I don’t qualify either. I was merely an Army draftee, serving during the Vietnam era. But the Army then didn’t seem to have a problem with homosexuality.

I was morning report clerk for a headquarters infantry company in Germany in 1970-71. I typed up Article 32 charges for sodomy, pressed by German nationals against American GIs.

My two commanding officers, one a helicopter pilot from upstate New York, the other ROTC from Kansas, had one criterion: Is he a good soldier? In the cases I dealt with, they were, and charges were either dropped or prosecuted minimally.

We lived in an old Wehrmacht barracks, and trained in the field under primitive sanitation conditions. Privacy was non-existent. Homosexuality was never a problem, and we obviously had homosexuals – the word “gay” wasn’t used yet. And we were a combat arms battalion.

If the Marines need some help with their fears, maybe they should call on the Army. Or on any male in town who belongs to a health club. We can calm them down. And we promise not to hold their hand.

As a former Marine, it made me mad to read this letter about the Marine Corps and the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Those who are not serving in the armed services or have not served should their mouth closed.

The Marine Corps has a great history of fighting for our country and to have someone degrade the corps is sickening.

I bet the letter writer never served in the military.

I was disappointed to see this defense of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” While the writer believes that the policy works, the facts point to the contrary.

Since the policy was enacted in 1993, more than 13,000 members of the military have been discharged for their sexuality alone. When our military is stretched thin in two wars, I don’t think such a policy is working.

But most startling is the low estimation of our military that the writer exhibits. His strongest concern is for how any change in policy will further burden our junior officers and noncommissioned officers. Put simply, this assumes that our soldiers cannot handle being around gays and lesbians, and so the addition of gay soldiers will disrupt the military unit.

That concern is misplaced. I would submit that the professional training of the world’s finest military can rise above something most of us experience on a daily basis — interactions with gays. Around the world, 25 countries allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. If their men and women can handle the challenge, I do not know what is to stop ours.

There is no doubt whatsoever that Witt was violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice by her actions, and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy doesn’t really absolve an officer from dishonoring her oath “in the closet.”

Witt served most, if not all, of her career in a lifestyle deemed unbecoming behavior for an officer. Many other officers have had their careers cut short due to a moment of indiscretion – maybe one lie, one contract payback, one adulterous affair or a single inappropriate behavior with a subordinate.

Witt’s argument that she was a good nurse – regardless of her sexual persuasion – can’t hold water. She was not turned out of uniform because she was a bad nurse but because she violated her oath as an officer.

If her argument can grant her full return to service as a commissioned officer, then what is to be said for all the untold cases of those officers who were good at their job except for a moment’s lapse in their honorable service? These officers could add to their argument that their lapse in judgment was merely a moment, a one-time-only event, and not something that permeated their entire service.

However, even in the age of bank bailouts, the settlement payouts for all these subsequent claims based upon a Witt precedent could be substantial.

The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is not broken. Many gays and lesbians have served successfully in the military by following the policy and have risen to higher ranks. Evidently, they did not display their gay or lesbian lifestyle and blended in with the required military lifestyle.

Repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy will open the door for blatant display of gay and lesbian lifestyle. Most likely, this will result in demands for changes to accommodate their lifestyle for a relative very small part of the military force. Such accommodations will fall on the shoulders of junior officers and noncommissioned officers to manage and further complicate their demanding jobs.

Congress is forcing the issue to pay their political debts. Why should these public servants have to pay political debts for the Congress?

Recent articles only address grievances of a small number when our entire military force is involved, from its living quarters to combat operations. It is like a hair on a dog’s tail wagging the tail and the dog.