There's nothing like an inflammatory remark by a high-ranking official to spark some controversy, right? Following Marine Gen. Peter Pace's remarks on homosexuals serving in the military, it seems as such. According to the Chicago Tribune, Gen. Pace — who is chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and also the highest ranking military official in the country — told the paper's editorial board that he believes "homosexual acts 'are immoral,' akin to a member of the armed forces conducting an adulterous affair with the spouse of another service member" and that "the Pentagon should not 'condone' immoral behavior by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly." Despite Gen. Pace's latest backpedaling — he has not apologized for his comments but instead expressed "regret" that he allowed his personal opinions to undermine the military's policy — debate has been sparked as to whether it's time to say goodbye to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays in the military. The policy was developed in 1994 under the Clinton administration. It outlines rules for how to deal with gays in the military. For example, homosexuals are permitted to serve under the conditions that they cannot be open about their sexual orientation or engage in sexual activity — even behind closed doors. Ranking officers in the military cannot ask about their sexual orientation. Gen. Pace's remarks do not clash with these rules, but rather with the reason the policy was instituted in the first place. Whereas his beliefs about homosexuality call into question the morality of homosexuality, the intent of the policy was to promote unity and some tolerance in the armed forces. Gen. Pace even admitted in a press release from the U.S. Department of Defense that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy does not "make a judgment about the morality of individual acts." Regardless, members of Congress and advocacy groups are rightfully using Gen. Pace's slip-up as an opportunity to encourage a discussion as to whether, more than a decade later, this policy is still a good idea. Are Gen. Pace's anti-gay sentiments really representative of the majority opinion in the military? In America? And is now really the best time for the United States to be picky about whom they allow to enlist? While gauging the public's opinion on gay rights may just be impossible, it is safe to say that tolerance for homosexuality is much greater now that it was in the early '90s. A more tangible way to look at this controversy, though, is to examine how many troops the United States has had to dismiss because of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. According to The Associated Press, 10,000 troops — 50 of whom were coveted Arabic specialists — have been discharged since the policy was signed into law, and in a time when enlisting in the armed forces is lacking in popularity, these numbers are substantial signs of how detrimental this policy may be. An even more shocking set of numbers, provided by the Pentagon and reported by The Washington Post March 7, proved that the number of homosexuals discharged from the military in 2006 was significantly lower than in previous years. The report leads many to believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have made the need for troops too great to discharge so many soldiers based on their sexual orientation. In other words, when you need troops as badly as we do right now, who cares if they are gay or straight? If this is the case, then why have the "don't ask, don't tell" policy at all? It isn't fair for the U.S. military officials to look the other way in terms of their feelings on homosexuality when it's convenient for them — during wars where thousands of troops are dying — and then discharge gays when they are not needed as cannon fodder. In fact, Rep. Martin T. Meehan, D-Mass., is calling for legislation to remove the policy for just these reasons. He told The Washington Post, "We are turning away good troops to enforce a costly policy of discrimination." Troops are troops, and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is limiting the pool from which to obtain troops for reasons that have nothing to do with how well they fight or how well they represent our country. We can only hope that inflammatory remarks made by people like Gen. Pace will lead people to rethink how irrelevant sexual orientation is when it comes to war. Emily Friedman ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in journalism and legal studies.