As a retired military, I naturally keep up with military matters and issues. One way is by reading the on-line Defense News’ “Early Bird Brief.“

In this morning’s “Brief,” under the heading “Military,” there were only two entries:

“After The Battle, Fighting The Bottle At Home,” summarizing a New York Times story, and “Gays In Military Pose No Risk, Study Finds,” summarizing a Boston Globe story.

The first story, “Fighting the Bottle,” is about a former marine and Iraq war veteran who turned to heavy drinking upon his return home and whose drunken driving caused the death of a 16-year-old cheerleader. The author says:

[The marine’s] case is part of a growing body of evidence that alcohol abuse is rising among veterans of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, many of them trying to deaden the repercussions of war and disorientation of home. While the numbers remain relatively small, experts say and studies indicate that the problem is particularly prevalent among those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, as it was after Vietnam. Studies indicate that illegal drug use, much less common than heavy drinking in the military, is up slightly, too.

The second story, “Gays in Military,” starts as follows:

Congress should repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law because the presence of gays in the military is unlikely to undermine the ability to fight and win, according to a new study released by a California-based research center.

It then proceeds to summarize the results of the study, which was conducted by four high-ranking, retired military officers:

“Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline, or cohesion,” the officers stated. To support its contention, the panel points to the British and Israeli militaries, where it says gay people serve openly without hurting the effectiveness of combat operations. Undermining unit cohesion was a determining factor when Congress passed the 1993 law, intended to keep the military from asking recruits their sexual orientation. In turn, service members can’t say they are gay or bisexual, engage in homosexual activity, or marry a member of the same sex.

However, there are still die-hard supporters of the ban, such as Lieutenant Colonel Robert Maginnis, who retired in 1993 after working on this issue for the Army. Maginnis contends in the Boston Globe article that “The issue is trust and confidence” among members of a unit, and that when some people with a different sexual orientation are “in a close combat environment, it results in a lack of trust.”

Of course, there have been many other studies and many other high ranking military officials contradicting such claims. Some, like Air Force Lieutenant General Robert Minter Alexander, a Republican, who was part of the 1993 panel that examined the issue of gays in the military and who signed an order “that prohibited the military from asking a recruit’s sexual orientation” now believe the law should be repealed as cultural attitudes are changing.

But my first reaction when reading the two headlines in Defense News was: How can we continue to spend resources and emotional capital in researching, rehashing, dissecting and debating “What risk gays pose in the military.“ I have never heard of a war or a battle that was lost, or a troop that was killed or wounded because of the actions of a gay soldier, or of any other real and serious risks faced by our men and women in battle because of gay soldiers. On the other hand, there are many real and grave risks that affect our troops and their families, but these emanate from entirely different quarters. For example,

It is the risk we place our troops in when we send them off to war ill equipped, ill-protected and ill-prepared.

It is the risk our heroes face when we don’t provide them with the highest quality health, mental health and rehabilitative care upon their return home.

It is the risk we place our troops in when we neglect to properly take care of their families back home by cutting corners, cutting budgets, or just plain cutting benefits.

It is the risks posed to our society when our veterans and their families have to go on welfare, use food stamps, go on charity.

It is the risk posed by the alarmingly increasing veterans‘ suicide rates, unemployment, homelessness, divorce rates, crime rates, substance abuse and other complications of post-traumatic stress disorder and, yes, the “risk of the bottle.”

It is the risk posed to all decent Americans when the very same government agencies charged with the almost sacred task of taking care of our veterans and their families fail miserably at it; then manipulate or destroy data and statistics, stonewall, cover-up, and when called before Congress and the American people deny, deny, deny…and lie.

“The issue is trust and confidence” someone said about gays serving in the military. How about trust and confidence in those who we have been entrusted with the care of those men and women–straight, lesbian or gay–who risk it all for us.