One Hundred Days of Silence

Just as Republicans are beginning to realize that gay marriage may not remain a winning wedge issue forever, conservative lawmakers are reportedly setting out to use gays in the military to divide President Obama and the military. The strategy is to ask the Defense Secretary or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff about gay troops in upcoming hearings on the Defense budget, before the president has reached out to ensure that his team members are all on the same page.

If military leaders don't answer these questions by expressing confidence that the ban can be lifted without impairing the military, we could face a repeat of the 1993 fiasco that nearly derailed Bill Clinton's entire domestic agenda. And the president's hundred days of silence could mean many more years of it for gay troops--and thousands more unaffordable discharges for our military.

This is why mounting a swift, clean campaign to end the ban should be the standard by which Obama is evaluated on this issue. It's not only a matter of impatience to get this done, but of concern that further delays could actually increase--rather than decrease--the chances of a bruising--and possibly losing--battle once we get there.

This would have both political and military costs. Politically, Obama has chosen a strategy of "wait and manage": hope the issue doesn't come up, and diffuse it when it does. This approach appears to come from taking the wrong lesson from the Clinton years. Many see Clinton's error as coming out too soon on gays in the military, guns blazing, without laying the groundwork by consulting with military brass. But it's a myth that Clinton moved too quickly and didn't consult the military. The new president met with the Joint Chiefs right after both the election and his inauguration. They just didn't like what they were hearing, so they balked. Clinton's resolve weakened. He called for a 6-month "study period" that allowed the opposition to rally and fester. Underestimating the resistance, Clinton assigned inexperienced, junior aides to manage the issue. In the end, a dressed-up gay ban was locked into place for years to come.

Already, signs show a similar story playing out. The White House will not say publicly who has been tasked to work on this sensitive issue. Obama has remained totally silent on an issue that his campaign and press secretary declared unequivocally that he planned to address--which offers the fairest way to grade him: by how he stacks up against his own professed goals. During his campaign, Obama did not say he would end the ban eventually, but that the time is now. "America is ready to get rid of the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy," he said in a fall, 2007, statement to the Human Rights Campaign. "That work should have started long ago. It will start when I take office."

It hasn't. While Obama's spokesman, Robert Gibbs, declared starkly in January that the incoming president was committed to ending the ban, the White House said in February, according to the Boston Globe, that it would "have to study the implications for national security" before trying to overturn the ban and that such study might not happen until 2010.

By March, Secretary Gates said he had had only "one brief conversation" with the president about the issue, and that the dialogue had "not progressed very far." This statement flatly contradicted one by a White House spokesman earlier that same month who said the president has "begun consulting closely with Secretary Gates and Chairman Mullen" about lifting the ban. Which is it, ongoing close consultations or one short discussion?

Obama's own silence has left a leadership vacuum that's been occupied instead with these kinds of dangerous mixed messages. And opponents of equal treatment for gays are gaining ground in framing the debate: into the void have stepped over 1000 retired officers who recently signed a letter insisting that lifting the ban would "break" the armed forces. Secretary Gates, when asked about repeal by journalists, began hedging, saying he and the president would like to "push that one down the road a little bit" and suggested, according to the New York Times that it "might not happen at all." But if Obama is committed to ending the ban, why is his Defense Secretary suggesting it might not happen?

These contradictory messages say to those who are paying attention that the White House has no coordinated plan to lift the ban. And lacking a battle plan is candy to your enemies.

Obama's silence also has military costs: every day, the government adds one or two service members to the list of over 12,500 already fired just for being gay. And these ruined careers are only the half the story. By now, most of us are familiar with the fact that cables warning of an attack sat untranslated in the days leading up to 9/11 because of a shortage of the very Arabic speakers who had been drummed out under "don't ask, don't tell." Barack Obama inherited this policy. But right about now, he begins to own it.

Further delay means not only that Obama must accept responsibility for firing gay Americans whom we desperately need in uniform; it also means a bumpier ride once we do lift the ban. That's because with more time comes more venomous debate and an increasingly split military leadership, as the resentment of the old guard is fueled by further grumbling by their fellow social and religious conservatives. Divided leadership ill-serves the troops who are charged with carrying out a new policy.

Finally, Obama's silence has moral costs. Some, including those on the left who worry about the supposed fall-out of treating gays as equal citizens, think Gates is on target in pushing this down the road, and would thus give Obama high marks merely for avoiding a battle on this early in his administration. This story line has added resonance at a time when the nation's economic crisis clearly takes precedence over nearly any other issue. And so we've heard otherwise progressive Americans wax poetic about the virtues of gradualism when it comes to gays.

As a nation, our ongoing refrain of "soon" on gay rights is beginning to sound like the murmurs of a child or addict who insists that responsible, adult behavior is perpetually just around the corner. For years, Democrats have run from the "ick" factor of gay issues. And only now--not because of moral courage but because the Republican Party is imploding from its own excesses--will Dems be able to finally inch forward to do the right thing on gay rights.

For far too long, Americans have swallowed a fear narrative casting gays as a threat to national security. But since this threat has always been made up, the idea that Obama must wait until the right window to throw the fear overboard is beginning to sound stale. There is no brain surgery involved in ending the gay ban. Unlike solving the financial crisis, winning the war in Afghanistan, or curing cancer, we know perfectly well how to do it. There's no mystery involved, just will.

Barack Obama still has a good chance at succeeding where Bill Clinton failed on this issue. If he does that, his grade for the first 100 days may seem largely--but not entirely-- superfluous. Still, Obama should already have done what Clinton should also have done: issue an immediate executive order halting gay discharges. Contrary to popular belief, the current president still has that option: even though Congress has to repeal the law to get it off the books, nothing in the statute requires that findings of homosexual discharge ever be made. That wording of the law, along with the president's constitutional and statutory authority to suspend military separations when in the interest of national security still give him the power to cease firing gay troops right now. Obama's leadership vacuum has earned him a C on gays in the military. But it's not too late for a re-write.

Comments

[JamesEPietrangeloII]

Why is it that people (especially Straights) are willing to let 10-30 million Americans (the number of estimated Gays in America) live in second-class citizenship for even a day longer, let alone the months and years talked about? The truth is that there is nothing more important than Gay equality. Not the war(s). Not the economy. Nothing. Imagine you are on the Titanic and the ship is sinking--what must be done first, launching the life boats or freeing the people locked in third class? Of course, freeing the people locked in third class, because they cannot get in any life boats if they're still trapped down below. Helping the economy is all fine and dandy, but as long as Americans can be fired because they are Gay, a good economy means little to Gay Americans. The same is true with the other purported priorities.

[M1]

Well said.

[force fed up]

Remain patient. Obama is fond of history and remembers how Bill Clinton was treated. I don't doubt that his promises will come true, its only a matter of timing. Obama is calculating, enough that he wouldn't risk losing the momentum to push several much more pressing initiatives into play during his first term. No offense to Gay community, but I do think Health Care, the economy and the War are much more pressing, and Obama is willing to sacrifice one stance to make sure the others pass. When Obama is reelected in 2012, (because face it, the Republicans have NOTHING) he will be far more willing to take on the hot button issues. Patience is a vital, I plead that you do not undercut the major economic policies he's trying to put into place for the next century. He's rebuilding a nation and you're worrying about the trim.

[antaeus]

You might try a little harder to be pragmatic without being condescending. On balance I agree with patience, but that shouldn't negate the real suffering that injustice visits on people. Throughout the country poor young people can use our obscenely funded military to give themselves a lift out of poverty. Gays are officially excluded from that tax-funded benefit--for no good reason.

You don't do the president any favors by calling real need "trim."

[force fed up]

You don't do the president any favors by watering down the foundation.

[just saying]

Don't you see? It's all about blindly supporting and defending Obama...th­e equal opportunity for marriage was driven as an issue whose time has come, until Obama decided it wasn't. So then of course all those 'yes we canners' became 'no he shouldn't' because it's all about what Obama wants and when instead of the legitimacy of the change the needs to take place. Those who pushed equal rights for gays only did so when a republican was in their face, not Obama, don't you know?

[antaeus]

What we see is that a U.S. Supreme Court changed by Obama nominations should be more favorable for gay equality than would a Republican­-influence­d court. And we can't get that without first supporting the president.

[mcthfg]

Instead of trying to get more gays killed by getting them to fight in useless wars, how about keeping EVERYONE out of the military?

You're advocating that people go die for no reason whatsoever. There hasn't EVER been a threat to the US. People flying planes into buildings isn't a threat. People landing on our shores would be. And it won't happen.

Have you learned nothing about war from the last 8 years?

Stop trying to make fodder. Try making peace.

[antaeus]

Well, here in the real world, the fact is that that the U.S. defense budget is 45% of the world's total military spending, greater than the that of the next 10 countries combined. The U.S. defense budget is an entrenched entitlement, and Obama might try to rein it in, but he won't eliminate it by a long shot. Given the economic resource that this spending represents for many poor, it is unfair that economically disadvantaged gays are excluded.

[glockman]

Take everyone out of the military, huh? I suppose China would be so overwhelmed at our new found peaceful fountains of desire they would be compelled to do the same.

Right.
Don't confuse the awful Iraq debacle with the need to rid our country of the military. And yes, contrary to your flawed belief system, there are threats to the US, as there are threats to most countries.

Have you learned nothing from the entire history of the world?

[LuridLight]

as a gay man, I know that gay people are despised and hated throughout the country -- certainly not by all but by enough that crossing them is politically inexpedient and will continue to be politically inexpedient.

[antaeus]

Your profile name points to the colored lens through which you seem to view "the country." The U.S. isn't a homogenous culture.

There are plenty of supportive communities, and the numbers are growing. It's not 1959.

The reality is that the trend line is moving in the direction of gay equality, not away from it.

[glockman]

I think you are wrong in this. I see the country shifting its belief systems about gays. More and more states are allowing gay marriage, and hopefully it will be a nationally recognized civil right soon.

[JWoode]

What one calls "silence" another may well view as a political reality. It will do no good for Obama to take up the banner of equal rights for gay people. That would be political suicide and you all know it. I suppose McCain would have done more? What has to happen first is the evolution of the thinking of people and that is glacially slow. It is happening, note the states now recognizing marriage equality.

Some may call it an "undesirable direction for society" but what they fail to understand is that we big ole homosexuals are already part of society and have been since the first people crawled out of caves. Rather than poo poo down your self righteous noses at us, consider that you flunk miserably at your own judeo christian values by being so judgmental that you would deny an entire people the same rights and privileges you enjoy.

[antaeus]

The president doesn't have to invite a queue of gay couples into the East Room and perform mass weddings himself. Don't create a straw man by manufacturing an argument against him "taking up the banner of equal rights for gay people."

But military policy is a modest step, and it could be put out front by the military people themselves. This issue has been percolating now for 20 years, and your clock might not reflect it, but the time is ripe. If it makes you feel better, the president could quietly sign the executive order out of camera view, and the military guys could be out front talking about how it will be implemented.

There's a middle ground between "taking up the banner" and doing nothing.

[FearlessFreep]

I don't expect a leader to defer to political reality, but to reshape it.

[M1]

Ooooh, nicely said.

[slowtono]

Openly gay? The people of California voted and turned down sexual rights. The only time that gays have openly gained rights is in closed door, back room courts, with no voice of opposition. The president has nothing to fear in placing this issue where it belongs, last. Because as an issue it is a pandoras box that sole purpose is the wanton destruction of society, the church, and mankind. Clintons Presidency took a downward spiral because he approached this subject. When gays are ready to really talk openly about what these rights actually are about the country will see it's an undesirable direction for the future.

[antaeus]

Splash some cold water on your face, sister. Clinton's "downward spiral" was a two-term presidency that prevailed even over a foolish impeachment effort. As for same-sex marriage being a secret back-room movement, tell that to the Vermont senate. You should at least get your facts straight before you jump up on your soap box.

[Rrhain]

"Uppity blacks? The people of the United States voted and turned down racial rights. We had to fight the bloodiest war in American history in order to gain even the merest glimmer of equality only to follow it up with a hundred years of segregation, discrimination, and lynchings. The presidents over the years had nothing to fear in placing this issue where it belongs, last. Because as an issue it is a pandoras box that sole purpose is the wanton destruction of society, the church, and mankind. Again, the bloodiest war in American history. Every president who tried to live up to the promise of equality took a downward spiral because he approached this subject. Lincoln was assassinated, for crying out loud! When blakcs are ready to really talk openly about what these rights actually are about the country will see it's an undesirable direction for the future."

If it's a bogus argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

[FearlessFreep]

Ask the black churches that campaigned for Prop 8.

[FearlessFreep]

In other words, you expect BHO to follow the nation, not to lead it.

[J G H]

The President has had a lot of crisis issues to deal with in the first hundred days, many of which required him to deal with Congress. Getting rid of the ban, is not a crisis and can take a back seat for a few months. As I understand it, overturning the ban will require him to get congressional action, which, in the current climate will take a great deal of effort if the result is not to be a filibuster.
I also object to the idea that the President should be dictating what the generals should say when asked their opinion about the effects of overturning the ban. They are before Congress to give their honest opinion, not to be the President;s PR machine. This is a tricky situation to navigate, but the generals should not be put in the position of stating things they do not believe. I might add that selecting officers on the basis of political coreectess is a recipe for disaster. I expect discretion and obedience to orders, but I do not expect agreement and absolutely oppose any restrictions on expression of opinion while strategies or policies are being considered.

[Rrhain]

So when Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy integrated the military over the objection of the generals, they were wrong to do so?

I thought we were at war. Don't we need to keep our trained Soldiers? Have you already forgotten that we had communiques regarding the terror attacks before they happened..­.but they were in Arabic and weren't translated due to the backlog...­a backlog exacerbated by the fact that we discharged the translators because they were gay.

There is no "tricky situation.­" We did it before when we integrated the military with regard to race. Are you saying we learned nothing from the experience?

Question: Should past presidents have promoted or encouraged any officer who was opposed to orders to integrate the military?

[glockman]

I really wish we had someone of the caliber of Eisenhower around to lead us today.

[Dolmance]

Why shouldn't a country's military ranks be filled by a representative cross section of the population that it's charged with protecting?

That's the best argument for integration in the military. It's also a fine argument for bringing back the draft, because as things stand now military service is far more appealing to people who don't have money - a perfect Republican solution that consists of trolling for the poor and desperate without having to be explicit about it.