As the Pentagon prepares to survey soldiers about President Obama’s decision to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, a new poll of military personnel who served in the Afghanistan or Iraq wars has finds that sexual orientation is “not a burning issue that overwhelms veterans’ lives.”

The new poll, commissioned by The Vet Voice Foundation and conducted jointly by Republican and Democratic pollsters, finds that most veterans are “comfortable around gay and lesbian people, believe that being gay or lesbian has no bearing on a service member’s ability to perform their duties, and would find it acceptable if gay and lesbian people were allowed to serve openly in the military.” Fifty-eight percent of veterans said they served alongside gays or lesbians, and only 22 percent thought they had not:

– 60% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans believe that being gay or lesbian “has no bearing on a service member’s ability to perform their duties.” Only 29% disagree.

– 73% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans say it is “personally acceptable to them if gay and lesbian people were allowed to serve openly in the military.” Only a quarter (25%) would find it unacceptable.

– 73% Iraq and Afghanistan veterans say “they are personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians.” Only a quarter (23%) is uncomfortable, and hardly anyone is very uncomfortable (only 7%).

The survey, which sampled 45% self-identified Republicans and just 20% Democrats, suggests that military personnel are more comfortable serving alongside openly gay and lesbian troops than previously thought. The poll also contradicts the findings of a widely circulated Military Times survey, which reported that 58% of respondents are opposed to efforts to repealing DADT, and undermines the claims of some conservative lawmakers who argue that lifting the ban would undermine the primary goal of the military.

“Simply put, our military is the most professional organization the world has ever known. Not only will service members abide by a repeal, but they’ll largely accept it and move on to the task at hand. For all of the hyperbolic rhetoric from those opposed to a repeal, today’s military really doesn’t see an issue here,” said Jon Soltz, Chairman of the Vet Voice Foundation. Indeed, the survey concluded that veterans under age 35 lean toward favoring allowing gay and lesbian people to serve openly (41% favor to 35% oppose) while veterans over age 35 lean toward opposing by five points (31% favor, 36% oppose).

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

Joe Arpaio, an Arizona sheriff known for his controversial immigration enforcement tactics, says he’s “considering” running for governor of Arizona. “I would run for governor for two reasons, because the people want me, and I know I can do the job, that’s not being egotistical,” he said.

This morning, Arpaio was on MSNBC to discuss the brutal murder of three U.S. consulate officials at the hands of the Aztecas drug gang in the Mexican city of Juárez. Arpaio argued that the U.S. should send troops to Mexico to deal with the drug cartel problem:

I don’t ­want ­to ­be ­an ­extremist­. W­e ­do­ send ­our ­military ­to ­other ­countries. ­I ­know­ it’s­ a­ difficult ­economic­ and­ diplomatic ­problem­ what ­I’m ­going­ to ­say ­but ­possibly ­we­ should ­send­ the­ troops ­into­ Mexico, ­work ­with ­the ­Mexican ­government, ­give­ them­ resources,­ not ­just ­technical ­equipment. When­ I ­was ­in ­the ­DEA ­we ­worked­ undercover,­ involved ­in ­gun battles.­ We­ were operational. ­Maybe ­we ­should­ get ­more­ operational ­in ­that ­country ­especially­ at ­the­ border ­areas.

Watch it:

Many experts have pointed out that militarizing the drug war is counterproductive. Shortly after his inauguration in 2006, President Felipe Calderon began assigning large numbers of troops to fighting the drug war. The National Human Rights Commission specifically cited the case of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico’s murder capital, when it concluded that “using the Mexican military against drug cartels has brought no improvement in public safety.”

Chances are U.S. troops wouldn’t necessarily be welcomed with open arms either. Jorge Angel Pescador Osuna, the former Mexican consul general in Los Angeles, stated in 2008 “[Mexican] foreign policy has been subordinated to that of the Americans, the policemen of the world. … What we need here is to strengthen our democracy, and we will not accomplish that by using the military for civilian law enforcement.”

More at The Wonk Room.

This past weekend, three U.S. consulate officials were brutally shot and murdered by the violent Aztecas drug gang in the Mexican city of Juárez. In response, Joe Arpaio, an Arizona sheriff known for his controversial immigration enforcement tactics, announced this morning on MSNBC that the U.S. should send troops to Mexico to deal with the drug cartel problem:

I don’t ­want ­to ­be ­an ­extremist­. W­e ­do­ send ­our ­military ­to ­other ­countries. ­I ­know­ it’s­ a­ difficult ­economic­ and­ diplomatic ­problem­ what ­I’m ­going­ to ­say ­but ­possibly ­we­ should ­send­ the­ troops ­into­ Mexico, ­work ­with ­the ­Mexican ­government, ­give­ them­ resources,­ not ­just ­technical ­equipment. When­ I ­was ­in ­the ­DEA ­we ­worked­ undercover,­ involved ­in ­gun battles.­ We­ were operational. ­Maybe ­we ­should­ get ­more­ operational ­in ­that ­country ­especially­ at ­the­ border ­areas.

Arpaio quickly pivoted to the topic of immigration and proceeded to complain about how the drug problem is obscuring the nation’s immigration problem:

I’m not liked by Washington and certain politicians. I’m the poster boy because I go after illegal immigrants, smugglers on crime suppression operations. There’s violence here — tons of violence in this country because of illegal immigration but we seem to always talk about the drug problem because politically people don’t want to talk about the illegal immigration problem.

Watch it:

Many experts have pointed out that militarizing the drug war is counterproductive. Shortly after his inauguration in 2006, President Felipe Calderon began assigning large numbers of troops to fighting the drug war. The National Human Rights Commission specifically cited the case of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico’s murder capital, when it concluded that “using the Mexican military against drug cartels has brought no improvement in public safety.” Chances are U.S. troops wouldn’t necessarily be welcomed with open arms either. Jorge Angel Pescador Osuna, the former Mexican consul general in Los Angeles, stated in 2008 “[Mexican] foreign policy has been subordinated to that of the Americans, the policemen of the world. … What we need here is to strengthen our democracy, and we will not accomplish that by using the military for civilian law enforcement.”

Meanwhile, if anyone is guilty of conflating the drug war problem with the problem of immigration, it’s Arpaio. Rather than focusing his resources on violence that has spilled over the border, Arpaio has dedicated most of his energy to chasing busboys and nannies through the desert and most of his talking points to bragging about it. Despite the fact that research shows that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or be behind bars than the native-born citizens, Arpaio allots an overwhelming amount of his budget to targeting and hunting down non-violent undocumented immigrants and throwing them in jail for “smuggling themselves” across the border. Two independent reports by the East Valley Tribune and the Goldwater Institute show that Arpaio’s immigration-enforcement crusade has contributed to a huge county budget deficit and that crime rates have actually escalated as Arpaio has failed to arrest top smugglers and criminals.

When Vice President Biden recently told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel’s intention to build thousands of new settlements was undermining U.S. interests in the region, he was reportedly conveying the assessment made by Gen. David Petraeus.

Foreign Policy’s Mark Perry reveals that Biden’s concerns about Israeli behavior endangering American troops stem from a special briefing delivered in January at the Pentagon. On January 16, “team of senior military officers from the U.S. Central Command [CENTCOM],” acting under the orders of CENTCOM commander General David Petraeus, presented Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen with a “33-slide, 45-minute PowerPoint briefing” outlining the concern that “Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region.” The presentation “stunned” Mullen. Perry reports “David Petraeus sent a briefing team to the Pentagon with a stark warning: America’s relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America’s soldiers.”

After the Obama administration publicly aired its concerns, leading conservatives began quickly attacking. House Republican leader John Boehner (R-OH) said the administration’s admonishments were “irresponsible” and “an affront to the values” of our relationship with Israel. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) accused Biden of a “double standard,” Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) claimed that the administration was alienating an ally over a protest over a “zoning decision in its capital city,” and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) effectively told “the White House to be quiet on [the issue].”

While conservatives are currently on the offensive against Petraeus’s concerns today, they thought differently in 2007. As the country was heatedly debating our policies in Iraq, leading conservatives demanded that we listen to Petraeus and agree with the views he advocated:

– Boehner said in the Fall of 2007 that Petraeus has “earned” the right to be listened to. In a statement put out condemning a Moveon.org advertisement criticizing Petraeus, Boehner said, “I call on my colleagues to listen to what General Petraeus has to say. He’s earned it.” [9/10/07]

– Cantor said it was important to show that we “stand behind” Petraeus and his advice on Iraq. During an appearance on PBS’s Newshour, the congressman endorsed the “Petraeus plan for victory” and said that supporting him was a way to “send a message to our troops that we stand behind them.” [3/22/07]

– Brownback called Petraeus an “exceptionally smart and thoughtful man.” In a press release lauding President Bush’s appointment of Petraeus as the new top military commander in Iraq, Brownback noted that he knows Petraeus “very well” and that he’s an “exceptionally smart and thoughtful man” who “will do a superb job.” [1/5/07]

– Lieberman and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) asked their colleagues to “listen carefully” to Petraeus’s advice on Iraq. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published in September 2007 titled “Listening To Petraeus” the senators implored their colleagues to “listen carefully” to the General’s advice about how to stablize Iraq. [9/10/07]

General Petraeus is hardly the only defense official who has warned that failing to bring a just end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can lead to Muslim radicalization and endanger our troops. In 2004, the Defense Science Board Task Force noted that our “one sided support in favor of Israel” and failure to resolve the conflict was a leading source of “threats to America’s national security.”

Given how eager the right was to endorse Petraeus’s Iraq solution in 2007, will they listen to him, CENTCOM, and other defense officials about the dangers of not acting to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

[updat