Skip to content
Categories:

When national security and a right-wing culture war collide

Post date:
Author:

Most of the time, the conservative culture-war efforts are simply annoying. Some far-right activists will try some stunt, it’ll fail in the courts, and the rest of us can focus our attention on real problems.

But it’s much harder to tolerate conservative intolerance when national security is at stake.

This morning’s Christian Science Monitor reports that the Army is preparing to offer a staggering $150,000 retention bonus to service members who are proficient in Arabic, “in reflection of how critical it has become for the US military to retain native language and cultural know-how in its ranks.” Indeed, as the war in Iraq goes on, and the military subsequently finds fewer and fewer people anxious for extended stays in the desert, retaining trained troops is becoming a critical centerpiece of many commanders’ strategies. The supply of Arabic speakers just isn’t keeping up with the demand created by ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“The military’s conventional language training program, the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, Calif., could not churn out enough American soldiers proficient in Arabic, Kurdish, Dari, Pashtu, and Farsi, and the military quickly turned to private contractors to fill the gap,” reporter Gordon Lubold writes. “Numerous programs have sprouted up, including one at Fort Lewis, Wash., where soldiers are given a 10-month immersion program in language and culture.”

The Army is taking almost every step imaginable — from six-figure bonuses to civilian interpreters in the warzone to recruitment campaigns targeting Arab-American communities — to beef up its language capability.

Well, almost every step imaginable. While the military is searching desperately, and willing to pay enormous sums for those proficient in Arabic, the exact same military, at the exact same time, has driven 60 linguists who specialize in Arabic or Farsi out of the military because of their sexual orientation.

Republicans, including John McCain, think this makes sense. I have no idea why.

I’m reminded of the example we learned of a couple of years ago when Bleu Copas, a decorated sergeant and Arabic language specialist was thrown out of the military under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Copas, who joined the Army after the 9/11 attacks out of a sense of duty, was responsible for helping translate intercepted messages from possible terrorists, but he was thrown out anyway.

The Daily Show’s Jason Jones sat down with Paul Cameron, one of the nation’s leading anti-gay activists, who said, “I think the country, on the aggregate, is safer without Bleu in the military.” Asked why, Cameron explained, “Guys don’t want to think about other guys, other fellas, ogling them in the shower or whatever.”

Jones responded, “I know I’d rather die in a terrorist attack than suffer through an uncomfortable shower with a gay.” Cameron grudgingly responded, “Yes.”

Our government agrees with this. Again, I have no idea why.

It’s very simple. What’s more important: translating these communications intercepts, or discriminating against patriotic, gay volunteers who are willing to serve in the military in a time of two wars? It’s one or the other.

Comments

  • Lance

    says:

    One of the biggest ‘users’ of military personnel with language training are the military intelligence support elements of the National Security Agency in Fort Meade (this is all open source stuff). These are the guys who intercept foreign communications and translate them for our analysts.

    The NSA intercepted phone calls from the 9/11 Terrorists before the attack. The calls were, no surprise, in Arabic. The NSA didn’t have enough translators to translate the calls until…
    … that’s right …
    … after the attacks.

    Just one of those missed opportuntities that make me cry.

    You can thank General Michael V. Hayden, currently Director of the CIA but on that day Director of the NSA for this little failure.

  • The Answer is Orange

    says:

    Excellent post Mr. Benen. I had similar (though less family friendly) thoughts when I saw the article. Six figures to keep people in the military because they speak a language when the military has thrown out people who speak the language because it won’t drop a policy that has far more in common with the “bad guys” than our allies.

    And just watch. The TalEvangicals will scream blue murder even if each soldier presents a certificate of str8ness because it discriminates against people who speak good Uhmuricun like God intended.

  • Racer X

    says:

    It’s all about Republicans and power. If they let gay people serve, then they will have to give up bashing gay people, and bashing gay people is a large part of what has kept Republicans in power.

  • MsJoanne

    says:

    All you had to do was watch the idiotic DADT hearings a week or two ago. Watch Donnelly speak and then listen to the morons on the GOP side who (this one’s for you Zeit), like King (R-IA) offered up nothing but fodder for the Stewarts of the world.

    National security is as much a joke for them as it is a concern for the adults who actually worry about real national security.

    Do we honestly expect anything else from the GOP? Look at what they are doing now with talking to themselves, proverbally in the dark – again – over not getting big oil what big oil wants. Again, I ask…do you honestly expect anything else from the GOP?

  • The Answer is Orange

    says:

    It’s all about Republicans and power. If they let gay people serve, then they will have to give up bashing gay people, and bashing gay people is a large part of what has kept Republicans in power.

    Nope. They’ll just have to (eventually) be more a little more subtle about it. The bigots didn’t become all sweetness and light after African-American were allowed to serve in unsegregated units or women did things like build and pilot planes. Prior to that various civil rights movements gained more steam after WWII (women and African-Americans) because they were shat on when they returned to the U.S. or Caucasian males needed their jobs back.

    Besides, the GOP has never hesitated to take a giant dump over soldiers (not to be confused with The Troops(TM). Remember which side is against better education benefits and suggested rationing VA benefits.

  • SaintZak

    says:

    Let me be completely superficial here. Have you ever taken a good look at these “anti-gay activists” so worried about being oogled in the shower? I’ve got news for them, they’re all very, very low down on oogle-o-meter. There is nothing sadder than someone vastly over estimating their own attractiveness.

    Its odd the military throws out highly qualified, intelligent people with crucial experince, but apparently, they have no problem with that Sanchez fellow who did gay porn before turning the Marines into his own cottage insdustry of self promotion (another form of porn). He even continued to cruise for gay sex on Manhunt in his new life as one of the Brave, the Strong, the Marines.

    I guess the standard to go by is: if you’re in the military, are fluent in Arabic and Farsi and you’re gay you’re out on your ass. But if you’re in the military, have no real skills besides self promotion, have a substancial past in gay porn and post naked pictures of yourself on gay hook up sites (while a Marine) you’re a welcome addition to our fine military…oh yes, as long as you’re a conservative hack schilling on Fox News.

  • Keori

    says:

    Elaine Donnelly made specific reference to DLI during her shill at the recent Congressional hearing. Obviously she’s never been there, or she would have already known that a good 1/4 of the troops going through there are some flavor of queer.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll remind everyone again: Gays on active duty don’t come out if they are more afraid of their fellow soldiers than the enemy. The reason we hear more about “gay linguists” (and gay medical personnel and other intel components) is not that there is necessarily a proportionately higher percentage in those MOS. It’s that the smarter people who make up the intel and medical communities are typically more civilized, and are far less likely to assault and/or murder a fellow soldier for being gay than your average infantry grunt from born-again west Texas.

  • Capt Kirk

    says:

    My god, everyone knows that if we had gays interpreting terrorist intercepts the price of gas would skyrocket!

    Imagine a career in which you could increase your income by simply dropping rumors that your coworkers were gay. It’s a job security thing, you know, rat them out before they rat you out. US Military, what a workplace!

  • MsMuddled

    says:

    Wasn’t it just last month they tweeked Obama for stating our children need to be fluent in other languages?

  • sduffys

    says:

    The tweaking focused on his mention of SPANISH. If he had only limited his comments to Norwegian, Swedish, or other Northen European, god-fearing language….

  • Jim Strain

    says:

    So, I wonder if any of the patriotic gay folks who were bounced out might have turned around and got a job as one of those “contractors” for (I would guess) about ten times the money an army non-com makes. Private industry may be as homophobic as any segment of the society, but the profit motive trumps all.

  • Keori

    says:

    *looks at Jim #13 and raises hand*

    Guilty.

    It’s not ten times the money. Military guys get housing allowances, rations allowances, paid medical and dental, Foreign Language Proficiency Pay (FLPP), commissary benefits, and education benefits. When you factor in those extra numbers on the LES (most of which isn’t actually taxable), depending on your expertise, the private sector money is about on par, maybe a little more depending on where you live and work. I make more now as a contractor than I did as a non-com, but not THAT much more, and the rising costs of living (especially health care and groceries) have effectively killed any step up.

  • JoeW

    says:

    This might sound like an empty rhetorical jab, but I mean it seriously: Given the abject loathing these right wing nut jobs have for this country, why are they not only given a seat at the table, but are allowed to have their curious form of patriotism go unchallenged? These people hate everything this country was founded upon and subsequently achieved. They crave an America that never existed, and most Americans would not tolerate for a minute.

    Most Americans see problems they would like to see worked on. These cretins are satisfied with nothing less than (cultural) civil war. If al qaeda was white, they’d be dues paying members.

  • slappy magoo

    says:

    Not only do I think homosexuals to be allowed to serve in the military, if a homosexual proficient in Arabic language(s) were able to stop a terrorist attack, he should be allowed to spend one night being serviced by the Senator/Congressman of his choice.

    Really, it’s the least they could do…

    …and it would give some of the GOP members of Congress an excuse to practice their “wide stance” without being accused of teh gay.

  • Michael W

    says:

    I was all set to go into the Navy just out of high school. They wanted me for their nuclear program, working in the subs, and whatnot. I came out the summer before I was to go to boot camp. Too bad, so sad. We don’t want you anymore.

    I often wonder what my life would be like now if I hadn’t been so honest and come out to my recruiter. I probably wouldn’t have met the man I have spent the last 17 years building a life with. I guess things worked out for the best in my case, but one always wonders.

  • Aaron

    says:

    This is, quite obviously, a ridiculous policy. BOTH parties need to leave moral issues out of governance, but the Repubs are definately FAR more guilty than the other side on this one. I do enjoy watching politicians squirm when the things that need to be done to deliver on promises contradict another part of their platform. Will they do what’s right, or capitulate? Sadly the answer is almost always capitulation on both sides of the aisle. It would be nice if we could figure out a way to return to a system where elected officials actually had to live in the conditions that they create, instead of being forever insulated in their own world. It used to be that politicians served a term or two and then went back to private life. Now we have a class of career officials who have lost touch with the rest of us. It’s too bad that term limits will never be instituted because none of these clowns would vote themselves out of office, and back to the private sector!

  • Michael W

    says:

    Aaron, I remember a description in one of David Eddings’ books about a government like that. Their president was elected for one term, all of his/her property was confiscated and became the property of the government. The president-elect could not refuse the job, and his/her future (i.e. returned) fortune be dependent on how well they ran the government.

    Think it would work here?

    Nah, but it’s a nice thought.

  • 2Manchu

    says:

    “It’s very simple. What’s more important: translating these communications intercepts, or discriminating against patriotic, gay volunteers who are willing to serve in the military in a time of two wars?”

    Are you asking this of an admininstration that felt:

    The best answer to defeating al Qaeda was encouraging Americans to go shopping?

    That a country with no connection to 9/11, or who’s threat had been greatly degraded over the previous decade, needed to be invaded?

    And then plan the invasion with a quarter of the troops needed, and no post-war strategy?

    And that the best way to get Americans to rid themselves of their addiction to oil is to pump more oil?

    It’s too bad I don’t have an entire day to spare to go into the complete list.

  • Aaron

    says:

    Michael W – I think that might be a bit extreme, but closer to the right track than letting the Ted Kennedys and Strom Thurmonds of the world continue to run the show when they have no stake in the nation’s future (I do not mean to use Kennedy because of his recent devastating condition, I just can’t think of any other old Dem off the top of my head). But I think we can all agree that the people who make decisions should actually have to have something at risk.

    2Manchu – I think you are confusing the Repubs policy. They say (and I happen to agree, although unpopular here) that we don’t need to “rid [ourselves] of [our] addiction to oil” because there is plenty of it, if we were allowed to go get it. When the oil companies see that the supply of oil is truly running out, they will take all of this cash that they are accumulating and use it to develop viable alternatives. Private business is much more effective at developing those kinds of breakthroughs than government, which is why breakthroughs in medicines and health devices generally come from the private sector instead of government grants. I look forward to intelligent responses.

  • Lance

    says:

    sduffys said: “The tweaking focused on his mention of SPANISH. If he had only limited his comments to Norwegian, Swedish, or other Northen European, god-fearing language….”

    Okay, I know it’s a snark, but…

    Spanish speakers are vastly more religious as a percentage than any Northern European language group.

    Slappy Magoo wrote: “…if a homosexual proficient in Arabic language(s) were able to stop a terrorist attack, he should be allowed to spend one night being serviced by the Senator/Congressman of his choice.”

    You’d inflict those sexigenarians on those poor nice kids? How could you?

  • The Answer is Orange

    says:

    Not only do I think homosexuals to be allowed to serve in the military, if a homosexual proficient in Arabic language(s) were able to stop a terrorist attack, he should be allowed to spend one night being serviced by the Senator/Congressman of his choice.

    [Visualizes average CongressCritter, shudders]

    Dude. If this is your idea of a reward, I don’t want to know what you’d consider punishment.

    Now if you want to talk about the CongCrit handing over all the donations from his big business pals…

  • 2Manchu

    says:

    Suspend habeus corpus and allowing warrantless wiretaps, even when such action isn’t necessary?

    That’s just find and dandy.

    Get rid of DADT, or even suspending it by executive order, because the military really needs all warm bodies it can get?

    Sorry, but that’s completely unacceptable.

    Yep, the government is really that fucking stupid.

  • Lance

    says:

    Aaron wrote: “When the oil companies see that the supply of oil is truly running out, they will take all of this cash that they are accumulating and use it to develop viable alternatives.”

    Which would be a valid point, if the executives at Exxon/Mobile were truly farsighted and patriotic. As they are wingnut asswipes (I know one) who are only concerned about their quarterly profit (a systemic problem in America) and who see those profits climbing because they AREN’T drilling oil, I don’t think your assertion stands.

  • sduffys

    says:

    Lance @23 – darn it, you caught me! “grin”….yet…the Nordic gods “Thor”, “Odin” – are just so more butch than an all-loving god! hee-hee…

  • Michael W

    says:

    Lance and TAIO, there are some cute, younger guys in Congress, so don’t lump them all together. 😉

    sduffys, I was thinking the same thing, but with the Greek gods. Hercules or Zeus are much more awesome than the gawd portrayed in the bible.

  • 2Manchu

    says:

    Aaron,

    Actually, when Bush made his comment about breaking America’s “addiction” during his 2006 SOTU, he only spoke of investing in alternative energy, and made no mention of increasing domestic production, like he is doing now.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/

    “We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen. We’ll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years. (Applause.) ”

    And I see both the government and the private sector complementing one another on any advancement in the field of alternative energy.

  • RAM

    says:

    So let’s see: 60 linguists kicked out under DADT X $150,000 each in bonuses for replacements = $9,000,000 in bonuses alone, not to mention training costs, etc.

    Boy, talking about getting more bang for the buck!

  • Aaron

    says:

    2Manchu,
    I like the idea of the government and private sector complementing each other, although I suspect that you would disagree with me when I say that the best ways to do that would be to deregulate alternative energies, suspend government mandates for alternatives so that they can develop at their own (as in market-driven) pace, and perhaps even give a straight tax credit for all R&D on renewables for all companies, even Big Oil.

    And RAM: maybe if we can end the damn thing over there and get them home, all that money will boost the economy and drive down the price of oil! It’s like a second round of stimulus checks, only concentrated to 60 people (must be straight to apply)!

  • Rich

    says:

    It might make more sense if the gay translator who prevented a terrorist attack were serviced by his choice from among those he saved. Why reward the Congressmen. They know where the action is, and reward themselves all the time.

  • libra

    says:

    Republicans, including John McCain, think this makes sense. I have no idea why. — CB

    It ain’t no skin off their butts; it ain’t *their* money that’s being ill-spent. In fact, quite the opposite; the more necessary gays they can discharge under DADT (depriving them of all the costly benefits, too), the more cashiola their contractor buddies will make and the more they’ll kick back to their campaigns.

  • Bob Currie

    says:

    The question I have is how many gay soldiers have been accused of sexual assault on their gay peers?. It seems that it is only an epidemic among the “normal” heterosexual creeps. So who should be expelled?