Who's Leading the DADT Debate?

One of the most disturbing questions in Washington today is just how much sway the military and the Pentagon have over the President in matters ranging from the number of troops in Afghanistan and the conduct and aims of that war, to their eagerness--indeed, their willingness--to advance repeal of "don't ask don't tell" (DADT).

Historically we know Congress and the Presidency have given considerable weight to the Pentagon's recommendations in military personnel matters--as well they should. But it is one thing to give the Pentagon considerable weight and another thing altogether to let it dictate the timing and terms of the debate, and the final decision.

This is true whether the debate is about repealing DADT, about getting an updated GI bill through Congress or sending more troops and treasure to Afghanistan. We want the Pentagon's recommendations, but do we really want the Pentagon to make the final decisions on matters that will deeply affect the welfare of the entire country? That is why we have the separation of powers and why the President commands the military, not the other way around.

Everything in Washington is politics, but what may be a political game in Washington is not a game to the country at large or, for that matter, to the world. The games we play in Washington make the reality beyond the Beltway.

Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told President Nixon that if he wanted to get the thousands of war protestors, many of whom were students and their parents, off the streets, the draft should end. It did, in January 1973, and the demonstrations pretty much ended, too, while the war dragged on for another two years. Kissinger's intent was to strengthen the President's hand, not the hands of the Pentagon generals.

But that was not exactly what happened. A consequence of that decision was that very few of our Congressmen have worn the uniform of our country or have any real knowledge of how the Pentagon works. Our last three presidents have had no military experience. (I don't count President Bush's undocumented reserve duty as military experience.) Very few of our Congressmen have pulled guard duty on a freezing night or done a hardship tour or two or three in Iraq or Afghanistan, or seen a buddy die on the battlefield or in their arms. (Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) is among the notable exceptions, and he is the House leader on the repeal bill, H.R. 1283.) Brief tours to combat zones accompanied by scores of security guards and brass to brief them do not count as military experience.

The era of the citizen soldier ended in 1973. The military went to an all-volunteer force coupled with enormous outsourcing to civilian contractors, a system the Pentagon now prefers. The diversity that universal military service--the old draft--brought to the ranks is sorely missed. By and large and with a few notable exceptions, you will not find the sons and daughters of the privileged classes filling the ranks of the military today. Neither they nor their parents feel they have the huge stake they once did in matters of war and peace.

President Truman was a decorated Army captain in World War I. President Carter was a nuclear submarine officer. The first President Bush was a decorated fighter pilot. They did not feel they had to earn their stripes with the brass and they did not feel intimidated by them. But we know Clinton was and it hurt him and us dearly. We are soon to find out about President Obama. The ultimate decision is his.

If President Truman had listened solely to the Pentagon, he would never have ended racial segregation in the armed services. If Congress had followed the advice of the opposing admirals and generals, women would never have been admitted to the military academies or had new career opportunities opened to them in the ranks. Likewise, Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen are important in the DADT debate today but they are not the entire debate nor do they decide where it ends.

On a brighter note, in the forthcoming "official, authoritative Department of Defense edition" of Joint Forces Quarterly, Colonel Om Prakash, USAF, who took first place in the Secretary of Defense National Security Essay Competition, argues forcefully for the abolition of "don't ask, don't tell" and the institution of open service. You can find this important report in pdf format here. It's on page 86.

More good news: Admiral Mullen seemed to be moving in the President's direction when he told the Senate Armed Services Committee two weeks ago that it was time for women to serve on submarines.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

Comments

[BVLian]

photo

Quick Facts:

-In a 2006 Zogby poll, 72% of active duty soldiers said they are comfortable with gays, and 23% report that they actually know someone in their unit who is gay.

-More than 13,000 service members have been discharged since the implementation of DADT, many who are valuable members of the intelligence community and linguists.

-Modern Military Nations such as The United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and Israel have open policies. No unit-cohesion issues have been reported.

No fantasies. Just Facts.

Support H.R. 1283

[DinkSinger]

"The first President Bush was a decorated fighter pilot."

He was actually a decorated torpedo bomber pilot. There is a tendency to place all military pilots in fighters. It happened a lot during the McCain campaign. I saw dozens of references to McCain, who flew "ground attack aircraft" (small bombers), as a "fighter pilot" and lots of references to his "fighter" being shot down.

[Manx]

We know who ISN'T leading the DADT debate. President Obama - great orator, lousy leader.

[Gretel1or2]

He is the president of the US, and not a civil rights leader. A leader for repeal of the DADT law has to come from the LGBT community, in pretty much the same way MLK Jr. came directly from the community for which he advocated. This work of achieving equality for Blacks was not simply left up to the President who was preouccupied with being President of the US. Also, MLK did not hurl insults and criticisms at the President because the issue of granting Blacks equality was not taken up and accomplished within 8 months of JFK's presidency. MLK organized peaceful protests, MADE MANY SPEECHES, and did not resort to name-calling, threats to not vote for the president, and other attacks on the president. While you are busy knocking Obama for his oratory skills, it would behoove you to note that a large part of MLK's success was because of his oratory skills which he displayed in his speeches.

[Awake-and-Sing]

Horsefeathers.

This isn't about "impatience"

THIS President already took action and his endorsement of the vile and unnecessary legal brief to uphold DOMA.

He's already taken action and it was an active betrayal of our community.

I do agree we need to find our own leadership.

But THIS president deserves criticism for his active action of betrayal.

[Manx]

Gretel1or2 - "He is the president of the U.S., and not a civil rights leader." That remark is so uninformed. Why can't he be both at the same time? Have you never heard of Lyndon Johnson? And you might want to read another post on this blog today entitiled,
"REID APPEARS DIRECTLY TO OBAMA: HELP US REPEAL DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL."

[TrueIndy08]

Speak to active duty troops.... they do not want this repealed.... the majority anyway....

[BVLian]

That is incorrect. In a 2006 Zogby poll, 72% of active duty soldiers said they are comfortable with gays, and 23% report that they actually know someone in their unit who is gay.

[DinkSinger]

The 2006 Zogby poll was not a poll of active duty soldiers. It was a poll of active (65%), reserve (19%), and veteran (16%) military personnel who served in combat or combat support for Iraq or Afghanistan.

It asked the question directly "Do you agree or disagree with allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military?". 37% answered they disagree (oppose repeal), compared to 26% who agreed and 37% who were neutral or not sure. It is important to point out that opinions on this issue among the general population have greatly shifted toward repeal since 2006. It is very likely that this is also true within the military.

By the way the 23% did not say they knew someone who was gay, they said they "know for certain that someone is gay or lesbian in your unit?". When asked how they "know for certain", 32% answered "someone else told me" and 25% answered "I could tell by the person’s speech, behavior, or appearance".

[HawaiiBill]

Are you active duty TrueIndyo8? If you are or if you are not, please share with us your source of that "majority" comment. I have two active duty brothers and a sister on her third deployment in these wars (this time in Afghanistan) and ALL three say that virtually all of their colleagues don't care if someone is gay. Annecdotal evidence? Sure. But I admit it. What is YOUR source?

[YoniBeever]

The only people who will still complain about women serving on subs will be the wives of the sailors who are stuck on long sea duty on those subs. A sub ain't an aircraft carrier..

[BVLian]

Your right, on an A.C. sailors get there freak on onshore. So the wives are freaking out at the wrong things.