I assume from his last name that Dan Choi, the Arabic-language specialist who is being dismissed because he's openly gay, is not of Middle Eastern extraction. But I take it that many Arabic-language specialists, including the gay ones, are.
So my question (which I'm sure is not original): Wouldn't the gay Arabic speakers be especially likely to be loyal to us, and hostile to Islamic fundamentalists? As between a gay Arabic speaker who has ties to, say, Iraq or Saudi Arabia, and the straight Arabic speaker, whom would you trust more to lack hidden sympathies with violent Islamic extremism?
Just to be clear -- I think it's entirely reasonable to worry about possible loyalty issues when it comes to selecting people for sensitive military or national security positions (whether high level or low), especially when the candidates are culturally, ethnically, or religiously linked to our enemies. For instance, I take it that the government should rightly have worried about this with regard to Russian immigrants like my family and me when the Cold War was still on, even though on balance the Russian immigrants were highly hostile to the country that they left. The normal antidiscrimination rules, important as they are, don't in my view apply equally to the military or national security, just as the normal sex discrimination laws don't apply equally to the military, and just as the normal free speech and search and seizure rules don't apply equally to the military or national security.
This doesn't itself tell us what the government should do based on those worries. I think the answer depends on many factors, including the degree of harm that comes to people because of these connections (e.g., internment vs. some extra investigation, exclusion from the military vs. placing Japanese-American soldiers predominantly on the European front during World War II, a tendency to exclude from a vast range of military jobs vs. a tendency to exclude from the most security-sensitive jobs). But it does suggest that we should avoid policies that end up excluding those people as to whom the risk of disloyalty seems especially low. And that's entirely independent of your stand on whether sexual orientation discrimination is wrong in principle, or counterproductive in general (setting aside our current enemies' extreme hostility to homosexuality).
I don't think sexual orientation tells us anything about loyalty to the US in a conflict with Islamic fundamentalists. But if you really want to go down this road, I'll say... depends what you mean by "Islamic fundamentalists." You'll recall, of course, that man-boy sex is culturally acceptable quite common in Afghanistan.
You also might think that feminists and outspoken atheists and secularists might be more supportive of the efforts to topple theocratic, repressive regimes, but you'd be wrong.
that said... I think we should not ban gay people from non combat positions.
I don't support gay marriage because it makes my life unsustainable. gay men don't have to worry about getting women pregnant and therefor do not need similar contracts to heterosexual couples. this is pragmatic.
in the same respect there is a certain sexuality to violence and that is the primary reason most men do not feel comfortable fighting with gay men.
this is pragmatic. to not acknowledge this is punitive.
however if their jobs are not being soldiers then we should allow people with excellent communications skills use their ability to defend our country. I've worked in public relations and marketing and gay men are the best the industry has to offer. I'd gladly take their help in these positions in the military! we should include them in this way. but not because I'm pretending that gay men don't find the military kinky and get off on my disgust. be real and you might find the change you seek.
I'm objective in my analysis. I grew up in NY and LA. I have %100 respect for gay men and women. but I reserve the right to have expectations of behavior. the first part of respecting difference is to respect difference.
I always assumed not allowing openly gay service members was a result of a) the military's general code of morality, and b) concerns with unit cohesion.
2. As a closeted gay soldier who calls himself Colorado Patriot over at Gay Patriot points out:
I, for one, do not regard the prospect of openly gay soldiers per se as a problem. What concerns me, as I wrote a few months ago:
I don't think you understand gay men. Your comment isn't offensive; it's just absurd.
Conversely, if DADT is kept as policy, then the next Vietnam (unpopular war with a draft) will see many men who don't want to be drafted pretend to be gay, doing as you say
well, except for the second one.
One of the things that I have learned over the years is that the more social interaction you have with ordinary gay people, the less of a fantasy that there is that they are just like everyone else.
He doesn't look particularly like he's of Middle Eastern ancestory either.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/images/danchoi.jpg
As I recall, feminist groups complained about the Taliban in the 1990s (and their radically anti-woman agenda) long before anyone at 1900 Penn. Ave. gave half a shit about it.
All of those things are contrary to mil regs, irrespective of the orientation of the perp.
Islam as practiced today has NO issue with pedophilia or homosexuality (note that I'm not stating an opinion on the dogma, only on actual behavior). Islam today ONLY has an issue with IDENTIFYING with it.
One of the (Muslim) Islamic scholars in a New York college said as much. If I find the quote from his book I'll post it.
So to assume a gay person would be hostile to Islam does not follow. Quite the reverse - they would be able to continue their behavior with more abandon than before, certainly as regards ever younger partners, as long as they don't become all "activist", and keep the outward trappings of what is expected from a Muslim.
Yeah, God knows straight men never pursue women who aren't interested in them, engage in uncomfortable public displays of affection or sexual harassment, or obsess over lesbians who aren't interested in them anyway. Why, what a sign of moral decline we'd take such things to be!
This is beneath a proponent of someone who (in the context of the Second Amendment) is a strong proponent of judging people as risks (for owning guns) as individuals, and not as members of a class.
Let us judge whether a man is loyal to his country or not based entirely on his individual personality and individual actions. There is certainly no need, in the context of deciding whether or not to dismiss a man from the Army, to employ intellectual short-cuts such as applying stereotypes, even if those stereotypes are reasonable. His peers and his commanding officers know the man well, if he has been in service for a while. Let them make the judgment of whether he is loyal enough -- and good enough at his job -- to serve. If he is, he should stay, whatever his class. If he is not, he should go, whatever his class. And that decision should not be second-guessed by a bunch of clueless political chair-polishers in D.C.
What is unavoidable? My comment was on a draft in general, I did not mention political parties. Are you going to comment on what will happen if a draft is enacted (with a D or R in the white house) and DADT is retained?
The situation with DADT is more complex than many realize. A significant number of the folks who get out under DADT are fakes - they get highly specialized training in the military then want to get out before they pay it back. This isn't "something I heard from a friend of a friend" - I have personally witnessed it.
This is a particular problem with places like DLI - long and expensive academic training which makes you very valuable in the civilian world. A DLI grad with a top secret clearance can get out through DADT and immediately get a contractor job paying much more.
This is on top of the actual gay servicemen who are generally protected by DADT but occasionally run into idiots who want to run them out. Commanders who "out" servicemembers like this are not just mean-spirited, they are bad officers - they are unlikely to get replacements in a speedy manner and screw over the rest of the unit by having to fill in for the discharged servicemember.
All reasons to get rid of DADT.
Finally, let me add that one of the things that I have learned over the years is that the more social interaction you have with ordinary FedSoc members and Christian fundamentalists, the less of a fantasy that there is that they are just like everyone else (whatever "everyone else" is).
Sexual harassment of women is hardly a new thing. My point is that there are an awful lot of men who wring their hands about how uncomfortable the behavior of gay men makes them and how different those gay men are, never stopping to think about the fact that women deal with the same and worse every day of their lives.
Never heard that theory before. It's kind of the reverse of the common theory that those most publicly digusted by gay sexuality are usually those most secretly attracted to it. Is there something you're hiding Noah?
Proof again that what they want isn't "tolerance" but acceptance.
I see. So your logic goes something like this
A draft will be implemented if and only if a D is in the white house.
DADT will be repealed if and only if a D is in the white house
Therefore, if a draft is enacted, DADT will have been repealed.
In any event, its highly bizarre how you fiercely connect a draft with democrats when I comment on a hypothetical.
Calling me a moralizer means what? That I believe that there is right and wrong? And you don't? Or you just don't agree with me about what is right and wrong?
When the National Guard was deployed to the Persian Gulf in 1991, a number of the soldiers also tried to come out. They were told they would be discharged after they returned from combat.
When the military needs bodies, it doesn't care about sexual orientation. DADT is pure hypocrisy.
Wasn't that basically the unsuccessful strategy of MASH's Corporal Klinger (a Lebanese American who claimed to be a transvestite rather than gay per se)?
Huh. Wondered what happened to those who acted out, and not just said "I'm gay lemme go."
I connect a draft with Democrats because since 9/11, the ONLY support in Congress for a draft has come from Democrats.
That's exactly what many Russian immigrants assumed the Soviets had indeed done.
Splunge: I don't know who this "Volt" you speak of is, but I for one by no means assume that you can deduce much about someone "by merely examining the class in which you find him." But it hardly follows that the class in which you find someone has no relevance to the person's likely convictions.
However, had they ever given the unit trouble. Had they ever caused moral problems. Had they ever decided they needed to make a statement at the cost of unit effectiveness. Then they would have bounced on the street. The same is true for vegetarians and Mormo-Wiccans and lunatics and drunks and addicts. If your personal issues become a public issue for the unit, you have to find gainful employment in the civiliam market.
CPT Choi did something. There was a triggering event. He didn't suddenly become gay. The rules of DADT are common knowledge in the US military. Abide by the rules and there are no problems. Step out of line and pay for it. CPT Choi knows what the triggering event was. He popped up on his commander's radar and is now paying the price.
Repeal DADT if that is what the majority wish. I have no problem with that. But stay out of the commander's way. Each military leader must have the latitude to remove members that cause the unit's performance to suffer. We may not like the reasoning, but we have to applaud the results.
Second, as to Clayton's comment, "displays of affection, sex in the barracks, dressing in drag after hours" are already for the most part prohibited by the military anyway. Repealing DADT wouldn't change that fact - it would just put homosexual and heterosexual service-members on an equal footing as regards the applicability of the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, such as Article 134, which prohbits "indecent acts with another".
Interestingly, I notice that Article 125 (Sodomy), as defined in my (2005) edition of the UCMJ, already applies equally to acts "with another person of the same or opposite sex", though I don't know if the elements of Article 125 have changed since 2005. (IANAL and I don't use the UCMJ in any professional capacity; the book was a gift from a friend of mine who worked in military justice.)
By the way, one of the many objections to the expanded role of women in the military was exactly what has happened: widespread sexual harassment of women.
Don't like it? Go find another army to keep you alive!
(Sorry, couldn't resist--and I realize it was a typo)
I'm not sure anyone is criticizing the commander or the military (at least they shouldn't be). Choi is breaking the rules to make a point and draw attention to the stupidity of DADT. I have total respect for his self-sacrifice to change a bad law, from both the ethical and utilitarian standpoint. The commander and the military are following the rules set for them, which is what they should do, so they deserve no blame. Congress passed the law and Congress should recind it.
–verb (used without object)
1. to reflect on or express opinions about something in terms of right and wrong, esp. in a self-righteous or tiresome way.
Well, I think you missed the satirical nature of my post, in which I show how easy it is to stereotype these antigay bigots. But seriously, maybe if you are against discrimination you should stop supporting the many people (and yes, a great deal of them in FedSoc) who do.
There's nothing about being "atheist" or "secularist" or "feminist" (?) that makes it more likely to support "toppling" sovereign regimes. Those groups, however, probably are quite more likely to support diplomacy and international aid to change political situations.
I think that Prof. Volokh's posting was not a precise assessment of all the complex and sometimes contradictory impulses that order a person's personality and loyalties.
This led to a serious of offensive and unhelpful comments that obscured the real issue.
One could equally easily argue that the expanded role of women in the workforce since the Second World War has created widespread sexual harassment of women in the workforce. Does that imply, then, that women should not be in the workforce? Or does it imply that, when a greater diversity of citizens are in the workforce (or the military), that there nonetheless remains a duty by all involved to behave in a civil fashion.
It seems a little silly to me to blame women in the military for their own victimization.
@Mocha Java:
Except that studies (United Stateshere and here, for example) of both the United States and other countries that allow gays to serve openly don't bear this thesis out. As the RAND study (second one above), which looked at the militaries of Canada, France, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom, showed, gays in the military do not tend to undermine task cohesion at all, and the effect of gays on social cohesion can be mitigated as well. (The RAND study explained that "[t]he presence of a known homosexual in a unit could reduce social cohesion. In extreme cases, it could lead to ostracism or violence. However, both research and the experience of foreign militaries and domestic organizations suggest that a number of factors can minimize social disruption. First, leaders play a key role in promoting and maintaining unit cohesion. Second, military roles, regulations, and norms all enhance the likelihood that heterosexuals will work cooperatively with homosexuals. Third, external threats enhance cohesion, provided that the group members are mutually threatened and there is the possibility that cooperative group action can eliminate the danger.")
The demographics on this issue are pretty straightforward. (Pun intended.) DADT is a goner, sooner rather than later.
There's nothing quite as funny as homosexuals who get all angry about conservatives saying that there are standards of right and wrong--and then insisting that we're "wrong." By what standard?
Geez, you'd think they'd be glad if the military was ruined, so it would no longer be able to stand against their super well-regulated 2nd amendment militias that we need as a check on tyranny ;)
In the military, the situation is rather different from civilian life. There are some serious abuse opportunities that are part of military life: the requirement to obey orders; that you can't just walk out on your job if the harassment gets too severe; in some settings, you may not have the opportunity to go over your commander's head to seek correction of a problem.
Don't like it? Go find another army to keep you alive!}
Yes, we were, and no, we we don't agree with you. I knew of several gay folks in my unit and no one cared. Try again.
If you actually want a repeal of DADT you should say so. All your hemming and hawing means you don't support a repeal and do support discrimination. Oh, you're ok with them gays as long as they're "the good kind."
Believe me pal, I've got you figured. And your little neckbeard too.
You can cite all the studies you want--I lived it and saw the results.
What unit were you in--the men's chorus?
I actually don't care real strongly either way of repeal of DADT--I do care about the consequences if repeal causes homosexual activists to do what I suspect that they will do.
I'm glad that you have such a highly developed ability to figure out someone that you have never met, and about whom you know almost nothing. I know almost nothing about you, and I would not even begin to say that I have figured you out. I don't even know your sexual orientation; some of the most absurdly nasty defenses of homosexuality come from straight people trying hard to prove how liberal they are.
Another piece of the puzzle falls into place ...
I think I got a pretty good picture from the wikipedia entry you no doubt created yourself.
Even back then, the Navy had adopted an unofficial DADT policy. Unless you did something to attract the official attention of the Navy, no cared what your sexual proclivities were. It was understood that somewhere between 25% and 33% of the women in the crew were lesbians. Including the Ship's Executive Officer and Chief Engineer.
I had female friends complain that sometimes living in the close quarters of an enlisted berthing compartment sometimes felt similar to sharing the compartment with men. The looks, the comments, the advances.
Especially in the Navy, on board ships, privacy is a big issue. Too many people, allowing open homosexuals to live in same sex berthing compartments is similar to allowing men and women to share the same compartments.
How small is is Enlisted Berthing on a Navy Ship? My berthing compartment had 24 bunks, It was 10' x 32'. We shared the heads with 3 other compartments, one bigger, one smaller, total of about 75 men. Between the two heads, we had 4 sinks, 4 toilet stalls, 2 urinals, 4 showers. All of the enlisted berthing on the ship had similar square footage and numbers of people.
Maybe it is time for DADT to go away. But I think that should be a decision made by the people who have to live with the results, not by unaccountable outsiders who want to change things just to make themselves feel better about themselves.
I remain puzzled, however, that he seems to ignore their hetero equivalents which, by his reasoning, provide the theoretical unpinning of his own sexuality.
Your pedophile libel against gays is the same as the blood libel against Jews or the accusation that black men rape young white women. The oppressors of a minority try to depict that minority as a threat to vulnerable members of society so the wider public won't challenge their agenda of repression. It's an tired, old tactic and no one is falling for it.
I'm more interested in your hypothetical of the sleeper agent pretending to be gay to infiltrate our military. I dont know if the mandatory-reporting-of-gayness-to-families for security clearanca tales are accurate, but if they are, DADT is repealed, and some terrorist uses the "gays are less likely to sympathize with fundementalists" logic, then, wait, never mind, I'm gonna sell the rest of this to FOX.
DADTsegregation to go away. But I think that should be a decision made by the people who have to live with the results, not by unaccountable outsiders who want to change things just to make themselves feel better about themselves.FYP.
Most western allies allow gay men and women to serve openly. These include the countries of Britain, Israel, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and many more. They have had remarkably few issues with integrating their armed forces, which include submarines, aircraft carriers, planes, and even offices.
Since it hasn't been a problem there, and no one is calling for a reversal of the policy, I would suggest that pretty much settles the issue.
Sample size?
Also, this guy is an infantry platoon leader who happens to speak Arabic. He is not an Arabic Linguist, which I would say has a very specific meaning in the army. Maybe they are trying to make him seem like a particularly valuable asset, but I don't see the relevance. There are many bi-lingual soldiers, that doesn't mean they can get the clearances to do the jobs in desperate need of language specialists.
I'm 10 years older than that, no more!!
The original post (wha?) is about translators. They are not combat personnel. They don't need "unit cohesion". They don't need to share a berth. They work at translating ****ing documents.
If you want DADT for combat/naval operations, that's fine. Just don't pretend "unit cohesion" has anything to do with linguistic specialists.
You haven't the faintest idea of the extent of military translators duties. I hope the rest of your blogging is not so "shoot from the lip."
I'm 10 years older than that, no more!!
Of course not, Dear.
:-)
No, this guy, that the original post was about, was an infantry officer. Infantry is, last I checked, a combat arms branch. Being a lieutenant, he was probably a platoon leader, and if he's a good PL he's in constant contact with his soldiers.
Incidentally, the whole DADT was never a real policy. It'd be redundant anyway, since 5th amendment protections against self-incrimination apply to servicemembers just like anyone else.
And those western allies haven't actually made a major commitment to a sustained conflict since integrating their forces, so their experiences aren't very helpful.
She is (or was) a second lieutenant, which would probably put her at around 22-24.
Those countries either have conscription or much smaller militaries. I think that changing the policy is probably a good idea, but I think we need to study the ramifications of recruiting and retention very carefully before we do so.
Well, neither have we made a major commitment to a sustained conflict lately, I guess, since you're obviously not counting the Iraq War, where our heroic coalition partners Australia, the UK, and Romania all allow gays to serve openly.
Another bunch of of military shirkers, the Israelis, who certainly have no recent experience of major conflict, and no reason to particularly value a strong military, are for this reason able to allow gay people to serve in the military without concealing their orientation.
Imagine how fast that would change if Israel actually faced any genuine threats to its survival!
Now this is just weird. I often read about how the ACLU and their left-wing buddies are fighting to make so much as winking at a girl during work a career-ending move if not a criminal offense. I take it you disagree with this point of view?
It's ahistorical, in any case. The U.S. military (along with the militaries of the rest of the world) has long taken a wink-wink nudge-nudge approach to prostitution. There is a high correlation between presence of a U.S. military base and a red-light district nearby. The Navy still allows its boys to have their fun on scheduled stops in Pattaya, Thailand, a modern Sodom and Gomorrah if there ever was one.
A while ago I read an incident about British soldiers who, drinking and and rabble rousing on the town, started groping local girls. The local men soon formed a mob, attacking any British men they saw and demanding they get out of the country. This happened in Bengal during the 18th century.
Yes of course. They went to all the trouble of integrating the forces with open gays just for fun. When the real war comes, they will of course change the policy and kick them all out. It's a brilliant strategy, I guess -- keeps the enemy wondering what the hell everyone is doing.
Certainly not, as Mr. Cramer's comments prove.
The mention of Israel reminds me of the 2002 Hebrew-language film Yossi and Jagger, a drama about two young men in the IDF who are secret lovers. Despite the fact that openly gay people aren't excluded from IDF service, Yossi insists that he must remain closeted because he wishes to make a career of the military and he knows that being "out" would most likely doom him to desk-jockey assignments rather than combat leadership positions. (Jagger, on the other hand, only wants to complete his mandatory term of service and return to civilian life, but he stays closeted to avoid bringing any suspicion on Yossi, as the two are known to be close friends.)
Anyway, I bring this up because although it's a fictional story set in Israel, the dilemma faced by Yossi is one that I assume most career-minded gay military members would have to grapple with even if DADT were lifted.
I'm sorry, what?
In some gay porn, true, straight men in play a role similar to that of lesbians in straight porn, i.e. normally inaccessible objects of desire who will succumb to the joys of the sexual orientation that they hadn't previously considered. Once upon a time, when gay and bisexual men had to remain closeted, there was a tendency to seek out straight sexual partners for want of any available sexual partners.
That's porn, though, and that's the past; seeking out straight sex partners, or sex partners disgusted by my sexual orientation, isn't my lived experience and isn't the lived experience of my non-straight friends of different ages here.
Likewise, I don't know of any secret conspiracies to conceal the links between being gay and supporting Islamist terror, or being gay and actually supporting legalized pedophilia, or ... Maybe I've just not been clued into the Protocol, sadly; believe me, I'd like to have a penthouse on Harbourfront!
"Dropping DADT would, I fear, encourage a fair number of homosexual activists out to prove a point to enlist--and who would then insist that displays of affection, sex in the barracks, dressing in drag after hours, and other signs of...flamboyance...were part of gay culture. Would any of this set stay in the military, after making their point, and winning their lawsuits?"
I'm not sure where you're coming from on this one. The gay people in the Canadian military I've had a chance to know enlisted in the military because they wanted to serve their country, and were willing to make the necessary sacrifices. They weren't enlisting to have sex, say, or to make obscure political points. The closest thing to this sort of opportunism that I know about can actually be found among some of my straight friends and acquaintances at home in Atlantic Canada who joined the military as a way to get out of a relatively poor and non-mainstream region of the country, but militaries around the world--including the US military, I believe, heavy with its Southern recruits--depend on this sort of factor.
As for misbehaviour of the sort that you're talking of, so long as like misbehaviour wasn't tolerated--or allowed--for heterosexuals in military services, I don't know why it would be tolerated on the part of homosexuals. Is it? If so, the American military has far more serious problems than DADT.
The gay movement--at this stage, anyway--is fundamentally conservative, and concerned with the consistent application of societal norms and laws across orientations. Marriage and property rights? The ability to function in the public sphere unhindered by personal identity and group affiliations? The abilities to follow the professions of one's choice, and to form families?
would be accomodated under
marriage, well, the gay movement is fundamentally cxonservative. Marriage rights, the ability to serve in the military, ...
If you are old enough to be discharged from the military for any reason, you can't be a young girl. A young woman, sure, but not a young girl.
Cheers,
Cheers,
I'm oh so very tired of this reductionist logic. Everything that doesn't court gays must obviously exist only to oppress them. Why? Because, you know, straight people are mean for no reason.
Cheers,
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.