Right now the military is in sad shape. Due in large part to the war in Iraq, recruiting is in serious trouble, and standards have been lowered dangerously.
“Don’t ask, don’t tell” is hurting the military even more. It deprives us of good, talented, patriotic people who, even now, want to serve their country. It also costs millions in recruiting, training and separation costs.
Supporters of the policy insist that getting rid of it would be disruptive. Half a century ago racists said the same thing about integrating the army; 40 years later, Colin Powell took over as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and proved the argument absurdly wrong.
Think of the stupidity of this argument: Bush’s inane policies have put us in a position wherein we are forced to recruit felons, drug addicts and illiterates and ship them off to fight in Iraq. Don’t you think that sending a mob of cretins into battle is disruptive? If you’re out there in a firefight, wouldn’t it concern you to have a bunch of demented loons covering your back?
Considering the sexual harassment and other abuse that is already happening in the military, it’s hard for the Pentagon to pretend that allowing gays to serve would cause even worse problems.
79 percent of Americans, including 66 percent of conservatives, are okay with gays in the military. This includes a growing horde of generals, admirals and military experts. Obama has said he will change the policy. And high time.
Tuesday, 14 April 2009
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Hi! Impressive output for just one day in the blogosphere! I strolled on over here via driftglass, if you were wondering.
Anyway, this struck me as a little harsh: "...we are forced to recruit felons, drug addicts and illiterates and ship them off to fight in Iraq. Don’t you think that sending a mob of cretins into battle is disruptive?"
Felons? Drug Addicts? Mob of cretins? Really? Is this just a gut feeling you have about the situation, or is there some kind of data that you could point to that backs up this sentiment?
It doesn't seem like you're saying something to the effect of "the only kinds of people who would join the military now are illiterate, criminal addicts," but, you know, without some kind of empirical evidence, it does seem like you might be maligning the military a little unfairly.
There is nothing unfair about what I posted. It is an undeniable fact that we have been forced to lower our standards: criminals, addicts, and people who would not be able to pass the normal threshold tests for mental capacity, are now being welcomed into our armed forces.
I made no assertion as to what percentage of our recruits got in under the relaxed standards, because that was not my point. My point, still, is that letting a homosexual into the army does less damage to the military, than allowing a criminal or an addict into the army.
It's not about the percentage of crooks and addicts we have in uniform: it's about which groups are more or less desirable.
Post a Comment