Missouri State Senator Gary Nodler responded in the comments section about my claim that his argument for preserving DADT was more than just a little ridiculous:

I never said that this would be a cultural affront to terrorists. I don’t care what they think. I said it would be a cultuaral affront to the Muslims in who’s country we are operating. We can not win the hearts and minds of the people by insulting them and ignoring the standards of their culture. This is about the people who live there and the armies we are serving with. Your comment makes the common mistake that all Muslims are terrorists.

For some reason, Nodler is comfortable allowing foreign nations and cultures to guid U.S. military policy, which is generally overseen by an American code of conduct. The “Code of the U.S. Fighting Force,” for instance, states: “I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.” Forcing service members to lie about their orientation violates the code, but adapting to the restrictive cultural and moral standards of certain cultures would most certainly undermine American ‘principle’. (Which is ironic, given that Nadler’s campaign slogan is ‘Standing On Principle.’)

It would also push women and even minorities out of the military. As commenter Laura observes, “You know, many Muslims are deeply offended by Jews and Christians; are we making sure none of them are in the field, as well? And women, of course – wearing pants! Carrying guns! Commanding – sometimes – MEN!”

During the hearing, Nodler was asked how his “philosophy applies to women already serving in combat.” “Nodler suggested that might be a problem, also.” “I agree that is happening now [women serving in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq], [b]ut I am not certain that is advancing the goals of the U.S. military,” he said.

Nodler’s specific comments about DADT are particularly misinformed. Gay soldiers are already serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and despite Nodler’s rather offensive perceptions about these soldiers — they’re apparently incapable of personal discretion, constantly making out on patrol, fornicating in the streets, or even worse, seducing the locals — the U.S. military seems to be doing just fine.

Lt. Dan Choi — the DADT advocate who was discharged from the military after he came out as gay on The Rachel Maddow Show — appeared on CNN’s The Situation Room yesterday to discuss his recent call back to training with the National Guard. “Essentially, my commander says, we’re going to war and we need all of the capable soldiers that we could get to train with us,” Choi explained.

Choi said he knew other gay soldiers who were in the process of being discharged but “had been told by their commanders” to come back for the time being. “I know of some of them that are out there. And there’s a lot of people that are in their units that I — I think they realize, look, we’re in a time of war, we’ve got to have everybody that we can.” Asked if anyone was uncomfortable about his return, Choi responded firmly:

BLITZER: Was anyone hostile or seemingly uncomfortable?

CHOI: Absolutely not. And here’s the thing, when you assume that people would do that, when you assume that people would be uncomfortable and quit, you are insulting soldiers in the most treacherous way. I can’t believe there are people that are saying a soldier would quit. You want to insult a soldier in the worst way, tell him he’s going to quit. Call him a quitter.

Watch it:

Choi emphasized that “there are people that are openly gay in their units right now” but stressed that they are not exceptions to the policy. “I could get fired right after I walk off the set here,” he said.

“I want to send a message to all the senators and the Congress that I’m watching them. And my promise remains — I will hold everyone accountable until we can, as Admiral Mullen said, have an organization and an institution that lives by those values of integrity.”

On Tuesday, the Missouri State Senate debated President Obama’s call to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) with dueling “non-binding resolutions alternately calling for the repeal and preservation of the military policy.” Both sides regurgitated familiar arguments but State Senator Gary Nodler, who is running in the Republican primary for Rep. Roy Blunt’s (R-MI) seat, carved out a new reason for maintaining the current policy.

Nodler said that “being openly gay in the military ‘in and of itself‘ could be grounds for a sexual harassment complaint by another serviceman, and characterized Don’t Ask Don’t Tell as a way to accommodate gays’ service ‘in a way that doesn’t create a hostile workplace.’” Then, Nodler suggested that allowing openly gay soldiers in the military “could represent a ‘cultural affront‘” to terrorists intent on killing American troops.

“So you would create specific geopolitical strategic dilemmas for the U.S. military — specifically in the war in Afghanistan, ” Nodler said. “There are real-world implications. This is a policy that would directly threaten the lives of soldiers today.” St. Louis Post Dispatch columnist Tony Messenger summed up Nodler’s argument this way:

The Muslim nations of Iraq and Afghanistan, where America is fighting two wars, are opposed to homosexuality. Changing “Don’t ask, don’t tell” would offend the terrorists in such a way that could put soldiers — and America — at risk of further terrorist attacks.

The logic is simple: adopt a new nondiscrimination policy and the terrorists win. Re-segregate the military along sex and race and the terrorists are appeased. It’s a win-win, right?