Ok, WTF?!?!?!
Seriously?...Seriously...
I've always had nothing but the upmost respect for anyone in the Armed Forces. They have chosen a life of danger because they were drawn to the life of serving their country and giving back where they have gotten so much. And I usually try to keep my mouth shut about Military decisions, basically because I don't know enough about military policies to sound intelligent. But, after I read this, I really had to give my two cents about it. Thank you AmericaBlog and The Baltimore Sun:
Last year, almost one in six Army recruits had a problem in their background that would have disqualified them from military service. In order to accept them, the Army granted special exceptions, known as recruiting waivers.Recruits with medical problems made up the largest single category of those given waivers. However, the largest increase was among recruits with a history of either criminal conduct or drug and alcohol problems, according to data provided by the Army.In all, the Army granted waivers to 11,018 recruits in the 12-month period ending Sept. 30, 2005, or 15 percent of those accepted into the service that year.
So, the Army is hurting so bad for recruits, and stretched so thin by the war in Iraq and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" that they are now willing to induct Drug Addicts and criminals to serve. Interesting. Meanwhile, on the Hill, we find that the cost of keeping gays and lesbians from serving is higher than we thought. Thank you to Towleroad and AP News for this:
Discharging troops under the Pentagon's policy on gays cost $363.8 million over 10 years, almost double what the Government concluded a year ago, a private report says.
In a time when we have a National Deficit that stands at $8,213,776,721,788.10 (yes, that's 8 TRILLION), and Congressmen are spending millions on pork and vanity projects (we all remember the Alaskan bridge to nowhere, right?), can we really look the other way while the government spends more money needlessly on discharging willing and qualified servicepeople?
And speaking of discharging qualified personnel for stupid reasons, here is an excerpt from the HRC website that gives you an idea of who we're really kicking out:
More than 300 foreign Language Specialists considered critical in the war on terrorism have been forced out of the military in the past decade because of their sexual orientation, according to the first government study to assess both the warfighting and financial impact of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that prohibits openly gay servicemen.These soldiers had "some skills in an important foreign language such as Arabic, Farsi, and Korean," according to a report by the Government Accountability Office to be published next month. At least 54 of the 322 language specialists spoke Arabic more than twice as many as previous estimates. At the same time, more than 400 additional soldiers discharged under the policy had what the Pentagon considers "critical occupations," including Navy code-breakers, Army intelligence specialists and interrogators, Air Force air traffic controllers, and Marine Corps counterintelligence specialists.
I'm sorry if I'm sounding ignorant about any of this, and I may be over-simplifying the argument, but does the whole "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" thing really seem that logical now, given all the facts? Would the American population really rather have an Army made up of criminals, drug addicts, and individuals who are not at their physical peak, as opposed to a contingent of qualified gays and lesbians? And as for the government's spending practices...to have such a high deficit and spend on keeping qualified people from serving is probably the gayest thing the government could do.
Seriously?...Seriously...
I've always had nothing but the upmost respect for anyone in the Armed Forces. They have chosen a life of danger because they were drawn to the life of serving their country and giving back where they have gotten so much. And I usually try to keep my mouth shut about Military decisions, basically because I don't know enough about military policies to sound intelligent. But, after I read this, I really had to give my two cents about it. Thank you AmericaBlog and The Baltimore Sun:
Last year, almost one in six Army recruits had a problem in their background that would have disqualified them from military service. In order to accept them, the Army granted special exceptions, known as recruiting waivers.Recruits with medical problems made up the largest single category of those given waivers. However, the largest increase was among recruits with a history of either criminal conduct or drug and alcohol problems, according to data provided by the Army.In all, the Army granted waivers to 11,018 recruits in the 12-month period ending Sept. 30, 2005, or 15 percent of those accepted into the service that year.
So, the Army is hurting so bad for recruits, and stretched so thin by the war in Iraq and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" that they are now willing to induct Drug Addicts and criminals to serve. Interesting. Meanwhile, on the Hill, we find that the cost of keeping gays and lesbians from serving is higher than we thought. Thank you to Towleroad and AP News for this:
Discharging troops under the Pentagon's policy on gays cost $363.8 million over 10 years, almost double what the Government concluded a year ago, a private report says.
In a time when we have a National Deficit that stands at $8,213,776,721,788.10 (yes, that's 8 TRILLION), and Congressmen are spending millions on pork and vanity projects (we all remember the Alaskan bridge to nowhere, right?), can we really look the other way while the government spends more money needlessly on discharging willing and qualified servicepeople?
And speaking of discharging qualified personnel for stupid reasons, here is an excerpt from the HRC website that gives you an idea of who we're really kicking out:
More than 300 foreign Language Specialists considered critical in the war on terrorism have been forced out of the military in the past decade because of their sexual orientation, according to the first government study to assess both the warfighting and financial impact of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that prohibits openly gay servicemen.These soldiers had "some skills in an important foreign language such as Arabic, Farsi, and Korean," according to a report by the Government Accountability Office to be published next month. At least 54 of the 322 language specialists spoke Arabic more than twice as many as previous estimates. At the same time, more than 400 additional soldiers discharged under the policy had what the Pentagon considers "critical occupations," including Navy code-breakers, Army intelligence specialists and interrogators, Air Force air traffic controllers, and Marine Corps counterintelligence specialists.
I'm sorry if I'm sounding ignorant about any of this, and I may be over-simplifying the argument, but does the whole "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" thing really seem that logical now, given all the facts? Would the American population really rather have an Army made up of criminals, drug addicts, and individuals who are not at their physical peak, as opposed to a contingent of qualified gays and lesbians? And as for the government's spending practices...to have such a high deficit and spend on keeping qualified people from serving is probably the gayest thing the government could do.
