We're Back to "If"

The much ballyhooed "repeal" of DADT, seemingly accomplished yesterday by votes both in the House and in the Senate Armed Services Committee, is no such thing.

If you think I'm imagining things, read Adm. Mullen's take:

...Mullen called the "certification trigger" provided in the proposed amendment critical.

"The language in there right now preserves my prerogative - and I believe, my responsibility - to give the best military advice," he said. 

"That trigger is to certify whether we should move ahead with that change, even if the law were to repeal it," he told a reporter following the session."

I seem to remember Sec. Gates stressing that this study was not about "if" but "when."  Does anyone else remember that?  Like Sec. Gates and Adm. Mullen, for example?  And do we notice that it's now about military prerogatives?

Here's some amplification of that, from the DoD website.  I don't see much ambiguity here:

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said yesterday that he’s comfortable with proposed legislation that seeks to repeal the law that bans gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military because it includes “very clear language” that gives senior leaders the final say in whether it’s implemented.

Note again:  now it's "whether."

There's extensive commentary at Pam's House Blend this morning, and I don't see that it's to anyone's benefit for me to rehash it here.  See especially the post I linked above, and a round-up of reactions.  From Alexander Nicholson of Servicemembers United:

The second concession was allowing the president, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to decide together the date on which the new law, once passed, would actually take effect. The three are already public supporters of repeal and can be trusted to act in good faith. They may not certify the implementation plan as quickly as some repeal advocates would like (some have unrealistically suggested a matter of days or weeks after the working group issues its report), but I believe that they will within a reasonable amount of time.

I share Spaulding's reservations about the comment bolded:  I've seen no evidence that the president or the Pentagon are acting in good faith on repeal, and in light of Adm. Mullen's remarks about who will exercise ultimate decision-making authority over whether -- not when, but whether -- the ban is actually lifted,  I think both her concerns and mine are fully justified.

Mullen has come out again in favor of repeal, but I'm getting a disconnect between these various reports that does not comfort me in the least.

Look for updates as I have time today.