Centerblue.org

In a recent interview, Marine General Peter Pace demonstrated himself to be a “paragon of virtue,” speaking expansively as to why he believed the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy essentially banning gay people in the military was appropriate:

“I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way. As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else’s wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior.”

That’s right, General Asshat, because it’s morally upright and we are well-served to expose ourselves to further terrorist attacks by kicking out all your gay linguists, and because we’d rather order our injured troops back into combat, as long as those damn faggots don’t immorally cornhole each other under your command.

Idiot.

An upcoming Pentagon review of what to do in Iraq is likely to report on three major options, dubbed “go big,” “go long,” or “go home.” It is a review separate but likely to feed into the bipartisan Iraq Study Group review being put together by Congress.

The Pentagon review’s Option 1: Send in more troops. Option 2: reduce troops but stay longer. Option 3: pull out. The overall recommendation will be a short-term increase in troops and a long-term commitment to advise and train Iraqi forces.

There are no good options left in Iraq (even Henry Kissinger, architect of the Vietnam War, says Iraq is not winnable). Any of the three options will be met with harsh consequences. If we increase troops, we put more of them in danger with no guarantee that they will successfully stabilize the country given its current state. There’s also the question of where the troops would come from given the severely strained resources of the military (which is leading to Democrat Charles Rangel to call for re-instatement of the draft.) If we reduce troop numbers but stay longer we are likely to be totally ineffective, and the situation will become even more dangerous for the troops that remain. If we pull out we are ceding Iraq to terrorist groups like Al Qaeda in Iraq and possibly to ambitious neighboring countries. Put together it’s a disaster of unimaginable proportions.

Given the available menu of undesirable options, I agree with the overall recommendation likely to be given by this review. We have to try preventing Iraq from getting into the hands of Iran or terrorist groups, but we also can’t stay there forever. I would favor a temporary increase in forces, said increase to be accompanied by a definite timetable for complete withdrawal and by a clearly defined set of goals. No more of this giving a blank check to the President to send any number of troops for an indefinite duration and with no clear purpose.

Does such a proposal have to be accompanied by a draft? It’s a disturbing thought, especially for our 18-21 year olds. But Rangel is right: our country has sent our nation’s poorest kids into war without really thinking through the consequences, while the rest of American society goes on living blithely without having really been asked to sacrifice anything. If members of Congress had stood to have their own kids sent to Iraq they might have thought twice about endorsing this war, and we would not be where we are today.

Time will tell if such an option is necessary in light of the military’s current needs. The question of the draft may also shed light on the military’s “don’t ask don’t tell” policy of gays in the military–as it seems illogical to expel fully qualified men and women from serving on such an irrational basis especially when the military needs every body available.

Regardless, now that the election has passed it is time to come up with a definitive answer of how to get out of Iraq–and based on a preliminary understanding of the facts I think the panel is right in its recommendation. I suspect its findings will be mirrored by the Iraq Study Group as well.

My friend Martin over at Total Information Awareness pointed me to this story on how the military recently expelled a gay Arabic translator under the military’s “don’t ask don’t tell” policy. This is by far not the first time this has happened; the Washington Post previously reported on several other such expulsions of valuable translators and linguists.

Arabic translators are not exactly found under every rock. These are extremely valuable people that could be deployed for urgently needed intelligence and interrogation activities as we conduct the so-called “war on terror.”

Instead of letting these individuals contribute to the nation’s safety by serving as its badly needed eyes and ears in the Arabic world, the military prefers to expel them because of their sexual orientation. That’s right, their sex partners matter more than our national security.

The military’s policy seems ever more outdated especially in light of the successful integration of gay servicemembers in countries like Britain, Spain and Israel.

The military is already having great difficulty holding on to its most talented people. That fact, along with the civil strife and radical Islamic terrorism we are fighting in the Middle East and elsewhere makes the discarding of people like these valuable translators especially reprehensible.

Stop worrying about who people sleep with and start worrying about protecting our country already!