbs. He has consistently spoken out against the abuses of this administration. He was the only one who kept up on the Dubai Ports scandal.
He amazes me with each broadcast.

Interesting topic...

Other analysts voice concern that a large contingent of noncitizens under arms could jeopardize national security or reflect badly on Americans' willingness to serve in uniform.

It certainly reflects accurately on American's willingness to serve in uniform, but I think it's great for immigrants to be able to earn their citizenship through military service. It goes on now, and would just be expanded. The military is the ultimate societal melting pot.

Frankly I think the discipline of combat units is robust enough to survive a few female or gay soldiers, as long as everyone is held to the same standards of physical training and discipline.

I think you underestimate the power of hormones to influence our young people's decision making. The pregnancy rate for sailors on a six month cruise is high, and knowing that the guy in the bunk above you is "getting some" and you're not, or the E3 that you work with is sleeping with the boss...this stuff happens all the time. The only sure way to stop it is to keep'em separated. Since that isn't happening, you just have to make examples of the ones who are caught.

cmdicely wrote:

"This is intensely illogical: allowing overt homosexuality in the military will not make inappropriate relationships within the chain of command suddenly acceptable, regardless of the sex of the partners."

and cytax wrote:

"[T]his is a problem that the Army already has to deal with, and although you won't find enlisted women in the combat arms units, we know that women like Major Rhonda Cornum are serving with some pretty forward elements (Pathfinders, etc.) and as such are just as much in the line of fire as men are."
___________________________

cm is correct, of course. Not necessarily about it being illogical, but about the fact that allowing overt homosexuality will not lead to official acceptance of illicit relationships. It won't. However, the experience of the Services is that numerous illicit sexual relationships will happen regardless of how strong the official sanctions against it are. It is accepted as part of the cost of gender integration and is the reason for the seemingly odd distinctions about which units can be so integrated. The arguments against women in combat units are twofold - sex and putative physical unsuitability. There can be no such second argument in the case of gay men, meaning that if they were allowed in, they will be in combat units and commanders of combat units would soon see increased incidents of inappropriate, esprit-injuring liaisons. They wish to avoid that, if at all possible.

cyntax, the prohibition against women in combat units isn't based on the danger. As Major Cornum's case showed, even combat support positions can be dangerous. It is based on the idea that unit esprit de corps (as opposed to morale) can be hurt by members developing sexual relationships within the unit. Such relationships too often lead to favoritism and jealousy (or more accurately, to more favoritism and jealousy that usual). Too much favoritism and jealousy can wreak havoc in closely-knit units. Then too, it is normal for combat units to send men into situations where they are likely to be killed (rather than just possibly). That job is hard enough to do to friends, let alone lovers. (And it's one reason why PCS tours are usually only three years.) Military leadership, being cautious, isn't yet ready to gamble that much, since the difference between success and absolute bloody disaster in combat is often very slim. Such units must be able to shake off losses and still prevail in chaotic situations. In a commander's eyes, the smallest unwarranted additional distraction is to be avoided if at all possible.

the prohibition against women in combat units isn't based on the danger. As Major Cornum's case showed, even combat support positions can be dangerous. It is based on the idea that unit esprit de corps (as opposed to morale) can be hurt by members developing sexual relationships within the unit.

TH, I appreciate the case you're making, but I have heard arguements made about the level of danger being too high for women; it's just as you point out that women are already being exposed to the danger so unit cohesion is, at this point, the only arguement going.

Having served in an artillery battalion during the 1st Gulf War, I do sympathize with the need for espirit de corps but as we both know there are strict rules about fraternization in the ranks right now. I remember we had a platoon sargeant who frowned on our section chief getting beers with his squad after work. Not hard to imagine how any sort of sexual liason would go over.

Like I said upthread, I don't support the idea of doing this just for the sake of doing it. Pragmatism must drive military policy for all the reasons you laid out above, but if we're turning away qualified linguists when we badly need them, then it might be time to rethink this one.

I hear ya, cyntax, but they ain't asking me. And I got enough problems keeping my own shit straight, anyway. Hooah.

I was in the Reserves for about 15 mninutes, and I was a civilian flight nurse in my real life.

The civvie world was ahead of the military as far as gender equality was concerned. In fact, one night we came under fire and as he took our report, the boss said dryly that the criminal was a "Stupid mother fucker." for firing at me instead of my partner. "Jesus Christ! You shoot at the bigger target."

And I knew then and there that gender was no issue for me. (In fairness, it never has been.)

bad credit credit cards bad credit credit cards