From: shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: gays in the military
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:06:35 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <1993Jan26.102934.19049@cis.uab.edu> bayram@willis.cis.uab.edu (Zeki Bayram) writes:
>
>
>On the matter of allowing homosexuals into the armed forces of the
>U.S.A., a few points to consider:
>- This is not just a matter of principle
>- American soldiers will probably not be wellcome [sic] anymore in foreign
>  countries, especially Islamic countries

I wasn't aware that the United States had an obligation to structure
its internal policies based on the opinion of Islamic countries.

Some Islamic countries are probably not happy about Jews in our armed
forces.  Should we exclude Jews on that basis?

South Africa was probably unhappy when we desegregated the military 
in 1948.  Should that have been a factor in our decision?

Toles has a great cartoon that appeared in 1992 in the Buffalo News.
In it, a US marine in Somalia is carrying a sack of grain to a starving
Somali woman, nursing a baby.  She says, "You're not gay, I hope."
The caption is, "The kind of complication the Pentagon worries about."

>- Motivation is a great factor in the effectiveness of soldiers in
>  combat. Soldiers have to "believe in" what they are asked to do.
>  They have to believe that they are fighting to protect the high
>  "values" and principles of America. They have to believe that they
>  are morally right. How can they feel this way when they will see the
>  armed forces to which they belong as being fundamentally flawed, and
>  immoral? 

I cannot see how the armed forces themselves would be "fundamentally
flawed" by changing the current discriminatory policy.  Nor can I
see how they would be "immoral".   What *is* immoral, in my mind, is
to treat people as lepers merely because they have a different sexual
orientation.  Truman said it best:

	"In giving Negroes the rights which are theirs we are only acting
	in accord with our own ideals of a true democracy.  If any CLASS
	[emphasis mine] or race can be permanently set apart from, or
	pushed down below the rest in political and civil rights, so may 
	any other class or race when it shall incur the displeasure of
	its more powerful associates, and we may say farewell to the
	principles on which we count our safety."  

>- American soldiers will be ridiculed as being "a bunch of faggots"

No more than they were ridiculed as being "a bunch of niggers" after
desegregation in 1948.  I also wasn't aware that ridicule was an
effective weapon against a military armed with cruise missiles.

>- Will definitely harm any alliance with Arab countries such as Saudi
>  Arabia. Public pressure in those countries will force their rulers
>  to sever ties (at least militarily) with the US

Somehow, I doubt the rulers of Kuwait, for example, are going to hesitate
for a moment when faced with the choice between Iraq and a hard place.

Besides, some estimates say that 10% of the the military is gay
already.  I don't see Saudi Arabia complaining about this now, do you?

>- Guess what Saddam will be telling his soldiers if there were another
>  war in the Gulf: "Oh pure blood, God fearing defenders of this land.
>  You are fighting against 'a bunch of faggots'. So go clear the earth
>  of its slime!" And I think he would find an audiance [sic], and not only
>  in his soldiers!  
>
>Zeki Bayram

I cannot see how the policies of the US military should be based on
what a lunatic dictator like Saddam says to his armed forces.  Perhaps
Mr. Bayram would like to elaborate on this.  Should women in the US army
wear veils to appease him?

Jeff Shallit