Steve Ralls, The Huffington Post - -
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but the picture on the ground in Iraq is quickly making military personnel who can translate Arabic priceless.
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. Every step, that is, except one. Army officials have yet to tell Congress to dump the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law that has resulted in the dismissal of more than 5 dozen Arabic speakers who were otherwise qualified and ready to serve.
In fact, as the House Armed Services Committee's Personnel Subcommittee tackled the question of possible repeal in July, not a single representative from the Department of Defense was on-hand to weigh in on the issue. And while, in some ways, that's a welcome change from 1993, when Pentagon brass passionately insisted on excluding gay Americans from the forces, it also underscores that Congress has a critically important role to play when it comes to bolstering military readiness.
Congressman Gary Ackerman (D-NY) has the right idea. A steadfast supporter of repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," he has also insisted that, until Congress can muster the will to do away with the law, the federal government should at least be taking steps to keep qualified specialists, like Arabic linguists, in its employ. In February 2007, Ackerman famously queried Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice about her department's efforts to find trained Arabic speakers.
During hearings on the State Department's 2008 budget request, Ackerman noted that Secretary Rice repeatedly emphasized the importance of recruiting qualified language experts to work in the agency. Remembering that the armed forces have fired more than 300 language experts (including those 5 dozen fluent in Arabic), Ackerman wondered, "Can we marry up those two -- or maybe that's the wrong word -- can we have some kind of union of those two issues?"
"Well, it seems that the military has gone around and fired a whole bunch of people who speak foreign languages -- Farsi and Arabic, etc.," Ackerman said. "For some reason, the military seems more afraid of gay people than they are against terrorists, but they're very brave with the terrorists. ... If the terrorists ever got a hold of this information, they'd get a platoon of lesbians to chase us out of Baghdad."
"This absurdity can't continue," Ackerman later wrote in an August '07 Newsday op-ed. "The 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy is not only wasteful and inefficient, it's unfair and un-American. In the middle of a war we are throwing out good people who have volunteered to put their lives on the line for their country."
There's no doubt that trained Arabic speakers are increasingly worth their weight in gold. No one is arguing that the military shouldn't offer attractive recruitment and retention packages for those who want to join, nor that they should abandon an aggressive campaign to find new people who can get the job done. But on the long list of things our country can do to keep patriotic Americans like Bleu Copas, Cathleen Glover and other Arabic language experts in uniform is to get rid of the counter-productive law that bars them from service.
Retaining good straight troops to the tune of $150,000 may be an investment worth making, but in the long run, that platoon of lesbians might just turn out to be priceless, too.
The Army's six-figure solution to its retention crisis is missing one common-sense addition that could make a very big difference on the ground.
It's time to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." This absurdity, as Congressman Ackerman has said, can't continue.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Ethics Complaint Against Senator Tossed
Capitol Media Services
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 08.13.2008
On a party-line vote, the Senate Ethics Committee on Tuesday threw out a complaint that Sen. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, violated rules when he cut off debate on the last night of the session.
Sen. Jay Tibshraeny, R-Chandler, who cast the deciding vote, said Harper, who was presiding over the floor debate, handled the process "very poorly." But he also noted Harper apologized — though he never admitted violating the rules.
The vote disappointed Sen. Ken Cheuvront, D-Phoenix, who filed the complaint.
"You have three Republicans," he said of the five-member panel. "They whitewashed this whole thing."
Cheuvront also discounted the apology — which came only after the ethics complaint was filed — as meaningless. He said the only message that sends future lawmakers is they are free to ignore the rules and then be able to escape any retribution by simply apologizing.
Harper, for his part, remained adamant he did nothing wrong. He said it was Cheuvront and Sen. Paula Aboud, D-Tucson, who were breaking Senate rules that night by engaging in a time-wasting question-and-answer session on a tax bill in hopes of delaying a vote on a measure to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage.
And Harper said he was justified in shutting off their microphones.
"They did not have the right to retain the floor," he said. "It was a charade."
But Harper continued to sidestep questions of why, if he was entitled to cut off debate, he did not rule the pair out of order. Instead, he said at the time, "I clicked on the wrong thing. I clicked on the clear mics" button.
Instead he apologized for "my less-than-stellar acting when the mics were shut off."
Harper also conceded he did not acknowledge any of the calls from the floor for a "point of order," a parliamentary maneuver designed to call attention to an apparently illegal maneuver. Instead, Harper said, he was focused on a motion to suspend further debate, and "nothing else was coherent to me."
Tuesday's vote is the final word on what became a heated dispute the last night of the session over that Senate vote to ask voters to adopt the constitutional amendment on gay marriage.
Cheuvront said he and Aboud, both of whom are gay, had purposely slowed up floor action. There was the possibility that one of the 16 senators whose vote was necessary to approve the gay-marriage amendment would have to leave.
But Cheuvront charged that Harper, who was presiding over the meeting, acted "in cahoots" with Senate Majority Leader Thayer Verschoor, R-Gilbert, to illegally shut off debate on that tax measure.
Harper said under oath Tuesday that he and Verschoor had discussed ways of cutting off debate.
He said, though, it was clear that Cheuvront and Aboud were not interested in the specifics of the tax bill but only to "keep the marriage amendment from coming to the ballot." That, said Harper, gave him the legal right to cut off "this charade."
And if that intent were not crystal-clear that night, Harper said Aboud admitted to it just recently in a radio interview.
"My intentions are irrelevant," Cheuvront said, saying his right to discuss the tax bill with Aboud for as long as he wants is absolute under Senate rules — even if they decided to talk all night.
Sen. Robert Blendu, R-Litchfield Park, one of the members of the Ethics Committee, said the complaint was little more than sour grapes by foes of the gay-marriage amendment who were unable to block a vote.
"Because one group lost and didn't get their way, we find ourselves with an ethics violation," he said. "That is a very bad precedent for this body going forward."
Cheuvront responded he has been on the losing side on various votes on this issue before, all without filing complaints, because everyone followed the rules.
He also denied the complaint was filed to undermine Harper's bid for re-election and strengthen the campaign of Wickenburg resident John Zerby in the Republican primary.
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 08.13.2008
On a party-line vote, the Senate Ethics Committee on Tuesday threw out a complaint that Sen. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, violated rules when he cut off debate on the last night of the session.
Sen. Jay Tibshraeny, R-Chandler, who cast the deciding vote, said Harper, who was presiding over the floor debate, handled the process "very poorly." But he also noted Harper apologized — though he never admitted violating the rules.
The vote disappointed Sen. Ken Cheuvront, D-Phoenix, who filed the complaint.
"You have three Republicans," he said of the five-member panel. "They whitewashed this whole thing."
Cheuvront also discounted the apology — which came only after the ethics complaint was filed — as meaningless. He said the only message that sends future lawmakers is they are free to ignore the rules and then be able to escape any retribution by simply apologizing.
Harper, for his part, remained adamant he did nothing wrong. He said it was Cheuvront and Sen. Paula Aboud, D-Tucson, who were breaking Senate rules that night by engaging in a time-wasting question-and-answer session on a tax bill in hopes of delaying a vote on a measure to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage.
And Harper said he was justified in shutting off their microphones.
"They did not have the right to retain the floor," he said. "It was a charade."
But Harper continued to sidestep questions of why, if he was entitled to cut off debate, he did not rule the pair out of order. Instead, he said at the time, "I clicked on the wrong thing. I clicked on the clear mics" button.
Instead he apologized for "my less-than-stellar acting when the mics were shut off."
Harper also conceded he did not acknowledge any of the calls from the floor for a "point of order," a parliamentary maneuver designed to call attention to an apparently illegal maneuver. Instead, Harper said, he was focused on a motion to suspend further debate, and "nothing else was coherent to me."
Tuesday's vote is the final word on what became a heated dispute the last night of the session over that Senate vote to ask voters to adopt the constitutional amendment on gay marriage.
Cheuvront said he and Aboud, both of whom are gay, had purposely slowed up floor action. There was the possibility that one of the 16 senators whose vote was necessary to approve the gay-marriage amendment would have to leave.
But Cheuvront charged that Harper, who was presiding over the meeting, acted "in cahoots" with Senate Majority Leader Thayer Verschoor, R-Gilbert, to illegally shut off debate on that tax measure.
Harper said under oath Tuesday that he and Verschoor had discussed ways of cutting off debate.
He said, though, it was clear that Cheuvront and Aboud were not interested in the specifics of the tax bill but only to "keep the marriage amendment from coming to the ballot." That, said Harper, gave him the legal right to cut off "this charade."
And if that intent were not crystal-clear that night, Harper said Aboud admitted to it just recently in a radio interview.
"My intentions are irrelevant," Cheuvront said, saying his right to discuss the tax bill with Aboud for as long as he wants is absolute under Senate rules — even if they decided to talk all night.
Sen. Robert Blendu, R-Litchfield Park, one of the members of the Ethics Committee, said the complaint was little more than sour grapes by foes of the gay-marriage amendment who were unable to block a vote.
"Because one group lost and didn't get their way, we find ourselves with an ethics violation," he said. "That is a very bad precedent for this body going forward."
Cheuvront responded he has been on the losing side on various votes on this issue before, all without filing complaints, because everyone followed the rules.
He also denied the complaint was filed to undermine Harper's bid for re-election and strengthen the campaign of Wickenburg resident John Zerby in the Republican primary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)