Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the first Congressional hearing on the military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy in 17 years that “my personal belief is that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do.” However, he cautioned that a year-long process in studying the effects of repealing the policy would be necessary.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, saying that he fully supported the President’s decision to repeal the policy, and that “the question is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we prepare for it,” named two Pentagon officials to head the study, which would focus on a variety of issues. Jeh Johnson, the legal counsel for the Defense Department, and Gen. Carter Hamm, the commander of US Army Europe, would lead that process.
Mullen’s statement, which Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) said would be “long remembered for its courage,” stands in sharp contrast to the response of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the beginning of the Clinton Administration, the last time this policy was reviewed. Saying that he “understands perfectly the President’s desire to see the law repealed,” he stated his personal belief that the current policy “forces young men and women to lie about who they are.” In the end, Mullen said, “It comes down to integrity.”
Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), the Chairman of the Senate Armed Sevices committee, said in his opening statement that we should “repeal this discriminatory policy,” and that ending it would contribute to the military’s effectiveness. By contrast, ranking member Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) noted a list of 1,000 former flag officers and generals who do not support repeal. “Numerous military leaders tell me Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is working, and I agree.” McCain expressed disappointment with Secretary Gates’ statement that the military must prepare for repeal, saying that it is Congress’ function.
Gates announced his one-year review, with its findings in the form of an implementation plan to be submitted by the end of 2010. The working group would 1) reach out to the force for their views and concerns, 2) look at changes to DoD regulations and policies (such as benefits, housing, fraternization, etc.), 3) look at military effectiveness (unit cohesion, retention). He will also ask the RAND Corporation to update their study of the impact on gays in the military. Responding to why this would take a year, Gates said, “When you take into account the overriding imperative to get this right, it is clear we must proceed in a manner that allows for a thorough examination of all issues.”
Gates also announced that, within 45 days, he would recommend changes, within existing law, “to enforce policy in a more fair manner.” He believes that there is a “degree of latitude” within existing law, similar to what was widely reported today, to reduce instances where a service member is outed by a third party with the intent to harm his or her career. He cautioned that “It’s a little more complicated than Wapo conveyed,” however, and he would not state support (or opposition) to a moratorium on discharges of gay and lesbian service members during the year-long assessment. While Gates believed current law would not permit that, Levin said that changes to the law could be made to accommodate a moratorium.
Mullen, while certainly favoring a go-slow approach to gather more information about the impact (“We would all like a better handle on these types of concerns”), said he would obey whatever the legislative and executive branch decided on the matter. However, his statement was undeniably powerful and had a moral force. Saying that “I have served with homosexuals since 1968,” Mullen said that the integrity of the military as an institution was dissonant with discriminatory policies. “Putting individuals in a position where they wonder, “is today going to be the day,” and devaluing them in that regard, just is inconsistent with us as an institution,” Mullen said.
UPDATE: Susan Collins’ questioning sure makes it seem like she would support a repeal. She asked about NATO allies who allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, and Admiral Mullen replied that “they tell me it has had no effect on their readiness or effectiveness.” There is at least one Republican vote for repeal.
UPDATE II: Sen. Lieberman: “I opposed DADT in 1993, and I oppose it today, so I support repeal.”
UPDATE III: Sen. Levin just floated the idea of placing repeal in the defense authorization bill to make passage easier. It would require an amendment to get it out. So far I’ve heard no Democrat opposed to repeal, at least on this panel. So that would seem to be the way to go.
UPDATE IV: Appearing with Andrea Mitchell, Joe Biden predicted that DADT would be repealed by the end of the year. I don’t know how that squares with the timeline Gates proposed of a one-year study, but the Mullen announcement definitely offers momentum.
UPDATE V: Rep. Joe Sestak, running for Senate in Pennsylvania, wants the President to sign a “stop-loss” order to end the discharges immediately, instead of waiting a year for a military study.
“Today’s announcement that the Pentagon will begin a year-long study to prepare for repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ indicates a step in the right direction, but it is inadequate,” said Joe. “It’s not time to study ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ it’s time to end it, and we should do so immediately. That said, if unfortunately if we are to study the process, our military and troops cannot be left in limbo. President Obama should sign an executive order — relying on the same ‘stop-loss’ authority used to extend tours of duty — to halt dismissals under this policy. In a time of war, we cannot lose any more troops that we depend on to keep our country safe.




41 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
As intimidating troops by calling the “FAGGOT!!!!” is a central part of training removing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” will surely destroy our military as the presence of actual acknowledged gays will make such intimidation impossible.
How unclever of the military to have only one intimidating term.
I can’t wait till it is repealed so we can call them baby killers too!
I guess if President McCain thinks it’s a bad idea then it
must beis absolutely the right thing to do.Thank you, David. From a veteran, DADT is a travesty, and yet another stain on the country.
It’s gonna get interesting when arabic-speaking witnesses who got kicked out get called. Or engineers, or lawyers or intelligence analysts, or just straight-up good soldiers. Get your popcorn and watch the wingnut tap-dancing…
I was an Army trained instructor and nowhere was such bullying allowed. It is counterproductive. Adm. Mullens statement that it would be the right thing to do does’t mean that it is what will be done. In war some soldiers have been known to shoot themselves in the foot literally in order to get out of combat. Figuratively that is what the US military is doing by discharging qualified personell. So many of the much needed foreign language translators have been discharged under this assumption. This is one of the reasons that we are misunderstood because we do not understand the language, culture or history of the people that we (the US) is trying to deal with.
I can’t wait until the HRC delays housing and job protections for LGBT so that we can launch that all encompassing fight for Gays in the CIA.
With marriage and the military dominating our agenda with divisive policies while the consensus economic protections languish, it is as if the LGBT movement is being run by its own Republicans, its own Senate, rule by the elites!
How many have gotten out of the service by falsely claiming they were gay? Seems a lot easier than shooting yourself in the foot.
Bring back the draft… gay men and women cannot serve legally now- so how could they be drafted?
That will change DADT fast. Think the young rovians like O’Keefe would let that happen? They are hoping to move right into old age neo-warmongering without military experience just like their heros.
In the Viet Nam era, claiming to be gay was not an effective method to dodge the draft.
Were gays allowed in?
I can’t answer that but as a disabled veteran who is unable to work I do believe that that would be one form of shooting yourself in the foot. When I was in the draft was going on. I had friends that ate soap the night before their physical to raise their blood pressure and others that went to Canada. The reality that I had to face is that each of us must do what our own conscience tells us to do. It is your foot if you wish to inflict a wound, help yourself.
The “don’t ask” part of the policy indicates that superiors should not initiate investigation of a service member’s orientation in the absence of disallowed behaviors.
The “don’t tell” part is up to the service member.
So how does the current policy “FORCE young men and women to lie about who they are?”
Stop-loss is the only way to go.
How do you tell the last man (or woman) he (or she) is being discharged for a lie?
You don’t understand how DADT has been implemented.
It took lots more than just saying that you are gay to get out of the draft. Otherwise, it would have been a great way to dodge the draft.
What kind of proof did they require?
Here’s how it went down for Iggy Pop when he was called up for the draft, from I Need More:
Great story.
Yes, but in this day and age of fundamental wrong-headedness it could be a great lever.
My trouble is I don’t want any war…if we have a draft there has to be a CO/NGO/Peace Corps alternative with the same educational/VA benefits.
No answer, huh?
I got out of the draft by correctly proclaiming that I was gay. I had checked “Yes” on the Whoopie Box (“Do you have homosexual tendencies?” Darling I had tendencies in kindergardeen!) and the kid behind the desk (who was quite cute. I even contemplated hitting on him but that would have been going too far.) He told the other guys standing behind me in their underwear “OK, can we all back up a bit?” Then he gestured to me to come closer and whispered “Do you play the man or do you play the woman?” I of course said “Both.” He then gave me a note directing me to the shrink. But it was very crowded that day, so I never went to the shrink at all. I was sent to another desk where they looked at my form and awarded me an instant 4 F
AND THUS I AVOIDED MY OWN DEATH AND GENOCIDAL COMPLICITY IN THE SLAUGHTER OF COUNTLESS OTHERS!!!!
Big difference between claiming to be gay and demonstrating that one might be gay.
When I was in basic at Ft Campbell in 66 one dude just said no. He wouldn’t do anything. . .period. They put him in a room and harassed him but eventually he got out. Most of us had NO idea what that was all about. We found out.
I gather that many kids do it to get college tuition. A financial trap.
Most men drafted would not be as committed to getting out of it as Iggy Pop.
TO: eCAHNomics@ 24: Yeah, “Be all you can be” false advertising. Seen too many young kids hurt.
Good thing he dodged it!
Personally, I think that excluding LGBT from the military is a Good First Step to ensuring that we have a military composed only of straight, white conservative Christian males for cannon fodder.
Be, all that you can be, minus a limb or two at age twenty two.
It has several I’m told.
While I did not “serve” I have served every branch of the military except the Marines (noxious pillow-biters the lot of them.) I have my greatest admiration for the Navy whose uniforms Jean Genet reminds us are “the most erotic article of clothing ever devised.”
I’ve heard a few good stories. One, Korean War era, refused to eat & was discharged. Another tried to raise his blood pressure by drinking lots of coffee. Got in anyway. Was injured in VN & medic asked him how he got in, his blood pressure was so low. Another just acted goofy (don’t remember the details) at the induction center & was refused.
Yeah, that’s the one thing guaranteed to fuck with their heads – someone who just says “No. I’m not going to do that.”
Somehow, some straight, white conservative Christian males just don’t manage to serve. Look at Decider Bush and Limpy Limbaugh.
I “understand the language, culture or history” of this country perfectly well. I’ll be 63 on the 18th of this month and as a gay African-American I’ve had more than my belly full of the poison this culture churns out.
Just heard ad for army officers on TV. That’s a strange one.
I think the whole DOD yearlong study is a dodge. It would kick the question to a new and more Republican Congress. Studies are notorious as a delaying tactic. DADT was put on the books in 1993. In the 17 years since, the military, knowing that gays were serving in the armed forces and knowing that servicepeople who worked with them knew they were gay, never bothered to ask itself about any of this until now? Gates is issuing total, absolute BS on this.
Indeed you can see how this fits in with Congressional action. If DADT is not repealed this year, waiting on that yearlong study. Next year efforts will have to start from zero because there will be a new Congress, and it looks like it will be a more Republican one.
Levin could just be playing games but he is right it could and should be made part of the Defense Authorization bill.
Champagne Unit.
I think that everyone who filed a lawsuit pushing same sex marriage over job and housing protections and everyone who promoted gays in the military over job and housing civil rights protections should be forcibly drafted into the military and sent to Af-Pak.
I had a friend who did it by losing weight, severe weight loss. He had to do it twice because they called him back. The second time was really tough, but he made it. The military knows the dodges. I thought he should have enlisted in the Navy.
That’s tough. My friend who wouldn’t eat wasn’t on a hunger strike. He was a vegetarian and wouldn’t touch the army slop. (Imagine being a vegetarian in the Korean war era.)
As always, Meghan McCain’s Twitter is silent when it’s the source of her allowance who is bigoted towards gays or acting like a misogynist.
Hint to the “future of the Republican party”, stop enabling the establishment, and speak out when your dad’s being a douchebag.
A year in to the O admin. and now we take another year to study the feasibility of implementation?
Some one refresh my memory – how long did they take to study the feasibility of the implementation of the invasion?