It's becoming quit obvious that the Pentagon brass is fighting tooth and nail to avoid changing DADT. In spite of the president's stirring rhetoric, I doubt that we can expect any leadership from him on the issue -- he's real good at rhetoric, but on action -- not so much.
Pam's House Blend has a solid post on how it should work, drawing largely from this release from the Palm Center. What's key is this:
Recent media reports have suggested the Pentagon leadership may promote a lengthy process of implementation that would unfold over several years, a prospect that Palm Center experts found problematic. Dr. Nathaniel Frank, Senior Research Fellow at the Palm Center and author of “Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America,” said the impact of the expected announcement would depend on an operational timeline that emphasizes strong leadership and swift implementation.
“The evidence is overwhelming that a quick turnaround on policy change minimizes disruptions to unit cohesion and morale,” he said. “If this is the goal, there should be no slow-rolling of the implementation process.” Frank pointed to the 1993 Rand Corporation report on implementing gay service that stated that openly gay service was entirely workable, but that a successful new policy must be “decided upon and implemented as quickly as possible” to avoid anxiety and uncertainty in the field. It said it was crucial “to convey a new policy that ends discrimination as simply as possible and to impose the minimum of changes on personnel.” Rand then outlined a Standard of Professional Conduct to guide interpersonal behavior that emphasized a uniform code of behavior for all service members.
But what we're hearing from the Pentagon is this:
Gates has voiced caution in the past against moving too quickly to repeal the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which began in the early 1990s, and Pentagon officials have made clear any changes should be incremental.
Some of the Pentagon's top officers oppose lifting the restrictions until at least the United States completes its withdrawal from Iraq.
And John Aravosis notes that the Pentagon is pulling out all the scare words, like "gay marriage" -- as if that had any relevance to DADT repeal.
Given the findings of the Palm Center, and the thrust of all research and real-life experience to date, I can't interpret the Petagon's stance as other than deliberate delaying tactics, to give opponents of repeal time to marshall their forces and start their campaigns. Apparently the only ones in the country who don't favor repeal are the military brass, Blue Dog Democrats, and Elaine Donnelley.
And since we can't count on leadership from anyone who should be leading on this, I submit that DADT repeal is as dead as any meaningful health-care reform.
2 comments:
I don't understand how there can even BE an incremental rollback. Either gay/lesbian servicemembers and enlistees will be permitted to serve openly or they won't. It shouldn't be that damn difficult to write a code of behavior that requires all servicemembers to treat their fellow soldiers with respect, regardless of whether they're straight or gay. Of course, the current code of behavior hasn't done anything to prevent the rape or sexual coercion of 70% of serving females, a problem that has nothing to do with the possible open service of gays and lesbians. But publicity forbids the brass from confronting such an uncomfortable truth, I suppose.
Remember, these guys are all Republicans, and a lot of them are Christianists -- they don't want DADT repealed. They're the ones who've conveniently forgotten the "don't pursue" part of the policy for the past seventeen years. They will do everything they can do to kill repeal, mostly by dragging their feet and lobbying the likes of Kyle and Inhofe and Boehner.
If they manage an incremental rollback, it's going to be a disaster, and then they can point to it and say "See, repeal is not working, we need to reinstate the policy." Don't think they're just a bunch of nervous nellies -- they're at war, except the enemy is us.
Post a Comment