The interchange between me and uniformed personnel who oppose openly gay service has been, I think, instructive for all. Some are clearly not interested in having a productive debate, but others just as clearly are. So this post contains another reply to someone I hope will allow me to call him my new friend, “USMC,” whose previous comment to me can be see here. In wishing him “courage” in his orientation toward openly gay troops, he felt I was calling him a coward. My reply:
USMC: I regret that you took my remarks as a charge that you are a coward. That is not, I think, the only way to take them. There are many virtues that I wish upon friends at various times, as others wish upon me. And this doesn’t have to mean that, without practicing that virtue at that moment, the person is reduced to its opposing vice. For instance, often when my boyfriend wants to order chocolate cake after dinner, I sometimes urge restraint; and he says, “are you calling me a pig?” But he’s joking because he realizes that just because I urge restraint doesn’t mean I define him as a glutton.
Now I hope you’ll be persuaded that I’m debating in good faith, and will be willing to field a few more queries, as I continue to try to understand the position of those who oppose openly gay service.
One is this: are you arguing that you can’t serve with open gays in your combat unit or that you don’t wish to? If you are arguing that you cannot (or perhaps that you personally could, but others cannot), then isn’t that a shortcoming of the straight service members? And if that’s the case then shouldn’t they be the ones not to serve, or at least to be commanded to live with it, and those who can handle it and those who are qualified should be allowed to serve? After all, I don’t think you’re arguing that gays are unable to be good combat soldiers due to any deficiency of their own, are you?
If it’s that you don’t want to serve with open gays, then I’m not sure why your individual desires to avoid serving with open gays should give you the right to exclude capable openly gay infantrymen, Arabic linguists, medics and any of the other 12,500 discharged service members. The result of these firings has been to contribute to the recruitment shortfalls that have meant a lowering of standards, the granting of many more moral waivers for felons and drug addicts, and extended tours and rotations for the rest of you.
I fully agree you should not ignore your “conviction and morality” to pacify anyone. But I’d like to understand more about what you mean by this, about what your conviction and morality consist of. You site the “culture and moral values” and the “moral realities” of American combat units as a reason why we should not let open gays serve. Can you tell me what it is about those values in American combat units that means open gays must not serve? Is the value that gays are untrustworthy? If this is the case, I’m comfortable calling that prejudice, and saying it should not be indulged. Is the value simply being anti-gay, or intolerance toward difference? Clearly the military must value conformity, but is the implication that gays can’t conform? If you were to test the values of all 2 million+ people in uniform, or even of the tiny portion in the combat units you’re focusing on, surely you’re not suggesting that you’d agree with all the values of all of them… except the gay ones! Is the value that anyone who engages in sodomy should properly be banned from combat units because they have done something bad? Many gays (probably a minority, but some nonetheless) don’t engage in oral or anal sodomy and most straights do engage in at least one or the other, so you’d have very little military left if we start enforcing that one.
So I’m honestly trying to understand what the moral value is that dictates that open gays must be banned. If “moral” to you really is just a stand-in for “what my religion or tradition taught me” then we’re not going to agree here. I am not one of those liberals who cries “separation of church and state!” to disqualify religious traditions from having a place in a public dialogue–we all get a vote in this democracy and if your vote is shaped by your religious belief, that’s your right. But as an argument in itself, it is wholly unconvincing to say that one group’s religious or cultural tradition should, itself, be the basis of denying equal treatment of others. Strict Christianity opposes the values of Jews, atheists, divorces, anyone who has ever engaged in non-Missionary sex, etc., but there is no movement to rid the military of all these people–only gays who don’t hide who they are.
Now, still trying to be genuine about understanding the resistance to openly gay service here, let me acknowledge that for many, morality is not about reason, but is, like religion, an article of faith. It can also be an instinct, rather like disgust. If I had to work every day with someone with a giant tumor on his face the size of a golf ball, I might have a nauseous reaction. I’m not proud of that but I might feel that way. It would take getting used to. If the tumor was the result of the person’s poor health or diet decisions, i may even blame him in the back of my head, and say he was immoral. Maybe I’d say I can’t work with him, and I’d be annoyed if I was told that was a deficiency in me; maybe I’d say I don’t wish to work with him, and I’d be annoyed if someone wasn’t sympathetic. But at the end of the day, I might need to get used to it, for the sake of other values of mine and the greater good: tolerance, individual rights, equal treatment, the value of judging someone based on their merit and utility to the group. Sure, military values have different emphases, but surely these are among the values that many conservative combat troops believe in.
As for open gays, you and I have a disagreement about how to define that. You seem to be throwing together two very different scenarios and addressing them with one broad brushstroke: “discussing” homosexual desire and “demonstrating it.” If by demonstrating, you mean acknowledging, then those two become the same. But you are also talking about people kissing and holding hands–displaying their same-sex romantic feelings. You know very well that such behavior is severely limited on ships and in combat zones, and in some cases banned. And when you mention “leaving the base,” you have much greater freedom to avoid contact with your gay comrades. No need to accuse me of “disrespect” for those who disagree with me–the bill in Congress that would lift the ban simply does not propose altering the regs that currently keep PDA to a minimum. In all honesty, could a day come when gay couples are allowed to show affection? Yes. But it’s not being proposed by the bill that would end “don’t ask, don’t tell” and so it is the right to tell the truth that most people currently mean when they say “openly gay.” Gays are merely asking for exactly the same as what straights currently enjoy, and there’s no reason to believe gays will begin chronicling or exhibiting anal exploits en masse the day the ban ends.
A few more points. You continue to reject the analogy to Britain and other nations, this time by saying their responsibilities and size don’t match ours. No one said they did. Certainly change in a larger institution is harder than change in a smaller one; does that mean we shouldn’t do it? Of course not, it just means we should do it smart. Your dismissal of the British military is an insult to many of my friends who sacrificed and lost other friends in that military, just as you did (I spent 6 months researching this issue in Britain). The denigration of our own allies has become popular over the last decade, but it’s nonsense. Britain, Canada, Australia–even Dutch and Danish troops have joined forces with us in heavy combat, such as Operation Mountain Thrust, the largest offensive to root out Islamic radicals between 2001 and 2006. In that and subsequent conflicts, British and Canadians forces often took the lead and were responsible for killing or capturing over 2000 Taliban fighters. Our allies took mortar attacks, suicide bombings, daily ambushes, and scorching desert temperatures. After Operation Mountain Thrust, the Taliban complained that so many of its forces had been wiped out that it was having trouble finding leaders to carry on.
No doubt America’s military is bigger and stronger than our allies. No one is saying the Dutch should be our overall model, or even the Brits. But the question is whether our unique might relies on a policy of gay exclusion, whether our military is uniquely incapable of doing what all these other militaries did successfully.
You ask why no gay vets talk about how their brothers in arms don’t care if they’re openly gay. They do. My book chronicles many openly gay troops working successfully in combat units, and I’m pasting some of their stories below. No doubt there are also stories of situations where it may not have worked out so smoothly, not, usually, because of bad behavior by the gay person, but because of resistance from straight people. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, just like anything else in the military. The question is not, at the end of the day, does a small group of elite combat troops wish to serve with gays? It is what are the overall costs of excluding open gays vs. what are the overall costs of letting them serve?
If you are willing to lose valuable talent and lower admission standards in order to ensure the personal comfort of certain combat troops; if you’re willing to slap extra burdens on the tens of thousands of gay troops who already serve, such that they can’t speak freely to their chaplain or military doctor and their morale and readiness suffer as a result; if you’re willing to endure the moral blemish on the military created by forcing service members to lie to each other, as an increasing share of Americans see the military as out of touch; if you believe BOTH that homosexuality is immoral AND that you should get to exclude people that you personally think are immoral from a central American institution; if you prioritize your personal concerns about the possible consequences of openly gay service above the value of equal treatment, freedom of religion, meritocracy, personal responsibility, and honesty–then you’re probably not going to support lifting the ban. I think, however, that it’s going to happen anyway, and the transition will be smoothest if those on the frontlines are prepared.
One final comment: you say that it makes no difference to you if someone is gay or not and that you still fight to let us live the lives we wish. Unless, of course, we wish to serve our country in uniform without lying about it, in some cases like our parents and grandparents and their parents and grandparents. You’re fighting for some of my freedoms, and I’m grateful for that every day—I truly am. But you’re also fighting against others of them. And I’m still not sure why.
STORIES OF OPENLY GAY COMBAT TROOPS:
· There was Robert Stout, an Army combat engineer with the 1st Infantry Division’s 9th Engineer Battalion who was out to most of his 26-member platoon and reports that “almost everyone I know is supportive and handled it just fine.” When an RPG slammed into his Humvee, where he was serving as the gunner, it detonated and sent wedges of shrapnel into his arm, legs and neck, where bits of it remain lodged. Such was the sacrifice of an openly gay gunner doing a combat tour in Iraq for the U.S. Army.
· Marine Staff Sgt. Eric Alva was among the very first Americans wounded in the war in Iraq. Alva served in the Marine Corps for 13 years, and was a member of the 3rd Battalion of the 7th Marines. Having served in Somalia for Operation Restore Hope he was deployed to the Middle East in January of 2003. While traveling in Iraq in a convoy to Basra with his battalion – where he was in charge of 11 Marines – he stepped on a landmine, breaking his right arm and damaging his leg so badly that it needed to be amputated. Alva was awarded a Purple Heart. He sacrificed his leg for his country. Alva confided quietly to many of his friends in the military about his sexuality, and was always treated with the same respect afterwards as before.
· Then there was an Army specialist I interviewed who served in a combat unit in Iraq (I promised him I would limit his details to the very general story I tell here). His combat unit, he said, was “as intimate as intimate can get,” and none of that changed once his sexuality was known, which happened when he crossed paths with another soldier while coming out of a gay bar when on leave in the states. After murmuring that he was only there for the cheap drinks, he told the fellow soldier the truth. No one cared, he reported. Back in Iraq, he slept in the same three to five cubic feet as his sergeant, surrounded by other men inside their tent. “It didn’t matter,” he said. “There wasn’t much of a question of, “okay, this guy does this, would he do it here?’”
· A squadron leader who commanded Bradley fighting vehicles in Iraq (and who also requires that his details be confined to these), and who commanded a dismounted unit for the Fourth Infantry Division, reported he served openly with no problems. “I don’t advertise,” he said, “but I don’t hide anything either.” He said all nine of the soldiers who worked under him as a dismounted infantry squad leader knew he was gay. “It doesn’t affect unit cohesion,” he said. “When I was on the ground, I was leading the charges through buildings,” he said. “And I’ve never had people not follow me.”
· These stories are what helped change the mind of General John Shalikashvili, who succeeded Colin Powell as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 2006 and 2007, Shalikashvili had the opportunity to both review the research and to meet with service members, including ones with combat experience in Iraq. He wrote in the New York Times that the conversations showed him “just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers.” Ultimately, he suggested, a sound national defense required “welcom[ing] the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.” An end to the ban, he wrote, was inevitable. “When that day comes, gay men and lesbians will no longer have to conceal who they are, and the military will no longer need to sacrifice those whose service it cannot afford to lose.”
Nathaniel,
Id be happy to continue this.
“One is this: are you arguing that you can’t serve with open gays in your combat unit or that you don’t wish to? If you are arguing that you cannot (or perhaps that you personally could, but others cannot), then isn’t that a shortcoming of the straight service members? And if that’s the case then shouldn’t they be the ones not to serve, or at least to be commanded to live with it, and those who can handle it and those who are qualified should be allowed to serve? After all, I don’t think you’re arguing that gays are unable to be good combat soldiers due to any deficiency of their own, are you?”
This is a good way to word the right questions. I personally dont have a problem serving with an openly gay individual as long as they did not discuss their sexual preferences in my presence or in a situation where I could not choose to walk away. As long as I did not have to sleep with them in close quarters, or shower with them. As you can see, this is what causes problems, because it is these specific situations that dont always allow for choice. For me personally I would not CHOOSE to be in those situations. Does not mean I could not if ordered too. Now to put this in perspective, It would be a negative in my opinion for the same scenarios to exist with a female. I may not mind if she talked about her sexual preferences, but it would be a distraction, i may not mind if she sleeps with me in close quarters but it would be a distraction, I may not mind if she showered with me, but it would be a distraction. ALL of these distractions would be bad for training, for combat, for unit cohesion. Currently I am NCO, I would not want these distractions for my JR Marines, this would affect their training, their focus and disrupt their unit cohesion. I want to be clear, I do NOT hate women or have any negative feeling towards them as individuals, its just in the position we’re in, with the responsibilities we have, I do not think it ADD’s any benefit to us, only negatives. The same is true for an openly gay homosexual. Could we do it? Absolutely. We’re Marines, we can do whatever is asked of us. But there will be consequences and as i have mentioned before, a combat unit has different consequences than that of a non-combat arm MOS. Therefor I need to weigh the consequences against the positives. You again are correct, I have no preconceived notion that a homosexual is in any way unable to do the jobs they are assigned. It isnt a matter of being straight or gay in my mind, its about being openly gay in the midst of a combat unit. I also have a bit of a hard time following the concept that if good Marines or Soldiers or Sailors etc.. do not wish to serve with openly gay members that its better to have a very small % of a very small % of the population be the catalyst that drives away servicemembers. Like your comment was “And if that’s the case then shouldn’t they be the ones not to serve”.. lets be logical in that there isnt enough gays if every homosexual was FORCED to serve that could replace these ranks. This kind of thinking is not in the best interest of the nation.
“Can you tell me what it is about those values in American combat units that means open gays must not serve? Is the value that gays are untrustworthy? If this is the case, I’m comfortable calling that prejudice, and saying it should not be indulged. Is the value simply being anti-gay, or intolerance toward difference? Clearly the military must value conformity, but is the implication that gays can’t conform?”
This is a great question!! This is where the psychological, the mythical, the legendary, and the emotional aspects of combat units come into play. In my mind “trustworthy” isnt really the definition I would use. This is going to be a bit hard to explain because parts of it need to be lived, so bear with me. I can only relate to the USMC but i know its very similar in the Army. We learn very early in our metamorphosis of the men that came before us, not just white men, but of all races. We learn of their honor, their courage, and their sacrifice. It helps build our esprit de Corps, it helps us mentally accept the future realities of sacrificing ourselves for other Marines. Naturally we support this with grueling physical training, tactics, weapons training, leadership training, etc.. It combines together to enable 19 year old boys to do amazing things because of the uniform they wear, the history they are apart of, and the brotherhood they feel with other 19 year old boys which makes them men of war… Lords of War. Every aspect of the mythical down to training class’s are integral to our success in times of extreme stress. Homosexuals who have worn the uniform understand what this is, they too are apart of it, but they will also tell you (because former gay combat vets do speak out after they leave the service), many of them will tell you that openly homosexual behavior detracts from this “hardcore” personal view, not only of themselves, but in the morale and most importantly the discipline of the unit. Discipline is what enables the unit to survive, unit cohesion is inseparable to discipline. Introducing an openly gay element into this mix not only affects those that are just morally objective to the behavior, but it also touches and affects every part of what i just mentioned. I know you may think these things arent important, but until you’ve walked in these shoes its hard to understand… and make no mistake, i understand it would be hard to understand and accept. Again, this kind of existence does not exist in non-combat arm related units. Now, in addition this isnt just the current “state” Natheniel, this is built on 200 years of tradition. Could we make it work, could we apply the stigmas, (and honestly, theres a reason why homosexual men have a stigma.. you cannot deny the way a majority of openly homosexual men act, the feminine behavior, the portrayl on TV, Movies, Radio.. it is a real tangible part of our culture.) could we do it? I think we could. But it would have consequences, and those consequences might be the lives of US Military members. Life and Death is a very sobering aspect of any social policy change that really adds very little to a combat unit if anything. i really dont understand the “trust” issue, ive never understood. I dont really feel like Marines are worried theyre going to get raped in their sleep by their fellow homosexual brothers. lol
“Now, still trying to be genuine about understanding the resistance to openly gay service here, let me acknowledge that for many, morality is not about reason, but is, like religion, an article of faith. It can also be an instinct, rather like disgust. If I had to work every day with someone with a giant tumor on his face the size of a golf ball, I might have a nauseous reaction. I’m not proud of that but I might feel that way. It would take getting used to. If the tumor was the result of the person’s poor health or diet decisions, i may even blame him in the back of my head, and say he was immoral. Maybe I’d say I can’t work with him, and I’d be annoyed if I was told that was a deficiency in me; maybe I’d say I don’t wish to work with him, and I’d be annoyed if someone wasn’t sympathetic. But at the end of the day, I might need to get used to it, for the sake of other values of mine and the greater good: tolerance, individual rights, equal treatment, the value of judging someone based on their merit and utility to the group”
This is a very good analogy. And the key in this comment is “But at the end of the day, I might need to get used to it, for the sake of other values of mine and the greater good: tolerance, individual rights, equal treatment, the value of judging someone based on their merit and utility to the group”” This is absolutely true and i agree with you. However, the sake of the greater good is weighed against the national interests in terms of responsibility. For example, this type of person would be excluded from being ALLOWED to serve in the military. For every reason you cited in addition to physical limitations that would/could cost people thier lives. We arent working at an office.. you know what the next comment is. Currently in the news i read an article about the Sikhs trying to get the Army to allow them to wear their turbins and their beards. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/15/us.sikhs.military/index.html The Army’s argument is fairly logical..””such as when those religious observations would interfere with the wear of proper military headgear or protective clothing or equipment.”” Their argument is very similar to the openly gay argument, but the military is not about tolerance, it is not about accommodating everyone, I have sacrificed several of my individual rights in order to perform my duties in the Marine Corps, thats part of serving.
I reject the comparison of the British military and others with the US military as something to SUPPORT the introduction of openly gay homosexuals in combat units. I am not denigrating their contribution. I only speak about the realities of the roles these military’s play. It is not honest, intellectually or otherwise, to suggest that the British military is more than they are, or Denmarks, or Frances, etc.. It isnt meant to be demeaning, its meant to be an honest appraisal of reality. I do not dismiss the British military, I only dismiss the use of what happened in the British military to even being relevant to the discussion of adopting an openly gay policy in the US Military. That was the only thing my comments were directed at.
“As for open gays, you and I have a disagreement about how to define that. You seem to be throwing together two very different scenarios and addressing them with one broad brushstroke: “discussing” homosexual desire and “demonstrating it.” If by demonstrating, you mean acknowledging, then those two become the same. But you are also talking about people kissing and holding hands–displaying their same-sex romantic feelings. You know very well that such behavior is severely limited on ships and in combat zones, and in some cases banned. And when you mention “leaving the base,” you have much greater freedom to avoid contact with your gay comrades. No need to accuse me of “disrespect” for those who disagree with me–the bill in Congress that would lift the ban simply does not propose altering the regs that currently keep PDA to a minimum. In all honesty, could a day come when gay couples are allowed to show affection? Yes. But it’s not being proposed by the bill that would end “don’t ask, don’t tell” and so it is the right to tell the truth that most people currently mean when they say “openly gay.” Gays are merely asking for exactly the same as what straights currently enjoy, and there’s no reason to believe gays will begin chronicling or exhibiting anal exploits en masse the day the ban ends.”
I guess I need to be more clear because Im assuming things on my part. I in no way am referencing the ability to not be around a demonstration of homosexual behavior. And as I mentioned before this has nothing to do with being on ships or in the barracks. Let me give you an example. When ships are in port and the crew is given liberty, personnel are not restricted from having sexual relations with members of the opposite sex while on liberty. When soldiers or Marines, or Sailors, or Airmen are off duty and they leave the base, they are not restricted from having sexual relations with members of the opposite sex. As you might imagine the communities that are centered around military installations are not that big, and most service members congregate together even in off times, in many cases these are the only people they know in the area they are stationed. So seeing your fellow unit member at the restaurant, or the movies, or the bowling alley, or the bar, the mall.. etc.. is not out of the norm. An openly gay policy would allow homosexuals to “demonstrate” their homosexuality while off duty. I mean, this is also the time that heterosexual service members “demonstrate” their heterosexuality. These events always make their way back to the unit. Discussing, acknowledging, demonstrating, these are all “openly gay” behaviors, and all of them would be entirely acceptable with an “openly gay” policy. In fact, currently to my knowledge the most prevalent reason for discharging homosexuals within the DADT policy is because someone has witnessed these “demonstrations”, or found material that demonstrated sexual preference, which is what incurs the investigations. Dont Ask doesnt mean Dont Report.. and I understand that in some these cases the policy is abused.
As for the rest, its a lot to respond too, but its all fairly related so Im going to address it the best way I can. The Marines and Soldiers you reference in your explanations as you convey them do not seem to be relaying any experience of openly gay behavior. Confidential whispers to close friends (some of them im sure for years and years) or not advertising, is not equated to the same as openly serving. To be honest In my opinion if you asked gay combat veterans they most likely would prefer NOT to act openly gay. This doesnt mean they may not confide in their friends, or that small squads or firteams where members may know, but I would submit that most combat veterans who are homosexual would not WANT people to know. I am confident that in a Marine grunt unit or other combat arm they certainly would not ever act openly gay even if they could. But there is a reason why that is, and Ive covered a lot of that in this post.
As far as losing talented whatevers.. i dont know the numbers but I would be very interested in knowing, where you feel the majority of gay service members are serving in terms of MOS’s. No one is indispensable, AND no one is precluding homosexuals from serving. As of today as you clearly pointed out.. we have plenty of homosexuals serving their nation with honor.
“One final comment: you say that it makes no difference to you if someone is gay or not and that you still fight to let us live the lives we wish. Unless, of course, we wish to serve our country in uniform without lying about it, in some cases like our parents and grandparents and their parents and grandparents. You’re fighting for some of my freedoms, and I’m grateful for that every day—I truly am. But you’re also fighting against others of them. And I’m still not sure why.”
I dont fight and the Marine Corps doesnt exist so you have the right to serve openly. We dont exist so that you can serve. We exist so that you can live your life within the law. My oath is in defense of the US Constitution. Right now there is a law on the books that outlines terms of service for everyone.. the Sikhs.. for gays.. for me. I had to be approved fit and ready for service, what I was sacrificing in personal freedom was explained to me in writing and I signed my name. I do not fight so that you can do whatever you want.. clearly none of us do as sometimes people want to do things that are unlawful, unethical, and wrong, and my role is not to enable you to do those things. I, however, do NOT choose or be selective in who I will FIGHT for even IF I disagree with their sexual preference. I do it anyway, we all do. Im not “fighting” against you and your agenda, I just dont support it. Ive explained several reasons why its a bad idea, and Ive addressed every argument you’ve put forth as well as the reasons YOU support those arguments with.
You may be correct, it may inevitable, but that doesnt mean it will be a positive for our combat elements, and that doesnt mean it will be the end of the world either.
I wonder, just out of curiosity, did you also put the comments in your book of the other very vocal former combat vets who have a very different story than the few you referenced in this article. I would think a lot could be learned from ALL experiences not just the “good” ones while discussing a new policy for something as vital to the defense of the free world.
Nathaniel,
Id like to add one more comment about this discussion in general. I appreciate your efforts to keep this discussion productive and engaging.
As we’ve seen from participants on both sides of this debate, some people can let their emotions and passions overwhelm their sense of restraint and intelligence. Thus far it seems you have allowed all comments to be displayed, which is an honest if not difficult way to keep this forum open to the public (maybe a few very hate filled comments didnt make their way onto the blog) but overall everyside has had well representation. That too is to be appreciated.
I for one enjoy debating, I enjoy the intellectual stimuli.
I think its a positive to be able to demonstrate that it actually is possible to debate hot topics without descending entirely into the mud flinging that normally rules with chaos anytime issues like these are discussed, especially on the internet.
I probably will not be reading your book. lol But thus far I have enjoyed the opportunity to discuss your views with you in detail.
The next time I see you on TV ill be able to say “Ive debated with him first hand, and he’s not a bad guy, and his first instinct is to think rationally and articulate his views with intelligence to support the cause he advocates”. My hope is that maybe when you are with your gay friends or audience and the Marines come up that you can say “They all arent war mongering bigots, though they may not agree with our agenda some of them articulate their positions with calm collective restraint with an overriding concern for their fellow Marines, the Marine Corps, and their ability to protect the Nation.”
I found some answers to my questions:
“Of 742 such dismissals in fiscal year 2005, the highest number than in any category — 49 — were medical personnel. An additional 40 were law enforcement officers, along with 14 intelligence officers, 35 infantrymen, and seven nuclear, biological and chemical warfare specialists.
This generally squares with the Government Accountability Office’s 2004 study, which found that of the 9,488 service members who at that point had been discharged from the military for gay and lesbian conduct since 1993, approximately 757 — or 8 percent — “held critical occupations,” meaning the kinds of jobs for which the Pentagon offers selective reenlistment bonuses.
That number included 322 with “skills in an important language such as Arabic, Farsi or Korean.”
Maginnis says that the military has “come to the conclusion that if we embrace homosexuality openly in the military than that has far more of a detrimental impact than will keeping someone just because they happen to have a critical skill.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/IraqCoverage/Story?id=2910339&page=2