Obama Asks For Study Of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

Jim Burroway

February 2nd, 2009

Hoping to avoid the missteps of the Clinton administration, when the Democratically-controlled congress forced Bill Clinton to back down from an order allowing gays to serve openly in the military, President Barack Obama has asked the military for a comprehensive assessment of the impact of rescinding “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” According to the Boston Globe:

At the Pentagon, officials say they have been told not to expect the administration to seek to lift the ban quickly. One senior officer, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the press, said staff officers for Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have been told it will be several months at the earliest – possibly not even this year – until the top brass will be formally asked to weigh in on a change in policy.

And even then, he said, the military has been assured it will have wide latitude to undertake a detailed study of how a change in the policy would affect the military.

Sources indicate that the study may be part of a strategy to win over military brass as well as congressional lawmakers for repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” During his presidential campaign, Obama committed to allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly, but he has not committed to a timetable.

Emily K

February 2nd, 2009

I think this is extremely politically savvy. The study will, no doubt, conclude that the policy is unnecessary, archaic, costly, and even detrimental to our national security.

And with the results of the study, coupled with the changed attitudes of a large amount of people – even those who once fully supported the ban – DADT should be struck down within good time.

It will show that the President didn’t just “assert his political agenda” but in fact took the time to get the facts and consult the whole of Washington – and the facts are on our side.

K

February 2nd, 2009

All this does is let Obama off the hook. He’s saying, basically, that he’ll back off until the military tells him that they’re ready to integrate the services.

And when will that be, given that the senior officers (who will, remember design and conduct the “study”) are mostly homophobic older guys?

John

February 2nd, 2009

Perhaps I’m too cynical after being burned by Slick Willie in the 90s, but this does seem to be a way to bury the issue. Rather like the parliamentary tricks they use in Congress to “table” an item, where it dies in committee. The military brass do not like change, it throw in an unknown variable into what they are used to and what they have planned for. I remain skeptical of this and Obama’s motives.

TJ McFisty

February 2nd, 2009

So there’s no study about allowing criminals in the military? Gays require a study, but criminals don’t. Sure.

steve

February 2nd, 2009

When will the gay community stop tolerating 2nd class citizenship?

David C.

February 2nd, 2009

Obama cannot move forward without building a base of support within the walls of the pentagon. There are too many forces throughout government and society arrayed against gay people to assume that repeal of DADT is a given, whether it was brought to a vote tomorrow or in a year.

Everybody wants everything now and that isn’t going to happen. LGBT people and their advocates have to build the coalition needed to undertake the major strides sought and expected from this administration. It will take politics, arm-twisting, lobbying, and getting the right information into the hands of decision makers. Without these, the shrill propaganda of the anti-gay right will again drown out the reasoned voices that are on the side of gay people who want to serve their country.

All the nonsense about this or that dodge on the part of the democrats, the Obama Administration, and the military helps not in the least. Write your representatives and urge them to support repeal of DOMA, and urge your friends to do the same. If you know military personnel, either active, retired, or reservist, encourage them to support open service by gay people. Go here to get more details and learn how to really help.

Mark F.

February 3rd, 2009

“Obama cannot move forward without building a base of support within the walls of the pentagon.”

Rubbish. Truman ordered the racial integration of the military knowing darn well that most of the military was opposed. If current officers can’t deal with a new gay policy, Obama can accept their resignations.

David C.

February 3rd, 2009

Mark F.:

So could have Clinton, but the reason Clinton was not able to do that was that the leaders of the military had lots of friends on Capitol Hill that could derail the whole initiative. If you follow that link in my above remark, you will be led to a site where you can see that this matter is not as easy as people would like to make it seem.

Obama could sign an executive order or similar executive regulation, under Section 654(b), withholding all discharges and initiations of investigations/discharges under Section 654 at the Presidential level. Ok, so, yeah, he could render DADT effectively “inoperable”, but that might not in the final analysis be as helpful as some would imagine. Hard to say what the political fallout would be or whether it would advance the cause or timetable for repeal of DADT.

Regan DuCasse

February 3rd, 2009

Truman signed an executive order when we still had the draft!

And after WW2 when a lot of our readiness was decimated.

Here we’ve had DADT BEFORE Iraq and Afghanistan and for twenty years or more of an ALL VOLUNTEER military.

Rather than recruit those without the educational qualifications or with criminal records, or dismiss skilled gay personnel, the military can tell a potential recruit what THEIR options are.

They can always choose not to serve with gay people, rather than we lose talent because of those who don’t want to adhere to rules of service with WHOEVER.

I never understood that we accept Muslim recruits, regardless of fighting in Muslim countries and part of the war is motivated by Muslim anti Western sentiment.
Muslims in the ranks have attacked their fellow soldiers and with tragic results.

But they won’t accept openly gay military who ALSO have the vitally needed linguistic and cultural skills to serve?

It’s the all volunteer principle that makes the option of repealing DADT easier than any other time to allow openly gay service members to do so.

Mark F.

February 4th, 2009

It would be nice if we had a President was was more concerned about doing what was right instead of worrying about the “political fallout.” Let him issue the order and let the chips fall where they may. If the supposed pro-gay Democratic Congress blocks equality for gays, then I will blame Congress. The military will follow orders or its officers can resign. It’s as simple as that.

David C.

February 6th, 2009

Regan D. and Mark F.:

I still think you two are thinking about this in low dimension. The repeal of DADT is a highly visible landmark on the landscape of gay-rights politics, but there are elements of that terrain rendering courses along apparently straight paths undesirable, or flat out dangerous.

We are just emerging from a period of rabidly conservative social policy that has left behind many relics and entrenched power structures enshrining anti-gay sentiment and policies. Their dismantling is something that must be done carefully, much like the demolition of a building constructed with toxic materials. Our enemies are in some cases still well positioned and capable of causing damage and slowing progress towards full rights for LGBT people. They have well oiled propaganda machines, and are organized and effective adversaries. They cannot be dismissed, and all it will take is one significant misstep and we could loose significant ground in our fight for full rights.

In the case of DADT, we must not fail to consider the safety and security of gay military personnel as well as readiness questions. The majority of lawmakers and everyday citizens have little understanding of the internal operation of the US armed services, military justice, readiness, and the challenges of military service during times of war. These complexities are enough to complicate the process of dismantling DADT. Mishandling repeal of DADT could do serious damage to the push for gay rights.

None of my remarks are intended to defend DADT, but you don’t have to like dynamite to respect it. The constellation of factors that must be managed to restructure societal perception of gay people are just now starting to be understood by gay leaders. It took a number of failures to cause gay rights activists to reappraise their approach to the problem of perception we face as gay people. Our movement has grown in sophistication enough to know that these struggles require careful consensus building, and even with potentially powerful allies in places of power, our enemies are looking for any opportunity to sabotage our progress and bring down those political leaders that stand with us.

As I have previously remarked in this forum, the enactment of hate crimes and employment non-discrimination statutes covering LGBT people are logical weigh points on the way to repeal of DADT. I have also commented that we may need to sublimate our own interests during the economic storm that is currently raging. This does not mean that we should allow the visibility of these issues to drop below some critical threshold of notice, but we should be mindful of the whole theater of war in which we are engaged. Tactics my create the illusion of winning by achieving victory in small battles, but true and complete victory requires a strategy that consistently delivers winning decisive actions.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1808: Australian Court Convicts Two Of "Most Disgusting and Abominable" Crime

Today In History, 1865: Dr. Barry's Death Reveals a Lifelong Secret

Today In History, 1985: Rock Hudson's AIDS Diagnosis Confirmed

Emphasis Mine

Born On This Day, 1844: Thomas Eakins

Born On This Day, 1879: J. Warren Kerrigan

Born On This Day, 1974: Gareth Thomas

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.