B. Daniel Blatt of Gay Patriot has an op-ed on AOLNews.com looking at the path ahead for implementing “don’t ask” repeal and other gay equality measures. He writes about the military:
Defense Secretary Robert Gates assured Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., that implementation would proceed in stages, “sequenced in order to protect small unit cohesion” . . . It remains to be seen how exactly the military will determine that “specific methodology. . . .The Palm Center’s Aaron Belkin, however, believes repeal “really isn’t rocket science” given that “the troops already know how to interact with gays because they do so every day.” . . .The Palm Center holds that it can be done in “a matter of weeks,” while the defense secretary thinks a year may be needed to educate troops, with the specific methodology yet to be determined.
We’ll see how drawn out the battle over implementation becomes.
17 Comments for “The Rough Road Ahead”
posted by Tom on
We’ll see how drawn out the battle over implementation becomes.
You will never stop, will you?
The military will implement the policy in a sensible and intelligent manner, consistent with good order and military effectiveness.
The “battle over implementation” will be entirely a civilian battle, fought by social conservatives in the new Congress, who will throw every impediment they can dream up in order to undermine, hinder and delay the military in implementing the policy.
posted by Jimmy on
Thank you for calling Miller on this.
posted by another steve on
I really can’t discern what your criticism of the blogger is , etiher in Tom’s smug put down or in Jimmy’s applauding of Tom’s smug putdown.
posted by Jimmy on
“I really can’t discern what your criticism of the blogger is”
Then you are part of the problem.
posted by avee on
Thank you, another steve, for calling Tom and Jimmy on this. 🙂
I can’t determine what their criticism is, either, except that they are liberals and therefore superior to all others.
posted by Tom on
Well, Avee, here you go:
I’ve followed IGF on and off for about five years. I’ve read Stephen’s posts during that period. Specifically, I’ve read Stephen’s posts on DADT during the last eighteen months or so.
On DADT, Stephen has hawked the line that President Obama (and Democrats in general) are not, and never have been, serious about DADT repeal, using the issue as a wedge to embarrass Republicans while never intending to deliver.
To this end, Stephen has opined, among other things, that:
(a) appeared to back DADT repeal to keep gays and lesbians in the Democratic fold, while embarrassing Republicans, without achieving DADT repeal,
(b) slowed down repeal whenever possible, for example by refusing to repeal DADT by Executive Order, when, if serious about DADT repeal,
(c) set up DADT repeal for failure by tying it to the Defense Appropriations bill, and
(d) put other priorities (e.g. the tax cut/unemployment deal) ahead of DADT repeal to run out the clock before adjournment.
Go back and read Stephen’s posts on DADT for the last six months and I think you’ll see these themes. Go back the full year or eighteen months, and you surely will.
When DADT passed, Stephen shifted gears slightly (the “not intending to deliver” theme being no longer operative in light of the fact) groused that repeal should have happened sooner, and would have, if only the Democrats had been serious about it.
Now that DADT is in the process of implementation, Stephen appears (if this post is any indication) to be shape-shifting again, setting up President Obama and Secretary Gates as a “roadblock” to speedy implementation, a return to the “not serious, dragging their feet” theme.
That’s what prompted my “Will you never stop?”
What I find most interesting is that throughout this drumbeat, Stephen has never once, to my knowledge, acknowledged that there is a rather large elephant in the room — strong, determined resistance to DADT repeal from Republicans in Congress — and that the elephant in the room may have played a role in the process.
Nor has Stephen, to my knowledge, ever suggested what I consistently suggest: If those of you who are conservative and adhere to the theory (as Stephen expressly has in past posts) that gays and lesbians will not achieve equal treatment under the law unless and until Republicans are on board and working for equality, then it is incumbent upon you, as conservatives who believe that, to get to work and change the Republican Party so that it becomes part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
Make of my exasperation with Stephen’s recent posting what you will. I think Stephen has turned into a one pony circus recently, and I don’t welcome the development.
posted by avee on
Well, Tom, I’ve been reading for years, too. And I believe Miller made a strong case that Democrats were playing politics with DADT repeal until they started to lose liberal activists, who were catching on, at which point Reid allowed the pure vote on DADT, which got 6 GOP votes for cloture and 8 for repeal. That doesn’t absolve the Republicans, but it does show that there were enough GOP votes to move our agenda, when the Democrats showed the will to do so. We’ve got to press the Democrats and then pick up enough Republicans. Sounds like a fair point.
As for the implementation roadblocks, I think the report makes clear that there will be hurdles. One year to implement isn’t ridiculous, but we still need to hold Democrats (and the few Republicans on our side) accountable, or else things could go backwards. Granted, it would be great if we had more than a few Republicans, but that just shows why we have to told the Democrats’ feet to the fire and pick up the Republicans we can. That’s were the majority comes from.
posted by Tom on
… we still need to hold Democrats (and the few Republicans on our side) accountable …
Although I agree what we need to gay-supportive politicians accountable, we also need to hold anti-gay politicians to account. We should not give a pass to the politicians who voted against DADT repeal. We should work hard to make sure that they are not re-elected.
As we all know, there was a time, a couple of decades ago, when gay and lesbian equality was driven by the left.
I don’t believe that is true any longer. Strong conservative arguments have been articulated in the last two decade. The question of equality can no longer be posed as an authentic division between left and right.
Republicans should be held every bit as accountable as Democrats.
posted by BobN on
How in the world can conservative gays who would NEVER EVER vote for a Dem candidate hold Dem politicians accountable? What are you going to withhold?
As Tom suggested and I myself have said repeatedly on this site, it’s your job, my GOP brethren, to hold your politicians’ feet to the fire. And by “fire”, I don’t mean another fund-raising barbeque where you raise money for someone who votes against your (and my) rights.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Um, what if the military decided that it would implement the policy by excluding openly gay people from combat units deployed overseas, while allowing them to serve in support roles stateside? (This would be fully allowable under the terms of the repeal, and consistent with the results of the DoD’s survey, which found that personnel in Army and Marine combat units were most averse to having openly gay people in their ranks.)
I expect that in such a scenario, some gay advocates would quite reasonably object on the grounds that being permanently excluded from combat leads to being passed over for promotion. But I don’t think that social conservatives in Congress would be leading the fight against such a policy!
posted by BobN on
This would be fully allowable under the terms of the repeal, and consistent with the results of the DoD’s survey.
I would be allowable, but it would not be consistent with the summary that accompanied the survey.
posted by Throbert McGee on
What is it that comes after “lies” and “damned lies,” again?
posted by Jorge on
We’ll see how drawn out the battle over implementation becomes.
I am not ready yet. Give me a few weeks. For now I think we need to be clear from Obama when he feels comfortable certifying the military is ready.
The “battle over implementation” will be entirely a civilian battle, fought by social conservatives in the new Congress, who will throw every impediment they can dream up in order to undermine, hinder and delay the military in implementing the policy.
After all, the most ardent military opponent of the repeal pledged that the Marines would set the best example were the repeal to take place. What are Gates and Mullen telling him?
Tom, I might find your reasoning more convincing were the opposition to repeal led by social conservatives instead of by a moderate and his sidekick moderate. I would find it very amusing for John McCain to expose himself to a criticism that he is harming military readiness and cohesion by attempting to undermine the repeal. If it comes to that, I hope he receives no quarter.
posted by Tom on
I think your instinct to “wait and see” is the right one, Jorge.
Tom, I might find your reasoning more convincing were the opposition to repeal led by social conservatives instead of by a moderate and his sidekick moderate.
I could be wrong about whether social conservatives will be the driving force behind efforts to derail repeal, but so far, at least, it is the social conservatives — the usual crowd — who are making the threats, and, to the extent that moves (e.g. the pathetic attempt to keep DADT alive in the Virginia NG) have been made at this point, the moves.
posted by james on
it will takes YEARS.. perhaps more than a decade. the anti gay forces will not let this go. matter of fact if you read there blogs there already blaming the whole USS Enterprise dirty movies scandal on gays. So this DADT repeal is kinda just a lip service action. I dont think anything will change unless the courts change because american christians hate gays for some reason. they dont hate shellfish, they dont hate wearing cloth of two fabricsm they dont hate adulterers they dont hate people who eat cloven hoof animals all abominations in the eyes of the lawd jeebus
posted by Tony on
There is no need for a new policy. DADT was “policy” and now it is not because asking people to not ask and not tell is not only unconstitutional but it also violates the current policy for all military persons. When you are working , in uniform on a ship or at a station you do not talk about your sex life, have sex with another person, engage in conversations about sex and comment on any aspect of sexuality with others in uniform. If you do then punish the behavior not the persons private life. I have seen so many straight people get away with having sex on duty and in the performance of their duty. What they get is choice orders, allowance for housing and in most cases a big going away party for them with others during working hours and in uniform and what they don’t get is punished. If this reality is not addressed by the people in charge we the tax payer will continue to fund our sexually active straight shipmates unauthorized behavior. Now if this were a gay couple having sex while on duty in the performance of their duty they would be discharged. No housing and no allowance for food or shelter. The policy already in place should be used for both gay and straight people. THERE SHOULD BE NO EXCEPTIONAL POLICY FOR GAY OR STRAIGHT PEOPLE IN UNIFORM. Punish the behavior and not the persons private life.
posted by Hunter on
The problem with the idea that Gates is going to be the roadblock is that Gates is already talking weeks, not months or a year. (http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/breaking-gates-issues-order-to-speed-up-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal/civil-rights/2011/01/06/16600)
The foot dragging is going to come from the second and third tier brass — Amos, Casey, Schwartz — not from the White House or SecDef.
And as much as I would have liked to see the entire LGBT agenda sail through in Obama’s first two years, I have to admit that an economy on the verge of collapse and 43 million people without health insurance could be considered a higher priority — and yes, I think Obama could have done more, even so. I suspect, however, that with the incoming Congress as it is, the word went out — “Get it done.”