More like, “don’t ask, don’t HELL!”

A brief introduction for our friends at Ursinus: those of you who follow me and Fz’s Communism for Dummies column are probably familiar with our ongoing feud with the Internet sinkhole that is Conservapedia. I did not provide the link for their site because a) giving them more web traffic, even negative web traffic, only encourages them, and b) anything bad that can be said about Conservapedia has already been said. Far be it from Fz and I to beat a dead horse.

Instead, let me reveal to you a little-known fact about our feud. We received an email from a Conservapedia sysop who was irrationally angry about a tiny little mention we made in one of our columns that anyone who vandalized Conservapedia would receive 77 virgins in Heaven. Or something like that.

Now, that in itself is not really worth noting. What is worth noting, however, is that said disgruntled sysop made it a point to mention his considerable stint in the U.S. Navy. This struck us at first as an odd thing to say (something along the lines of “Hey! My irrelevant career qualifies me as an intimidating figure, unhampered even by the anonymity of the Internet!”), but, after we stopped laughing, we soon realized its dire implications. Ladies and gentlemen, there are conservatives in our military.

I was just as shocked as you.

Now, I cannot imagine that recruiters don’t screen for this kind of behavior early on in the application process. What that means, then, is that conservatives are hiding their political affiliations – going into the closet, if you will – in order to infiltrate our armed forces. This clearly cannot stand. Can you imagine the damage that would be done to troop morale if conservatives were allowed to work alongside our normal soldiers? There’d be mutinies left and right! Not to mention, of course, that banning conservatives from the military is really in their best interest, too. Were a solitary conservative soldier put in with a company of liberal soldiers, the harassment and hazing that would inevitably result would not only endanger the conservatives’ life and well-being, but ultimately our way of life, as such disunity would dissolve the cohesive bonds which make our armed forces the effective fighting machine it is today.

On behalf of the American people, I am calling on you, our country’s military recruiters, to throw out your policy of “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” in regards to a soldier’s political affiliations and institute strict background checks and screenings to keep conservatives and lesser Republicans from trying to defend America. Be especially wary of those who have voted for Bush, those who advocate things like “strict constructionism,” “Reaganomics,” or “Jesus,” and especially Toby Keith fans. Remain vigilant - the fate of the nation may depend on it.

Maureen Dowd on the Republicans and gay Arabic translators

In today's New York Times, Maureen Dowd has some choice words for the Republican presidential candidates regarding the gay Arabic linguists controversy:

Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue, as the gloriously gay Oscar Wilde said. And gays are the sacrifice that hypocritical Republican candidates offer to placate “values” voters — even though some candidates are not so finicky about morals regarding their own affairs and divorces.

They may coo over the photo of Dick Cheney, whose re-election campaign demonized gays, proudly smiling with his new grandson, the first baby of his lesbian daughter, Mary.

But they’ll hold the line, by jiminy, against gay Americans who are willing to die or be horribly disfigured in the cursed Bush/Cheney war in Iraq.

Maureen Down has been justifiably criticized in the past for her tendency to devote whole columns to subjects like John Edward's hair. Despite the fact that she's a liberal, Dowd has a history of badly damaging the campaigns of Democratic presidential candidates. With both Al Gore and John Kerry, she used meaningless incidents (like John Kerry's windsurfing-in-spandex adventure) to push a consistent narrative: that the Democratic presidential candidate was a Big Phony. So it's good to see her snark turned on a worthier target.

Gay Arabic Translator: "I’m willing to serve."

A gay Arabic translator who was discharged from the Navy under the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" writes in the New York Times today, asking for the opportunity to serve his country:

IMAGINE for a moment an American soldier deep in the Iraqi desert. His unit is about to head out when he receives a cable detailing an insurgent ambush right in his convoy’s path. With this information, he and his soldiers are now prepared for the danger that lies ahead.

Reports like these are regularly sent from military translators’ desks, providing critical, often life-saving intelligence to troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the military has a desperate shortage of linguists trained to translate such invaluable information and convey it to the war zone.

...

I was an Arabic translator. After joining the Navy in 2003, I attended the Defense Language Institute, graduated in the top 10 percent of my class and then spent two years giving our troops the critical translation services they desperately needed. I was ready to serve in Iraq.

But I never got to. In March, I was ousted from the Navy under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which mandates dismissal if a service member is found to be gay.

...

In response to difficult recruiting prospects, the Army has already taken a number of steps, lengthening soldiers’ deployments to 15 months from 12, enlisting felons and extending the age limit to 42. Why then won’t Congress pass a bill like the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell”? The bipartisan bill, by some analysts’ estimates, could add more than 41,000 soldiers — all gay, of course.

As the friends I once served with head off to 15-month deployments, I regret I’m not there to lessen their burden and to serve my country. I’m trained to fight, I speak Arabic and I’m willing to serve. No recruiter needs to make a persuasive argument to sign me up. I’m ready, and I’m waiting.

It's time to end our misguided policy of discharging gays from the military. It's wrong, it's unnecessary, it's counterproductive, and it ignores the fact that our closest allies, like Britain, have allowed gays to serve openly for years without incident. (I've covered this issue before.)

Will we come to our senses? It probably depends on the outcome of the next election. Every Democratic presidential candidate is in favor of repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell and allowing gays to serve openly. All of the Republican presidential candidates, on the other hand, want to keep discharging gays from the military.

Firing gay Arab linguists

Nowhere is the damage wrought by the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy more apparent than in the continued firing of gay Arab linguists. It's good to see some pushback from Congress on the matter:

Seizing on the latest discharges, involving three specialists, members of the House of Representatives wrote the House Armed Services Committee chairman that the continued loss of such "capable, highly skilled Arabic linguists continues to compromise our national security during time of war."

One sailor discharged in the latest incident, former Petty Officer 2nd Class Stephen Benjamin, said his supervisor tried to keep him on the job, urging him to sign a statement denying that he was gay. He said his lawyer advised him not to sign it, because it could be used against him later if other evidence ever surfaced.

The US government has a desperate shortage of Arab linguists. This is not the time to aggressively seek out and fire gay employees with these critical skills. Particularly ironic is that the armed forces of many of our European allies, like Britain, are happy to accept gay soldiers:

Since the British military began allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces in 2000, none of its fears — about harassment, discord, blackmail, bullying or an erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness — have come to pass, according to the Ministry of Defense, current and former members of the services and academics specializing in the military. The biggest news about the policy, they say, is that there is no news. It has for the most part become a nonissue.

In fact, the integration of gay soldiers has gone so well that the British military has to be careful to be quiet about it to avoid embarrassing us:

Nonetheless, the issue is extremely delicate now. The military does not want to be seen bragging about the success of its policy when the issue can still cause so much anguished debate in the United States.

...

For this article, the Defense Ministry refused to give permission for any member of the forces to be interviewed, either on or off the record. Those who spoke did so before the ministry made its position clear.

“We’re not looking to have quotes taken out of context in a way to imply that we’re trying to influence the debate in the United States,” the British official said. “There are some sensitivities over the timing of this. We have had communications from our counterparts in the United States, and they have asked us questions about how we’ve handled it and how it’s gone on the ground. There does seem to be some debate going on over how long the current policy will be sustainable.”

Maybe the British should be a bit more assertive and make it clear to our government that our policy is deeply flawed. On a more general note, I'm completely unsurprised by the benign presence of gays in the British military. As a Massachussetts native, I witnessed the most sensible people convincing themselves that the sky would fall when gay marriage was permitted. Three years later, the most noticeable thing about gay marriage has been its complete nonimpact on anybody who isn't gay.