When the hurlyburly's done
President Obama, the Pentagon and leading lawmakers reached agreement Monday on legislative language and a time frame for repealing the military's 'don't ask, don't tell" policy...
New York Times, May 24th, 2010
When the battle's lost
Both Admiral Mullen and Mr. Gates told the committee that there would be a Pentagon review, taking up to a year, to study how to implement any change before they expected Congress to act on a repeal.
and won
"No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens... allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do." -- Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
New York Times, February 3rd, 2010
With the imminent deal to sweep the issue of LGB personnel serving openly in the military under the rug (I cannot, in good conscience, call it repeal yet) for at least six months -- to the great relief of politicos concerned -- it might be interesting to reflect on its history and the lessons to be gleaned therefrom.
When the President announced that he would "work with Congress and the military to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell this year" in his State of the Union Address, and a week later the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Congress that DADT repeal was the right thing to do, it seemed like the end was nigh.
From the LGBT community (which was ecstatic), all the way through the political spectrum including various Fox News anchors (who agreed, if reluctantly, that it was time for the policy to end, if I recall correctly) there was excitement.
And it was a battle won. For the first time, the highest ranking military officer in the United States had stood before Congress and told them that the policy they had put in place 17 years ago was morally bankrupt. A huge victory.
Left all but unnoticed however, at least in the mainstream press, were two dreaded words spoken by Gates and Mullen: "study" and "commission". Yes, DADT would eventually be repealed. Maybe. Or perhaps that was just Mullen's personal belief? No, it shouldn't happen right now. No, there shouldn't be a moratorium. No, Congress shouldn't do anything, pending a "study" by a "commission" that would take almost a year to complete its work. But that would be okay -- in 45 days the DoD would have new regulations that will 'mitigate' some of the worst abuses of DADT.
And thus, while the battle for morality was won, the procedural battle was lost. On that same day, February 2nd, I wrote
...but by putting it this way, the military and the administration give Congress the perfect excuse they so desperately want to avoid voting on the issue this year. And next year? The most likely result of the 2010 election will be to remove the necessary votes for repeal in Congress (if, in fact, they even exist today). And if one House or the other were to fall under Republican control, even if the votes still existed (which they likely wouldn't) they would never be counted.
Either by design or not, the military and the administration have committed the perfect crime. By coming out strongly for repeal, they take a lot of the wind out of the sails of their civil libertarian critics. But by insisting they need time to prepare an implementation plan, they all but insure a repeal will not come to pass any time soon...
The strangest thing about this is that no one else seems to think this. None of the lefty blogs, not Andrew Sullivan, not the mainstream press; even on Pam's House Blend, a GLBT blog, it doesn't seem to register. Even after I posted comments similar to this note on all of these blogs, nobody seems to have picked up the meme. LiveJournal entry
Eventually it did sank in, at least in some quarters. (Perhaps I even had something to do with that in a very small way.) Lt. Choi got it. Robin McGehee and GetEqual got it. But by the time enough people realized it, it was too late. The vast mobilization necessary to get Congress to act in spite of the recommendations of the President and the military would be almost impossible.
And yet the impossible was attempted. Key Senators were identified. Pressure was applied. From a mere five assured votes for a repeal amendment on the Senate Armed Services Committee out of fifteen in early April, by a week or two ago it was "one or two votes short".
Congress, eventually suspecting something was amiss, demanded assurances that Gates' study really was "how, not if". Gates provided those assurances, but counterattacked with a letter demanding that Congress do nothing until it was complete, with the not-at-all-subtle imprimatur of the White House behind it.
And yet, from an uncertain count in the House we went to assurances by key sponsors such as Representatives Murphy and Baldwin that "the votes were there".
Still... it didn't work. It didn't not work, but it didn't work.
True, the pressure became enormous, and true, the administration realized they had to do something:
I just spoke to one of those in the mix of the discussions about the deal, and I was told that the pressure from outside activists was "110%" responsible for getting the White House off its duff (after all, how many more surprise GetEqual demonstrations could they take?) Pam's Blend
So they proposed a face-saving 'compromise':
- DADT repeal would be voted on now, but become law with a trigger -- left to the President to ultimately decide its fate.
- There would be no law that said the military could not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; that would also be left to the President and to the military.
- Military personel would still continue to be discharged until and if the policy is actually rescinded, which could conceivably take years.
And so everyone is left with a bitter pill. Equality advocates get a victory in name only -- one that only Joe Solomese would be willing to write home about. Congressional advocates are left promoting a piece of paper with more holes in it than a certain British Petroleum well. The President is nowhere to be seen. And Secretary Gates has been all but publicly humiliated:
"Secretary Gates continues to believe that ideally the DOD review should be completed before there is any legislation to repeal the Don't Ask Don't Tell law," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said in a statement. "With Congress having indicated that is not possible, the secretary can accept the language in the proposed amendment."
Insofar as the battle for full repeal was lost on Febuary 3rd, when massive criticism of the 'death by commission' tactic did not ensue and repeal was deemed a foregone conclusion, so the most insidious danger with this new approach is that the issue will now be considered settled by the vast majority who have any interest in it.
Eight months from now, will advocates wake up, late again, with the realization that discharges are still being made, new regulations have not been created, President Obama has not yet keep his promise, and it is too late, legislatively, to do anything about it (aka death by too many Republicans in Congress) ?
Or will we keep up the pressure? Will we not let it out of the public eye? Will the commission's methodology be monitored and challenged if necessary at every step? Will every DADT discharge from here on in be challenged in the press as to its absurdity?
When the commission report comes out, will it, too, be challenged if necessary (and I suspect it will be necessary...), vigorously, immediately, and vociferously?
My guess is that the military's top-brass, its old-boy network, is dearly hoping for the former. And the administration isn't going to lift a finger unless forced to, just as now. So that leaves it squarely in the hands of equality advocates.
Who's going to keep stepping up?