New source of high-quality recruits

[Schmedlap]

As for having too many advanced degree candidates, I would imagine that it depends what the advanced degree is in.

Understood, but I've had riflemen, automatic riflemen, team leaders, and squad leaders with masters degrees - a handful of them had multiple masters degrees. One of my first squad leaders, when I was a shiny new 2LT, was working on this PhD (in philosophy!). My concern is: Advanced degree? So what? That doesn't make the guy unqualified to do something that does not relate to his degree. Some of us (myself included) hope to NOT use our degrees in the Army. I hope that the recruiters are telling these guys, "we don't need any more people for ___ MOS, but have you considered an 11X enlistment to go to airborne and RIP immediately after IET?" Are they allowing people to go straight to SFAS? Have they lowered the rank requirement?

[Brandon Friedman]

I mean, yeah, this is great that so many highly qualified people in this country are volunteering to serve. I'm more than aware of both the Army's recruiting woes over the past few years and how difficult it can be for long-time residents to attain American citizenship (my wife is from Europe). So this is good for both.

My problem with this, however, is that the Army is now being forced by law to recruit foreigners to fill roles which are "vital to national security" because they aren't allowed to recruit patriotic American citizens who happen to be gay.

I just think there's something fundamentally wrong with that.

Because remember, the new recruiting policy isn't just aimed at linguists--a task for which the Koreans are specifically qualified. When it was announced, they said they were targeting people "to make up for chronic shortages of doctors, nurses and linguists."

[tequila]

I think the comment was more about the Koreans taking up too many slots in the program and possibly crowding out Farsi or Arabic speakers who aren't quite as organized.

[Schmedlap]

they aren't allowed to recruit patriotic American citizens who happen to be gay.

Of course they can. Don't ask, don't tell. There were at least 3 gay Soldiers in one of my battalions and it was common knowledge that the female barracks on post had at least three dozen lesbians. It was actually a source of frustration for many of the male Soldiers who were annoyed at how protective the lesbians were of the barracks, making it difficult for the men to "introduce themselves" if you will. I always found this kind of funny - whenever I heard such a gripe, I would always ask, "is it so much of a hassle to drive downtown to the club and associate with women who do not live on base?" They always had a zinging retort: "but sir, what if you're on staff duty? Then you'll have to come pick us up from jail after we get arrested." Touche, young Soldier.

The prohibition is on serving while being openly gay. There are lots of prohibitions. It is not a bar to service. It is a bar to conduct. There are lots of those associated with service.

The paradox here is that...
1. There is political motivation to encourage people to openly identify themselves by their sexuality
2. Changing DADT will be seen as a shift in mainstream values to accepting open identification of one's self by one's sexuality
3. Were it not for the political motivations underlying this shift for a change in policy, then the policy could quietly change with very little notice or fanfare
4. But the political nature of the debate is what creates so much resistance to changing the DADT policy, because changing the policy will be perceived as a victory in a culturally divided political battle

The military is perceived by many (at least recently) as the epitome of traditional American values - what is best about America. To bring about this change in the military is to send a strong message that America is changing and to use the military's policy change as a means of persuading people that the change is good, or at least acceptable. Some people don't want that change. Other people do. On both sides of the fence, the most fervent proponents and opponents have political motivations for their views and understand the significant persuasive effect of changing policy in order to induce the military to accept openly homosexual servicemembers. I think that is the true source of concern among the military. They do not want to be dragged into this ugly political nonsense. Unfortunately for them, it is not their call.

[Brandon Friedman]

DADT is certainly politically charged, but that fact alone isn't germane to the question of whether this policy makes sense or not. This is really simple: I'm arguing that it's better to first hire qualified Americans (who might be openly gay) for these "vital" positions than it is to hire foreigners. Are you saying that's wrong?

The point is that there are Americans available to fill these positions without having to first recruit non-citizens.

[Schmedlap]

As a general sweeping statement, I don't think it's correct.

If someone born in another country wants to be an American and loves this country, then I am not concerned about the lack of citizenship. In such a case, I say take the most qualified person. Now if we're fresh out of straights to fill needed positions and we go searching other countries, when there happen to be gays in this country who are qualified and willing, that does sound backward.

I don't think we've been faced with any situation where we're debating between foreign & straight versus American & gay. But even if that were the situation, DADT may not be germane to whether the policy makes sense, but it certainly would be germane to whether the policy is prudent. Whether or not a politically-charged policy should change is based more on prudence than whether something makes sense on paper.

The debate reminds me of the early years of the insurgency. We would go out on patrol everyday and just tell each other, "don't these people get it? They say that they're fighting to force us to leave. If they would stop fighting, then we would leave. Instead, they just keep fighting, so we have to stay." It's the same dynamic with the "gay rights" lobby. If they truly cared about this policy change, rather than the persuasive effect that it would achieve in the larger debate, then they would just give it a rest. In a few years, it would be quietly revisited, in light of shortages of critical skills, and probably changed. Instead, they keep pushing the issue, which evokes push-back from those who see what larger goal political goal is being sought.

[Brandon Friedman]

I don't think we've been faced with any situation where we're debating between foreign & straight versus American & gay.

This is the first sentence of the AP article announcing the new policy:

The Pentagon plans to recruit more foreigners in a fresh effort to make up for chronic shortages of doctors, nurses and linguists available for wartime duty.

And here's the first sentence of an AP article written a year and a half earlier:

Lawmakers who say the military has kicked out 58 Arabic linguists because they were gay want the Pentagon to explain how it can afford to let the valuable language specialists go.

Apparently it can let them go because we'll just go out and hire some foreigners to replace them. This is a clear example of what I'm talking about. We literally kicked out 58 Arabic linguists only to turn around the next year and hire foreigners to fill the "chronic shortages." Aside from the debate over whether that's right or wrong, it's a waste of money in terms of training.

Your example of how it goes in Iraq is on the mark, but I don't think it's a comparable situation. I'm not aware of any class of citizens in this country being granted civil rights without first having to publicly oppose the status quo.

[reed11b]

This is the first sentence of the AP article announcing the new policy:



And here's the first sentence of an AP article written a year and a half earlier:



Apparently it can let them go because we'll just go out and hire some foreigners to replace them. This is a clear example of what I'm talking about. We literally kicked out 58 Arabic linguists only to turn around the next year and hire foreigners to fill the "chronic shortages." Aside from the debate over whether that's right or wrong, it's a waste of money in terms of training.

Your example of how it goes in Iraq is on the mark, but I don't think it's a comparable situation. I'm not aware of any class of citizens in this country being granted civil rights without first having to publicly oppose the status quo.

Just scored points with me. Good job troop. Though I agree to a large extent with what Schmedlap was saying about how the policy would evolve quietly if not politicized, but the entire gay/homosexual issue has been politicized so that may be wishful thinking.
Reed

[Schmedlap]

Apparently it can let them go because we'll just go out and hire some foreigners to replace them. This is a clear example of what I'm talking about. We literally kicked out 58 Arabic linguists only to turn around the next year and hire foreigners to fill the "chronic shortages." Aside from the debate over whether that's right or wrong, it's a waste of money in terms of training.

I think you know better than that, especially if you have the dual experiences of having been a combat arms officer AND your current vocation which appears to require a more sophisticated understanding of the media than most people possess. There are more to these stories than the writer chooses to present. If I were still in, I would bet my next LES that the homosexual issue were an excuse to boot these individuals who were problem children for a range of other issues. I certainly don't believe for one moment that the story captures all or even most of the issue. I've seen gays serve with distinction. Their sexuality was not an issue. Had they been problem children, then I am sure that DADT would have been looked at as an option to get rid of them.

Going off of memory alone - I recall when these stories first broke. The individuals getting booted were not the types of people who generally are drawn to the military. But when they discovered that their weapons would be their ears, tongues, and brains, rather than M-4s, and that they would get nice bonuses and cushy accomodations (Monterrey) then they got interested. But even in the less rigorously disciplined environment, they were still not accustomed to the regimented lifestyle - either due to their cultural backgrounds, their social backgrounds, or just a general lack of interest in formalities that involve standing up straight and yelling.

I think you also realize that this is not an either-or situation. It's not, "oh crap, all the American recruits are gay, so let's shift all of our recruiting resources to immigrants." The fast-track citizenship was one avenue to pursue linguists - with the traditional recruiting methods still applying. If we stop recruiting non-citizens, I doubt that all of our linguist slots are all suddenly going to go unfilled. This is not a simplistic case of shipping linguist jobs overseas because we don't want gays. An either-or of hiring gays versus hiring immigrants is a false dilemma on par with hiring illegal immigrants or shipping jobs overseas. It might fly with Lou Dobbs or Jack Cafferty, but it is not accurate.