Soldiers put duty first, sexuality second

I had the great privilege of commanding gays and lesbians in the Air Force and in the New York Air National Guard. At least, I am pretty sure I did. I never asked them, and they didn't tell me.

I also never asked them, and they didn't tell me, about their religious preference. I never had the time to consider these things, and I didn't care. I only asked them to serve their country to the best of their ability. And serve they did, in magnificent fashion.

Our ability to do what our nation and state demanded of us in a very busy post-9/11 world required the best of the best volunteers for our all-volunteer force. They volunteered in all colors, shapes, sizes, national origins, social statuses, genders and sexual orientations that reflect all of humankind. This diversity turbocharged our talent pool and often brought innovative, life experience-based solutions to tough problems. We had to meet our sacred trust to protect and defend the people of the United States and did not have the time to be dragged down by debate about inherent characteristics of our force.

This urgency to assure readiness and deploy on a moment's notice anywhere on Earth has not diminished. We need to acknowledge the special character of military service. The unit commanders need to have the ability to hone their unit as they see fit, and not be required to discharge those who disclose their homosexuality.

Let's continue not to ask or tell about sexuality, religious beliefs, political preference or any other human qualities that simply don't matter in our nation's military, or anywhere else for that matter. Surely these things will come up, but the notion that gays and lesbians need to serve "openly" is as useless a proposition as the need for Republicans or Democrats to serve openly. These things don't matter, and our military doesn't have the time.

Michael Canders

Nesconset

Editor's note: The writer commanded the 447th Air Expeditionary Group and U.S. Air Base in Baghdad.

I couldn't quite believe the quote by Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps, who said, "I don't want to lose any Marines to distraction."

What distraction did Gen. Amos mean exactly? That suddenly when gays become emancipated, they will coerce their fellow comrades into a foxhole makeover? Or perhaps they would be dancing all night to a sudden outburst of disco music blaring from the barracks?

First of all, gays or no gays, someone can only be distracted if they want to be. And second, I'm sure there's plenty of funny business going on between straight couples in the military.

It was a cheap, insulting and pathetic shot against our dedicated gay soldiers.

Sheila Mathews

Smithtown