DADT: The Battle Begins

After yesterday's stirring testimony by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, the expected wailing and rending of garments has begun in earnest, as exemplified by this moronic piece of tripe from one Mackubin Thomas Owens in WSJ (and it's at the point that we can count on WSJ for really stupid OpEds):

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Colin Powell, who no doubt knows something about racial discrimination, made the proper distinction in a reply to former Rep. Pat Schroeder during testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in 1992 when she argued that point. "Skin color is a benign nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument," he said.

The reason for excluding open homosexuals from the military has nothing to do with equal rights or freedom of expression. Indeed, there is no constitutional right to serve in the military. The primary consideration must be military effectiveness. Congress should keep the ban in place. It certainly should not change the law when the United States is engaged in two wars.

What Owens fails to point out is that Powell has come out strongly in favor of repeal of DADT, and that there is no evidence to support any of the contentions he lists in his essay -- and make no mistake, they are mere contentions, with no more weight than anyone else's unfounded and ill-informed personal opinion.

The other is professional homophobe Peter Sprigg, representing the anti-gay hate group Family Research Council:

On the February 2 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Sprigg -- who once said he would "prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States" -- claimed that "the presence of homosexuals in the military is incompatible with good order, morale, discipline, and unit cohesion. That's exactly what Congress found in 1993. And that's what the law states." Aubrey Sarvis of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network replied that "there is no data, there is no evidence, there is no study whatsoever that you can point to, to support that outrageous statement."

But then, what does anyone expect him to say? He doesn't get paid for being rational. In case you think I'm being harsh, Andrew Sullivan has telling illustration of Sprigg's real attitude:

Matthews: So we should outlaw gay behavior.

Sprigg: Uh, yes! [laughs]

'Nuff said?

These arguments have been rebutted repeatedly and definitively:

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, foreign policy journal editor Mackubin Thomas Owens argued against repealing a ban on gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military by claiming it would "undermine the nonsexual bonding essential to unit cohesion"; Family Research Council senior fellow Peter Sprigg made a similar claim during the February 2 broadcast of MSNBC's Hardball. But those claims are heavily undermined by the fact that other countries allow gay men and lesbians to serve in the military and have not experienced issues with "cohesion."

Pam Spaulding also has a good take-down, and a cautionary note from David Mixner:

The problem is that DADT isn't going to end in the near future - not even this year. These new converts are asking for a year long study and then maybe at least another year before implementation. After all is said and done, the implication is that once they 'study' us one more time, they might slowly integrate us into the Armed Forces over the next few years.

Given my previous posts on this topic, it's probably no surprise that I tend to agree with Mixner: it's another song and dance, and I'm hard put not to see a political motivation behind it, one that doesn't accord with the president's stated goals. I mean, c'mon, people -- can anyone think this issue hasn't been studied enough, and that there's not sufficient empirical evidence on what to do and how to do it? How stupid does the Pentagon think we are?

I should point out that one of Sullivan's readers has a different take on this approach:

Now, instead of changing the policy with a pen, which would certainly rankle some officers, he’s issuing orders, but giving time, and allowing the military to do its thing – which is to study, to figure out implementation, and to get the mission plan in place.

Like I said – it’s called governance. After eight years without it, I realize I’ve forgotten what it looks like and, no matter how frustrating, it feels like the right course of action. And, I’m a big gay democrat, who has wanted the ban ended for over twenty years.

Increasingly, I’m seeing this with just about everything the administration does and no matter the bumps in the road (and the periodic moments of cable-news-induced panic), I think I’m beginning to get it. Obama is governing. It’s hard work. It’s incremental. And, it’s working.

Sullivan agrees. I'm not convinced, and not only because this is a gay-related issue on which I want to see speedy action. The "governance approach" has brought us a stimulus package that was inadequate and a stall on health-care reform, with another mess looming on reform of the financial sector. I don't see how this translates to effectiveness on DADT repeal.

Yes, the testimony from both Gates and Mullen was encouraging and moving. I will be more encouraged and moved when it translates into something besides hemming and hawing.