Alphecca

Before you lionize gays in the military, such as Mr. Finkenbinder, keep this in mind: Don't ask, don't tell means exactly that. Almost every case has been one of self admittance, and some like Finkenbinder's have probably come just before a deployment. In other words, in an effort to avoid deploying these men have chosen to out themselves. All questions of personal happiness aside, such actions are a betrayal of the fellow soldiers now left scrambling to fill the vacated position. Finkenbinder screwed his buddies, bottom line.

There was a time when I'd have disagreed with you, Jeff, but that time is largely past. On the other hand, while I don't have any numbers on this, I'd bet that a significant number of the discharges mentioned in this article involved people who "told" precisely because they wanted to be discharged: Claiming homosexuality is a quick out for disaffected men and women in the services. But taking that option away won't necessarily keep these folks in. There are other tried-and-true ways to get onesself discharged, if one's determined to do so. Eating one's way out -- that is, getting fat and staying that way -- will eventually do it, although it tends to take a long time time. Smoking marijuana provides a quick and painless exit, too.

My point is only that people who want out can get out, so it's not safe to assume we'd have 20 more Arabic and six Farsi translators if not for don't ask, don't tell. (There'll likely be some unhappy reactions to my saying this, but I can't help thinking it a little suspicious that Finkelbinder submitted his letter on the eve of his unit's return to Iraq. He may well have bee motivated by a genuine crisis of conscience, but I'm by no means certain of that based on the very little that I know about his case.)

This of course has nothing to do with the basic question of whether don't ask, don't tell is right or wrong. But it's relevant to assessing exactly how much the policy has cost us, national security-wise.

This post abuses the statistics in two ways:

1. $191 M is the cost of replacing 10,000 people, not 26 translators or 322 language specialists.
2. $191 is a 7 year number, not an annual number. Why not esimate the cost over 25 years and call it a cool $ 1 Billion?

Get over it. It is not policy. It is law. Title 10 U.S.Code - Armed Forces. Subsection of which is the Uniform Code of Military Justice [the law]. It belongs to Congress. They enacted it under their authority of Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

Art. 125. Sodomy
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

And

Art. 78. Accessory after the fact
Any person subject to this chapter who, knowing that an offense punishable by this chapter has been committed, receives, comforts, or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial, or punishment shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Article 78 is the lawful basis for “Don’t ask, don’t tell”, because under military law unlike civilian law, if you know, you must tell. It’s not policy. It is the law.
It’s Congress’ law. Its in that portion of the Constitution for a reason [look up Oliver Cromwell for background]. If the advocates want it changed, go to Congress. The last thing anyone wants, who has a decent understanding of history, is to separate the military from obeying the law of the people.

I'm a military linguist and an army officer. The important points briefly:
a. Homosexual military members who keep their private life to themselves are never bothered. The only homosexual members discharged are those that walk in and "confess" so they can get out of their contract with the military and avoid deployments.
b. If you disagree with the law, blame Congress not the military. Congress created this. Congress can change it. The military is simply enforcing laws created by Congress. Pointing fingers at the military in this area is like blaming the police officer for enforcing the law on a parking ticket. You're blaming the wrong guy.

That argument strikes me as a little disingenuous, Don. The prohibition wasn't part of Title 10 until 1993, and was enacted into law as a reaction to Clinton's threat to rescind the formerly purely executive policy. And it was enacted into law with the public support of the Joint Chiefs. If the Joint Chiefs were now to go to Congress and say, "we've got recruiting problems, we need every capable soldier we can get our hands on, attitudes toward homosexuals in this country have changed, and we'd like to see the prohibition against open homosexuals in the military done away with," there is very little doubt in my mind that Congress would do it. The whole argument is that open homosexuals in the military affect readiness, and that's an issue on which it would be extremely hard to second-guess the men who actually run the services. Their knowledge of these issues is far more intimate and informed than any legislator's. So yes, it may be Congress's law, but the services are hardly powerless to change it, and played a significant role in its passage in the first place. And there'd be nothing improper about their asking Congress to rescind it; the Joint Chiefs request legislation all the time.

How about a "Don't hit on anybody policy"? Wouldn't that solve all related problems?

I agree completely with you that many children's and adult's language skills in this country are sorely lacking. However, developing language skills at an early age can only be beneficial to their development and gives them a leg up when they take their places in the adult world. While mastery of English is absolutely essential, when their brains are still getting "wired up" during their early stages of development adding a second language has been shown to provide them with greater mental dexterity (as does instruction in music). This in turn aids in many other intellectual pursuits such as mathematical reasoning (another area where many are sorely lacking).

Our 4 year old daughter is already well on her way to being fully fluent in English, she's starting to read and write and her spoken English is suprisingly advanced for her age. Her instruction in Spanish at her Pre-K class is proving to be very worthwhile. Spanish speakers who have spoken to her have said that her accent is spot on and her vocabulary is increasing by the week.

We're in the process of adopting a little girl from China (PRC). We intend to provide her with instruction in Mandarin (neither my wife nor I are speakers though we're working on that with some difficulty) to keep a viable link to her birth culture and any number of other reasons. It is our hope that our natural daughter will also learn Mandarin as well. Imagine a sharp young mind graduating high school fluent in English, Spanish and Mandarin. Not only will she be able to communicate well with a significant portion of the world's population, her prospects for college admission and whatever future career she chooses will be greatly enhanced. All in all it's not a bad thing. Like to old adage goes; "Do it while your young".

I think "Don't ask, Don't care" would be precisely the correct policy.

It would also be nice if they removed religious affiliation from ID tags. (maybe I should ask if it is still there?). I still remember steaming quietly while a range seargent ranted at our company about how atheists weren't welcome in the army and that they were all a bunch of 'D.B.'s, and he didn't mean duffle bags.

There is no reason why the military orthe govt in general needs to know either fact about a person, soldier, citizen, anyone.

All the arguments over how it will affect readiness and moral were made when they integrated the services racially, and later allowed women a larger role.

So far as a "Don't hit on anybody policy", that is already sort of in place, but it is not very successful from what I remember.

I do think there is a problem when 2 people in the same unit have a realtionship. That can cause problems. So I can see a policy where one or both would need to be moved to another unit, but that goes for straight or gay.

While no longer proficient in my languages, I was an army trained linguist and remain active in Army Intelligence.

Digging into the very data you present:
"Just since 1998, the military has discharged 20 Arabic and six Farsi translators because they are gay. About half were discharged after Sept. 11, 2001, according to Department of Defense data as reported recently in the New Republic magazine. One Arabic translator, a soldier named Ian Finkenbinder, had served eight months with the Army's 3rd Infantry Division in Iraq in 2003. In December 2004, he revealed he was gay and was discharged just as his unit was about to return to Iraq. His company commander was said to be "distraught" at the loss."

About 13 linguists or so have been discharged since 9/11 (aligned with a huge increase in the probability and length of deployments), and in the case cited, the apparent self-identification came immediately before a scheduled deployment.

Given the number of reservists called up, stop loss in many related MOS' and a certain proportion of military linguists who oppose the war, I would guess that every single one of these discharges were sought by the individual.

Every single one. I can't prove it, but my gut says that's the case, this is a COMPLETE non-issue. I have seen many obvious gay soldiers in Intelligence (Army, Navy, Air Force) and have never seen any attempt to discipline or remove any of them unless there was an incident involving rape, sexual harrassment, or obvious predatory sexual practices.

Try to get any military linguist who's been discharged to come forward and attest to an unwanted separation (I was going to say discharge, which sounds worse, double intendre wise).

(Chirp, chirp)

I got a speeding ticket the other day for doing 10mph over the limit on a clear, sunny day with no other cars on the road. It was a four-lane divided road posted at 40mph. When will that stupid police department change its rules and stop giving people tickets for driving a safe speed under optimal conditions.

Oh, I forgot the police don't make the laws, do they. Same thing bubba. The President says "integrate blacks into the military" and the services do. The Congress says "integrate women onboard ships" and the Navy does. See a pattern here?

Judging by the comments here and at Glenn's, it seems the consensus from those who would know is that at least in the last several years, if someone was discharged for being gay, it was because they "told" without being "asked". They were looking for an easy way to quit. I see no reason not to believe that so it raises an interesting question: Would the armed services (or Congress) find it (from an economic standpoint) worthwhile to scrap the no-openly gays clause to SAVE money. To say, "no, you can't get out of the obligation you signed-on for just because you're gay?" I would not have sympathy for gays who intentionally "outed themselves" just because it turns out they didn't like the work. After all, the armed services is entitled to a fair shake too, especially since they invested the time and money training them. Thoughts?

I just can't find where this $191 Million comes from. The replacement cost is reported as such in the SFC story but that is not the cost determined by the GAO report Joan Ryan alludes to and which is here (direct link to pdf file):

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05299.pdf

The report states $95 Million. It also notes the various branch replacement costs and, I think, averages by service. The general average was $10,500.

So, assuming cost for linguists (giving those 322 the beneft of the doubt over all the other critical jobs) is 4 times the average and just ballparking the total, I would think the total in this department would be not much over $14 million, not $20 Million and certainly not $50 Million.

But I may have missed some reference in the story or the GAO report.

The obeservation from 1:50 PM is the first that is almost right.

CONGRESS, not the military, needs to revamp the UCMJ to eliminate the gays in the military rules. Remove the Chapter 15 process and the problem goes away.

But remember, just as you don't write your own laws, neither does the military write their own laws.