Obama Needs To Find His Inner Harry Truman

The recent dismissal by the U.S. Army of West Point graduate Lt. Dan Choi, 28, on the grounds of his sexual orientation, goes beyond the contentious issue of gay and civil rights, and strikes at the very heart of America's commitment to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Choi, a New York National Guardsman, was an Arabic Languages major at West Point, and is a fluent Arab language speaker. If then-senator Obama hadn't specifically made the point on the campaign trail that discharging gay and lesbian military personnel on the basis of sexual orientation during wartime, especially Arab-language speakers, was an intolerable abuse of resources, Dan Choi's case might have been less striking. Coming as it does on the eve of the deployment of some 20,000 additional soldiers to Afghanistan, it raises disturbing questions about the human cost of political agendas.

How committed is the White House? Committed enough to be willing to marshal every available, qualified soldier, especially Arab-language speaking West Point grads with stellar military records? Apparently not.

In response to the Choi case, Bob Magninnis, a senior strategist with the U.S. Army, was unsympathetic, according to ABC News. "You have people that are throwing themselves on the mercy of public sympathy to persuade Congress to change direction," he said. "But if you want to rescind the law you need both houses to rescind it and then get the president to agree. I'm not sure we have sufficient votes to rescind the law. This is not one of the more important issues, frankly. It has little consequence to effectiveness of the organizations. A few hundred people a year isn't of any significance."

The White House apparently agrees. Following an impassioned plea from Choi directly to President Obama, the official line was that the president would not interfere in individual cases of dismissal based on sexual orientation. Choi joins the 12,000 patriotic and qualified Americans ejected from the army for not lying about their sexual orientation effectively enough. In Choi's case, he was accused of "negatively affect[ing] good order and discipline in the New York Army National Guard," an allegation that does not appear to be supported by any accompanying facts or examples.

Magginis's sneering comment is worth noting, however. If there is such a tremendous surplus of enlisted men and women that "a few hundred people a year isn't of any significance," it raises the question of why so many military personnel are being repeatedly stop-lossed, forced to return to the field for tour after tour, and pushed beyond the breaking point with frequently tragic results.

The sight of President Obama appearing to cave into conservative pressure on this issue in spite of his campaign promises to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell is extremely disturbing, especially to his many millions of supporters, and particularly painful to the LGBT voters who mobilized their own communities to help vote him into office in the hopes of a brighter and more inclusive America.

It's disturbing because it suggests that while the President says the U.S. is committed to winning in Afghanistan, the military is still prepared to place antiquated prejudices before practical exigencies, for instance expelling a popular, highly-qualified soldier, a soldier who can speak the language of America's "enemies" at a time when winning their "hearts and minds" is apparently still a priority.

One can only imagine how Lt. Choi's linguistic abilities might have been put to use last weekend, for instance, when a U.S. air strike killed 100 Afghan civilians on the ground, or in Iraq, where resentment of the U.S. military presence still seethes, endangering the lives of U.S. servicemen and women every day.

By what insane rationale does dismissing gay and lesbian military personnel who can actually speak the language of the occupied make the servicemen and women serving there safer? Or make the mission more likely to succeed?

When do campaign promises start to manifest as presidential leadership? When does the time finally arrive that the right thing is done, and not just for the gay and lesbian soldiers who are willing to give up their lives for an ideal, but for the well-being of the country itself?

There are precedents, after all, for doing the right thing, even in politics.

On July 26, 1948, nearly 51 years ago, then-president Harry Truman, considered by many to have held many of the typical racial prejudices of his day, issued Executive Order 9981, which forever ended legal racial segregation within the ranks of the U.S. Armed Forces. The order unambiguously detailed Truman's commitment to equal opportunity for all military personnel irrespective of color, race, national origin, or religion. In addition, it created a committee on equality, and empowered it examine, identify, and remove any rules impeding the goal of full integration. Most importantly, it ordered and mandated cooperation with the committee of every agency of the Federal Government.

A year earlier, addressing Annual Conference of the NAACP in a speech about "civil rights and human freedoms," he'd said, "It is my deep conviction that we have reached a turning point in the long history of our efforts to guarantee a freedom and equality to all our citizens. And when I say all Americans, I mean all Americans."

It's difficult to picture Truman having much patience, by then, for hidebound military brass bringing their own prejudices to bear while claiming to worry about a "breakdown in unit cohesion" resulting from whites being forced to live, and serve, with blacks, or a potential recruit shortage among racists. It's hard to imagine him entertaining demands by conservative politicians for "more studies" on the topic of the "dangers" of full equality within the ranks.

He knew that soldiers obey orders, and that leadership, not "studies" were required. In effect, what Truman said was, I am the President of the United States, and this is wrong. Segregation in the military stops here. And it stops now.

Would that President Obama, instead of ducking behind boilerplate statements from his press secretary about "not intervening in "individual cases," took a page from President Truman's book. Would that he quickly fulfilled one of his most important campaign promises, recognizing one of the most important civil rights and moral imperatives of his presidency in the same way Truman did in his day.

To wit: Whatever a president's own personal or political reservations might be, legislated bigotry and segregation is not only morally wrong, it is also a counter-productive impediment to the expression of patriotism in its purest form: the willingness to die for one's country when it's needed most, in a time of war.

Like Lt. Dan Choi and 12,000 other patriotic American men and women whom the U.S. military has slapped in the face were--and are--willing to do.

Comments

[mikey683]

Wow. The consensus here seems to be the as gay people we're being whiny, and impatient. I'll bet if they were firing black people just for being black people it would be a different story. Dan Choi was a West Point graduate. That's the best and brightest this country has to offer. Do you have any idea of the millions of dollars we have invested in Dan Choi? What does it say about this country that we're willing to throw away millions of dollars just to put a gay man in his place.

[Flavor]

President Obama, has tackled some important issues and done it right away, lets not forget. This man has not only my issues but many people issues to tackle, and I think he is doing well, by no means is anyone going to allow him not to tackle important issues but whatever decision he makes on our own individual issue trust me everyone is not going to be happy he is well aware of that. He is not a puppet that you pull and say I want to be first no! he realizes that he represents the people not half of the people but all, all, Americans. The way I think he should handle the border may not be the way he will do it but I will have to respect what decision he makes. I believe he will be successful as well as I believed the other Presidents success.

[Mulvaney]

Its not just about this issue, but I read a lot of comments advising people to sit tight, to wait, to trust that President Obama has things figured out, and to realize that the economy and other issues are more pressing. That kind of assumption makes me nervous. Franklin Roosevelt once told supporters that he agreed with them about an issue, but it was up to them to make him act upon it.

President Obama has always taken fairly moderate positions . Unlike the previous president, he may be willing to listen, but he will have to be pushed even on issues that he might otherwise agree. This is one of those issues. If people just sit back and wait because there are other issues on the table, it will be a long 4 (or 8) years.

[harriscrl3]

I wish people would keep there eyes on the big picture. I dont want to be nasty but frankly right now healthcare is a bigger issue and when you put these wedge issues before healthcare it can block getting anything done on healthcare. This has to Wait. You elected the man for 4 years you didnt elect him for 100 days. At least wait until one year two let him get healthcare done then we will take this fight on. They are 47 million people who dont have healthcare and that number is growing each day. Let's prioritize here. We can't afford failure on healthcare we can't have a repeat of the 90's. Republicans right now are ITCHING for a distraction so that we dont do anything about healthcare.

I wish folks would rmember this is a 4 year job its not a 100 day job. We need to stop getting caught up in this 100 days timetable.

Carol

[Flavor]

great point harriscrl3.

[wkt20]

If this issue is not a big deal, then why not just take care of it, and end a stupid and shameful policy? And while a "few hundred people" may not be a big deal to you, or apparently Bob Magninnis, tell that to the people whose careers have been destroyed because they TOLD THE TRUTH about who they are! Your position is shortsighted and indefensible.

[luvangelHussein330]

The problem with this article is the assumptin that president Obama caved to conservatives. Which figures. We do live in a nation filled with selfish beings who want what we want when we want it how we want regardless to what else might be at stake.
We all know that republicans right now have proven themselves to be extremly petty and willing to obstruct and delay on the most issues. For example for no reason at all they held up the nomination of President Obama's Secretary of Veterans affairs as well as the new head of FEMA all while a crisis was going on...why because they don't like President Obama. We have some huge issues on the table dealing with health care and the economy. They are already throwing hissy fits filibustering and wasting time this will just give them another reason to obstruct furthur wasting time. President Obama never said that he would never repeal but right now he needs the least amount of drama that will create a delay on health care and regulating Wall street.

[Michael Rowe - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for taking the time to respond the the article, luvangelussein330.

Perhaps you're reading the term "conservative" as "Republican." The two are not universally interchangeable, and it is not liberals who are urging against the repeal of DADT. As for being "a nation filled with selfish beings who want what we want when we want it...etc, etc" I would respectfully point out that since DADT was put in place, 12,000 highly qualified, well-educated, and determined patriots have been kicked out of the military. In the case of Lt. Choi, it's a case of one of the very few soldiers who can speak Arabic, which is a desperate need of the Army's, right now. What you think of as "drama" translates into the lives and well-beings of the 20,000 new soldiers that the President has committed to Afghanistan. And there is a terrible, terrible need for soldiers right now. This is not the time for a DADT policy, and it IS time for the expulsions to stop. Which is something Obama can do by simply ordering the Pentagon to stop enforcing DADT.

Lastly, it's always useful, I find, not to assume that every criticism of a president's actions is an attack on the president in question. To be frank, you sound like one of the Bush supporters who bitterly resented any calling into question of the reasons behind declaring war in Iraq. Most of the opponents of DADT voted for Obama, and support him today as well.

[CentralVA]

Michael: Can you provide any detail about which politicians or groups are strong supporters of the retention of DADT?

[jcwtts1]

Terms like shameful make it seem like an attack, even a personal attack. As with every special interest group LGBT has to prioritize what they want. LGBT wants a member on the court, they want gay marriage they want DADT they want DOMA. If you try for four things you get nothing. Look, DADT is a fairly straight forward issue, it is something that could have been the top and main issue of the first year and it is something that might have been accomplished, but the argument is blunted and your political power is dispersed. Pick an issue and fight for it and move the other issues to the back burner. And when you don't win a fight don't attack attack attack. Frankly the LGBT community is vastly overestimating its muscle.

[Jonny38103]

One only has so much political capital to spend - while I wholeheartedly support the repeal of DADT, there are too many bigger fish to fry right now. Patience is a virtue.

[Observer1000]

That's right. I forgot to read the fine print after "Yes We Can": "Unless You're Gay".

[GHO]

While I can understand your disappointment, I'm stunned that you seem so surprised. A couple of thoughts:

1) Obama's a politician, therefore by definition, a LIAR. Despite the rosy media picture painted during the campaign of post-partisanship and a new kind of government, and changing DC, he's a politician, just like the others before him. He said what he needed to say to get elected knowing full well that the US electorate is too short sighted and too stupid to ever hold him accountable for the broken promises.
2) The world looks very different from the Oval than it does on the campaign trail. It's easy to make promises, and it's easy to criticize from the outside. Actually having to do the job is another story. It's easy to promise to close GITMO until you find out there REALLY ARE dangerous people there that no other country will take off your hands. It's easy to promise an end to "don't ask/don't tell" until you get in office and actually have to take responsibility for it. The list goes on. The grass is always greener on the campaign trail.

This is not his first broken promise, nor will it be his last. He's a politician, just like the 42 guys who held the office before him.

[Flavor]

GhO, you are mostly right in fact I would say you hit on some great points and I'm glad that you like myself made it clear all the presidents had some kind of promises that did not get answered. You know what else if he answers the ones that some of the bloggers want him to say yes on believe you me there will be others who will gripe about their issues not being answered, I have three that I would like him to step up to the plate and answer but if he manages to hit one of them I would feel like he is trying. You are so right about once you get into office it 's not that easy to say I'm gonna hit on this and hit on that when I get into office. Presidents have been known to make promises they may have really thought they would keep until they found out how difficult it would be. You yourself sound like a wise person who can see the insight of politics.

[qxav949]

He might be able to do this on his own, a stroke of the pen maybe. But he can't do the BIG FOUR on his own. Like it or not, he needs Conservative Democrats and Republicans for the economy, health care, education and energy. I highlight those two groups because of their push back on these issues.
Fact is, DADT is a divisive issue even though it obviously should not. It is illogical to exclude lawful volunteers for our already depleted armed forces, moreso those with valuable skills such as Lt. Choi. Second, it is a human rights issue and the Government should not be engaging in acts of discrimination, therefore that makes it even worse. But there is a substantial constituency in this country that do not share our beliefs and they unfortunately comprise a disproportional bloc of the Congress which is why the President must move tactfully.
I am willing to give the President the room to maneuver for the greater good of the country - to secure passage of the big FOUR. Do I want him to release those remaining pics also? Sure I do. But I have to give some sway if things don't always go my way on my timetable. What appears easy on the outside isn't always the same on the inside. President Obama will tell Candidate Obama and all of us that.

[Flavor]

President Obama, I feel you are doing a great job considering what was left in your hand, as you know many of us would like to see you tackle issues we think are important but I as an American citizen realize that you were left many, many, things to tackle. I also realize that I may see some things done and some not done in the order I would like to see them done but I realize also that this plate of mess was not done over night it is going to take some time. I also know in your campaign there were issues you promise to tackle I believe you will but I also know not all of us will be happy with the decisions you have made. Does that mean your not the man for the job no! it means that I don't care what decision one makes being human your not going to please everybody. I have to make them everyday being a mother, it does not matter what my child may think of me at that time in the long run he comes back and says mom I know now why you said no to me and I'm glad you did because mom I could'nt see that was bad for me. I will continue to support you and keep you in my prayers.

[hrholmes]

No $h!t, 100+ days of caving on almost every issue. It's beginning to look like all we did was change the color of the puppet.

[vonPinto]

You sound like a very inpatient and unreasonable person. I am not even sure you voted for Pres. Obama. I will like to see what you have achieved for your self in the last 10 years at least (I am not asking for your 100 days achievement....... give me a 10 years rundown).

As an independent, I think the left are as guilty as the right in intolerance. Remember that those of us in the middle are more in number than all the left and right put together, except that we are not as loud as you.

You "voted" for a human being that is supposed to work under a democratic constitution and not a robot or dictator that lifts his arms and everybody bows. You guys irritate me.

[Flavor]

Well said!!!!! vonPinto I will give you an honorable mention, great words!

[Thane MacPherson]

vonPinto, Rowe's internationally known. If you want to find out what he's done for the last 10 years... or last twenty... go to Amazon.com and buy one of his books. Read any one of the numerous magazines he's been published in. Check out his bio online.

Mr. Rowe is not some fat homeschool mommy who eats bon bons and spews moronic opinion in a chat room all day. He is not impatient nor unreasonable. He is a professional writing. He is intelligent, he does voice his opinion after examining the situation, and he has been a strong Obama supporter, excluding the current issue. He is absolutely correct about presidential orders. The issue of DADT is one that's he's covered previously, under the Bush administration. His stance on it has not changed, nor is he the sort of man who will allow that stance to be compromised by his pleasure in seeing Obama in office.

Rowe and I are at odds on most political issues. This is the first time I've seen him speak out against something Obama did. I won't gloat . Instead, Rowe gets my support for continuing to take a stand against DADT , even if it means taking heat from people who don't understand why he's done what he did.

[morganhoyle]

Wow, the band wagon has pulled up and you all jumped right on!

Obama just took office, he has the worst financial crisis since the great depression and currently two wars to deal with and you honestly think this is his big slip up.

In typical American style everyone expected him to rush in and solve all of the countries problems over night, and now that he hasn't its so easy to rip him apart and blame him for all the countries problems and then some.

Being constructive and proactive never hurt anyone,. take some advise from the master of grass roots movements, if you don't like the current policy DO SOMETHING TO CHANGE IT!

[Michael Rowe - Huffpost Blogger]

Morgan, gays rights activists and civil rights activists, journalists, organizers, and even politicians, have been working on changing "the current policy" a decade, and the previous policy for longer than that. Assuming that they haven't, or that you're telling them something they don't know, bespeaks a lack of awareness of the facts, "in typical American style," to borrow a phrase. :-)

[morganhoyle]

Thanks for the feedback, the point I am making has nothing to do with the struggles of the incredibly resilient activists that have been fighting for over a decade. It is a cry for a mobilization of the masses.

For all intensive purposes my comment was not made in reference to Gay rights or to your post. My point was directed to the members of the readership that would prefer to sit back and critique the current administration instead taking a proactive stance.

Pretense aside, I appreciate the opinions you made in your post.

[Flavor]

Thank You, morganhoyle.

[Paulied]

His track record on LGBT issues makes his comment about politicians led by polls rather than principles at last night's ASU graduation painfully ironic.

[just saying]

...don't you mean hypocritical?

[crooksdc]

thats because you voted on a guy that is all shine no substance. he hasn't changed a thing from the bush administration.. he just does it all with more style.

[luvangelHussein330]

I could see your point if we were nearing the end of a four year term...he has just begun and your already claiming he is just like Bush who had 8 yrs to craft his epic fail. Holla at me in two years

[CindyV]

Will Obama, the self-proclaimed "fierce advocate" for gay rights EVER do something for our community besides allowing gay families to join the White House Easter Egg hunt?

[Samalabear]

Check this out from Monday's Maddow show on DADT. If this is accurate than Obama could do something now:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/