Just as a point of information, 365 people graduated from the Arabic course at the Defense Language Institute this year. I don't know if that's a lot of not.

You're absolutely right on this one, Patrick.

Inexcusable and idiotic.

Do you suppose if everyone involved makes a loud enough stink about it, the Army might change its stupid policy?

I'm such a hopeless dreamer.

It didn't make any of the better-known warblogs, but it did make Australian radio. Go figure.

It made NPR, too. I just heard it on Weekend Edition Saturday.

freetles...it made Andrew Sullivan. Or does his not count as a "better-known warblog"?

I'm also sure I saw it on Instapundit.

Before I continue, let me be very clear about one thing: I oppose the ban on gays in the military. Now...

As I understand it these were not fully-competent Arabic speakers but students learning Arabic. So the costs of the (stupid) policy are not as great as if the army was dumping, say, native Arabic speakers who happened to be gay. Second, it is a big government, and a lot of civilian agencies a) can use arabic translators, and b) have dropped their own bans on gays. (Isn't the CIA one such organization?) So these students could still serve, just not in the army.

To repeat: I oppose kicking gays out of the military whether they can translate Arabic or not.

Jim: Yeah there are civilian organizations where they could be of use. And in the reports I read, 2 of them tried to sign up, and golly, imagine that, weren't hired.

MKK

The two right-wing fundamentalist movements, which Nathan Newman refers to as collaborating here, are the same two that collaborated at the UN to introduce fundamentalist socialist legislation.

I showed that one to a thoughtful Protestant fundamentalist of my acquaintance, whose response was to query its veracity, as the article came from the New York Times, famously unreliable ultra-left-wing newspaper.

The story made the New Republic (11/18/02: Recriminations), too -- not that they're warbloggers per se. Unfortunately, the article is not one they offer online, it's by Nathaniel Frank.

Frank says the DLI discharged "seven fully competent Arabic linguists. The reason? They were discovered to be gay." The article goes on to somewhat -- but only somewhat -- undercut the fully competent claim, at least w.r.t. the case of Alastaire Gamble, who had completed only 30 of 63 weeks of Arabic training, but: "his grades placed him at the top of his class and that several teachers told him they thought he was the strongest student in his class." Gamble was finishing the final weeks of the second semester when he was expelled. "All seven soldiers were fired while in the midst of, or having completed, the intensive DLI Arabic training course."

The article adds the useful point that the Pentagon routinely issues "stop-loss" orders to "retain soldiers who would otherwise be discharged for committing petty crimes, minor physical shortcomings, or other reasons".

Finally, the Yahoo! article PNH links to points out that Gamble and his lover, Hicks, applied elsewhere for federal jobs, but have not been accepted. Other gays discharged for similar reasons have been understandably too proud to *accept* jobs offered to them by the NSA (Shilts, Conduct Unbecoming).

As it happens, I know a gay language specialist in several Middle Eastern languages, who I urged to help some national agency with his expertise after 9/11. He was too polite to argue about it, and I suppose now I see why. It's not just about the good people rejected, it's also about the ones who never apply.

All of these are offered simply as points of information, not as angry arguments; I take Jim's rejection of homophobic military policies seriously.

Finally, it seems worth suggesting that this is not necessarily right-wing fundamentalism so much as it's ingrained U.S. military culture, which deserves censure here as much as it deserves praise in other respects. While I've respected Colin Powell in the past year, I thought Clinton should have dismissed him early in 1993 for resisting Clinton's (half-hearted) efforts towards reform in this area. "Don't ask, don't tell" was (as I recall) the sorry result of Powell et al's resistance to reform for gays in the military, and Clinton's low priority for the issue.

This *is* a pretty tough one to stomach. I have often heard the open-homosexuality-impacts-morale argument, and I guess I can understand that to some degree, but the fallacy there is that heterosexually oriented inappropriate behavior can have an equal or more devestating impact on morale as well (pick your anecdote, tailgate, the SMoA before Mike Hall, the list goes way on. . . ).

I'd be interested in reading more about the military's rationale for expelling gays. Apart from Coulteresque ranting, I'm having a hard time finding convincing arguments. Post your links, please.

Yes, this story is starting to turn up on some of those other warblogs now, so I withdraw my earlier remark. (Although I think Andrew Sullivan isn't going to be representative of warbloggers in general on this issue.) Still, I find its absence (so far) from the postings on Little Green Footballs to be instructive.

I've been down on Colin Powell ever since he resisited Clinton's efforts to make it possible for gays to serve. Mostly because the arguments he used were those used more than 50 years ago to try and convince Truman not to integrate blacks into the wider military. Talk about your ironies. And yeah, that integration caused some initial problems, but was to everyone's benefit in the long run.

MKK

I think that Myke was referring to Tailhook rather than "tailgate."

That was essentially a con for hard-charging pilots. After the event, merely having been physically present turned out to a career-killer. That includes people who were staying at other hotels with their wives and hadn't gone to the infamous after-hours parties at all. Whether they had been on the list of attendees became a required entry in their service jackets for promotion board selection, and an automatic downcheck.

We lost any number of fully trained, very competent fighter pilots out of that. Graduates of Top Gun, with years of experience.

So tell me, guys, which regulations apply to me but not to you?

Back when I was at DLI, I recall the Arabic students. I graduated fluent in Spanish after 25 weeks, at the same time that the Arabic students who entered at the same time had gotten done with consonants and were about to start on vowels. Just to give you an idea of where 30 weeks into the program puts you.

(There were also a bunch of FBI agents who were taking Scillian. Which FBI regulations should they have been able to ignore and still stay with the program?)

Whichever regulations shouldn't exist in the first place, and are there only to make a bunch of bigots happy.

Most of what I wanted to say has already been eloquently stated above. May I add, does a surprise room inspection that results in a search through personal articles count as "telling"?

"I find its absence (so far) from the postings on Little Green Footballs to be instructive."

Instructive of what? That Charles doesn't post about every single headline every day? Are you implying that he and readership are homophobes because they jumped on other issues than this one? Sometimes I don't post on a particular issue just because Charles and/or Glenn got there first. They have umpteen more readers than I do, so I'm satisfied it's been covered.

There are a fair number of openly gay regulars on LGF's comment section, and Charles always comes across as a social liberal in his own comments (hell, he's a Hollywood studio musician) so I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

Actually, this is being based by Deroy Murdock in NRO -- who slyly asks why the Bush Administration is still sticking with the failed Clinton "don't ask don't tell" policy. If that doesn't get them to change it, I don't know what will.

And I posted on this days ago.

It was November 2. But I got it from Stefan Sharkansky:

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/005224.php

Actually, this is being based by Deroy Murdock in NRO -- who slyly asks why the Bush Administration is still sticking with the failed Clinton "don't ask don't tell" policy. If that doesn't get them to change it, I don't know what will.

The idea that they would change it for the better is, of course, absurd. If they change it, it will probably be in the direction of declaring military homosexuals to be enemy combatants, and just locking them up forever.

Well, maybe they won't go that far. But there are worse things than DADT, and any change will be toward them.

I'd love to be wrong. But I'm not.

So, the rule is we only obey regulations we agree with? Suppose I don't agree with the regulations dealing with proper treatment of prisoners?

Anyway, here's what I think went down. A bunch of guys said to themselves, "Hah! We're indispensible! We'll make a test case, and establish a precedent overturning this regulation that we don't agree with!"

Only they found out that what Charles DeGaulle said is true: The cemetaries are full of indispensible men.

A better headline for this piece might be: It's Official: Your government wants people who know how to follow regulations and obey orders fighting the war on terrorism.