tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965783081453060079.post4720468203999654764..comments2023-04-10T04:41:45.293-04:00Comments on Triangulations: Quick Thought on Repealing DADTmikhailbakuninhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13158822054353654203noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965783081453060079.post-60272907486831313162010-02-05T08:55:22.976-05:002010-02-05T08:55:22.976-05:00Maybe you're right. We just don't know.
F...Maybe you're right. We just don't know.<br /><br />First, I think it's a little odd to ascribe that kind of rationality to what is essentially a bigoted act. Either way, there is clearly a difference between the current policy -- in which outted homosexuals are immediately discharged -- and a policy in which the military effectively endorses homoexuality, and outted gay servicemembers are allowed to serve <i>openly</i>. <br /><br />Second, the polling on this is surprisingly limited, and the few polls that exist are a bit difficult to interpret. For example, the oft-cited <a href="http://www.zogby.com/CSSMM_Report-Final.pdf" rel="nofollow">Zogby poll</a> found that 66 pecent of troops feel the presenece of gays in their unit has no impact on morale. But the same poll also found that a strong plurality of soldiers support the policy, and many <i>simply do not believe that there are gay servicemembers in their unit</i>. (I find that a little astounding.) <br /><br />The only <a href="http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/12/122908_military_poll_DADT/" rel="nofollow">poll that I know of</a> which actually asked service memebers directly whether or not they would <i>leave</i> the military found that about 10 percent claim they would. I don't know the details of the survey, though. <br /><br />Third, I think it's a little weird that you say "some bigoted white Americans," since black Americans are far more strongly opposed to homsexual relationships and homosexuality in general. Arabs Americans, too.mikhailbakuninhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13158822054353654203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965783081453060079.post-35449894738459166482010-02-05T06:56:16.542-05:002010-02-05T06:56:16.542-05:00The key question is: Would repleaing this policy c...<i>The key question is: Would repleaing this policy cause the loss of more than 200 Arabic translators? I think it's certainly possible that the answer to this question is "yes."</i><br /><br />I think that the answer would probably be "no", because in order for the answer to be "yes", then the 200 Arabic speakers would either have to assume they would definitely be serving with someone who is gay, or would have to assume - if they were in the army right now - that there <b>were</b> no gays in the military. Since gays are roughly 10 percent of the population, and since gays are already serving in uniform, albeit covertly, then the 200 Arabic speakers you are referencing would have to be both paranoid in a crazy way and obtuse.<br /><br />Integrating the military may have stopped some bigoted white Americans from joining. It may continue to stop some bigoted white Americans from joining. However, the net benefit of having the troops integrated is, I think, fairly apparent.petplutohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01053307189721906583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965783081453060079.post-67910899703802674882010-02-04T17:59:07.260-05:002010-02-04T17:59:07.260-05:00And to say, "Since they weren't native Ar...<i>And to say, "Since they weren't native Arabic translators, their loss won't be as negative a factor" is, I think, kind of missing the point.</i><br /><br />I do think that native speakers are more valuable, but that's not really what I'm saying. I think you're kind of missing my point.<br /><br />Let's assume that the current policy has cause the loss of, say, 200 gay Arabic translators (native or non-native speakers), either because they were discharged for being gay or because they chose not to serve. <br /><br />The key question is: Would repleaing this policy cause the loss of <b>more than</b> 200 Arabic translators? I think it's certainly possible that the answer to this question is "yes." <br /><br />We just don't know.mikhailbakuninhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13158822054353654203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965783081453060079.post-32961758347684500392010-02-04T17:30:01.435-05:002010-02-04T17:30:01.435-05:00The problem with this point is that the best trans...<i>The problem with this point is that the best translators are native Arabic speakers.</i><br /><br />I don't doubt that's true, much like the best translators of any language are probably native to that tongue. However, I also think it is a bit... problematic to limit the effectiveness of those Arabic translators who have been expelled from the military due to DADT simply because they are <b>not</b> native Arabic speakers. The last number I remember hearing was 58 Arabic translators were expelled from the military due to DADT - but that was before Dan Choi, so the number is at least 59 now. And to say, "Since they weren't native Arabic translators, their loss won't be as negative a factor" is, I think, kind of missing the point.petplutohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01053307189721906583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965783081453060079.post-62972080062758971182010-02-04T16:55:37.952-05:002010-02-04T16:55:37.952-05:00I haven't heard that argument by lefty pundits...<i>I haven't heard that argument by lefty pundits so much as the argument that the DADT's policy expels soldiers in specialized fields and soldiers who are difficult to replace - soldiers with Arabic language skills, for example.</i><br /><br />Yes, I think you're just citing a narrower version of the argument. <br /><br />The problem with this point is that the best translators are native Arabic speakers. But many native speakers are Muslim, and Islam has some very harsh things to say about homosexuality. <br /><br />It's not clear that overturning DADT will result in a net increase in the retention and recruitment of native Arabic speakers. <br /><br /><i>I think, and I think this about all policies and arguments, there has to be a "practical" - for lack of a better word - appeal as well. An argument that has both moral and practical applications is, I think, more likely to succeed than one that relies purely on morality.</i><br /><br />Maybe you're right. And there may be a more practical argument against DADT, but in my view, this clearly isn't it.mikhailbakuninhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13158822054353654203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965783081453060079.post-2963464253011058612010-02-04T16:07:45.549-05:002010-02-04T16:07:45.549-05:00Over the past few years, many left-wing pundits ha...<i>Over the past few years, many left-wing pundits have argued that DADT is simply bad policy because it turns away good soldiers for no sensible reason.</i><br /><br />I haven't heard that argument by lefty pundits so much as the argument that the DADT's policy expels soldiers in specialized fields and soldiers who are difficult to replace - soldiers with Arabic language skills, for example.<br /><br />I don't necessarily agree with you that making the moral case is sufficient, because for the moral case to succeed, you need enough people to look outside their own selfishness (both malignant and more benign) to do something solely for the good of others. I think, and I think this about all policies and arguments, there has to be a "practical" - for lack of a better word - appeal as well. An argument that has both moral and practical applications is, I think, more likely to succeed than one that relies purely on morality.petplutohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01053307189721906583noreply@blogger.com