DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL MUST GO!

Because our venerable Declaration of Independence labeled Native Americans as "merciless savages", it should come as no surprise that there were many during our Revolutionary War who opposed Native Americans serving in the continental army. The "Indians", as they were called, were frequently viewed as heathens and brutal savages who were unfit for civilized military combat. George Washington, however, recognized the value of Native American warriors, having witnessed their bravery during the French and Indian War, and readily welcomed their assistance. Eventually, at least sixteen hundred Native Americans served during the American Revolution, and the Native American "guerrilla warfare" tactic, adopted by the colonists, was largely credited as the reason the colonists were able to defeat an army that vastly outnumbered them.

Ironically, during our nation's Civil War, Northern military commanders resisted efforts to enlist blacks in the Union army, arguing in the process that the black man was intellectually and physically inferior to white soldiers, and much more prone to cowardice and desertion. Near the latter stages of the Civil War, when confederate military commanders in the deep South suggested that black slaves be used to form fighting regiments, because confederate units were suffering massive casualties, southern citizens were outraged by the notion that blacks would be considered for such an important duty, and calls for the replacement of those commanders was loud and swift.

In World War II, citizens and immigrants of Japanese and German descendants were widely regarded as unfit for U.S. military duty, under the assumption that they would automatically be enemy spies for their former homelands. The Japanese were eventually interred in prison camps for the duration of the war, and many Germans quickly "Americanized" their names.

During the latter part of the 20th century, the role of women in the military was hotly debated, with opponents spouting the notion that women were weaker than men, both intellectually and physically, and could not be relied upon in various combat roles.

Whether our nation was considering the role of Native Americans, Blacks, Japanese, Germans and Women in our military forces, the major arguments against all such participation and service has always focused on a perceived weakness of the particular group being considered.

Today, with the question of homosexuals serving in our armed services, that focus has changed, and I'm scratching my head over the irony of what I'm hearing. I'm not hearing that gays can't shoot straight (pardon the pun), can't execute orders, can't think strategically and can't fulfill the physical demands or stress of military jobs. Nope! What I'm hearing is that non-gay service men and woman can't function properly or efficiently do their job in the company of recognized homosexuals.

So, this is what I want to know: Are straight members of the United States military, the supposed strongest and bravest in all the world, somehow too weak and undisciplined to be able to occupy a foxhole, a tank, a fighter jet, a submarine or a communication outpost with a soldier with a different sexual orientation? If so, it seems that we'd be better off with an "all gay" army. At least then we wouldn't be wasting our time on stupid discrimination.