New source of high-quality recruits

[Schmedlap]

if you have evidence or a link that demonstrates most of these chapters were conducted to boot problem children, I'd like to see it. Until then, you're just speculating.

Fair enough. But I'd be on equally specious grounds if I accepted the linked article as the whole story.

On the other hand, take the case of Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach. Or of Maj. Margaret Witt. Or First Lt. Dan Choi. Were they problem children? I don't know.

Nor do I. I guess we have to rely on our respective experiences to determine whether this passes the smell test. My Spidey sense says that there is more to the stories.

But I do know that they were all trained, combat-tested, and then drummed out of the service at a time when the military is hiring foreigners to make up for "chronic shortages" in certain positions. And these three certainly don't fit into your theory about troops who were "not accustomed to the regimented lifestyle."

I could say the same about some Soldiers who were given other than honorable discharges - guys who fought in OIF I and then, professionally speaking, crapped the bed thereafter. So what? Did they violate a policy? Did they know about the policy before they violated it? I think you can make a case that in times of war that certain policies should be relaxed or abolished. But, to do that, you need to show why the benefit of relaxing those policies outweighs the consequences that the leadership is concerned about (sucking the military into a domestic political battle; discplinary issues that the media and politicians don't seem to worry about but military leaders apparently do worry about; basic inability to abide by a policy, even if it is not quite PC or well thought out, etc).

If you have counter-examples, I'm more than willing to consider shifting my position on this. But for now, I'm still sticking to my original point: that it's unhelpful to recruit foreigners to fill "chronic shortages" while at the same time booting Americans who serve in those same critical positions.

I don't think that I'm going to shift your position because it appears that you are concerned about one issue (gays in the military / DADT) and looking for some instance to demonstrate why that issue must be addressed (DADT is causing us to recruit foreigners instead of Americans). In doing so, you are arguing a false dilemma (foreigner or American) and oversimplifying the issue. Suppose that I suspend my skepticism and concede every matter of fact that you have presented. Your argument is weaker than the sum total of your facts. You choose to portray this as recruiting foreigners while booting Americans. Even if that is an accurate description of the situation, it simplifies it to the point of irrelevance. Why are the Americans booted? Why are the foreigners hired? Are any Americans being hired and not booted? If so, why? And, as noted above, if DADT should be relaxed, suspended, changed, or abolished, then you are not making the right argument to support this. You need to address the concerns that underlie the policy, not a false dilemma straight out of a Lou Dobbs report (foreigners vs Americans).

If you are just testing out an argument and looking for feedback, I would say that your argument would be solid gold if you argued it on a morning news program or CNN or a Sunday talk show. This is great rhetorical stuff. The messages that people would take away from it would probably be (1) Gays are the victims of foreign outsourcing, (2) Gay rights = American pride, and (3) End DADT and win the war.

[Brandon Friedman]

This is hardly the only issue with which I'm concerned. It warrants attention now, however, because it's one of the few defense policies currently at a tipping point. And it's relevant in terms of any debate where we're talking about the military going to unusual lengths to make up for chronic personnel shortages. That's why I brought it up.

Nevertheless, I think I've made my case, so I'll leave it at that.