Obama Caving on Gays in the Military

"We've begun to change the culture of Washington," President Obama said in his boffo remarks at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner Saturday night.

Sounds good. But the next morning on ABC's This Week, George Stephanopoulos asked the president's National Security Advisor retired Marine General James L. Jones if he thought DADT will be overturned. Jones replied, "I don't know," and then what is clearly one of the main talking points, "We have a lot on our plate right now."

Sounds like the same old Beltway blab to me. There was more of it, just the usual stuff: "preliminary discussions with the leadership of the Pentagon . . . [this] is not going to be a light switch but more of a rheostat in terms of discussing . . . a very sensitive issue and it has to be discussed over time . . . all sides have to be heard . . . We will have long discussions about this. It will be thoughtful. It will be deliberative. The president I know will reach out to fully understand both sides or all sides of the issue before he makes a decision . . . ." Surely this doesn't represent the vision and the work plan we've been hearing about from the White House and some of our allies.

In Washington we know about commissions and study groups and promise-them-anything when you're trolling for votes but after the election . . . well, memories fade. What candidate Obama said then is not what President Obama is doing now - at least in regard to "don't ask, don't tell." In October 2007, candidate Obama, responding to a question on DADT, said, "Anybody who is willing to serve our country and die on a battlefield . . . that's the criteria for whether or not they should be able to serve in our military. England doesn't have this policy. Israel doesn't have this policy. It's an outdated policy."

That same autumn he said, "America is ready to get rid of the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. That work should have started long ago. It will start when I take office. America is ready to get rid of the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. All that is required is leadership."

Ringing words from candidate Obama. But that was then; this is now.

President Obama has said almost nothing. Where is the leadership today? It's not coming from the president. President Obama is caving. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen, General Jones, and Chief of the U.S. Central Command General David Petraeus seem to be calling the shots for their Commander-in-Chief.

What's the evidence? The president's defense team presented their department's budget to President Obama, and the president sent it to the Hill last week. This Wednesday hearings begin in the House Armed Forces Committee. Nothing in the Obama defense budget provides for the elimination of "don't ask, don't tell."

More evidence? Karen De Young wrote in the Washington Post last week, "When Obama was under pressure to review the military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy on gay service members, Jones said he went 'to see him personally on it' and advised him not to add another controversy to his already-full plate. The president, Jones said, took his advice." Apparently so.

"Calling the shots" is not the metaphor the Defense Secretary and the officers mentioned earlier would use because in truth it is the president who calls the shots. While the president is playing basketball, a game he is pretty good at, his senior advisors are playing kick ball, as in "let's kick this ball down the road." Unfortunately, they're pretty good at kickball. The metaphors are flying all over the place. Mixing them up a bit more, "we've got a lot on our plates right now." We hear that a lot. No one could deny it. Has there even been a president who hasn't had a full to overflowing plate?

In the meantime one or two men and women are being discharged every day for who they are. This has nothing to do with national security or unit cohesion or any of the other buzz words like "full plate." Those words just cover up a crass political calculation made at the expense of the at least 13,000 men and women already discharged because of who they are.

Who they are is gay.

On March 19th, Lieutenant Daniel Choi told an audience of millions on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show, "I am an infantry platoon leader in the New York Army National Guard, and by saying three words to you today--I am gay--those three words are a violation of Title X of the U.S. Code."

Indeed they were. Last week the Army wrote Iraq veteran Lieutenant Choi, West Point Class of 2003, Arabic major and fluent in the language, that he was being dismissed. The letter says, in part, "this is to inform you that sufficient basis exists to initiate action for withdrawal of federal recognition in the Army National Guard for moral or professional dereliction. Specifically, you admitted publicly that you are a homosexual, which constitutes homosexual conduct. Your actions negatively affected the good order and discipline of the New York Army National Guard."

Not exactly a friendly note. President Obama may not have signed it, but what is now his policy dictated it. In fact, more than sixty translators have been discharged under "don't ask, don't tell." One of them even made headlines Saturday in Israel, where of course being gay in the military is no big deal. The big deal was that the Army fired an Arabic linguist.

A few days ago Second Lieutenant Sandy Tsao got a note quite different in tone. In January, on the Chinese New Year, she wrote President Obama, explaining that "today is also the day I inform my chain of command of who I am." Who she is, is gay. She went on to say, "I have fought and overcome many barriers to arrive at the point I am today. This is the only battle I fear I may lose." Well, she did lose. She will be out of the Army May 19th because she told her superiors that she is a lesbian. It took just four months.

But last Tuesday, in the same week she was informed she'd been fired, she received a handwritten note on White House letterhead from the President: "Sandy -- Thanks for the wonderful and thoughtful letter. It is because of outstanding Americans like you that I committed to changing our current policy. Although it will take some time to complete (partly because it needs Congressional action) I intend to fulfill my commitment."

Nice words, a nice souvenir for Lieutenant Tsao, and it's encouraging to know that President Obama intends to fulfill his commitment.

The question is, "When? How?"

Comments

[AnotherTry]

Those straight soldiers who are 'concerned' with the sexual orientation of their fellow soldiers are more than likely the ones not telling, but doing all the asking.

[leonel]

THE PRAGMATIC ANSWER TO THIS DILEMMA IS TO LISTEN TO THE GENERALS AND FOLLOW THEIR ADVICE. WE KNOW THAT SWITCH IS INEVITABLE. THERE IS NO NEED FOR HURRY. IF GENERALS BELIEVE THAT OBAMA HAS THE HIGHEST RESPECT POSSIBLE FOR THEM HE WILL BE HELD IN THE SAME ESTEEM.
If necessary, I would even tell the gay power-players to kiss off. They will understand.

[ColumbusMike]

I don't think we can come to any conclusions one way or the other, until after health care is passed. He's made it clear he's not going to poke anyone in the eye on any controversial issues until after that is done. We may not like it, but that's the strategy he's pursuing, so we might as well just sit tight for now and see what happens down the road.

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

There is NEVER a convenient EASY time to make break throughs for equality. it wasn't convenient when women wanted suffrage during world war one, it wasn't conveninient when Blacks wanted public accomadation, integrated schools, or voting rights during Viet Nam war.
If you wait until it's easier....­.you spend decades getting NOTHING.

[gregrocker1]

I am tired of hearing that the President's hands are tied. He should do what Clinton before him should have done when the right used this issue to build it's hate radio base in the first place: no promotions for any officers who spend one minute hunting or even inquiring about private sex lives. Period.

[DEEMA]

A gazzilion people have written articles on this story, still has no effect on litmus. First of all gay people gay people hate this president so much, but love Clinton who BTW is the one who introduced this crazy law.

[Tanyars5]

You are right Deema. The articles attacking Obama over this issue are disturbing. Every day its a new article written by another person saying the same thing. You would have thought he was the sole person who put this law in affect. Its funny they cannot understand why Obama is putting their issues on the back burner. Gay people -understand attacking people doesn't get you what you want.

[xdevildawg4u]

Tanyars5, do you really think any gay person is going to take your advice when you NEVER fail to jump into any and every discussion about gay rights on Huffington Post making illinformed, ignorant, homophobic and offensive comments?

You always turn every discussion into a black vs. gay culture war.

You are a tool of racist homophobes who encourage black people to see gay people as their enemy and gay people to see black people as their enemy rather than focusing on their TRUE enemy; the racist homophobe that instigated the whole thing.

[AbbieXHoffman]

Articles criticizing BO on this topic are all highly relevant. Whether you like it or not, he is indeed going back on campaign promises on this issue. I don't see how pointing that out is disturbing on any level. It's a fact.

[metalboi]

If you think that gay people hate Obama, you're talking to the wrong gay people. My friends and myself all voted for him and continue to support him as he tries to clean up the mess this country is in. There are going to be idiots and narcissists in every demographic who are either too stupid or too self-absorbed to understand why their issues aren't the primary goal of our government. Unfortunately, those same idiots and narcissists have a tendency to talk louder. Just like the narcissist fundamentalist Christians drown out the moderate Christians, making all Christians look bad, so it is in my community. Reasonable people like myself often don't shout loud enough to be heard over the braying jackasses that think the Federal government exists only to make their lives easier. The only thing wrong with the gay community's issues being on Obama's back burner is that they shouldn't be on the stove at all. Gay marriage and other gay-related issues are state and judicial issues, not Federal executive issues. Even if they were Federal executive issues, they should still be on the back burner because of that little thing called the economy. Seems to me that is more important by a long shot than any legislation having to do with the gay community.

[metalboi]

I've probably ticked off a number of my own with this post, but to those people, I say one thing. If you think that any social issue takes precedence over the economy or the wars, you need a serious reality check.

[Daksian]

While I don't agree with the charges against Obama that he is a failed leader, I think people are right to object to actions he takes which are contrary to his promises. Even if Obama has good reasons for delaying this, it's still the public and media's responsibility to take our leaders to task on issues such as this. The last thing we want is to give the impression this issue will simply "go away". A gazillion articles keeps that from happening.

[Tanyars5]

The following are stated on these gay rights threads about our great President Obama.
I will never vote for him again
He is a failed leader
He is not keeping his promises
He is a black GWB
Obama better give gay people their rights or else
On and on an on........­.blah blah blah...sou­nds to me like republicans
The man has been in office for a little over 3 months.
These people are not his supporters nor do they want to see him succeed. Why should he spend any political capital on a group who are relentless with negative attacks? Obama would be a fool. They didn't vote for him in November and they are not voting for him in 3 years.

[antaeus]

Clinton didn't "introduce" this policy; it was forced on him by conservative Dems like the odious Sam Nunn, former senator of Georgia.

Gay people voted for Obama in the general in an overwhelming majority.

Are you working for James Dobson or Don King?

[AbbieXHoffman]

DADT was a step in the right direction by Clinton. Now BO has to take the next step and repeal it.

[AbbieXHoffman]

" still has no effect on litmus" Not sure your choice of words but in case you haven't noticed, national criticism on issues does have its benefits. It may not move the POTUS immediately, but with continued pushing it may budge him a bit on this issue. BO has proven to us he's a listener. I say that more people should speak out on this issue in the form of articles and activist activities to make BO hear those who are in favor of repealing DODT. The more people he sees support the repeal, the easier it will be for him to make a case for change.

[dennissinned]

Why is that the straight guys who claim to have a high threshold for pain suddenly see their threshold go down precipitously at the mere thought of the greek way?

[mydwyf]

Um, maybe because they have a healthy sense of self-protection ?

[Manx]

As someone who campaigned for Obama, I am very disappointed in his first 100 days. On Iraq, it looks as we're going to be occupying that country for a very long time because Obama has been intimidated by the generals. And on state secrets, he's continuing the Bush policy. Habeas corpus applies to Gitmo detainees but not the detainees in Afghanistan. And so on. And he won't hold torturers accountable. If Obama was a strong leader, he wouldn't wait for Congress to end Don't-Ask-­Don't-Tell so that he can hide behind their vote, he would put an end to it immediately, which, as Commander In Chief, he has the power to do.
While Obama has the ability to be a great president, I'm afraid he's going to be a fence straddler, just another bland president, playing it safe for political expediency.

[midknightryder13]

DADTDP is a LAW PASSED BY CONGRESS. Unlike the PREVIOUS policy, the President cannot just end it, if it's going to have any lasting effect. It MUST be repealed by Congress, otherwise, the policy can go back and forth depending on who's in the White House.
While I would like him to be more out in from on this -- I know things like this have be handled in a different manner than things like the budget. And they have to move more slowly, one misstep and all the progress can be wiped out.

[mikeant50]

I guess I should be mad at President Obama because every one of his cabinet members are not African-Americans. I am an African American and I voted for him and he's going to do everything I tell him to do or I'm not going to vote for him again. 99 percent of African Americans voted for him and he is letting us down by putting all those Whites, Hispanics and Asians in his Cabinet. How dare he take time to address issues such as the economy, health care and the housing crisis? Who do he think he is, the President of the United States. No, I voted for him becuase I wanted a yes man and nothing else. It only been four months, but I think he's had enough time to address all my issues. He doesn't need to sleep or spend time with his family. Oh, by the way, if his selection for the Supreme Court is not a African-American male, that he will truly be a disappointment, because my cause is the only one that should count. Forget the rest of the country, I'm the only one that should count. I meant this to sound silly as some of you.

[Manx]

It's Obama who is always bragging that he can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[ramblingjohnny]

Would it be ironic if they repeal DADT just before bringing back the draft! lolll

[algebragirl]

Ah, if you are in the military, now you know how to leave quickly - no muss, no fuss. Just claim to be gay.
Obama has been talking to people in the military who know the troops and the military experience. Recently, there was an article in the Washington Post written by military commanders recommending that DADT stay in place. Who should Obama believe - men in command and in the field, or gays who just wanna have fun!
In a past Huffington Post article about this matter, a retired military man commented that he witnessed a gay man making a pass at a straight guy, with the consequence that he had to leave the military. My question is: why is a gay man cognizant of DADT unable to control himself when he 'crushes' on a straight comrade? Bad judgment? Also considered disobedience? No free passes here.

[judgejay]

I've never seen a single gay in the military ever hit on another soldier. I've seen plenty of sexual harrasment of female soldiers by male soldiers. Again you base a Idea on a single incident which may or may not have happened. There are thousands of gays & lesbians in our military that are total professionals whom we depend upon daily. They should be allowed to have a career without the cloud of DADT hanging over them.

[zenlikejen]

As a lesbian and former reservist who served in Desert Storm, I can promise you the soldiers who showed the least amount of "control" are the straight, *MARRIED* ones. The insinuation that gays are the only ones who lack self-control is ludicrous.

There have been just as many commanders who have come out and said DADT does NOT work and should be removed.

[xdevildawg4u]

You failed to mention the hundreds of Generals, Admirals and other high ranking former officers who signed onto a letter condemning DADT.

You also forgot to mention that the author of DADT, Sam Nunn, has condemned DADT.

You also forgot to mention that the two generals who implemented DADT Gen. Shelikashvily and Gen. Colon Powell have called for the review and repeal of DADT.

Just be honest.

You don't like gay people and you don't think they should have the same rights as "normal" people. And in order to make your argument seem less anti-gay and more reasonable you couch your reasoning in filtered propaganda and COMPLETELY MADE UP stories.

[judgejay]

Having served with gays in the military I agree the policy of don't ask don't tell is foolish. Everyone in my unit knew who was gay and with the exception of a few people no one cared. The bottom line for me is are you a good soldier? Do you preform you job at a highest level possible? These men and woman serve with honor and do a great job. Anyone who has issues with gays in the military has issues with gays period.

[rigveda]

The same was true for me when I was in the Army in the '90's - some folks barely hid their homosexuality and nobody in the unit cared since they did their jobs as well as (if not better than) the rest of us.

[Daksian]

Well said!

[snesich]

Everyone knows that if gays can serve in the military that it would force all straights in the military to have gay sex. Right?

It's amazing the stupidity and ignorance surrounding this issue.

After President Obama gets a universal health care plan---including a public option---for all citizens, it will then be time to get rid of this counter-productive and discriminatory "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. And then move on and let the haters and bigots go pound sand.

[BeyondKen]

"Although it will take some time to complete (partly because it needs Congressional action) I intend to fulfill my commitment­."

"The question is, 'When? How?'"

Did you read the note? It answers both:

When? "it will take some time"

How? "Congressional action"

[Rrhain]

"It will take some time" is not an answer. How much time are we talking about?

"Congressional action" is also not an answer. There's already a bill in Congress. What is being done to make sure it gets passed?

[teacheng]

Yet another inflammatory, exaggerated title for a HuffPo blog! What is it? Do you know this from private sources? Or is it just another way to get onto the "most popular" list. Lame.