Obama's don't ask don't tell triumph
The move towards repealing the US military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy has been a triumph of political choreography
You don't need me to tell you the number of things the Democrats have messed up in the past year. But lately comes a heartening sign that sometimes, they know how to play this game. The recent rollout of the planned repeal of the US military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy has been impressively choreographed. Not a false step anywhere.
First, stepping back: even the most ardent backers of repeal never thought that Barack Obama would put the matter on his year-one agenda. Simply too much other stuff to do. But then, lo and behold, when I think people weren't necessarily expecting it, he came out (as it were) strongly in his state of the union message in support of repeal. A state of the union address is vetted by and shared with various executive agencies of government, so the Pentagon had to know this was in the speech. Even so, past practice among Democrats on this issue and others like it would indicate that maybe things hadn't been so well worked out – that the Pentagon was dicey, but the president was plowing ahead anyway.
And yet, when Obama mentioned the repeal, Pentagon boss man Robert Gates applauded. In fact he stood and applauded. Then, the day after Obama's speech, the Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell confirmed that the department was working on repeal plans that it would unveil next week. And next week, which is now this week, exactly that happened. Gates and Mike Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and America's top military man, testified before the Senate yesterday backing repeal. Their positions were already known, but for them to use words as forceful as they did in a Senate forum was something.
Especially so in Mullen's case. Gates is a civilian who will return to civilian life (perhaps soon). But Mullen is a soldier – navy, not army, but a military career man through and through. And he said yesterday: "It is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do", adding that the current policy "forces young men and women to lie about who they are" as they defend their fellow citizens.
Whoever worked this step-by-step unveiling out will deserve a lot of credit from history when repeal comes. And it does now more like a when than an if. Gates and Mullen will still move somewhat slowly. A commission will spend a year studying the likely effects of repeal. But note that the commission isn't studying whether to do it – merely the effects of doing it. And in that year, not only will soldiers and officers have time to adjust, but so will members of Congress. It's not clear yet whether a repeal would require 60 votes in the Senate. It could conceivably be passed under rules that require only a simply majority of votes, or 51. If it needs just 51, it's likely there already.
But if 60 are needed, it's still problematic. Centrist Democrats are still afraid, and most Republicans are still against. Some are said to be privately supportive of the change, aware that support for the current policy looks increasingly reactionary, especially when the country's top military man is against you. But trying to change those Republican habits is not easy. Here's an argument. A few years ago, you folks were hailing our "coalition of the willing" allies as brave warriors, especially Britain, Spain and Poland, the non-US leaders of the coalition in terms of troop commitments. All three of those nations allow gays to serve openly. So which is it. Are they brave, right-thinking nations or sowers of pusillanimity and self-defeat? The same case could be made viz Israel, which the hawks love and which allows open service.
This will all take time. But the policy will change. And when it does, the Obama administration and the Pentagon will deserve a lot of plaudits for the smooth choreography of the past two weeks. Now let's see them apply that to other areas, please.
