Gays in the Military

This poll result flagged by Kevin Drum really is depressing. Only 22 percent of 3,400 officers holding the rank of major or lieutenant commander and above support the idea of allowing openly gay or lesbian Americans to serve in the military as a means of boosting recruitment. Fifty-eight percent support lowering education standard, 78 percent supporting offering citizenship to foreigners willing to serve (this sounds like a terrible fall of the Roman Empire idea to me), 38 percent support a draft. This suggests that even if shifts in public opinion have taken some of the sting out of the gays in the military question as an issue of electoral politics, a President Obama or a President Clinton would still face significant resistance from within the armed forces to implementing a changed policy.

Alternatively, and more optimistically, support for a change may be so anemic because officers simply don't think that lifting the "don't ask, don't tell" policy would, in practice, generate a substantial number of new recruits. Insofar as that's what people are thinking, I'm inclined to agree -- lower educational standards is a far more practical way of generating additional bodies. Meanwhile, the current downturn in the labor market is likely to produce an uptick in recruiting. Fundamentally, though, the gays in the military issue is a question of justice and equity and not really an issue about recruiting.

Comments

We are already lowering education standards because not enough people want to sign up to be cannon fodder in Iraq. And we are losing officers at an alarming rate. I wonder what percentage evangelicals make up of the military(especially the Air Force). They are, of course, very hostile to gay people. The other thing to note, I wonder what the age sample is. The younger groups are more tolerant I imagine.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | February 20, 2008 9:21 AM

Gays and lesbians are no more than about 2% of the American population, the lies of Mr. Kinsey notwithstanding. The idea that by increasing the pool of available recruits by 2% you would substantially increase recruitment, is utterly foolish. The political agenda here is obvious and transparent.

Better to get the hell out of the Middle East, now, then we wouldn't need so many recruits to begin with.

Posted by Hector | February 20, 2008 9:22 AM

The numbers were similar about integrating the military.

Also note that the gay recruits would likely be of higher quality, as evidenced by the Arab linguists they kicked out.

Note to Joe Klein's Conscience: I am not concerned about the loss of commissioned officers. I am concerned about the loss of senior non-commissioned officers.

The ratio of officers to men has gone from 1 to 10 to 1 to 5 over the past 50 years, even though, as the most networked large organization in the world, the US military should need fewer middle managers. There is over 50% fat in the officer corps.

The British maintained an empire with incompetent officers but superb non-coms.

Posted by Matthew G. Saroff | February 20, 2008 9:32 AM

Really depressing

What I find really depressing is the idea that even a Democratic president would do anything to deal with falling recruitment other than cut the force to, and beyond, the point needed to maintain the highest standards for recruits. Any force larger than what we need to defend our own borders, say 5-10% of the current force, can do nothing but harm, because it can and will be used to do something other than defend our own borders, the only non-harmful use for a military.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | February 20, 2008 9:32 AM

Actually the Roman Empire was built with foreign troops. Normally 2/3rds of any Roman army consisted of allies fighting for Rome. Foreign recruitment is not a bad idea, but you must integrate them into the culture. Its only when Rome failed to do this that your decline and fall analogy is correct. However, for nearly 600 years Rome successfully integrated vast quantities of foreign forces, with foreign weapons, in foreign uniforms into their army. Army commanders are therefore right to think that this could work. It always has for the dominant powers.

Posted by Nate | February 20, 2008 9:33 AM

I'd be careful about reading too much into that number.

The survey question was framed around finding ways to boost recruitment. It's quite possible to be comfortable with gays openly serving in the military and also thinking that changing the policy would have only a marginal impact on recruiting numbers.

Posted by Dan | February 20, 2008 9:36 AM

I knew it. Scratch a liberal blogger and you'll find a virulent anti-Ostrogoth.

I have always maintained that the problem with U.S. imperialism was insufficient tribute from our conquered countries.

Posted by Martin | February 20, 2008 9:37 AM

The "fall of Rome" comment is a bit ignorant and unfortunate here. What's meant is that people who might not otherwise be eligible for citizenship or who would have to wait many years for it can get it more quickly by serving in the military. I think it's a great idea- it surely speeds integration, it likely helps build a sense of belonging, and so on. It's not that recruiting stations are being built over-seas or the like.

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | February 20, 2008 9:40 AM

I'm surprised that you're surprised. The military officer corps, although never a hotbed of liberalism for obvious reasons, has become increasingly conservative over the last 30+ years. The linkage of military officers particularly with fairly partisan evangelical groups has been noted repeatedly in the media. To the extent conservatives have been whipping up heterosexual male panic over gender roles during that period, the military officer pool is a very tempting target for that kind of pitch.

Posted by scott | February 20, 2008 9:40 AM

Serving in the U.S. military is not a noble profession. Your masters are xenophobic murderers, torturers, and inveterate liars. They're chiefly preoccupied with protecting corporate interests and laying claim to various assets allowing said interests to maintain market share and stock value. Americans should refuse to enlist. If drafted they should refuse to serve. En masse. The judiciary cannot prosecute and punish tens of millions for doing so. If you are a member of the U.S. armed forces your are complicit in war crimes and should be punished accordingly. Amnesty should be granted to all finishing their agreed upon tour of duty. However, re-enlisting should result in jail. Do not participate in American hegemony.

Posted by steve duncan | February 20, 2008 9:40 AM

I feel like I've seen polling of military officers that gives better numbers than that. Probably when you just ask "do you support or oppose allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military?" rather than as a means of reducing enrollment pressures.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | February 20, 2008 9:43 AM

"Actually the Roman Empire was built with foreign troops. Normally 2/3rds of any Roman army consisted of allies fighting for Rome. Foreign recruitment is not a bad idea, but you must integrate them into the culture. Its only when Rome failed to do this that your decline and fall analogy is correct. However, for nearly 600 years Rome successfully integrated vast quantities of foreign forces, with foreign weapons, in foreign uniforms into their army. Army commanders are therefore right to think that this could work. It always has for the dominant powers.

Posted by Nate | February 20, 2008 9:33 AM"

Very true. Plus, we also allow naturalized soldiers-cum-citizens to vote, which Rome never did. MY's wider point still holds though.

Posted by Reality Man | February 20, 2008 9:46 AM

I agree that losing good NCOs would/will be crippling to our long-term military dominance. No matter how smart an officer may be, he/she is just barely a kid when starting out. A good platoon sergeant, while technically subordinate to said officer, is the one that has about a decade of real-world experience under his/her belt compared to officer training and a four-year degree. Officers may give the orders, but NCOs are the ones who make things run.

Posted by Shawn | February 20, 2008 9:48 AM

My impression was that DADT was being quietly and unofficially dropped, with relatively fewer expulsions of gays even when they were all but out. Continuing this would probably be the way to go for the early part of the Obama administration - don't raise the issue officially but make it clear that "Don't ask" really means "Dunno nuttin' about teh Gay."

Posted by jimBOB | February 20, 2008 9:48 AM

(this sounds like a terrible fall of the Roman Empire idea to me)

Because then the Mexican soldiers will defect to their compatriot hordes, and sack Dallas?

Ease off the Lou Dobbs, Matt.

Posted by Anderson | February 20, 2008 9:57 AM

The quote from Foreign Policy in Kevin's post says that the survey included retired officers--That would seem like something that would skew the results, probably in an anti-gay direction.

I'm also somewhat curious if policymakers/military personnel/the general public have different views on lesbian women versus gay men in the military.

Posted by flippantangel | February 20, 2008 9:58 AM

If the next Prez is a Dem, he or she ought to make a military OK for gays a priority. Sure, there'll be a stink, but after a short while, the only people bitching will be the same people still bitching about allowing blacks and whites to serve together. Everyone, even Fred Phelps, knows this is going to happen sooner or later. It's a political winner, I think, and a very visible (and somewhat easy) feather in a leader's cap.

Posted by ed | February 20, 2008 10:14 AM

steve duncan - The same can be said of every federal employee, right? Not just the military?

Posted by mike | February 20, 2008 10:17 AM

My impression was that DADT was being quietly and unofficially dropped, with relatively fewer expulsions of gays even when they were all but out.

Tell that to the Arabic translators who got canned.

Posted by Persia | February 20, 2008 10:23 AM

Tell that to the Arabic translators who got canned.

That was years back, during the early part of the war. I''m talking recently, within the past six months.

Posted by jimBOB | February 20, 2008 10:26 AM

78 percent supporting offering citizenship to foreigners willing to serve (this sounds like a terrible fall of the Roman Empire idea to me)

Actually, wars have typically been the impetus for expansions of citizenship and voting rights in the United States. The most famous of these would be women winning the vote in the wake of WW1 and African Americans receiving the nominal constitutional (though largely unrealized) right to vote after fighting in the Civil War. This has, however, been the pattern in other periods of American history as well.

Alexander Keyssar gives a great history of this in "The Right to Vote."

Posted by rufustfyrfly | February 20, 2008 10:26 AM

steve duncan - The same can be said of every federal employee, right? Not just the military?

Posted by mike | February 20, 2008 10:17 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, I suppose in the DoD that might be an apt statement. I'd posit those working in humanitarian endeavors should be given a pass (and don't start with the bullshit our military pursues a humanitarian agenda). I can't see as an employee of HUD or the EPA contributes much to the attachment of live wires to the testicles of smart-aleck shopkeeper in Baghdad some grunt thinks needs taught a lesson.

Posted by steve duncan | February 20, 2008 10:34 AM

Most LCDR's and higher are older people.. Trust me I know.. They would be against it.. Ask the Ensigns up to LT's and they would say something different.. Ask enlisted people too.. (Sorry for the use of Navy terms. I am ex-Navy.)It's no secret there are alot of gay people who serve proudly in our military..

Posted by Ann | February 20, 2008 10:36 AM

The simple truth is that the current military constitutes a distinct subculture within the American body politic as a whole.

Therefore, it quite predictably is going to a an agenda which is distinct from- and arguably hostile to - the agendas held by other elements of American society.

Therefore, in effect if not in actual intent - to support the military is to support its agenda, to oppose other agendas, or both.

Under these circumstances, widespread support by the non-military for high DOD budgets, their uncritical "support the troops," mentality, their worship of "war heroes," and the like is frankly odd.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | February 20, 2008 10:38 AM

Re Joe Klein's comment " The younger groups are more tolerant I imagine."
----------
Actually, my father -- a typical white Southern blue collar male -- was bemused by the anti-gay uproar during Clinton's administration.

My father served in the Army during the Korean War -- he said there were gays in the Army then, everyone knew they were gay, but that the gays tended to stick to themselves and --so long as they didn't come on aggressively to the wrong guy --no one bothered them.

Obviously, that still left gays vulnerable to harassment by officers or NCOs that disliked homosexuals -- but I think the evangelicals have stirred up a lot more anti-gay fevor in some areas of our society than existed even in the 1950s.

Posted by Don Williams | February 20, 2008 10:39 AM

According to the U.S. Department of Defense:
* More than 60,000 immigrants serve on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces.
* Immigrants make up nearly 5 percent of all enlisted personnel on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces.
* 12 non-citizen soldiers KIA so far in Iraq.

Posted by sherrold | February 20, 2008 10:43 AM

Of course repealing DADT wouldn't lead to a substantial uptick in recruiting. Contemporary studies put the number of gays and lesbians at around 2% [1] of the population. Gays and lesbians tend to be fairly progressive, and progressives are less likely to join the military due to general concerns about military force and/or specific objections to how our government has chosen to use it. Plus some number of those who are inclined to serve are already doing it despite DADT. If it causes the most inveterately homophobic 2% to stay away, you could actually see a small decrease in recruiting. Letting us gays into the military is a good and moral idea, but it should be obvious that it's not an effective strategy for increasing recruiting.

Also, as for recruiting, why does nobody ever suggest the really obvious demand-side technique of paying recruits more?

[1] The famous "10%" figure one still often hears comes from a mischaracterization of one of Kinsey's numbers.

Posted by Elliot Reed | February 20, 2008 10:50 AM

Re Nate's comment "Actually the Roman Empire was built with foreign troops. Normally 2/3rds of any Roman army consisted of allies fighting for Rome "
-------------
Missing the point. There's a big difference between using foreign allies -- and making those foreigners into CITIZENS. Rome's expansion during the Republic was via large citizen armies.

When it became clear that the common citizen wasn't going to benefit from those victories, only the wealthy and well-connected, (See Gracchi brothers, patrician extermination of) then recruiting became more difficult.

The Roman consul Marius instituted a volunteer (i.e. mercanery) army ,recruited from the poor and with long term enlistments circa 107? BC. The Roman Republic fell circa 45 BC? (because the troops had loyalty only to their commanders not to the Senate).

It was under the Roman Empire that offering citizenship to foreigners in exchange for military
service became widespread -- especially the rise of foreigners in the OFFICER ranks. Eventually, you had German Generals in the ROMAN army trying to hold off German invaders. See Stilcho.

Posted by Don Williams | February 20, 2008 10:51 AM

The surprising thing about the survey to me was that almost 4 out of 10 supported a draft; I did not think it would be nearly that high.

(and put be down as another one who thought the Rome comment was really dumb. Unless you're a Navajo code talker, pretty much everyone in uniform would be effectively a foreigner by Roman standards I think.)

Posted by Kolohe | February 20, 2008 10:52 AM

Clarification: To above sentence "Eventually, you had German Generals in the ROMAN army trying to hold off German invaders." add
" AND FAILING".

Posted by Don Williams | February 20, 2008 10:57 AM

The only good Samnite ---is a dead Samnite.

Posted by Don Williams | February 20, 2008 11:01 AM

Aren't the higher echelons of the military filled with very socially conservative evangelical Christians? I thought that the far right had spent many years filling the military with these views. Haven't there been some controversies over the Air Force Academy?

The military is extremely conservative and will remain so for a number of years. There's 0 point in Obama or Hillary pushing this as an issue. And I'm gay. I just know that this is, politically, pointless and just an excuse for the media and the far right to rev up gay bashing.

Posted by Carl | February 20, 2008 11:20 AM

What about if the gay enlistees are also foreign, stupid, and eighty years old? Would it be OK then?

Posted by en_dash | February 20, 2008 11:23 AM

Clarification: To above sentence "Eventually, you had German Generals in the ROMAN army trying to hold off German invaders." add
" AND FAILING".

I too think the Roman comment was way off base as is this one - Romanized Britons, Gauls, Iberians, etc all were successfully integrated and were successful in combating their ethnic bretheren on the periphery of the empire. Rome's problems in Germany (and Dacia) had more to do with the lack of a centralized population - these we're very tribal/decentralized areas that were extremely difficult and expensive to control. Rome just gave up on Dacia eventually and abandoned it. Some areas in Germania were relatively well integrated into Rome.

Posted by BFR | February 20, 2008 11:23 AM

"Some areas in Germania were relatively well integrated into Rome"
----------
St Augustine must have wrong then. All those Goths raping Roman women were just in town on holiday?

And that sacking was just the typical tourist heavy-handed souvenir collecting?

Posted by Don Williams | February 20, 2008 11:37 AM

How about proposing a compromise? Officers might let gays serve openly if they can keep out Muslims like the fratricidal Hasan Karim Akbar aka Mark Fidel Kools.

Posted by Juan | February 20, 2008 11:41 AM

Re BFR's comment "Romanized Britons, Gauls, Iberians, etc all were successfully integrated and were successful in combating their ethnic bretheren on the periphery of the empire"
-------------
Unfortunately, they didn't STAY "on the periphery".

The history of the Roman Empire's collapse is one long story of foreigners rising to General in the Legions and then marching on Rome/triggering long bloody civil wars in order to become Emperor. A lesson they admittedly learned from Roman families.

Meanwhile, the descendents of those whose ancestors fought and died to create Rome lived under the yoke of the Emperor's tax collectors. The Germans eventually won because the native Italians welcomed them in -- why fight a foreign conqueror who will be less of a vicious asshole than your own government?

What if we had chosen to save $6 Trillion in taxes and LOST the Cold War? Would the common US citizen be any worst off today?

Posted by Don Williams | February 20, 2008 11:45 AM

If we are talking about the fall of Rome, the issue of foreign recruitment is a red herring. The use of entire barbarian tribes as mercenaries was the problem. Think of it as military outsourcing.

As others have noted, since the early Republic, Rome had allies designated as "socii", whose cities enjoyed privileged treaty status in their dealings with Rome. The Roman franchise was gradually expanded to include the adult males of Latium and other of these nearby cities, where many of the aristocratic and common families had intermarried with Romans. Ultimately, the Roman franchise was made universal in Italy for the native born. As the empire grew, citizenship was a reward, much coveted among the former conquered.

Roman veterans were settled by land grants throughout the Empire. The western parts of the Empire became deeply "Romanized" through settlement and naturalization. One of the greatest imperial dynasties that included Trajan and Hadrian who presided over the Empire at its zenith came from Spain.

As the Empire came under stress from plague within and barbarian migration without, manpower became a critical issue, and not just in the army. There were chronic labor shortages in critical industries. Among the officer class, the newly powerful Christian church competed for talent with both the army and the civil service. Successive emperors addressed the problem by hiring as mercenaries barbarian tribes along the northern frontiers. Since these tribes were being pressed by the incoming migrations, they were strongly incentivized. However, they typically fought as separate units, or armies, were not integrated into the regular army and lived far from the centers of Roman civil culture. Often they were promised land within the Empire and then short-changed. Their loyalty became variable. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Posted by orestes | February 20, 2008 11:55 AM

Surveys of troops (not officers only) serving in Iraq and Afghanistan reported they had little concern about serving with openly gay soldiers.

Posted by CParis | February 20, 2008 11:55 AM

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/military-recr-1.html

As a commentator at Sullivan's site pointed out the survey does not reflect the modern officer that much.

"The data from the survey clearly shows that it was heavily skewed towards a much older pool of retired officers: - 89% of respondents are over 50. 72% are over 60. 38% are over 70. - 92% are retired. 71% have been retired for more than 10 years."

Posted by nathaniel | February 20, 2008 12:01 PM

Let's be clear on two points:
1) there are, and always have been, gays in the military. I know several who served. All the current policy does is unnecessarily increase their security risk because their career can be damaged if their orientation is officially known.
2) the arguments against allowing gays to serve fall reduce to two categories:
- it would be bad for morale. In short, all the things people could have said to President Truman about racial integration of the military half a century ago.
- Oh horror! Then we might have to actually enforce the anti-sexual harassment regs!
Neither of which are all that persuasive.

Posted by wj | February 20, 2008 12:15 PM

A policy directive issued by the War Department and approved by President Roosevelt on October 9, 1940 discussing the reasons not to mix white and "colored" soldiers stated:

"This policy has proven satisfactory over a long period of years, and to make changes now would produce situations destructive to morale and detrimental to preparations for national defense" (Cited in Katznelson, When Affirmative Action was White, p.96)

Sound familiar?

Posted by Sherry | February 20, 2008 12:47 PM

The problem with making foreigners into citizens is that they drag you into their stupid quarrels. Like those fucking Zealots in Judea.

Although Pontius Pilatus appears to have suppressed that cult by crucifying one of the little buggers.

Posted by Don Williams | February 20, 2008 12:49 PM

The gay/lesbian issue is also one of practicality. It's simply idiotic to keep throwing out soldiers with desperately needed skills (e.g. Arabic translators) because they're gay. Also, my understanding is that "don't ask, don't tell" isn't the prevailing policy; rather, a lot of resources are still being used to out gays who are trying to be discreet. This is obviously a waste of resources that could be more productively used on almost anything else.

Posted by beckya57 | February 20, 2008 1:00 PM

So what would happen if that 38% got their way and we instituted a draft in order to get our numbers in Iraq up over 400,000? Would young Americans start lining up to have themselves photographed with a penis or vulva in or near their mouth to establish their 'gay' bona fides? Would it take firm anal sex by a staff sergeant (pun intended) to determine gayness of male inductees or would there be an oral sex test in order to cover both sexes?

I would imagine the best way to insure proper gay representation in the military would be to start a draft. I wonder how many of the 22% who support gay rights are included in the 38% who support a draft?

Posted by Ricky | February 20, 2008 2:30 PM

....In the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, President Bush and Congress, citing long-established wartime powers, streamlined the process by which immigrants in the armed forces could become naturalized citizens.

As of October, more than 25,000 immigrant soldiers had become U.S. citizens as a result. Another 40,000 are believed eligible to apply. And roughly a third of noncitizens in the all-volunteer military come from Mexico and Central America....

from
Immigrant soldiers serve the U.S.
More are taking quicker path to citizenship
November 28, 2006
By David McLemore, The Dallas Morning News

Posted by artappraiser | February 20, 2008 3:52 PM

Yglesias:

78 percent supporting offering citizenship to foreigners willing to serve (this sounds like a terrible fall of the Roman Empire idea to me)

Huh? I don't get your reasoning here. Seems to me it would be more "fall of the Roman empire" to recruit foreigners but NOT offer them citizenship, ala "French foreign legion," the empire/mercenary thing. People who want to become citizens of a country have a strong interest in that country, maybe more so than those born into citizenship. That is not empire and occupation of other lands, it is nationalism. (That's not to say I don't think many people falling for it are fools.)

....European immigrants joined the Union Army in large numbers. Over 6,000 Germans in New York immediately responded to Lincoln's call for volunteers. Another 4,000 Germans in Pennsylvania also joined. The French community were keen to show its support of the Union. The Lafayette Guards, an entirely French company, was led by Colonel Regis de Trobriand. The 55th New York Volunteers was also mainly composed of Frenchmen.

It is estimated that over 400,000 immigrants served with the Union Army....

from
European Recruits
Spartacus schoolnet

Posted by artappraiser | February 20, 2008 4:05 PM

Or maybe military officers know a little more about what makes for military effectiveness than Matthew Yglesias?

To his credit, Matt at least hints at an important fact -- on average, gay men aren't masculine enough to want to volunteer in large numbers for the military, so letting gays in wouldn't increase the amount of cannon fodder available by much at all, and might well drive out more of the highly masculine (and frequently very anti-homosexual) heterosexual men who think war is fun.

When I discussed this with a retired 3 star general, he pointed out that the small number of highly masculine homosexuals are big trouble for the military -- would you want one to be your son's drill instructor at boot camp?

Of course, when it comes to lesbians, everything is reversed. Lesbians are much more likely to make the military a career than heterosexual women. For details, see "Why Lesbians Aren't Gay:"

http://www.isteve.com/lesvsgay.htm

Posted by Steve Sailer | February 20, 2008 5:28 PM

Allowing gays to serve openly is a matter of simple justice. Frankly, if a guy is willing to pick up a rifle and stand a post then he should be allowed to serve, no matter what he wants to do in privacy of his bed room.
Again, if non-citizens want to serve in the US military, in return for citizenship, then more power to them . During the the time of the British Empire substantial numbers of foreign troops served in the British Army, with Indians providing one of the largest contingents.
Those citizens who don't like the idea should present themselves to the nearest recruiting station to fill the shortfall. Uncle Sam wants you, Matt.

Posted by stonetools | February 20, 2008 5:45 PM

Joe Klein's Conscience got it right. As we all know, attitudes to gays are generational. The survey did cross-tab age. The results are VERY ENCOURAGING:

What is your age?
38% 71+ years
34% 61-70 years
17% 51-60 years
6% 41-50 years
6% 31-40 years
.03% 25-30 years

Remember, most officers retire before they are 60. If most retirees are homophobes, the vast majority of active officers want open gay service in the military.

First rule of polls: R*E*A*D T*H*E C*R*O*S*S-T*A*B*S!

Posted by Joe S. | February 20, 2008 6:13 PM

Fifty-eight percent support lowering education standard, 78 percent supporting offering citizenship to foreigners willing to serve

Yglesias,

That's a coded question about illegal aliens. Maybe allowing illegal aliens to serve in the military does portend a "fall of the Roman Empire" (though I have serious doubts about that position).

However, you can't simultaneously argue that allowing illegal aliens into this country (even allowing them to qualify for driver's licenses and welfare state entitlements!) is healthy, but that allowing them to earn citizenship through service to the nation (and only if that service is honorable) is a catastrophic, state-destroying proposition. If anything, that's exactly backward.

Posted by Shinyk | February 20, 2008 7:02 PM

Re: Gays and lesbians are no more than about 2% of the American population, the lies of Mr. Kinsey notwithstanding.

Hector (et al), the minimum number is 5% and that cannot be wished away, nor does it derive from any dubious sex survey but rather from the exit polls of the 200 election where 4% of respondants admitted to pollsters that they were gay/lesbian, and (from a separate survey) self-admitted gay/lesbians voted at about 80% the rate of the general population (this latter probably due to t
he fact that the openly gay population skews younger than the overall population, and younger people tend to vote at lower rates than their elders.) You can do the math fron that. And bear in mind that this number is valid only for openly gay people, people who will admit to that in a survey taken by a stranger. The number of still-closeted people remains uncertain.

Re: The political agenda here is obvious and transparent.

If Blacks were only 2% of the population would support Jim Crow laws, or their exclusion from the military?

Re: Better to get the hell out of the Middle East, now, then we wouldn't need so many recruits to begin with.

Well, at least here we agree.

Re: If you are a member of the U.S. armed forces your are complicit in war crimes and should be punished accordingly.

Our daily dose of hyperbole! Since when does anyone with any pretense to rational thinking and proper ethics espouse guilt-by-association or guilt-by-nationality? The only people guilty of war crimes are those who commit, order or cover them up.

Re: Plus, we also allow naturalized soldiers-cum-citizens to vote, which Rome never did.

In the Roman Republic voting was done by tribe (rather like our electoral college where voting is done by state). The residents of Rome proper, especially the wealthier peoples, belonged to smaller tribes in which their vote mattered, while everyone else (inlcuding new citizens) was herded into one or two enormous "rural" tribes, where their vote did not count for much. Under the Empire of course voting became rather meaningless (except at the municipal level, as many Roman cities were limited democracies).

Re: It was under the Roman Empire that offering citizenship to foreigners in exchange for military service became widespread

Roman citizenship was regularly bestowed on allies en masse in the late Republic and eventually was extended to all freemen under the Emperor Caracalla-- not because he was particulaly liberal, but because he was short of funds and citizens paid higher taxes. Presumably this expansion of the citizenship included everyone in the legions too.

re: Rome just gave up on Dacia eventually and abandoned it.

Yet ironically the region remained Lain speaking (it's modern Romania) despite being subsequently overrun by Germans and Slavs.

re: St Augustine must have wrong then. All those Goths raping Roman women were just in town on holiday?

The Goths came from parts distant (originally from the Baltic coast by way of Ukraine). The nearer parts of Germany, the Rhineland, were under Rome's rule as border provinces.

Re: The history of the Roman Empire's collapse is one long story of foreigners rising to General in the Legions and then marching on Rome/triggering long bloody civil wars in order to become Emperor.

Actually it was a tale of Romans doing this, at least until the last two generations or so in the West (after Honorius bought off the Goths by giving them Spain and his sister) when things really came apart at the seams.

Posted by Jonf | February 20, 2008 7:14 PM

Don't worry everyone, I'm sure that Obama will get McClurkin on this problem as soon as he is inaugurated.

Posted by dk | February 20, 2008 7:36 PM

"My impression was that DADT was being quietly and unofficially dropped, with relatively fewer expulsions of gays even when they were all but out."

Tell that to the Arabic translators who got canned. Posted by Persia

You tell them. The NYTimes little "indispensible"(see note) rear ech translator darlings got thrown out for flagrant, open acts of homosexuality. Many had heard they could make more money as civilian contractors. Others were just the naturally reckless sort that the military wants nothing to do with be they high-potential gays, high potential drug users, guys with fast fists and no self control.

When I was in as an officer, I had a few high performing gays (mostly female), alkies, and druggies. As long as they were DISCRETE, I and Command didn't care. I worked at one point for a high performing O-6 bisexual alcoholic guy, who had a photographic memory, a PhD, surfed, had a wife and at least two gay surfer lovers.

The key is DISCRETE behavior. Open, accepted homosexuality would undermine good order and discipline. That is the lesson military leaders got from studying the failures of Armies where homosexuality was open and gay older officers and NCOs engaged in blatant favortism of their special "smooth-skinned and bottomed young boys". It was a bad thing for the military and the mission. Fuck the issue of "rights" - the military does not recruit the blind, the physically unfit, or people with mental conditions that while not their fault, would harm unit effectiveness and cohesion.

(Note) The NYTimes special little gay Arabic translators, all dozen and a half of them, were cast by lefty reporters as the crucial margin of victory, depriving us of the defeat of the enemy - much as the issue of wealthy women joining wealthy male fatcats as members of Augusta Golf Club was cast as the greatest threat ever to sports by lefty reporters.

There are about 3 million Arabic speakers in the USA. The biggest problem is structuring our government to get extra pay and fast security clearances so they can be better recruited. That is the cause of a shortage, not the inability of the miniscule fraction of them that happen to be gay not being allowed to serve if they are flagrant homos. If the military recruited with a hefty bonus for translators like they do for MOS of great value, they would have no shortage of non-gay linguists.

Posted by chris ford | February 20, 2008 7:48 PM

Re: Open, accepted homosexuality would undermine good order and discipline.

It depends what you mean by "open". Gay pornos in the barracks and hitting on other guys in the showers would certainly be a big problem. But simply knowing that someone is gay (which is most likely already a matter of common knowledge) should not be. Besides being gay is not a big deal with young people, from whom nearly all military recruits are drawn. Even religious young people no longer care much about the issue.

Re: That is the lesson military leaders got from studying the failures of Armies where homosexuality was open and gay older officers and NCOs engaged in blatant favortism of their special "smooth-skinned and bottomed young boys".

Unless you go all the way back to the Greeks in eras BC, there are no such armies. And it's not clear the Greeks had a problem either. Certainly Alexander's Macedonians didn't.

Re: Fuck the issue of "rights" - the military does not recruit the blind, the physically unfit, or people with mental conditions that while not their fault, would harm unit effectiveness and cohesion.

So in 1950 you would have fought Truman's integration order since that ran dead against rampant racism in the ranks. You know, sometimes soldiers have to be told to dump their stupid civilian habits (including mental habits) or get out of the army.

Posted by JonF | February 20, 2008 10:13 PM

Don't worry everyone, I'm sure that Obama will get McClurkin on this problem as soon as he is inaugurated.

Posted by dk | February 20, 2008 7:36 PM

Good to see some good ol' smartass cynicism from a user name I recognize. But then I'm weird, people seeing reality gives me great hope, not the other way around. :-)

Posted by artappraiser | February 20, 2008 10:20 PM

People keep talking about how integrating homosexuality into the army is just like integrating blacks. People keep worrying about it, but when it happens, it will be no big deal.

But people also predicted bad things woul happen with the integration of women - and guess what? They did:

However, democracy requires an active press. When the news media self-censors news stories about the downsides to lowering standards to accommodate women, we have less democracy and more mediacracy. The power of working women in newsrooms lead to a major coverup of news stories about, say, the problems caused by the sexual integration of the military: e.g., plane crashes, kinder-gentler boot camps, rampant pregnancies, the state of naval wives whose husbands come back from long cruises on co-ed ships the father of some seawoman's new baby, etc.

For at least the first half of the 90's these kind of stories were only regularly available in the Moonie-funded Washington Times."

If the policy is lifted, will it really be like the integration of blacks, where everything did go smoothly, or will all of the predicted problems come to pass, but no one will publicly admit it? If there is a "gay Tailhook" will it be flushed down the memory hole?

Posted by Glaivester | February 20, 2008 11:05 PM

Re: But people also predicted bad things woul happen with the integration of women - and guess what? They did:

So that's why things went so badly in Iraq!

Serously though, can you show that any of these bad things were non-trivial, in terms of damaging America's military capabilities? The Iraq mess is due to political and strategic blunders at the very top (and that's being charitable).

Posted by JonF | February 21, 2008 6:44 AM

I'm not a smaht man (best Forest Gump imitation) but seems to me that normal men tend to get excited about women, especially when they're naked. Therefore, someone who is smart probably deduced that men and women shouldn't shower together because, um, well, things might happen. So if everybody's so excited about having openly gay folks (I don't distinguish between men and womenly with this word because most men leaning this way prefer acting like women and most women like men) in the military, is the Army going to tell us men can no longer shower together, because, um, well, things might happen?

Posted by e-pilgrim | February 21, 2008 12:15 PM