Buggery in the barracks

By Les Kinsolving

“A MILITARY AT WAR NEEDS ITS GAY SOLDIERS” headlined the op-ed page of the Nov. 29 New York Times.

This article, written by Alastair Gamble, is devoid of any objectivity, because Gamble is himself a homosexual soldier who was, deservedly, thrown out of the Army when he violated the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” rule.

Our armed forces adopted this compromise after Georgia’s widely respected Democrat, Sen. Sam Nunn, checked new President Bill Clinton’s wild attempt to respond to the Sodomy Lobby’s push to force our military to recruit openly advertising homosexuals.

Our all-volunteer army would have quickly seen recruiting virtually wiped out had Clinton been successful in bringing buggers into the barracks. That and the horrendous medical consequences involved in bringing in what is by far the nation’s largest spreaders of HIV and AIDS.

In his Times article, Gamble, who was enrolled in the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, Calif., revealed just how valuable he believed himself to be to the U.S. Army.

He writes that he “Always had a knack for learning languages” … “quickly became a confident speaker” … “picking up Arabic easily.” He “was able to converse not only about daily activities, but about military operations.”

Mr. Gamble also writes that he conversed with a female soldier – speaking in Arabic: “I prefer men.”

And then, he reports: “One night, my boyfriend was caught in my room after visiting hours. Though we were not found in any embrace, inspectors found romantic notes we shared.”

Mr. Gamble notes: “The military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy makes no exceptions, even for personnel it needs desperately.” And when he was discharged for violating this policy of which he was fully aware, he wrote:

“Instead of fighting in the war against terrorism, I am now an observer, left to wonder how our country can afford to lose the talents and dedication of gays who are denied the right to serve.” That statement is a falsity. Homosexuals who neither advertise nor practice their sexual orientation on other members of the armed forces on posts, bases, ships, planes or submarines are tolerated if they have sufficient self control.

Mr. Gamble also writes: “The military invested thousands of dollars in my two years of training.”

And while accepting this investment of thousands of our taxpayers dollars, soldier Gamble – as a future interpreter for U.S. Army Intelligence – was:

  1. entertaining his male lover in his room after hours,

  2. exchanging written love notes with said lover, and

  3. using the Arabic language training given him by the U.S. Army to announce to another soldier, “I prefer men.”

Should the U.S. Army have depended upon the truth of translator intelligence from such a soldier?

Regarding Mr. Gamble’s wondering how our country can afford to lose his talents and dedication, he and the New York Times ought really to ponder the value he would have had to the intelligence services of Iraq and the Taliban if they had learned about him before the U.S. Army did.