There is a new missive in the military's brass' campaign to convince homophobic soldiers not to worry. Repeal of the "Don't ask, don't tell" law did not happen (despite what a Front Pager may have told you here).
And repeal isn't a "done deal."
I've been forwarded a letter, from an active duty servicemember he received this weekend. He writes:
"I am attaching a letter that was sent down my chain of command. It is important for all documents to be preserved in this process for history, and public knowledge of the discrimination we faced and the process to remove it."
It is signed by George W. Casey, Jr., General, United States Army and John M. McHugh, Secretary of the Army. And it's a chilling look into the military's perspective on an issue that many believe is already settled.
The full text of the letter after the fold.
I've been corresponding with this solider for several months. I have good reason to trust the authenticity of the source and the letter. The letter, in it's entirety, emphasis mine:
From: General Officer Management Office (GOMO)
Sent: [redacted, this past weekend]
Subject:SA/COS Sends: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
Importance: High
Troops,
We know many of you were disappointed in the House of Representatives and Senate Armed Services Committee votes on the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Understandably, such an action taken before the men and women of the Armed Forces were consulted could be seen as a reversal of our commitment to hear the views of our Soldiers and Families before the law was repealed. It should not be.
You should know that the amendment passed last night does preserve our prerogatives to provide our informed advice to the Secretary of Defense and the President before the law is repealed. It contains a provision that the amendment will not go into effect until the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff complete the review and certify that the implementation of the policies and regulations to implement the repeal are consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention.
Please get this information to your soldiers and Families and ask them to resist that urge to think that this is a "done deal" and that their input is unimportant. It is imperative that they continue to provide their candid responses to the review team. We remain committed to hearing* your views and concerns ** conveying them to our leadership before going forward on such an important issue in a time of war. Also remind them that the current law remains in effect.**
On this Memorial Day weekend, we thank you and your Families for your service. We ask that, at some time over the weekend, you pause and remember the more than one million men and women who have given their lives for this country over our history.
George W. Casey, Jr. John M. McHugh
General, United States Army Secretary of the Army
Chief of Staff
UNCLASSIFIED//
UNCLASSIFIED//
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO
UNCLASSIFIED//
First of all, it seems odd the Penatgon is spending $4.4 million dollars to study the troops feelings on repeal? It seems they already presume to know their feelings: "many of you were disappointed."
As I said yesterday, if an inevitable repeal were a product rollout, I'd give the marketing team an "F." It seems everyone from Robert Gates, to Mike Mullen, to the Service Chiefs, is more intent on selling the idea of delaying repeal than selling the idea of repeal. Having failed to delay a congressional vote, they are working hard to assure the troops, and every TV news and print reporter that it's not going to happen anytime soon, or maybe not even at all.
A wise person once advised me of the common sense tactic of listening to what people are NOT saying as much as what they are. Rather than "address troop concerns" by saying, "it's a long way off," or "It's not going to happen," (and implicitly implied if or when it does, then it's ok to be "concerned") why not take a rhetorical tactic that lays the groundwork for a seamless transition?
There are many rhetorical tactics the brass could be taking to assuage concerns. They could mention how law is costly to the military at a time when resources are stretched thin, costing at least $190M in taxpayer money and lost personnel. They could mention that troops know, they're already serving with gay soldiers both in our own forces and among the majority of our NATO allies that have no "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policies or any restrictions on LGB servicemembers. They could mention how our allies experienced no problems with transitioning out bans on gay servicemembers.
These are all rhetorical points that are positive and affirming toward the ultimate goal of repeal. And more than helpful to the LGBT community, they are helpful to the brass, if they are indeed, committed to repeal. If they are indeed committed to seeing a seamless transition with little problems.
The right wing is clearly fanning the flames of opposition with the usual "it's all part of the gay agenda" line. It would seem smart, if repeal were truly the goal to replace that meme, with one that made some logical sense. It would offer some cover to the leadership themselves that they were not merely caving to the radical homosexual agenda, but rather setting good policy based on facts and research.
The letter speaks almost entirely to only one audience in the debate: those who oppose repeal.
This is not a reassuring message to the LGB servicemembers that repeal is a "not a done deal." There is only a passing acknowledgment of the audience among the military that would most benefit from repeal. They could have made it more clear that the consequences of violating the "Don't ask, Don't Tell" policy remain as in place as the law itself.
As they are assuring the homophobes among the ranks they can breath a sigh of relief that their comrades will not come out of the closet anytime soon, the warning to those in the closet is buried.
The message to the estimated 66,000 LGB servicemembers is they can not breath any sigh of relief and relax anytime soon. They must continue to lie, hide and obfuscate the truth of who they are, indefinitely. There is no relief from witch hunt investigations, nor discharges that will cut their benefits in half.
There is much evidence accumulating that the study is merely cover for the DOD to ultimately determine not to implement a full repeal. From the AP:
The [Pentagon] official, who is knowledgeable about the troop consultations, spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the Pentagon response.
Some troops feel double-crossed, the official said, because they had been told that nothing would happen quickly and were assured that the Pentagon would take their individual concerns into account. These misgivings about the political process have been aired over the past week at town-hall style events where troops are encouraged to share any doubts about repeal, the official said.
Sounds like they are approaching this study with an agenda.
They are encouraging people to voice their doubts? And are they not encouraging people to voice their support as they are encouraging those with "doubts" to speak up? And are supporters of repeal not the ones who actually most need encouraging, if the goal is truly to take an unbiased sampling of troop attitudes? Given this approach, do they expect to hear support from the troops?
And it's impossible for LGB troops to speak up. They certainly can't risk any suspicion. Even sympathetic straight troops understand what command is looking for, and regardless, don't want to be subjected to a witch hunt. Sometimes those hunts target muggles too, and they certainly don't need to make themselves a target.
And we see the Pentagon's presumption that they already know the feelings of the troops ("double-crossed"). When, in fact polling and anecdotal accounts suggest resistance is actually quite low [McClatchy]:
Mullen finds little resistance among soldiers to gay troops
AMMAN, Jordan — Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was nearing the end of a 25-minute question and answer session with troops serving here when he raised a topic of his own: "No one's asked me about 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'" he said.
As it turned out, none of the two dozen or so men or women who met with Mullen at Marine House in the Jordanian capital Tuesday had any questions on the 17-year-old policy that bars gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military — or Mullen's public advocacy of its repeal.
Air Force Chief Master Sgt. Darryl E. Robinson, who's the operations coordinator for defense attache's office at the U.S. Embassy here, explained why after the session. "The U.S. military was always at the forefront of social change," he said. "We didn't wait for laws to change."
The study is looking like like classic push-polling. From the letter:
...resist that urge to think that this is a "done deal"
Is this a none-to-subtle message that "we" can still derail this, if we hang tough and just speak out?
It would take a strong soldier indeed to voice suport for repeal if the opening question is, "We're here today to hear your doubts about repeal. What is it that most frightens you?" Unfortunately, the study process is opaque, so we may never know how they gathered information. But it's the Pentagon, if you can't trust their good intentions, who can you trust?
It's worth noting, these are the people who have sole discretion to write the new regulations and determine when, or if, repeal ever happens. It is a chilling perspective into the level of their commitment to include LGB's soldiers' perspective in the process that will determine their future.
I worry a great deal about the process moving forward. As right now, no one is speaking to the LGB servicemembers, I wonder if anyone will speak for them from a strong position of advocacy? Particularly anyone who wields any power to affect the dialogue on their behalf.
UPDATE 1: This letter is also posted at the LGBT site The Bilerico Project. The forwarding he recieved from an LGBT servicemember included this message:
"Of course they forgot to mention that many of us are not disappointed, and it still angers me that they refer to straight service members as 'those most affected,' when in fact they are not. They may be, but personally I have seen no effort on the behalf of the Pentagon to speak with those of us who truly are 'those most affected'."