Gays in the Military--What's the Problem?

The long-festering issue of gays in the military has again surfaced. And I still haven’t heard anyone explain in simple direct language what the issue is. I can imagine several fears, which get expressed as issues:
One is that some straights (I suspect those with fears of their own possible latent homosexuality) are simply uncomfortable being around gays.
Another is the fear that straight guys will be assaulted by gays in their beds or in the shower.
Another -- perhaps the one behind the resistance by some congressmen -- is the conviction that homosexuality is a sin, and we shouldn’t place these sinners side by side with our virtuous straight men in the military.
And the final one I can think of is the fear of the “homosexual agenda” -- the belief, related to the point above, that homosexuality is a (sinful) choice, and that homosexuals are trying to “convert” straights to be homosexuals.

These last two are matters of ideology, unsupported by any of the research on homosexuality. Medical science is emphatic that homosexuality is a condition, not a choice. And there is no evidence that homosexuals could, or would want to, “convert” others to homosexuality. In my experience, homosexuals want just two things: fair and equal treatment and acceptance, and, perhaps, the freedom to speak to encourage latent or “closet” homosexuals to accept their own homosexuality (which is not at all the same as trying to turn heterosexuals into homosexuals).
As for the first item, I think that is much the sort of thing that was said when the question of racial integration of the military was first considered: “Our boys wouldn’t feel comfortable having to associate with colored soldiers on an equal basis.” I’d say, “Get over it.”

What about the second item, fear of being assaulted by a gay guy in bed or in the shower? How about putting that to a scientific test? It should be fairly easy on a statistical basis. There are some reputable estimates of the number of gays currently in the military under the present “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. And there are specific numbers of gays who have been discharged from the military since that policy was imposed.
I assume that if any of those gays were discharged for making homosexual attacks or advances on straight guys, that fact would be documented. And of all the gays currently serving without being identified as gays, they presumably have not attacked or made advances toward straight guys -- or they would have been discharged.
So where are the numbers? How big a problem is this? I suspect that the facts would make clear that it is a vanishingly small problem. All the news reports I have read on the subject mention gays (something like 1300 in the past year, 12,000 in the last fifteen years or so) who were discharged either because they themselves admitted that they were gay or because someone else reported them -- but none of these reports that I have seen mention gays being reported for making advances toward straight guys. More likely it was because someone observed some sort of sexual contact between two gays, or -- who knows? -- overheard a sexually explicit conversation between two gays.

I think it is fair to note that, according to published reports, a woman in the military has far more risk of sexual attack from a male in the military than a straight male does of an attack, or even an advance, by a homosexual in the military.

Evaluating Our Role in Afghanistan

Remember when Iraq was just heating up? The administration was talking about "victory" in the Iraq War, but no one -- to my mind at least -- ever defined what "victory" would mean. It seemed that it might mean that there were no longer any insurgent attacks, which would have to mean no more insurgents. But more about that below, in the Afghanistan context.

So what are we fighting for in Afghanistan? Let's first state some mostly undisputed truths: Though we seem to be fighting, at least in part, to support the Afghan government, there is little dispute that Hamid Karzai's administration is weak, incompetent, corrupt, and disliked by a large part of the population. Another fact: Afghanistan has never had a national government; it is a feudal region (nation?), ruled by local warlords who have never accepted rule from outside their territory and who dislike and distrust outsiders. At least part of the insurgency is fed by men who, sharing these values, want to drive invaders -- particularly Westerners -- out.

Another fact: War is messy. When it consists of two orderly armies attacking each other on the battlefield, there may be some hope of minimizing civilian casualties ("collateral damage"). But when one large, well-equipped orderly army is fighting a rag-tag guerrilla force that hides in the landscape and among the civilian population, that well-equipped army is almost certainly going to kill and injure an appallingly large number of civilians. And in any culture, but particularly in one where there is a strong code of honor calling for revenge (think Hatfields and McCoys), every civilian death might lead to five more insurgent recruits.


So we have a peculiar logic at work here. The more we attack insurgents, the more civilians we will kill. The American military in Afghanistan is saying we need 40,000 more troops, and ironically the more troops there are, the more insurgents there will be.

So define "winning" for me.