“The measure of success is not whether you have a tough problem to deal with, but whether it is the same problem you had last year.”
–John Foster Dulles
So the Army’s recruiting year was a success. Or so we are told by — the Army:
The Army is ending its best recruiting year since 1997 and expecting similar success in 2007, despite the weight of grim war news from Iraq, Army Secretary Francis Harvey said Thursday.In an Associated Press interview, Harvey said the Army will enlist its 80,000th soldier on Friday, reaching its goal for the year with eight days to spare. That is a considerable turnaround from last year when the Army missed its target for the first time since 1999 and by the widest margin in more than two decades.
And how did the Army achieve this “turnaround”?
[T]he Army this year began allowing people as old as 42 to enter the service; the maximum age previously was 35. The Army also has accepted a larger number of recruits whose score on a standardized aptitude test is at the lower end of the acceptable range, and it has granted waivers to permit the enlistment of people with criminal records that otherwise would disqualify them.
If this is how the Army is defining “success,” then I shudder to think what constitutes a “failure.”
On the other hand, the Army, and the rest of the military, have been unequivocally successful in keeping gays out, especially from critical, understaffed, non-combat positions. And let’s not forget the Army’s “success” in denying colleges, universities and law schools the basic right option of setting their own non-discrimination policies.
Yes, obviously a triumphant year all-around for the United States military…
…with 765 asterisks.
8 responses so far ↓
Link Dave // Sep 22, 2006 at 2:43 pm
What kind of criminal record ordinarily disqualifies one from serving?
A felony?
Someone convicted of insider trading should still be able to serve.
A misdemeanor?
Someone who gets caught with a DUI should still be able to serve.
Etc.
Link The Phalanx // Sep 22, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Are you saying criminals with dubious backgrounds and questionable loyalties are more reliable than a soldier who's only offense is being a homosexual?
Gays not welcome in Army
Link Alec // Sep 22, 2006 at 6:10 pm
What I find interesting about DODT is that RAND, a centrist think tank if ever there was one, did a study and concluded that gay soldiers would not have an impact on unit cohesion.
Moreover, we have readily-available empirical data from the rest of the Anglosphere, Europe and even some Asian and South American countries.
The argument just doesn't hold up.
Maybe it's all about the children.
Link Dave // Sep 22, 2006 at 6:30 pm
Phalanx how do you conclude from my comments that I am saying anything against gays serving in the military?
Link The Phalanx // Sep 22, 2006 at 9:27 pm
I dont come to that conclusion, I simply ask the question. Criminals on the other hand, even non-violent ones aren't likely to make good soldiers
Link Dave // Sep 23, 2006 at 5:13 am
Arguing that no criminal is likely to make a good soldier is logically equivalent to arguing that no gay person would make a good soldier.
There are people convicted of crimes who nonetheless would make good soldiers, just as there are gays who would make good soldiers. There are also people convicted of crimes who would not make good soldiers, just as there are gays who would not make good soldiers.
I doubt either Martha Stewart (convicted of a crime) or Elton John (gay) would make good soldiers.
So, the question remains: which crimes, which formerly precluded one's joining the military, are now permissible? If the military now allows murderers and rapists to serve, that would be a problem. If, on the other hand, the military has decided to allow people convicted of minor and/or non-violent offenses, that is another issue entirely, and would weaken the argument originally posted on this blog.
Imbuing this question with issues of whether it is right for gays to serve or not serve in the military is missing the point of the question entirely.
Link vps hosting // Sep 23, 2006 at 6:26 am
Well, i think its not about who is a gay or who is straight, the question lies that how a person quality reflected in bieng a responsible soldier.
Link dolphin // Sep 23, 2006 at 11:56 am
These ARE not logically equivalent. Knowing someone is a criminal shows that they have disobeyed authority (not necessarily a bad thing, but the military would think so) and violated the law at least once. Knowing that someone is gay shows only the gender of the people they find attractive.
I agree that there are some criminals that would make good soldiers and some not, just as there are some gay people who would make good soldiers and some not. That does not mean however that a universal ban on criminals would be the logical equivalent to a universal ban on gays and lesbians.