Baby Steps -- and Big Questions -- for General Colin Powell
It could have been a political earthquake that, in the end, was more of a subtle shift on the ground.
Yesterday afternoon, CNN's Situation Room began promoting an interview with General Colin Powell that promised the "strongest statement yet" from the retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the federal law that prohibits lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans from serving openly in our armed forces. And while that may have technically been true, it was hardly the ringing endorsement for repeal that Powell's colleague, General John Shalikashvili, offered up more than two years ago in The New York Times.
"We definitely should reevaluate [the law]," Powell told Fareed Zakaria. "It's been 15 years since we put in 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' which was a policy that became a law. I didn't want it to become a law but it became a law. Congress felt that strongly about it. But it's been 15 years and attitudes have changed and so I think it is time for the Congress, since it is their law, to have a full review of it, and I'm quite sure that's what President-elect Obama will want to do."
The step forward for Powell came down to one word: "should."
In other interviews prior to Thursday's sit-down with Zakaria, the General, who is widely regarded as the magic bullet that could considerably speed up repeal efforts on Capitol Hill, went with a different analysis of Congress' role: "could."
Earlier this year in Aspen, Powell joined former Senator Sam Nunn - the other person widely regarded as responsible for the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" fiasco - and reminded the country that Congress could, if it chose, re-visit the law. And in an interview in October 2007 with GQ, he took another step forward, reiterated yesterday, in saying that our country, and our military, have changed since the law was implemented in 1993. But what Powell has consistently declined to say is what, when Congress does seriously re-visit the law, they should conclude about its future.
In answering inquiries about the military's ban, General Powell has raised more questions than he has offered answers about where he stands on the issue.
There is little question, for example, that Congressional leaders would very much like to hear from Powell as they contemplate legislation, now pending in the House, to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." And, as a trusted voice on military issues, there is a strong likelihood that, as future hearings on the matter are planned, he will receive an invitation to offer his insight. But if asked by lawmakers whether he supports ending the law - and whether he believes the time do so is now - what will his answer be?
And what, precisely, did Powell mean in his statement to CNN that he "didn't want it to become a law?"
It was, in fact, Powell's 1993 testimony to Congress that helped get "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" onto the books. Prior to that move, Congress had never intervened in the matter, and largely left decisions regarding who can and cannot serve up to military leaders and the commander-in-chief. Encouraged by Powell and Nunn to block attempts by then-President Bill Clinton to welcome gay Americans into the services, however, lawmakers did just that, and stripped the president of any ability to single-handedly determine whether sexual orientation should be a bar to serving in the armed forces.
Did General Powell believe that his testimony before Congress would not, in fact, tempt Congress to take action and steer the issue into their domain? Or does he simply believe that, in retrospect, it was a mistake for Congress to do so?
Those are big questions that require more than "baby step answers" from General Powell.
The answers to those questions could, in fact, determine the timeline for the demise of "Don't Ask." Because, as long as Powell plays on the peripheral of particulars, lawmakers can continue to use him as cover as they avoid tackling the issue. And another two service members will continue to be fired - simply because of who they are - every single day.
And while no one doubts that Powell could answer with specifics about what he believes, the question is: does he understand why now is the time that he should?
And the issue - one of national security and respect for our troops - is too important to be wrapped up in a debate about what the definition of "should" should be.
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
This position by Powell is somewhat of a reversal. I remember very clearly that he said he didn't want gays in the military.
'Re-evaluate' doesn't *necessarily* mean 'accept gays'. It could just as
easily mean 'go back to the way it was before', i.e. immediate dishonorable
discharge for 'illegal conduct'. CP was always one to cover all the bases.
Gays are perfectly free to be in the military NOW. It is only when they wish to flaunt their sexual preferences openly that they get into trouble and are discharged. They have to say themselves that they are gay. There are not spies running around looking for gays as there were in the past.
When you say "flaunt their sexual preferences" do you mean like when you say you miss your wife or girlfriend, a gay person can't say they miss their boyfriend or girlfriend? When will you bigots go away...
This just means that one of our more successful political weather vanes has detected a shift in the winds. Which means said winds shifted months, if not years ago.
Powell wrote an autobiography in which he explained his position on "Don't ask, don't tell." He stated clearly that the military rank and file was unequivocally against having gays in the military. But the President wanted to keep his campaign promises. Caught in between, Powell conveyed his understanding of the military's reservations, and as a result President Clinton decided to propose his "don't ask, don't tell" policy as a compromise.
Now the issue is being revisited. Powell is hemming and hawing because he doesn't want to be saddle with being the Father of a lose-lose situation. The country is becoming more liberal, but resistance to homosexuality is still strong in the military as well as in certain segments of society. On the other hand, the US needs replacement troops for those who are leaving the services for good because of their long deployments to Iraq. Can we afford to gut our forces over sexual orientation?
You see the problem. I wouldn't want to be in Powell's shoes right about now. Powell is the master of not taking a political postion, a skill useful for someone who's worked in the highest levels of government. He can side-step with the best of them.
The only thing Powell is "master" of is being a shill and front man for reactionary policies.
The only proof of "resistance" to gays in the military comes in the form of an unsubstantiated claim by those who keep repeating it. It's called a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If being gay is no longer a ticket to discharge, then that becomes the new reality.
Listen, I'm in the military. I have no problems with allowing gays to be in the military. I think it was a flawed policy to begin with (Don't Ask, Don't tell), and I think it is time our government start guaranteeing rights rather than restricting them. However...
People need to stop trying to wrap this argument in the guise of the military "needing" gays so that it can fill its ranks. We aren't having problems filling the voids. Reenlistment rates are up, not down. In the Marine Corps, damn near everyone is staying. The higher need for new recruits is not based on reenlisment problems. It is based on the fact that Congress approved an increase of troops, for both the Marine Corps AND the Army. Now, rather than keep the status quo, recruiters and Career Retention Specialists (or career jammers as we like to call them) need to get more people in.
When you make it sound like the entire military is desperately waiting for large masses of gay men and women to join, it just sounds silly.
Why didn't he say any of this while he was in office?
Don't ask, Don't tell worked in its era but it is time to reevaluate it. The only problem is people often want change but offer no solutions. Like it or not some men and women are coming from small towns or have been sheltered and are scared to death of gay people. I knew a girl in the military who was in awe of the airport because she had never been outside of her tiny town before.
I've asked men on active duty how they would feel and many did not like the idea of a gay roommate or being in a fox hole with a gay person. How does the military begin educating people about that? This is a HUGE morale issue too.
I saw some "marriages" in the military where gays hid their lifestyle where a gay man would marry a gay woman but obviously did what they wanted to do. They shouldn't have to resort to measures like that.
I know people of color hate it when anyone equates any part of the gay struggle for equality with their own struggle, but the answer to your question of "how does the military begin educating people about that" is to do exactly what they did when they decided to racially integrate the military. There was NO "education", enlisted people were simply given orders to integrate and they did. Since when does the military "educate" their members about things? They are a top-down organization which requires no education, simply orders.
Yes, YellowDog. WTF is all this talk about what to replace Don't ask, Don't tell with? It's simple. You replace it with, "everyone's equal under the law." You hold up that law in the civil world, and you make it an order in the military world. Yes, just like we did with people of color.
Why in God's name would a gay man or woman want to risk their lives for a country who denies them their civil rights? Particularly a country hypocritical enough to advertise themselves as a land of equals under the law.
DADT has never worked. More gay people have been discharged from the military for being gay since its inception than at anytime in history.
As far as small town folks go, or any other folks for that matter, if they have a problem with being around gay people then they need to stay home. Period. End of story.
Republicans now excoriate him as a "Rino," and the rest of us know his reactionary record. The only question is why the MSM keeps alive the the notion of this guy's stature as a statesman. Why do we care what he thinks?
Too little, too late. Too bad.
Powell, who cares what this patsy thinks. He sold the invasion of Iraq to the American people with lies.
That's all fine and good. But until this country recognizes gay people as equal in every respect they shouldn't serve the country. Boycott the military.
Why? If it were left up to you no gay person would have a job.
Change doesn't happen that way.
Another decade-late change of heart from the good general. It's what you do, not what you remember or regret that counts.
No change of heart just the only person with the guts to have thought about it and spoke out. What other GOPer has done it?
In 1993, Senator Barry Goldwater (R-Arizona) stood up to Sam Nunn and Colin Powell. The following is an excerpt from Barry Goldwater's commentary on the military gay ban that appeared the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times.
"After more than 50 years in the military and politics, I am still amazed to see how upset people can get over nothing. Lifting the ban on gays in the military isn't exactly nothing, but it's pretty damned close
Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They'll still be serving long after we're all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone.
But most Americans should be shocked to know that while the country's economy is going down the tubes, the military has wasted half a billion dollars over the past decade chasing down gays and running them out of the armed services.
It's no great secret that military studies have proved again and again that there's no valid reason for keeping the ban on gays. ....
When the facts lead to one conlusion, I say it's time to act, not to hide. The country and the military know that eventually the ban will be lifted. The only remaining questions are how much muck we will all be dragged through, and how many brave Americans like Tom Paniccia and Margarethe Cammermeyer will have their lives and careers destroyed in a senseless attempt to stall the inevitable. . . ."
should we reevaluate coordinating an aggressive campaign of lies in order to start all-out wars that don't need to be started? preemptive invasions, even.
wow!
Powell has contridicted himself too many times and has lost all credibility.
Sad. This house used to have great respect for him.
Well, I don't know who you respect then because most high ranking people do not speak about gay people at ALL!
Barack Obama has. He told bigots in black churches that they needed to get over their hatred, fear and ignorance of gay people.
My change of opinion on Powell had nothing to do with the gay issue. His new statements on Don't ask, Don't tell just seem to be a way for him to make nice with the democrats, who really know if he actually feel that way.
Translation, we're running out of joes, and we don't have the draft anymore.
Powell was a key player in getting the disasterous policy of "Don't ask, don't tell" established.
Can someone please do an accurate biography on Powell, where we can see just what this "Great American" is really all about. I'm so tired the way he is called on by the MSM as a sage elder. His dealings with the Bush administration should call everyone to question his motives and judgements.
And with all due respect to Karela when is the right time to do the right thing? Gays have been discriminated against for decades , This hateful administration has shamelessly used them as a target to galvinize the extreme senitiments of their base.
How long do you wait to vote and be counted? How long do you wait for the position to be open to your gender or race? When do you stop having to sit at the back of the bus? When can you marry the person you want to and be protected by the law?
You are equal in the eyes of the law or you aren't, it is that simple.
Letter from Birmingham Jail. MLK
"Can someone please do an accurate biography on Powell... Powell's autobiography will do the trick. It reveals that he cultivated insider friends. His loyalty made him a tool.
Absolutely cityspeak.
Equal rights under the law, period!
Its just despicable that one group of people are constantly abused and used as political foot balls with no regard to their humanity.
I'm with the commenter that says, boycott the military until alllll are equal.
Colin Powell is cooked, stick a fork in him, he is done.
If there was anything redeeming his foul actions leading to an illegal war and the death of a million innocent Iraqis, we would have seen it by now. Its too late to suggest he can have a make-over and become relevant. Ty Pennington is not knocking on his door at 7 a.m.
Put him out to pasture and stop parading this disappointment and disgrace on National TV as though all is forgotten. We have 4500 Mothers of dead vets who deserve that respect, not Powell, the facilitator of mass carnage.
He should be sitting in prison, not on any panel of anything. Period.
Why does every gay issue resort to the gay marriage issue? What other notable person has even uttered "gay anything" from his/her lips? This is a start.
The Don't Ask, Don't Tell worked fine when I was in the military. How can you force several thousand troops to accept a lifestyle many of them don't even know about? Education has to come first. My fellow soldiers were adamantly opposed to openly being gay in the military, especially in the barracks and during wartime. Hey, I just asked how they felt.
It may have worked fine in YOUR opinion as a straight person but I can tell you it has NOT worked from the perspective of most gay persons. Gays have been kicked out of the military at higher rates than before the institution of DADT.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
