A reader writes:
I'd like to throw my two cents against one of the points made by Nathaniel Frank:
" -wasted thousands of essential personnel, including Arabic speakers, and filled those slots with ex-convicts and drug abusers"
As a former Arabic linguist in the Air Force, this statement is not only misleading, but it's disingenuous. Arabic speakers in the various branches of the U.S. Military, by the nature of the jobs they are performing, are required to hold one of the most sensitive security clearances granted within the intelligence community. Ex-convicts and drug abusers might get a job as a cook or supply clerk, but they are automatically disqualified from any positions with security clearances.
This is where the actual tragedy is with DADT and its effect on Arabic speakers in the military: it's not that they are being replaced by ex-convicts and drug abusers, it's that they are being replaced by no one. Also, ironically, they are able to walk out of the service right into a contracting job making six figures working for one of the Department of Defense's private contractors who are forbidden to discriminate based on sexual orientation. I'm 100% behind getting rid of DADT as soon as possible, however, I think that Mr. Frank's point plays fast and loose with the truth and is counterproductive to a cause which already has more than enough good sense behind it anyways.
The Dish 