Letter from Sec. Gates and Adm. Mullen to Chairman Skelton on DADT
From the AP report:
In a strongly worded letter, obtained by The Associated Press, Gates told a House committee on Friday that forcing policy changes on the military before it's ready "would send a very damaging message to our men and women in uniform that in essence their views, concerns and perspectives do not matter."
WTF? First off, under current law, they can only survey straight servicemembers and their families. How about surveying the people who are going to be most immediately affected? Oh, wait -- they can't admit to being gay. And here I thought Catch 22 was a novel.
John Aravosis addresses this as well:
1. We didn't poll the troops on whether they liked blacks in the 1940s.
2. We didn't poll the troops on whether they wanted to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq.
3. We don't poll the troops on decisions made by their commander in chief. The notion is silly, and downright dangerous in a democracy, let alone in the military itself.
4. The repeal of DADT impacts the families of the troops? Really? How so? That is quite possibly the biggest bunch of homophobic bullshit yet in this entire debate. What, every servicemember is going to have to adopt a homo if the repeal passes? Or will serving with openly gay people suddenly turn all the troops gay, so their spouses will be impacted when every soldier starts playing Lady Gaga CDs non-stop? How exactly is letting gay people, who already serve in the closet, now serve openly, going to "impact" and have "consequence[s]" for the families of service members?
Pam Spaulding has assembled some of the reactions. They're mostly not real positive.
MIND-BLOWING UPDATE: here is the official WH reaction. Protect thy keyboards.
"The President's commitment to repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell is unequivocal. This is not a question of if, but how. That's why we've said that the implementation of any congressional repeal will be delayed until the DOD study of how best to implement that repeal is completed. The President is committed to getting this done both soon and right."
I'm calling bullshit on this one.
I'm happy to see that the Speaker of the House is also calling bullshit -- in nice, Beltway language, of course:
“We all look forward to the report on the review of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy by the Defense Department. In the meantime, the Administration should immediately place a moratorium on dismissals under this policy until the review has been completed and Congress has acted.”
And at the risk of repeating myself:
1) We've been studying this issue for over 50 years. Why do we need another study?
2) Our allies all implemented the change in policy in six months or less. Why is it going to take us three times as long? Are our military commanders that incompetent?
The only conclusion I can some to is that it's finally out in the open: The Christianist generals don't want repeal and they will drag their feet as long as possible to avoid having that happen. And of course, based on evidence from other countries, the longer they stall and the longer they take with implementation, the worse the transition will be. That way, they get to say "I told you so." I'm not sure whether the White House is actually conniving with them on this, but you can bet they will not face any repercussions for impeding the president's publicly stated policy decision. Of course, there's always the possibility that Obama is lying and has been. For a "fierce advocate," his administration has a really crappy record on gay issues. And he is, after all, a politician. Sort of goes with the territory.
3 comments:
"The Administration" doesn't need to announce a moratorium on discharges -- the Commander in Chief needs to do that. And he can. And he would if he had the balls.
I almost miss the blatancy with which Bush followed the Rove agenda. I don't know if Obama doesn't have the balls -- I don't think that's the issue. He's prone to behind the scene maneuvering, and may very well have a game plan for DADT repeal. I'm not convinced, but it's a possibility, however remote.
I'm just pretty well convinced at this point that, like Democrats everywhere, he sees us as a dependable source of votes and money with no quid pro quo. My own congresswoman is a strong proponent of gay rights, but she's hampered by being too much of a team player, when she has enough clout not to have to worry about it. Of course, she can also get away with not being proactive -- she's got one of the safest seats in the House (Chicago north lake shore and, I believe, the near-north suburbs -- about as blue as it gets in this state).
The only answer is to keep up very public pressure on this one -- on all of the issues we care most about.
Behind the scenes manoeuvring doesn't cut it. He's the damn Commander in Chief. He doesn't have to sign an Executive Order repealing DADT and then face having it overturned by Congress; all he has to do is LEAD, and put some pressure on the troglodytes in the Department of Defense. Any lawyer worth his salt is capable of multi-tasking -- he can lead and manoeuvre simultaneously if he wants to, but it's plain he doesn't have the will to do that. Standing at a lectern and saying he's a fierce advocate for equality but then doing nothing is like freezing a chocolate shell on a mold and then removing the mold.
Post a Comment