Another Phony Rationale for Delay on Gay Troops
In recent weeks, this and other forums have seen heated debate, largely among the left, about whether, when, and how to end discrimination against gays in the military. Until now, the answer given by many liberals was that Obama needs time--time to deal with higher priorities like the economy, to spend political capital on more important goals, to build political consensus for eventual repeal once everything else is all taken care of. Ending the discharge of gay troops--no matter the terrible cost to our soldiers and to our national security efforts--has been considered a "distraction."
But a big part of this thinking was rooted in the mistaken belief that only Congress can lift the ban, and that a battle on Capitol Hill would mean dragging the nation through an agonizing repeat of the culture wars of 1993. Last week, a new study showed that Obama can end the discharges with an immediate executive order using the "stop-loss" authority that Congress has already granted the commander-in-chief (disclaimer: I was a co-author of that study).
Response to this idea has been swift. This weekend, a petition circulated by Courage Campaign was signed by over 95,000 people asking Obama to suspend the ban immediately. The petitioners want the president to stop the discharge of Lt. Dan Choi, an openly gay Arabic translator and Iraq War combat leader, "and any other soldier as a result of the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy." The White House switchboard was flooded with calls at the hands of Knights Out, and other groups of gay veterans who want to be able to serve their country with the honesty and integrity such service demands. Congressman Rush Holt has also called for an executive order lifting the ban.
On Friday, the White House itself was asked about the idea for the second time. But Press Secretary Robert Gibbs invoked an implausible rationale for delay in claiming that using the president's power to halt the firings was "not the way to seek any lasting or durable solution" to the problem. The "only durable solution," he said, is for Congress to make the change. Surely Gibbs knows that the executive option would be quite durable. But the president would rather punt it to Congress, which is, incidentally, waiting for him to lead. No one wants to own gay rights.
The executive option demands from the left (and the White House) a new rationale for delaying equal treatment for gay troops. If a protracted battle with Congress is not needed because Obama has the power to stop the madness, what exactly are we waiting for? Indeed, while the common wisdom is that Clinton's error was moving too quickly on this issue, the truth is that it was his delay that ultimately derailed him: during his 6-month "study period," members of the military and the religious right joined forces to convince the nation--with scare stories and literally no empirical evidence--that the risks of change were too costly.
It is troubling to now see liberals using what amounts to this same "unacceptable risk" tactic to argue against lifting the ban immediately. The phrase, which appears in the "don't ask, don't tell" law itself, says openly gay service is an "unacceptable risk" to the military, but it has always been hogwash: in my research on "don't ask, don't tell," I spoke to senior officers who helped write the policy, and even they told me it was "based on nothing" but "our own prejudices and fears." A bipartisan panel of retired flag officers who authored a 2008 study on the gay ban concluded that the "unacceptable risk" language had simply been made up. What makes a risk unacceptable anyway? Answer: a judgment by those in power that they don't value the benefits of a proposed change enough to press forward if they can't have guarantees about the outcome.
What if the political argument that is scaring liberals away from gay rights--the one that says defending gay rights is an "unacceptable risk"--is also wrong? What if that risk is wildly exaggerated? What if the idea that backing gay equality is too distracting or politically costly is based on an ungrounded fear? Perhaps the real impulse of those who would block equality in the military is that they don't value the benefits of lifting the ban enough to press forward if they can't have guarantees about the outcome.
Perhaps, too, the gradualists don't realize that too often, "later" never comes. When do people think that Obama will have achieved enough that he will really, truly, turn to "don't ask, don't tell" and expend political capital on it? Sure, Obama believes this policy should end. But what the White House is really doing is called "deprioritization": he is taking one of the quickest, easiest, most militarily and morally necessary items on his agenda, and placing at the bottom of the heap. He is saying this must not come up now, and if it never comes up, so be it.
This is a policy which can be ended with the stroke of a pen, thereby improving military readiness and freeing the president to focus on the nation's other pressing needs. It's a policy that liberals accommodate when they say that righting this wrong now is an unacceptable risk. It's a policy that's rooted, really, in a wish to spare the military the "blemish" of homosexuality. And accommodating it is a practice rooted in the wish to spare the liberalism that very same "blemish."
What has lost liberals political power and electoral victories in the past is their unwillingness to press for what they believe in. So what'll it be, liberals? Are gays and lesbians a blemish who ought to be papered over, even at the expense of national security? It's time for liberals to put their money where their mouth is.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
My primary, overriding concern here is that it's time to undo that bit about "using the "stop-loss" authority that Congress has already granted the commander-in-chief " Can we please, please get rid of that bit of nonsense before we have a president who isn't shy about using it, like Bush? We need to undo the broad authority that Congress granted to the executive when they were all too cowardly to oppose anything that claimed to be anti-terrorism. I know Congress granted that authority thinking Bush would never use it, but he most certainly did. So perhaps it's time to get it off the books, while we have a president who would probably be agreeable to it. Before the next Bush arrives on the scene and leads us into Armageddon, winking at the imaginary Jesus on his shoulder all the way.
On a more serious note:
If 200 (2000?, 20 000?, w'ever) people went to the top of this article, clicked on the Print button, and faxed it to the White House (FAX: 202-456-2461, according to http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/ ) with a cover page asking, "Where's my 'fierce advocate?'" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/01/AR2009050103401_pf.html ), perhaps someone in the WH might catch a clue.
If you didn't already know that your PC was a fax in disguise, look here:
*** http://www.google.com/search?q=fax+from+windows ***
and be amazed. If you're not using a PC, I'm sure I don't have to tell you anything.
PS: Ubuntu rox!
What has lost liberals political power and electoral victories in the past is their unwillingness to press for what they believe in.
No truer words have ever been spoken.
I strongly urge all who are concerned about this subject to read Nathaniel Frank's book, Unfriendly Fire. There is no rational defense for the current DADT policy. And President Obama's inaction is effectively making this disastrous policy his own.
I'm one of those rare creatures. I am now quite far left politically and I have supported gay rights at basically every turn throughout my life (I'm 40). I was also in the US military as recently as 15 years ago and was proud to serve my country. Hey, maybe it has changed but I doubt it. It is just a hostile environment toward homosexuality. I don't know what the answer is. Sensitivity training and such is not gonna do it. Also trying to legislate acceptance probably won't work either. The military is indeed different from an office, a factory, a warehouse, or a sports team. I'm not apologizing or covering for anything. I just can't see how it would work (yet). Maybe somebody has an answer. I'm not gay, nor am I homophobic. But I know that, in my unit, an openly gay man would have been an unnecessary, (though perhaps ridiculous), but legitimate distraction to cohesiveness and morale.
Then why do gay men and women serve openly in military elsewhere in the world with no problems?
You say your arr not a homophobe. For someone who isn't a homophobe, your comment seem to be founded in an irrational fear of gay men and women.
Dude, seriously, I am referring to my observations firsthand, not my personal feelings. I was always one of the more liberal people in the military. The point is I was outnumbered 100 to 1.
I know gays serve elsewhere in the world. The USA has its own culture and so does the US military. You can rail all you want. So can I. But it is what is is at this time. Again, I'm not projecting my own feelings. I know what I witnessed and heard.
Gay marriage has a better chance. Perhaps we start there.
I don't see that--I think his comment was his perspective from experience and you'd have to read homophobia into it.
I too served in the military and why is it that if someone view is not similar to yours the have to be a homophobe? It ticks me off that it always have to be about what you want and screw how others feel. I do not care if you serve openly gay in the military but there is a back lash to repealing DADT or it would of been done. When segregation laws was put out things did not stop immediately and there was backlash from those who did not agree wit hthe over turning of the jim crow system so even though you can afford to see things from your prospective the president can't. He is the president for every group, nationality, race, sex or anything else you can come up with here so he has to consider things from many different angles
They said the same thing about African-Americans and women. The way to get this done is to not only keep up but increase the pressure. Support a group that lobbies the government effectively. How can there be acceptable political risk over basic right principles? If Obama went ahead and lifted the ban, by the time an election rolls around again, all but a small portion of the voting public would have forgotten all about it. The only cure for homophobia is knowing gay people.
And I am sure that the same kind of argument was used against desegregation of the army, and allowing women to serve. The only sure way to reduce prejudice and discrimination is to allow people from different "groups" to work get to know one another, and, more importantly, to work together toward a common goal. There is plenty of psychological research to support this. Would it be rough in the beginning? Yes. Would prejudice be reduced over time? Yes. Finally, are you seriously suggesting that the our troops are simply unable to come to grips with this?! Really? Are they that weak?
Instead of liberals trying to turn this into a political wedge issue, why don't they let the people who will actually have to deal with gays in the military make the call?
It seems like people have concluded DADT is a bad idea by way of the fact that a lot of people don't like. Well, fine, but a lot of people haven't served in the military and thus have absolutely no frame of reference to say it's useless policy.
There isn't a consensus by the military that it needs to be overturned, so I say everyone needs to let them do their jobs. In the meantime, if you're gay and can't help letting people know it, maybe you shouldn't join the military. If you're fluent in Arabic or the best soldier in the world, well, it's the military's loss, not yours.
Nonsense.
Gays serve openly in other militaries without controversey or incident.
This is solely about having the moral fiber to stand up to bigotry.
I agree, Dan. Also, doesn't the institutionalized homophobia that the military now has help empower the bigots in the ranks? The military says it's wrong so it must be wrong and such. Losing DADT will slowly, but surely, change attitudes in our armed forces.
So what? None of their militaries are as big as ours, nor do they have as much responsibility. And, not to mention the fact that YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THEIR MILITARIES TO SAY THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY PROBLEMS.
You are right there are gays that serve openly in the military and not getting put out. I think for the most part soldiers do not care but the one all of the groups are railing about broke the rules and he did it on a national level by coming out in the media. So even though you do not like the DADT policy when is this guy responsible for his actions. There are soldiers that being rail roaded because they follow the rules and those are the soldiers I am upset about. But in the end until the people who are running the military the admirals, generals and other high ranking officials are replaced with more open minded leaders and commanders things will continue to be ran the way the are.
Look, G.I. joe doesn't want Lt. Dan checking out his package in the shower.
What makes you think Lt. Dan is checking out G.I. Joe's package? And why does the military have to be more sheltered than society at large? If you go to any health club in the country, chances are you will be showering in the locker room with gay men or lesbians. I have yet to hear of any mass assaults on straight people. And please don't trot out the "unit cohesion" b.s. that the military is somehow different - - because there are plenty of armies throughout the world that allow openly gay soldiers - - and those armies haven't fallen apart.
The G.I. Joe comment it a little over the top but not untrue. Lt. Dan would not be taking showers with G.I. Joe he is a officer and is in the field so he will have his own shower to use. But if you are in boot camp its not a option and in that case G.I. Joe do not have a choice and if you are truly a gay person you would be lying if you say you would not be checking somebody out if they caught your eye in the open shower!
With the gym comment that is your option to use the public shower in the military during boot camp its not your option.
So you are happy to reduce Lt. Dan to a voyeur? Is that all he is? Perhaps Lt. Dan has enough self-respect and respect for the other people in his unit to act in an appropriate manner, in the shower and outside of the shower. Perhaps Lt. Dan has other things on his mind - like his responsibilities as unit leader (which he is, or was). The problem with many heterosexual males is that they think everyone is just like them - disrespectful and sexually inappropriate.
You are fooling yourself or you are a liar? In the end he is a man that like men and I do not think he is attracted to every man he sees or want every man that he meets but to sit up and say that if he a gay man was in the shower with other men and a man caught his eye he would not look is a lie. Also he is human and I do not see what looking has to do with respect.
That's why the manufacturer gave GI Joe the Kung-fu grip.
Other militaries have openly gay soldiers.
This is the same nonsense used to keep women out of the military.
I'll make it simple and the rest of you can bask in my wisdom. Do female soldiers want to take showers with male soldiers?
Not much wisdom basking. The military is infamous for males accosting females and thinking it's ok. How on earth is this similar? Do you think gay men are going to go around raping straight men?
See you have missed the point by a long shot. I do not think the blogger said anything about gay men raping anybody. The point is for the most women in the military do not want to take a shower with a bunch of men. I for one do not want to take a shower with another man period be he gay or straight.
You tend to do simple best, TP. Here's an idea for you: Head on down to your nearest gay bar (I'm sure you know where it is) and see how many guys hit on you. You're obviously obsessed with men hitting on other men, so why not throw yourself out there and see how successful you are?!
I love this. Anyone that has watched the last 4 months would note that Obama 'leading' the Congress, would be the equivalent of herding cats. The Dem's can't agree on anything and Repug's won't say yes to anything. Leadership,..... that's rich.
Has it occurred to you that the Dem's/Repug's don't stand up for what they believe in, because they don't believe in anything except themselves. Congress could have repealed this policy at any time. DADT, is the Dem version of Pro-Choice, a dog whistle issue that the Democrats will not easily let go of. Frankly, Gay Rights are a third rail that Obama ought to leave to the Congress. He will sign a Bill when it comes to his desk, otherwise he should work quietly to get the policy changed, and leave the screaming to the rest of you.
"A recent Gallup poll of the American public shows 72% support the right of gays and lesbians to serve in uniform. More significantly, the same Gallup poll found that 91% of young Americans (18-39) think that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly. And that age group is by far the largest part of the military."
http://www.logcabin.org/lcrchicago/gays_military.html
Yes. We need to eliminate separate latrines and bunks for male and female soldiers also.
Absurd.
You have to wonder why gays are pushing the gay agenda in the place where it is most difficult to push through: The military.
The military actually is one of the few places where the constitution has limited application. They have their own set of rules and their own justice system. They are generally afforded a wide berth in controlling their own affairs.
So when you suffer a defeat in the military arena, are gays not inflicting an unnecessary mortal wound to their whole agenda?
Personally, I believe that Obama must make some serious progress in defanging the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in place. I'm not so sure that committing all the political capital of the gay movement on that one square on the roulette table is very wise.
What is the "gay agenda?"
Equal rights, a gay agenda? Civil rights, a black agenda? Homophobia, a ___ agenda? Can ya help me with that last one?
Toaster ovens for all.
Invariably, the talk about the gay agenda is by people who don't know or accept people who are openly gay. They can't get their little minds around the fact that the gay community is no more a monolith than any other group of humans and, consequently, there can be no "the" gay agenda.
The Homosexual Agenda
* 6:00 am Gym
* 8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal, egg whites, and mimosas)
* 9:00 am Hair appointment
* 10:00 am Shopping (preferably at Nordstrom's or Saks)
* 12:00 pm Brunch
* 2:00 pm Assume complete control of the U.S. federal, state, and local governments, as well as all other forms of world government
* 2:05 pm Destroy all healthy marriages
* 2:10 pm Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents from Colombian and Jamaican drug cartels
* 2:15 pm Bulldoze all houses of worship
* 2:20 pm Secure total control of the Internet and all mass media
* 2:25 pm Be fabulous
* 2:30 pm Mud mask and forty winks of beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles from the stress of world conquest
* 4:00 pm Cocktails
* 6:00 pm Light Dinner (soup, salad with romaine, radicchio, arugula, balsamic vinaigrette dressing, and Pouilly Fuisse)
* 8:00 pm Theatre
* 10:30 pm "Do a little dance, make a little love, get down tonight!"
Equal rights are everyone's agenda. From many of these comments, homophobia is the agenda of a lot of people.
Exactly!
So, what is the "straight agenda"?
Nathaniel liberal and democrats aren't always one in the same. I haven't heard a liberal yet who is saying that now is not the time to address DADT at this time. Mind you I don't pretend to know all liberals. But the eleted democrats are also remaining strangely quiet on this issue. John Conyers made his opinion known recently - but no action other than that. However, I give him props for at least addressing this issue publicly. Now some of each supporters of dems, moderates and conservatives however are expressing their opinions loud and clear. They are the ones who are saying "give him time" and "Now is not the time." if ever. Or how about what John McCain state last week . "DADT is working fine."
I am just as frustrated with President Obama on this one. He appears to be backing downand his only public statement since taking office is a hand written note to Lt Tsao expressing his commitment to end this policy. Hopefully he will come through. But the liberals have not abandon this policy or other issues and policies.
All supporters/former supporters of Obama should remember. He's a politician first, second and last. Those are the priorities.
Yes, and those who voted for him are citizens first, not political analysts who are paid to spin the President's backtracking. If he said it, then make him do it! Don't sit around going, "Oh, well, I'm sure he has a good reason..." Frack the reason! Support or oppose the President's ACTIONS, not his psychology!
Right on! Since when did the left become a bunch of triangulating strategists? Let's hold him to his promises.
This policy will change when the political reality changes. The Gay Civil Rights Movement has made great progress but clearly there is much more to do. Obama rightly understands there would be a high political cost in changing the policy now. I believe he will change it if he gets a second term. But don't expect him to run on it. Gay Civil Rights still have to be won in the hearts and minds of average Americans. Here in New England, even here in New Hampshire, Gay Marriage is taking hold. It took years of campaigning and winning over political leaders one a t a lime to get this far. The other side is planning a counter attack. But I think people are adjusting to the idea of the fairness of it all.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
Bumper stickers will not solve this issue. Changing peoples hearts and minds is the answer. Gay rights need their Gandhi and King. Who will stand before the Lincoln Memorial and move the nation to act? A top down political solution will not work.
He is not being discharged for being gay. He is being discharged for advertising it.
Should Gen. Petraeus be discharged for "advertising" that he is heterosexual? I know he is married, therefore he should be fired?
America doesn't support ALL of it's troops.
So are you going to go to the military academy, study Arabic til you become fluent, and take his place on the front line? Didn't think so.
Do you wear a wedding ring? If so, I wish you would stop advertising your heterosexuality. Just keep it in the bedroom why dontcha!
I'm conservative. The executive order should read. Every able bodied person is welcome in our military. Any bunk and any latrine may be used by any soldier - male or female.
I'm trying to figure out what repeated references to latrines contribute to this discussion. Perhaps there are some freudian analysts that might be able to assist.
It's the classic bathroom moment of bigotry. Many white southerners were equally upset by the mere thought of using the same bathroom as dark skinned people in 1964.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
