-- Philippe Gagnon

I typically enjoy Horowitz's attacks on political correctness. However, his latest article regarding gays in the military seems less about thinking outside the boxes of political correctness and more about automatically thinking in opposition to these matrices.

In arguing against gays in the military, he not only ignores the vast spectrum of military duties outside wartime combat but does not allow for a truly merit-based system, rewarding the specific soldiers who perform with distinction. Such a system as he supports seems perfectly in line with supporters of affirmative action who judge candidates by superficial qualities. That does not seem to be un-p.c. to me, but rather a case of Horowitz poorly playing devil's advocate.

-- Erick Gjerdingen

Horowitz states that during Desert Storm 10 percent of the women en route to battle aboard one particular ship "got pregnant." The women got pregnant? On their own? Some men aboard that ship were equally responsible for the pregnancies that resulted from these relationships.

	Print story E-mail story

The military shouldn't exclude citizens simply based on their propensity to have sexual relations with others in their unit. Instead, the military should enforce existing rules about such conduct (on both female and male enlistees -- not only those who get pregnant) and introduce new rules that would ban sexual relations of any kind between two members of a given unit.

In regard to Horowitz's comments on unit cohesion, two men within a unit could easily become close friends -- even like "brothers." Would this not similarly have the potential to hinder their ability to consider the unit above individual concerns? The military should be honest about its discrimination instead of developing scenarios of homosexual lust. The threat to unit cohesion it's really talking about is dealing with the homophobic attitudes of the heterosexual soldiers who consider their individual biases before the needs of the unit.

-- Kathryn Ensch Kamm

I served in the U.S. Air Force and can testify to the absurdity of our policy toward gays in the military.

I believe that the military must get its house in order before questioning the morality of those who practice "alternative lifestyles." If a few flamboyant gays bring into question their ability to serve, imagine the ability to do so of young servicemen and servicewomen who engage in the kind of escapades that betray their uniform.

It all begins in basic training, when recruits are segregated by gender. The mere presence of the opposite sex creates a scenario that is not very pretty when town passes are issued!

After basic training, the upstanding, straight basic training grads attend technical school to prepare for their career fields. The school is supposed to have a collegiate atmosphere that fosters academic growth (along with a lot of marching). Instead, I remember living in an "Animal House." Many trainees failed their classes because they studied sex education and drinking education.

One marriage broke up during my 12-week course and another hit the skids soon after. Are we going to share foxholes with someone who is sticking it to our spouse?

The whole gender/sexual orientation dynamic in the military must be reformed!

-- John Meeks Jr.

I am troubled in many ways by the manner in which America conducts public discourse on this difficult topic, both by politically correct advocates of reform and the right-wing punditocracy.

I served in the Army for five years, mostly with the 25th Infantry Division (Light), ending in 1998. As a military journalist, I covered a range of sensitive topics, including the role of women in combat and -- tangentially -- the role of gays in the service.

I find myself increasingly disturbed by the common unfamiliarity in the press with military issues, and particularly with the mind of a soldier. The arms-length distance of commentators and pundits from those who serve has led to stereotypical presumptions about the nature of military service and the nature of the service person.

Like most public policy arguments these days, the gays-in-service debate has been reduced to the extremes of chance and circumstance: two gay soldiers, lovers, on the battlefield under fire, abandoning duty to preserve each other.

Nuts. It's the wrong example, and it misses the point.

There is no front line in combat anymore. In fact, the line between combatant and noncombatant has been blurring with the increasing presence of terrorism, nonconventional arms, the targeting of nonmilitary buildings and areas and ethnic warfare drawing civilians into conflict zones.

The duty of a real soldier is to accept risk to spare others, to paint a bull's-eye on one's back to draw fire away from civilians. "Combat" or "support" distinctions are becoming less relevant. And service people understand that.

I will not attribute qualities of superhuman, robotic discipline to American soldiers -- I don't think it fits with our concept of service and I don't think it breeds a better service person. But I've known few groups of people anywhere outside of the military with a better sense of how to perform professionally in a crisis under bad circumstances. Emergency rooms, maybe. Fire departments, perhaps. Military decision makers increasingly grow shy of risk, but those who serve today can accept it as a consequence of the profession.

The idea of any soldier, for any reason, abandoning his or her post in combat to aid a bed buddy is outrageous to professional soldiers. It presumes the widespread presence of basic immaturity and character flaws. I know of damned few soldiers with such flawed personal priorities who would not be washed out of the service in short order for other reasons.

That Horowitz would parenthetically insert the phrase "men will instinctively sacrifice their tactical missions to protect the women" is telling. He doesn't know. He's guessing. Most journalists are, because the overwhelming majority have not served, and lack the personal context to judge.

I do not advocate including gays in service solely for politically correct reasons of "diversity." I detest the idea of introducing identity politics to the military. But I am equally convinced that wildly improbable presumptions of potential trouble on the battlefield should not be enough to eliminate a committed citizen from the right and the duty to serve. And as a former soldier I believe unnecessarily narrowing our pool of talent introduces greater combat risks than those raised by allowing gays and lesbians to serve.

-- George Chidi

Salon Politics: Unflinching daily political news, analysis and commentary.