Gates and Mullen on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ statement to the Armed Services committee.
His statement is more dispassionate and, if anything, a little detached, but perhaps appropriately so. He simply began with “The Commander in Chief is making this call, and I fully support both him and it. Therefore, we shall begin the process of repeal in the following ways…”
I don’t have the official statement Admiral and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, but here is a good summation of it. He went much farther than Gates, arguing explicitly that he believed DADT was immoral and, worse, harmed the integrity of the United States military and those in it. There were a few hedges that opponents can latch on to—on timing and the like—but it was still an above-and-beyond sort of statement.
John McCain was the main voice of the opposition at the hearings. Be interesting to hear that conversation around the dinner table with Meghan and Cindy.
It was sot of strange listening to Gates talking about the time it was going to take to integrate homosexuals into the service. They’re already there. And the way he was speaking made it seem as if there are myriad regs that would need to be reviewed/revised in UCMJ, when it really is just the DADT policy that specifically mentions sexual orientation. Even the definition of fraternization (which he mentioned) wouldn’t change at all because it’s chain of command related.
I thought it was interesting that he brought up housing and benefits – the recognition of a same sex partner being a lot different then simply not discriminating against people who have them. It makes me wonder if DOD is just going to go for it, repeal as well as recognize civil unions, or if the panel they have looking into this for the next year is just a stalling technique to give the more homophobic time to adjust.
McCain’s an unsurprising disappointment. Once upon a time, I thought better of him.
Comment by Liz — 2/2/2010 @ 2:25 pm
What will be really interesting are the arguments from the right now that Gates and Mullen have signed on. I know the “but we’re in a middle of a war!” argument will be front and center, but I just don’t think that’ll have much mainstream resonance, given we’ve been in a war for years now and its immediacy is much lesser felt. Frankly, I think even most people who are, shall we say, “softly” anti-gay don’t really have their heart in this one (at least relative to, say, gay marriage), and about the only thing that’s left is a kind of limp-wristed (sorry) objectionism from the likes of Krauthammer and Kristol (i.e. less social cons, who are occupied elsewhere, and more neocons, who just don’t have anything better to do). Weirdly, McCain himself might become the major oppositional voice/obstacle to the entire thing, because it is apparently his job now to keep piling on tarnishes to his legacy. But, i guess he’s got a primary to win.
Comment by Brad — 2/2/2010 @ 2:35 pm
Maybe it’s overly optimistic, but I think you’re right and the opponent response will probably be half-hearted. No one wants to look like a bigot, and most politicians, McCain aside, understand that DADT is going away and that if they oppose it vigorously they’ll be labeled as such.
I don’t know what more they can say when Mullen, outright states that DADT is discriminatory and dishonest and goes against the core military value of integrity. How do you oppose that and not look like an asshole?
Comment by Liz — 2/2/2010 @ 3:02 pm
McCain’s salient point was that there’s a limit to how far the President and SecDef can go* because there are Acts of Congress on this matter and that Gates and Obama can’t be assuming that the policy will be repealed. Which is all true.
As for the McCain dinner table, I would imagine that like most functional or at least sane families, they realise that they don’t all agree on stuff.
Of course, Gates announcing a 1-year study is pretty funny, allowing Obama to make a big promise to his base in the State of the Union address whilst at the same time ensuring that Democrats have an excuse not to actually vote on it before the mid-term elections. And if the Democrats get a battering in November, well, there’ll always be another time, right? Right? Be interesting if they could get lame-duck Dems to vote for it after losing their seats, actually, given that they’ll have little to lose.
*They do have the ability to de-stress enforcement, for example.
Comment by Adam — 2/2/2010 @ 8:16 pm
I should add that I do think that McCain’s making a play at the socons, here, particularly so now he has an actual Primary challenger. He’s doing it in large part with a respectable point, though; DADT is an act of Congress.
Comment by Adam — 2/2/2010 @ 8:25 pm
In terms of the actual implementation of the policy, it is well within the power of the President to effectively end DADT if he so chooses.
And regardless of what Congress says, he ought to so choose. I am damned tired of enduring stop loss measures and the recruiting of white supremacists in order to fill manpower gaps created by the dismissal of capable homosexuals.
Comment by Rojas — 2/2/2010 @ 10:17 pm
Well, can he really completely ignore an Act of Congress? If, say, being homosexual in the military remains illegal I can see that they are able to not really look very hard — Gates was talking about restricting the ability of third parties to out servicepeople — but if people are coming out as or somehow unfortunately getting caught, can they completely ignore it? How can the Congress make laws for military conduct, etc, at all, if that is the case?
Comment by Adam — 2/2/2010 @ 11:35 pm
And do you agree that this one-year study would be a convenient way to throw the base a bone whilst protecting Democrats from having to vote on it before November?
Comment by Adam — 2/2/2010 @ 11:38 pm
#8: Yes. And ugh.
#7: There is more than adequate documentation to suggest that the reality within the military is not one in which homosexuals are proudly flaunting their orientation. Those few soldiers who choose that path could, presumably, still be dismissed. What Obama can stop–and must stop–is the aggressive attempts by military authorities and by fellow soldiers to “out” soldiers of whom they wish to be rid. Anecdotal evidence suggests that lesbian-baiting is particularly pervasive; it is these behaviors, not the existence of homosexuality, which are destructive of morale and unit discipline.
President Obama is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. He has it in his power to ensure that a blind eye is turned to evidence of homosexual orientation unrelated to the direct performance of military duty. It is shameful that none of his predecessors have taken this minimal step. Doing this will effectively undermine any conceivable case for the formal prohibition of homosexual orientations among the military and will certainly lead to the overturning of the policy de jure. History will be very kind to the President who takes this step, and I think this is the President to do it.
Comment by Rojas — 2/3/2010 @ 12:08 am
I agree with reducing the ability of using outing as a revenge tool, etc, and that’s the sort of thing that Gates was talking about. However, there’s clearly a big push for repealing DADT as well as weakening how it’s enforced.
On the plus side, there’s no constituency in Congress for strengthening DADT in some way that requires stricter enforcement than Gates envisages.
Comment by Adam — 2/3/2010 @ 8:39 am
I think that was the first half of the proposed changes Gates was talking about, Adam and Rojas. Within 45 days, at the executive level, the military will find “more humane” ways of making sure they are complying with the law. The one-year review is the Congressional appeal.
That’s pretty vague, by design. Be interesting to see if DADT dismissals radically fall off starting almost now. But it seems clear to me that they are proceeding very carefully and trying to AVOID the scenario Rojas envisioned, where the CiC dismisses the policy unilaterally in one fell swoop, while at the same time leaving themselves the out to effectively do so. I agree that it would show more courage for Obama to take the stage and just end it on his lonesome, but I can’t say that’d be the most productive way to do it (of course, small consolation to whoever gets Telled between 2008 and 2011). I’ve been a pretty huge advocate for DADT, and I can live with this.
Comment by Brad — 2/3/2010 @ 10:18 am
That was not his salient point, and even if it were it wouldn’t really matter, because McCain means to vote no when it DOES go to Congress to be voted on.
McCain’s full statement (with video) yesterday.
His central message was “Gay people are not horrible. But this policy is working okay so why should we change it?” To his credit, he didn’t go in for flagrant gay-baiting, but he threw up everything a person in “polite society” possibly could.
And of course, in Iowa in the primaries, McCain said:
His message yesterday was “On this day when the leadership of the military comes to me and says ‘Senator, we ought to change the policy,” I seriously don’t think we ought to be considering it.”
He’s obviously trying to have it both ways, and if it weren’t McCain I don’t think I would find it quite as cowardly or disappointing.
Comment by Brad — 2/3/2010 @ 10:28 am
Nonsense. It was his point, when we read what he said. The problem with McCain’s position is that, as you say and was widely re-reported yesterday, in the past he’s said he’d be guided by the military brass on what will work and he didn’t even mention that yesterday while two members of the military brass were telling him it was cool. He only had to say that he wanted a more representative polling than the guys the Whitehouse sent up there — one of whom, Gates, has no choice but to support what the President wants to do or get out of the job — but he didn’t do it, which leaves a gaping hole in his reasoning (which I presume he might scramble to fill at some later stage).
With regard to #11, DADT dismissals are already falling off, so I don’t think they’ll be changing anything terribly violently as it’s already going that way (i.e., less vigorous enforcement). However, it’s a long way from “being able to declare who you are” because homosexuality is still grounds for being dismissed and there’s probably a limit to how honest you can be about your orientation before it does become something for which they’re going to have, under current law, dismiss you.
And the 1 year thing really does give the Democrats a way to avoid casting a vote on it while tossing a bone to the base. It’s craven, but I imagine that DADT repeal is low on the list of things it’s worth going to war in Congress over, given the elections in November. McCain might call for a polling of the brass for the same reason, too; it’d allow him to avoid making a vote and re-achieve some consistency with his former position, in his Primary year.
Comment by Adam — 2/3/2010 @ 10:45 am
No, McCain’s point is he thinks DADT is an effective policy and we ought not change it. I don’t think he could have been more clear. It is not really a process point, although he did throw some of that in there, but even beyond the process he plans to vote against, as his PR kept making clear in that widely re-reported story yesterday (“The Senator has always been against repeal”, i.e. not “The Senator is only against repeal unilaterally from the executive”). Anyway, John McCain thinks Don’t Ask Don’t Tell should continue regardless of what the military leadership thinks. Fair enough, that is, but that’s what it is.
With regard to DADT dismissals, my points is that the 45 review period is the period in which they will determine what the executive can do, the 1-year period is in determining what the legislative should do.
I don’t disagree with the politics of the timing, although I would say something along these lines was always going to be Obama’s play.
Comment by Brad — 2/3/2010 @ 10:56 am
I watched the McCain testimony yesterday. It was laced all through with process talk, presumably to avoid having to make a definite statement (although as it turns out, it won’t stop people saying he made a definite statement). And DADT “has been effective” (note, not the “is” statement you give, but a wider statement about the policy since enactment) in the context of the statement he gives, which is about resolving conflicts; the best question is whether it’s as effective as it was (I would say “absolutely not” and for good reason, along the lines of Adm Mullen’s statement), but I think it certainly was an improvement over the situation before it was passed.
The 1-year period is the critical thing, because that’s where the pain would be, that’s where Congressional Democrats would actually have to pin colours to the mast. As I said, I don’t even think it’s inconsistent with what McCain might call for, himself; although he objects to the presupposition that it’ll go, polling the brass could easily take long enough to get him past the next election without having to vote on it. The 45-day period is presumably to make it look like they haven’t already worked out what they want to do, but I imagine it’s pretty fleshed-out and anyhow, as I said, DADT dismissals are already on the slide.
Comment by Adam — 2/3/2010 @ 11:08 am
Actually, I should be clearer: McCain did call for/welcome the idea of a report and didn’t say anything (in his prepared statement) about the administration weakening how they enforce DADT. He says that he doesn’t think they should repeal DADT “at this moment” (which I read as “before my Primary”, although it doesn’t have to mean just that) and says that he believes that the policy has majority support amongst the US military “fighting men and women”. He’s also clearly not against gay and lesbian people serving in the military.
Comment by Adam — 2/3/2010 @ 11:13 am
Ladies and gentlemen, the most generous possible reading of John McCain’s statement and position on DADT.
/golf clap
Comment by Brad — 2/3/2010 @ 11:26 am
Hilarity.
It’s not as exciting or definite as you ‘re making out, which is no surprise because it’s a pre-prepared statement. Here it is. It’s platitude and caution.
Comment by Adam — 2/3/2010 @ 11:38 am
John McCain: Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is working, and we should not change it now.
The rest of it is distraction.
Comment by Brad — 2/3/2010 @ 11:47 am
Yeah, right. Because life is simple.
Just ask Andrew Sullivan, who can substitute outrage and adrenalin for mental exercise at the drop of a hat (particularly on this issue, although to be fair it’s one of his headline issues).
Incidentally, if most military leaders did think that DADT was working, it wouldn’t get repealed and, of course, what he says there is entirely consistent with his previous position that was being re-reported yesterday. But not in simple-world, where everything else is ‘distraction’.
Comment by Adam — 2/3/2010 @ 11:52 am
I just don’t get where you’re finding the nuance. He said he’s not going to vote for it because he thinks it is working and shouldn’t be changed. So what are we arguing about?
Comment by Brad — 2/3/2010 @ 12:14 pm
He said in his statement* that he doesn’t think it should be repealed “at this moment” but also says he’s amenable to a report that constitutes a poll of senior military opinion that’s conducted without suppositions.
I don’t think that’s “nuance”, it’s just what he said. The point, I would say, is to put the thing off, in which he’s actually aligned with much of the Democratic Party congressional caucus, many of whom also don’t want to vote on it.
*Which is of course different to what his staff may say; we’re parsing his statement here from his own mouth, rather than the somewhat-deniable statements of mouthpieces (I often wonder the extent to which politicians employ mouthpieces for efficiency versus the extent to which they are convenient as cut-outs).
Comment by Adam — 2/3/2010 @ 12:36 pm
Colin Powell:
Comment by Brad — 2/3/2010 @ 1:17 pm
Enough of that gives McCain and others leeway to change their mind, although I imagine not before the mid-terms (but then, they won’t be asked to vote on it before the mid-terms anyhow).
Comment by Adam — 2/3/2010 @ 1:58 pm
Well, as far as enough leeway, McCain yesterday:
And, requoting, Powell, today:
Think he’s going to stand down? I sure don’t. His position is not dictated by or predicated on what he is saying it is dictated by or predicated on. He is a no vote on repealing DADT. I will give him full credit for doing the right thing when he reverses it; I have no expectation that he will do so, no matter his protestations that this is simply about “process” or whatever.
McCain is going to fudge himself into a position where he creates a set of process demands that he knows aren’t going to happen, and when they don’t happen he’s going to vote no and so he and to a lesser extent the people that wish to bend over backwards to give him the benefit of the doubt don’t have to say “He voted against repealing DADT because A. he thinks gay people should be dismissed from the military, or B. he’s cynical enough that whether he believes gay people should be dismissed from the military is less relevant than whether he believes his primary base believes that.” You seem very eager to buy into precisely the kind of muddying the waters that McCain’s comments are predicated to engender. The fact of the matter is, he does not favor repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, even when the conditions he says his opinion is predicated on turn the other way. He’ll just start making up new conditions.
This is the Arlen Specter / Joe Lieberman school of legislating.
Comment by Brad — 2/3/2010 @ 3:30 pm
McCain will just say he’ll wait for the outcome of polling the brass (which is what he implied in his pre-prepared statement). Which won’t be complete until after the election, allowing him to say whatever the hell he wants to win his primary before making a voting decision after the election (which will presumably be his last).
Comment by Adam — 2/3/2010 @ 4:49 pm
Surely the default conservative position is that homosexuals deserve to be shot at?
Comment by Rojas — 2/3/2010 @ 5:15 pm
Only if they are poor.
Comment by Adam — 2/3/2010 @ 7:10 pm
Adam,
Unsurprisingly, I find your reading of McCain’s position extremely kind to the point of willful naivate. His statements from Iowa, in which he laid out his criteria for overturning, have been explicitely met, and yet he demurs. Some of his new goal post moving requirements have already been met. His proposed poll is a tactic; he would not accept a general military census, but rather one that focuses on the leadership only, which means the oldest segment, which means the demographic that we already know is most likely to opposed repeal. The very idea of it is anthema to our system: We don’t run military policy by internal military vote. Guess what such a poll might have revealed about racial integration? His statement that he has not heard any military leaders change their minds on DADT is absurd on the face, as evidenced not only by Powell’s statements, but by the readily available lists of FOs and GOs who have “come out” in opposition to DADT. Suggesting that he has not heard any of them implies an effort to avoid them. I live in Miami Beach, and there are, in fact, days that I “do not see any palm trees.” Not seeing them requires that I not leave the house.
Comment by Jack — 2/4/2010 @ 1:02 pm
His criterion for overturning wasn’t “Adm Murren and Colin Powell say it should go” (we’ll leave Gates out, as he’s in the direct political employ of the President). Powell was mentioned explicitly as a reason he voted for the DADT bill in the first place.
His poll is of course a tactic, as is the Whitehouse’s poll. Primarily because no one wants to vote on it this year (well, other than the strongest opponents and supporters, at least), but you are right, the poll will probably come in lagging behind the President’s opinion for enthusiasm, but I think that a lot of Americans would like reassurance from the breadth of the military that it’ll be OK. For that matter, the way SecDef announced their polling of opinion was not set up to be one lacking a desired conclusion.
A list of people expressing their strong opinion isn’t a poll, as you know. It illustrates that there’s a constituency of strong supporters within the military and, therefore, presumably a significantly larger constituency of people who are generally in favour. However, there’s a lot of people in the US military, as you know.
Comment by Adam — 2/5/2010 @ 6:59 pm
Dismissing the Secretary of Defense is certainly convenient to your position, but even granting that, are you proposing that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the very person whose opinion McCain cited as integral (Powell) do not substantially, if not completely, meet the criteria McCain himself established? That there is some seriously impressive intellectual gymnastics, granting him, as you have, absolution from living up to his own positions.
I will say it out right: On this issue, McCain is a moral coward.
Comment by Jack — 2/5/2010 @ 10:06 pm
Moral cowardice would seem to imply that he thinks its the right thing to do and is knuckling under to pressure of some kind.
To the best of my knowledge McCain has never expressed any desire to integrate openly homosexual servicepersons into the military, so I don’t know that the cowardice of hypocrisy or of being weak-willed necessarily applies. I do get the impression that his stated reasons aren’t his real ones, which I suppose might be moral cowardice of a sort.
Comment by Rojas — 2/6/2010 @ 12:34 am
This is exactly my point. I have the same impression; this issue is simply not important to him. His wife is campaigning on behalf of Gay rights, for Christ sake. And yet he is willing to drop to his aged knees and enthusiastically suck social conservative phallus at the expense of the thousands of currently serving military personnel. Moral coward. The costs I bare, or any other person in the DoD that dares to endorse ending DADT, are significantly greater than McCain’s. What will happen to him? Retirement as an extremely wealthy and respected former Senator?
Comment by Jack — 2/6/2010 @ 11:52 pm