With these words, Senator McCain set the goalpost for when the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy would be reviewed. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed their support for the president back on February 2.
"Allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do." -- Adm. Mike Mullen. [Source]
"I fully support the President's decision." -- Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
Yet McCain would not be so easily won. Apparently, the most senior leaders' opinions were not good enough; McCain considered like-minded service chiefs' opinions over their superiors.
In March, a study began that examined how service members would feel if they served with open gays or lesbians. The Pentagon released the results of this report on November 30, although details of it appeared earlier. McCain probably had heard of its contents, yet remained cautious. [PDF version of the report]
"Adm. Mullen was, as quote, speaking personally. Just this week, the Commandant of the Marine Corps said that he did not want Don't Ask, Don't Tell repealed.... We're going to go through, hopefully, a year-long study that will hopefully, also, have the feelings of the men and women who are serving." -- John McCain, February 28, 2010. [Source]
"I will listen, as I've said for years, to our military leaders, not a study that is leaked.... Once we get this study, we need to have hearings and we need to examine it, and we need to look at whether it's the kind of study that we wanted.... I wanted the study to determine the effects of a repeal on battle effectiveness and morale. -- John McCain, November 14, 2010 [Source]
McCain's big hang up is that some of the service chiefs are more hesitant about a repeal than others. Specifically, the Army and Marine chiefs -- leaders of the branches that are doing most of the fighting -- were nervous about how the combat troops would react. The Navy and Coast Guard didn't express any concerns.
"I'm paying attention to the commandant of the Marine Corps. I'm paying attention to the other three service chiefs who have serious concerns. They are the four guys who are directly in charge. In all due respect, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not directly in charge of the troops. The Secretary of Defense is a political appointee who's never been in the military. And the president, obviously, has had no background or experience in the military whatsoever. It was a campaign pledge to the gay and lesbian community." -- John McCain, November 30, 2010 [Source]
Yet he overstepped in saying the Secretary of Defense had no military service. In fact, Gates served in the Air Force as an officer for a couple years starting in 1967. (McCain was probably thinking about Gates' predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld.) Regardless, Gates is not some liberal sycophant trying to further his career by toeing the president's line. He was appointed by President Bush and retained by Obama because of his experience.
And I can imagine the admiral took umbrage with the senator's comments either.
"With all due respect, Mr. Chairman and Senator McCain, it is true that as Chairman I am not in charge of troops, but I've commanded three ships, a carrier battle group and two fleets, and I was most recently a service chief, myself." -- Adm. Mullen
So McCain wants to hear from military leaders, but he dismisses the opinions of those who disagree with him. He's moved the goalpost.
"Certainly an issue of this magnitude deserves that leaders take into consideration the views of their subordinates.... Leadership is soliciting the view of your subordinates ... At least solicit the view of the military about whether this should be changed or not." --John McCain, December 3, 2010. [Source]
"Everything I ever learned about leadership, everything I ever practiced about leadership, every great leader I've ever known always consulted with their subordinates for their views." -- John McCain, December 3. 2010. [Source]
So now he wants to hear from the "subordinates." Okay. How did people respond to the question, "should we repeal DADT or not?"
Well, as stated in the report's executive summary, 400,000 active and reserve service members were solicited for their views; 115,052 responded, a sample size so large that its margin of error is less than 1 percent. The results showed that 70% of servicemembers predicted it would have positive, mixed, or no effect; 69% said they've worked with someone they believed was homosexual; and 92% of those said the unit's ability to work together was very good, good, or neither good nor poor.
But the question as to whether the military should or shouldn't repeal DADT simply was not asked. McCain seized on that.
"But why we didn’t just simply ask them whether – how they felt about it, just as you would about any other course of action. I – I’d go around – well, every – again, every great leader I’ve known has said, what are your views on this issue?" -John McCain. [Source]
Really? Because I thought 115,000 people were asked "what are your views."
Gates explained why they were not asked specifically if the policy should stay or go. To paraphrase why, because that's not how the military rolls.
"It is not part of the working group's mandate to ask service members the broad question of whether they think DADT should be repealed, which, in effect, would amount to a referendum... I do not believe that military policy decisions ... should be made through a referendum of service members." -- Robert Gates [Source]
I accept Gates' explanation. On what other policy have we ever solicited service member's "yea or nay" opinions? DADT was never implemented after a survey, and certainly not racial integration. Besides, that wasn't McCain's stated concern. He wanted to know how it would affect "battle effectiveness and morale."
If "listening to the views of subordinates" had been the determining factor for racial integration in the 1940s, it would never have happened. Military leaders like Marshall, Eisenhower, MacArthur, and Nimitz -- as well as their subordinates -- held conservative views based on common stereotypes. Their primary concern was good discipline and order.
Fortunately, President Truman displayed the kind of leadership McCain describes here:
"Leadership and responsibility often entail unpopular actions" -- John McCain, February 9, 1998. [Source]
"I've taken unpopular stands because I knew what was right." September 5, 2007. [Source]
Truman did what the unpopular thing because he knew what was right. Despite widespread opposition, the military experimented with racial integration -- during wartime -- and received positive results. In fact, the Army declared integration an "unqualified success." This, despite the fact that the experiments took place during the crucibles of World War II and the Korean War. [Pentagon's DADT repeal report, page 83]
The report recognizes that race and homosexuality are different issues, yet the existence of stererotypes and prejudices is similar.
"Most of the Marines who are in combat are 18 to 24, 25 years old. Most of them have never served with women, either. And so they've had a very focused, very limited experience in the military, and it's been a tough one. But I think that with time and adequate preparation we can mitigate their concerns." -- Robert Gates, December 2, 2010. [Source]
This reflects the experience of Army Major General Idwal Edwards, who in 1946 warned of Negros' "ineptitude and limited capacity." In 1948, though, he advised that implementing [Truman's] direction would be "minimized if commanders give the implementation of this policy their personal attention and exercise positive control." [DADT report, page 83]
But McCain retorted that combat soldiers were perfectly capable of making judgments for themselves.
"Well, I couldn't disagree more. We send these young people into combat, we think they're mature enough to fight and die, I think they're mature enough to make a judgment on who they want to serve with and the impact on their battle effectiveness." --John McCain. [Source]
If this were the case, shouldn't Truman have respected the military's wishes? Certainly a major general would be, as McCain put it, "mature enough to make a judgement on who they want to serve with." Yet one key difference between now and then is that the policy of racial integration was ahead of its time in terms of regular joes' opinions. Today, the 17 year-old DADT policy trails far behind both public and military opinion.
So the topmost military leaders are for it, the service chiefs are mixed because they feel it's too risky (despite greater risks having been taken in the past), and the rank and file are for it (if it were an election, it would be considered a landslide). What other arguments could possible be holding McCain up?
- What about chaplains? Would their ability to call sin "sin" be affected? In my opinion, no, because they're not so much preachers as deployable counselors. They might call homosexuality a sin at chapel on Sundays, as they might sexual immorality for heterosexuals, but they tend to match their messages to their audiences pretty well. For better or worse, I haven't met a chaplain yet who would be considered a "Bible thumper."
Moreover, there are a number of denominations who are willing to employ homosexual ministers. If those denominations are comfortable with that, and chaplains are always cordial to other chaplains (even on an inter-faith basis), I don't predict any further limitations to role of the chaplain. - What about McCain's concerns about battle readiness? Will that be affected by a repeal of DADT? I say yes, but positively. Allowing gay linguists to function openly is a retention issue. In the five years up to June 2009, the military had dismissed 59 gay Arabic speakers and 9 gay Farsi speakers, depsite shortages of those skills.[Source]
Repealing DADT would also close the back door for people who would "play gay" to get out of the military to avoid deployment. That proviso already applies to reservists. There's no reason it shouldn't also apply to active duty. [Source] - How much money have we lost because gays have been forced out? A February 2006 estimate is $363 million for the estimated 14,000 servicemembers who've been forced out since 1994. That's the size of a full division. [Source]
- How would a repeal of DADT affect the military's values? Well, it would end perceived conflicts with integrity, for one. Many service members, including ROTC cadet Sara Isaacson, have come out because they felt they was being hypocritical about Army values such as Honesty and Integrity. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" principle that President Clinton engineered may have worked well for his lifestyle (wink, wink), but she was evidently less comfortable with it. With a repeal of DADT, these kinds of moral dillemmas would end.
A majority of the Senate was ready to take a vote on the defense policy bill, but McCain insisted on tying it up in procedure. I think McCain's opinion reflects a certain segment of the population, so I don't criticize him for that, rather his use of power to interfere with other Senators' obligations to voice their own opinions.
“I will not agree to have this bill go forward, and neither will, I believe, 41 of my colleagues, either, because our economy is in the tank. Our economy is in the tank, and the American people want that issue addressed. And the military is functioning in the most efficient, most professional, most courageous fashion than at any time in our history.” -- John McCain, December 4, 2010 [Source]
So you're pressed for time, and that's why you're threatening to filibuster it? And what does the superlative condition of the military (a meaningless statement) have to do with not-kicking-out gay people? By failing to allow the measure to come to a vote, this will be the first time in 48 years that Congress will have failed to pass a defense authorization bill. [Source] This, in what service chiefs describe as a time of war.
According to the Washington Post, Republicans have united in an agreement to block debate on any legislation this month until Congress approves tax cuts and government spending. [Source] That's just plain shameful -- that they're more concerned with locking in tax cuts for the rich than they are with keeping qualified, skilled soldiers in the field.
Moreover, a decision to delay the repeal opens the door to go through the courts, a move even the Obama administration is fighting.
In closing, let's review.
- Protesting open homosexuality during wartime as an inconvenient time is an excuse, not a valid concern. Racial integration worked just fine in equally stressful conditions.
- Criticising the report as not including the direct question, "Should we repeal DADT?" is an excuse. The responses were clear enough; the writing is on the wall.
- Saying you don't have enough subordinates' opinions is an excuse. Leadership needs to make decisions without regard for popularity, as McCain himself has said.
- Saying we need to focus on economic issues is an excuse. We can't, in a time of war, filibuster defense bills that will help keep trained and qualified soldiers in the field.
Is there anything or anyone who can possible convince McCain to stop being an obstructionist? I don't know ... maybe his wife?
"Our political and religious leaders tell LGBT youth that they have no future. They can't serve our country openly." -- Cindy McCain, from the anti-bullying NOH8 public service announcements [Source, about 48 seconds in]
No comments:
Post a Comment