Obama Administration Has No Clear Path to Repeal DADT
While study after study (after study after study) has shown that allowing gay people to serve in our armed forces would neither compromise unit cohesion nor morale, the Obama Administration is making little progress on repealing the Clinton-era Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) policy, barring gays from serving openly in the military.
This despite candidate Obama’s commitment to repealing the ban. Indeed, White House Spokesman Tommy Vietor said recently that the president has consulted Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff] Chairman Mike Mullen to make sure “this change is done in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and national security.â€
This weekend on FoxNews Sunday, however, Gates said, “That dialog though has really not progressed very far at this point in the administration. I think the president and I feel like we’ve got a lot on our plates right now and let’s push that one down the road a little bit.â€
Pushing it down the road a little bit? Say what? I do hope the gay organizations are lambasting the Democratic Administration for putting this off yet again.
Here’s a simple solution to push it down the road, but head in the direction of repeal while making it clear that the change strengthens our armed forces and national security: With great fanfare, the president should announce a blue-ribbon commission, say, headed by former Secretary of State Colin Powell, to study whether we can repeal of the ban and strengthen our armed forces. Yes, I realize their study would repeat studies already carried out. But, none of those have had the attention one so publicly commissioned would have.
If they carry this one out responsibly, they’ll learn what we learned in those past studies. So, a year hence, the president could push repeal, saying it would help improve national security.
No, I don’t like the idea of waiting, but the primary advantage of this solution would be that it would prevent the president from looking like he’s pandering. He could well come across as a leader seeking to resolve this (alas still) controversial issue. In the process, he may well build a consensus for repeal.
But, instead of a clear path to repeal, we get something pushed ever further down the road.
(H/t:Â Glenn, via Bruce’s twitter).
13 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Obama would only come out in favor of gay rights if he felt like it would move his agenda forward.
Comment by Libby — March 31, 2009 @ 3:22 am - March 31, 2009
“Obama Administration Has No Clear Path to Repeal DADT”
…or inclination to do so.
Comment by Sean A — March 31, 2009 @ 4:43 am - March 31, 2009
So we pay a arse load of money to provide jobs to some has-beens so they can spend two years finding out what we already know (the short definition of “blue-ribbon” commissions)?
And for what? To make it look like Chairman Obama actually gives a damn?
Not a good idea.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 31, 2009 @ 5:09 am - March 31, 2009
…that allowing gay people to serve in our armed forces would neither compromise unit cohesion nor morale…
Gay people aren’t banned from serving.
Comment by Ignatius — March 31, 2009 @ 10:52 am - March 31, 2009
I’m so not surprised at this outcome.
Much more important to fire the CEO of GM than keep a campaign promise.
Also note that the great O delegated the bad news to Gates. He’s a holdover from the Bush administration, so of course, this is all Bush’s fault.
Comment by Leah — March 31, 2009 @ 11:02 am - March 31, 2009
#4 – True, Iggy. They are only banning gays from serving OPENLY (key word here). If you don’t make a big issue out of your orientation, why should anyone else? Keep it on the down low.
Frankly, for me, it would be no big deal. Your life can be an open book, but certain chapters should be off-limits.
Again, I present Peter’s Principle of Politics #69 – the radical gay rights movement was created in order to allow effeminate men easier access into the mainstream of American society.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 31, 2009 @ 11:26 am - March 31, 2009
Gentlemen,
I really don’t care how many “studies” there are. The men who are charged with our defense, the men who order other men into mortal danger, the men who have been shot at, say it is a bad idea. It’s a bad idea.
Regards,
Roy
Comment by Roy Lofquist — March 31, 2009 @ 1:57 pm - March 31, 2009
Roy, I’m am ever constantly wondering who these men are. I am sure they exist, but I am also sure they are dwindling in number. One poll I just saw with a quick google search indicated 75% of the service wants DADT repealed. By way of an anecdote, we have a straight Marine who lives two floors above us with his fiance. FWIW, both are conservative Republicans and Bush/McCain voters, and both think gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve. He is one of the men in the proverbial foxholes — not an officer — and he’s not afraid of a gay man serving next to him.
Comment by CR — March 31, 2009 @ 7:05 pm - March 31, 2009
#7 – Roy, I would normally agree with you except that you are confusing the far-left-HRC-ActUp-Queer Nation gays with the ones who are faithful conservatives on this blog.
For the record, I am a straight acting man who likes men and who happens to appreciate the company of other men of the same mindset. I would no more try to make a pass at a heterosexual man than you would.
That being said, you have to recognize the fact that those of us who are patriotic conservatives sometimes get peeved at how the MSM and the general public perceive us. Not all of us are limp-wristed swishy types who scream “homophobe!” at every opportunity (hello, Bawney Fwank).
I know several wonderful officers and non-coms back from Iraq and Afghanistan who happen to like other men. At first glance you would swear they were straight. But they are not. They are Americans first.
Does that affect their sense of duty, honor and country? No. Do they wish they could serve openly? Of those whom I know, almost all of them. A couple have even admitted their platoons “knew” about their private lives but nothing was ever done to them as a sort of retaliatory action. (Then again, these are leathernecks we’re talking about. You don’t mess with these guys.)
However, they know that the world is the way it is, and that you can’t change minds overnight. Their best way of handling the situation (according to them) is to do their job, destroy the enemy and make America safe. Which by all accounts I endorse.
As one general put it, “as long as they can shoot straight, I don’t care what they do behind closed doors.” And for those of us who work in the real world, around real heterosexuals, we keep that part of our lives to ourselves. It’s the radical left-wing zealots who throw it in everyone’s faces.
Hate comes from fear. If you fear something, you will try to destroy it. However, if you don’t find it intimidating, you can accept it. That’s all I’m trying to say.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 31, 2009 @ 9:03 pm - March 31, 2009
Dear Mr. Hughes,
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I have friends, acquaintances and relatives who prefer partners of the same sex. Fine people all. I am convinced that it is biological and am appalled at the arguments that it is somehow perverse.
The military’s objection is based upon worst case – the blatant homosexual. Men, in combat, don’t fight for flag or country – they fight for their brothers. Unit cohesion is an overriding concern. Much of the morale problem in Vietnam has been attributed to the piece-meal replacement system. Units entering the theater were broken up and used to fill TOE slots in other units.
I believe that DADT allows patriotic people to serve their country whilst giving the military the option of easily and quickly removing disruptive people when necessary.
Regards,
Roy
Comment by Roy Lofquist — April 1, 2009 @ 11:54 am - April 1, 2009
#10 – Good point, Roy. Actually, I am all in favor of all-gay platoons if it will promote “unit cohesion.” Not to mention the fact that there is strength in resolve. And can you imagine a bunch of strong, angry fags taking on al-Qaeda terrorists? It wouldn’t be pretty.
If it sounds like segregation, so what? Women are still not allowed on the front lines, but nobody crows about that point very often.
Plus, I have a modest proposal – have an all-female platoon called The Fighting Amazons. As the ladies on this board will attest, anytime you put women together in the same living quarters – in college, homes etc. – they start their cycles together. Have 12 platoons so that when it is around their time of the month, we can let them loose on some Muslim terrorists. They won’t know what hit them!
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 1, 2009 @ 12:03 pm - April 1, 2009
wow.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 1, 2009 @ 8:53 pm - April 1, 2009
#12 – That’s the most coheret thought I’ve ever seen you post on this site, kiddo.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 2, 2009 @ 11:41 am - April 2, 2009