Military’s Self-Inflicted Wound
In the past decade, the US military has discharged, on the average, four soldiers per day for the crime of being gay. Since 1998, 26 Arabic and Farsi translators — a position much in demand for intelligence on terrorism and Iraq — have been fired for the crime of being gay.
Britain, Israel, Canada, and Australia have all lifted their bans on gay soldiers and found that it has had no significant effect on their military.
The US Army’s own studies, in 1957, 1988, and 1993 have shown that integrating gay soldiers would not have any significant effect on the military.
Aaron Belkin, writing for the LA Times, puts it best:
Imagine that it is possible to go back to Sept. 10, 2001, when intercepted cables warning of the impending terrorist attacks sat unread, in part because of our shortage of capable translators. Now pose a question to those who endorse “don’t ask, don’t tell” or a flat-out ban on gays in the military: Are your objections to homosexuality so strong that you support the discharge of all those linguists who lost their jobs for being gay, or are you willing to back-burner your concerns to do what is best for the military and the country?
With our armed forces stretched thin, our leaders should consider whether we can afford to place outdated ideas about homosexuality above military effectiveness. Isn’t it time to face facts?
Here’s my solution for military withdrawal from Iraq. Soldiers, go find the nearest officer of your own gender and give ’em a big old French kiss (whoops, I mean “Freedom kiss”). Soon enough, there won’t be enough straight soldiers to fight the war. Then they’ll have to start the draft, but kids can get out of that simply by Freedom kissing the sergeant at the induction center. Yippee! “Gay” is the new “conscientious objector”.
(It never ceases to amaze me how our culture is so puritanically afraid of sexuality. Blood, war, guts, and gore are fine, but Janet Jackson’s mocha mammary and the thought of two dudes kissin’ is an abomination.)
