Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Robert J. Papp (Photo courtesy US Coast Guard)
Coast Guard Considers Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Outcome a ‘Non-Event’
By guest blogger former Marine Capt. Tom Carpenter, SLDN board member
UPDATED/CORRECTION: On Monday, Feb. 28, I wrote that the Coast Guard appeared to have broken ranks and charted a different course on repeal of DADT from the other four services (see the full post below). This conclusion was based on three pieces of evidence. (1)The inclusion of sexual orientation in the new Coast Guard Anti-Harassment policy (2) the content of a recent speech given by Admiral Robert Papp, the Commandant on the state of the Coast Guard and (3) the lack of any formal training program with deadlines. I have often cautioned us to be ever vigilant as the implementation and repeal process unfolds.
Within an hour of posting the post on the Outserve Facebook site (a closed site with over 2600 active duty members), on the same site, someone posted a message entitled “USCG:DADT REPEAL IMPLEMENTATION-POLICY AWARENESS TRAINING.” (Please see the entire USCG message at the end of my original post below.) This message is from Admiral Papp and to some extent establishes a training program that parallels the training programs of the other services. However, there are significant differences, which suggests the CG is just going through the motions: Tier 1 (experts such as Flag Officers, Judge Advocates and Chaplains) and Tier2 (Commanders and senior Non-commissioned officers) will be done by computer. Tier 3 will be conducted at all-hands meetings. My friends in the Coast Guard tell me what usually happens at these “training” sessions. The CO or XO stands up in the meeting and says, “OK, this is how it is going to be….” And that will be it. All this “training” starts today, Tuesday, March 1, and must be completed by June 30, 2011. One can only speculate why the Coast Guard fell in line with the DOD.
What we now have to keep an eye on is the most important thing the Coast Guard has done: the CG included sexual orientation in its Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy Statement. This is a significant step the other services should fully embrace.
In signing off on his message establishing the “training” program, Admiral Papp made the following clear and unequivocal statement of his position and that of the United States Coast Guard:
“AS MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES, WE HAVE SWORN TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS GREAT NATION, AND WE WILL DO SO SMARTLY ANDPROFESSIONALLY. AS I STATED IN MY CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, REPEAL OF “DONT ASK, DONT TELL” IS IN KEEPING WITH OUR CORE VALUES.”
Semper Paratus, indeed!
My original post:
Today the Navy started tier three “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) Repeal training throughout the Fleet. This means the Navy is starting to train its sailors with an eye to completing all initial training by the end of June this year. Like its unilateral decision to allow women to serve on submarines without Congressional intervention, again the Navy is ahead of the game. The Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Gary Roughead, has publicly stated that repeal will be easy, but is the Navy really leading on repeal?
“Semper Paratus”- The Coast Guard is ready!
While the training for repeal proceeds within the Department of Defense (DOD) in accordance with requirements of the law and the four services have now set deadlines, the United States Coast Guard has again shown it is “Always Ready.” Although the Coast Guard is a military service, it is not part of the DOD but falls under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). When DADT was implemented in 1993, and before the Coast Guard was transferred to the DHS, the service signed a memorandum of agreement with the DOD to comply and follow the DADT law.
The Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Robert Papp, has not produced an instructional video with the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard. In fact, he has neither set any deadlines for training nor even started training the force. Why not?
Apparently, the Coast Guard has chosen to follow the lessons of our closest cultural military allies, the British, Canadians and Australians. These allies did not see the need for an extensive and long drawn out process and training program. When the British were ordered by the European Court of Human Rights to lift their ban in 1999, they followed the example of the Australians who and successfully and voluntarily done the same thing five years earlier. These allies, like our military leadership, recognized that the most important thing for a successful implementation of repeal of their ban was leadership. The British merely issued a one-page document entitled “Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct” which sets out a policy based on behavior and whether an individual’s conduct may impact adversely on the cohesion, efficiency or operational effectiveness of the Service.
The transition to open service was reported by these allies as a “non-event.” It has been over 10 years since this non-event occurred in the United Kingdom and there have been very few problems reported.
It seems the Commandant of the Coast Guard has taken the same approach as our allies. He recently issued a one-page document entitled “Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy Statement” in which sexual orientation is specifically listed along with other protected classes. To quote Vice President Joe Biden, “this is a big F-ing deal.”
The Coast Guard’s approach to repeal of DADT is probably best represented in a State of the Coast Guard speech 
given to leadership of the service by Admiral Papp on February 11, 2011 in which he said,
“The repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will also require YOUR leadership – And I’m counting on YOU to exercise it. It’s every Coast Guardsman’s job to make the workplace one of respect. YOU must value YOUR shipmates, no matter what their background.”
The United States Coast Guard has shown the way forward. It has provided the protections needed to reverse hundreds of years of discrimination against LGB patriots. It has recognized the need to make this change expeditiously and has again demonstrated that leadership is far more important than any training program in guaranteeing success. Semper Paratus, indeed.
What about the rest of the services?
Earlier in the month I wrote a piece for LGBT POV entitled “Storm Warning- Problems with Implementation Ahead.” As the DOD moved forward to implement repeal of the DADT law, I pointed out three potential problem areas. The first two dealt with uncertainty and the failure to set firm deadlines. The third was regarding the nondiscrimination provisions that had been stripped out of the final bill.
Marine Commandant Gen. James Amos on Feb. 9, 2011 in Hawaii (Marine Photo by Lance Cpl Scott Picklesimer)
Since then, the military has moved ahead with all due speed, led by the service that was most resistant to change in this personnel policy – the Marine Corps. Surprisingly, the newly Obama appointed Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James Amos, during his confirmation hearing on September 21, 2010, testified that he, like his predecessor, General James Conway, opposed a change in the law. Again on December 3, 2010, when he testified before the same Senate Armed Forces Committee, he repeated his opposition but said that if the law were repealed, the Corps would step out smartly to carry out the new policy. On January 28, 2011, he joined the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps and reiterated his intention for the Corps to lead the way forward.
Not to be outdone by the Marine Corps, on February 4, 2011, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Gary Roughead, gave orders to the fleet about the Navy’s plan for implementation.
Like their counterparts in the Marine Corps and Navy, the Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz and Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, James Roy, have produced a video to be shown during training that has not been made public yet. The Air Force announced on their website on February 11, 2011 that training would start soon.
The Army took a different approach. On February 17, 2011, the Army Chief of Staff, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., during the 4-star conference at the Pentagon, launched the Army’s DADT Repeal training program to senior leaders from across the force.
The good news is that all four services have now set deadlines in which to complete the training programs. The Marines again lead the way with a target date of May 31, 2011. Both the Navy and Air Force are planning to have their initial training completed by June 30, 2011. The Army, with by far the largest force, has a goal of mid-July for Active duty soldiers and mid- August for Reserves and National Guard.
If these deadlines are met, then the 60 day period called for in the repeal statute, should start to run at the completion of the Army program with a realistic target date of around mid to late October – Halloween. Since the first Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) dinner in 1994 was held around this time and entitled “End the Witch Hunts!” what could be more appropriate?
It is clear that the uniformed services are diligently carrying out the orders of the civilian leadership. So far, there has been no evidence of delay or any attempt to “kick the can down the road.” But SLDN continues to remind servicemembers that DADT is still law until the 60 day period is complete and the commander-in-chief says the law is fully repealed.
A return to the status quo before DADT
On February 14, 2010, Karen Ocamb and I moderated a panel for eQualityThinking entitled “The Truth Behind
Tom Carpenter and Rep. Patrick Murphy
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal.” Our guests were former Rep. Patrick Murphy, the House champion of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which in addition to repeal DADT, had as its major component a policy of nondiscrimination; Aubrey Sarvis, Executive Director of SLDN; Allison Herwitt, Legislative Director from Human Rights Campaign; as well as former Army 1st Lt Dan Choi and the lead trial attorney in the case of Log Cabin Republicans(LCR) v. Gates, Dan Woods.
One of the issues we were concerned about is how and why nondiscrimination was removed from the law that passed. Rep. Murphy told us that in order to move the bill in the Senate this compromise was necessary. He did not identify which Senators demanded that nondiscrimination be stripped out of the Act.
We can only speculate that this compromise was an effort to appease the Secretary of Defense and the military leadership who wanted open service done their way. Perhaps they did not want this President to repeat the fiasco of 1993, but instead get a buy-in by the military with the legislative implementation scheme presently in place. In essence, what was happening was that the policy on gays in the military was being removed from the control of the legislative branch, where it had been since passage of DADT in 1993, back to the executive. In order for this to happen, statutory discrimination protection was likely sacrificed.
Why additional protection is needed
Dr. Clifford L. Stanley, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, and Marine Corps Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (DOD photo by R. D. Ward)
It is the third problem that still needs to be addressed and soon. What additional protections will be available to lesbian, gay and bi-sexual (LGB) service members once repeal is in place? Right now there are none. Dr. Stanley, in his briefing in early February, talked about leadership and the need to treat all service members with dignity and respect. He and General Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, advanced use of the chain of command or the Office of the Inspector General to remedy any problems experienced by LGB troops. These are standard procedures that have been in place in the military for centuries and are available to all members of the Armed Forces who claim there has been a failure of leadership. The question is, will this be adequate with the change in the law and if not, what can be done to insure that LGB service members are treated fairly?
I would argue that this is not enough. Like other minorities such as women and people of color, gays and lesbians have also faced discrimination in the military. But the discrimination against LGB service members has been very different. Since Frederick Gotthold Enslin was discharged from the Continental Army in 1778, many tens of thousands of Americans have faced a similar fate. Some were even imprisoned just because of whom they loved. It has been the official policy of the United States government for over 218 years that gays, lesbians and bisexuals could not serve, period.
For the past 17 years, under the “compromise” of DADT the government welcomed the service and sacrifice of GLB patriots as long as they denied and concealed the most fundamental part of their identity and lived a lie. The rationale for these two different policies has changed over time but the results have been the same – government mandated discrimination. DADT was the only law in the land that made GLB people second-class citizens. It encouraged, no required, members of the military to discriminate against their LGB comrades in arms. Against this history of bigotry, the DOD now mandates a 180-degree turn around in the law and the attitude of some and anticipates no recriminations against those who have been the object of this discrimination. With all due respect to the quality of leadership of those professionals in the military, this may be a bridge too far for some.
If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it?
A policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation is now, in all practicality, dead in the legislative process. There remains only two ways left to provide adequate protection to LGB service members, by executive action or judicial intervention. On February 9, 2011, SLDN called upon President Obama to issue an executive order to make it the official position of the United States to not discriminate against members of the services because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
There is another executive option available. The DOD can merely change the Human Goals Charter to include sexual orientation as a protected class. There is precedent for this action. In 1998, the Charter was changed by the DOD to include sexual orientation as a basis for protection for civilian DOD employees. The mere insertion of the words “sexual orientation” in the section dealing with the uniformed services would be an important step in solving this foreseeable problem.
Finally, the judicial branch may take action. The Log Cabin Republican case now pending on appeal in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals may provide that vehicle. On many occasions, Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen have made it clear that the DOD does not want a judicially mandated repeal of DADT and a finding that the law is unconstitutional. That is precisely what happened in this case and for 8 days the DOD was enjoined by the trial court from enforcing DADT. In spite of the concerns of the DOD there were no reported problems. Dan Woods, lead attorney in the LCR case told us during the recent panel “The Truth Behind Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal” and afterwards he intends to pursue this litigation even if repeal becomes effective. His argument is that a future Congress or administration may try to reverse repeal of DADT and if Judge Phillip’s decision is upheld, it would prevent this from happening.
While it appears the process towards certification, as required by the law, is proceeding in a timely fashion, we must be ever vigilant. The other services should look to the Coast Guard. They now have appropriate protections in place for LGB service members and will have lived with open service for many months before the DOD’s extensive implementation process is completed. The Coast Guard experience will likely be consistent with the undisputed fact that GLB patriots have been serving for years, often with the knowledge of their fellow comrades in arms with no negative impact on unit cohesion, morale and discipline. I suspect the other services, like our allies and the Coast Guard, will find that repeal will be a “non-event.”
THE MESSAGE FROM USCG:
UNCLAS //N01000//
ALCOAST 074/11
COMDTNOTE 1000
SUBJ: DADT REPEAL IMPLEMENTATION-POLICY AWARENESS TRAINING
1. ON 22 DECEMBER 2010, THE PRESIDENT SIGNED INTO LAW THE ACT
AUTHORIZING THE REPEAL OF 10 USC 654, THE LAW COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS
“DONT ASK, DONT TELL”. SINCE THEN, THE COAST GUARD REPEAL
IMPLEMENTATION TEAM (CGRIT), LED BY THE ASSISTANT CO…MMANDANT FOR
HUMAN RESOURCES, HAS BEEN WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE, ACTIVELY PREPARING FOR IMPLEMENTATION. THE CGRIT IS
ENSURING CLOSE ALIGNMENT WITH THE GUIDANCE PROMULGATED BY THE
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE OUTLINING EXPECTATIONS FOR THE MILTARY SERVICES
AS WE PREPARE FOR REPEAL.
2. NO POLICIES OR REGULATIONS WILL CHANGE PRIOR TO REPEAL. THE
CURRENT DADT POLICY REMAINS IN EFFECT. REPEAL WILL NOT TAKE EFFECT
UNTIL 60 DAYS AFTER THE PRESIDENT, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, AND CHAIRMAN
OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF CERTIFY TO CONGRESS THAT REPEAL CAN
OCCUR IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARDS OF MILITARY
READINESS, MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS, UNIT COHESION, AND RECRUITING AND
RETENTION OF THE ARMED FORCES.
3. PREPARATION FOR REPEAL WILL REQUIRE POLICY REVIEW AND REVISIONS -
AND THAT ALL COAST GUARD MEMBERS ARE FULLY UP-TO-SPEED ON THE POLICY
CHANGES, THE OVERARCHING GUIDANCE, AND THE EXPECTATIONS OF CONDUCT IN
A POST-REPEAL COAST GUARD.
4. POLICY AWARENESS TRAINING WILL BEGIN ON MARCH 1, AND WILL BE
PROVIDED TO ALL ACTIVE DUTY MEMBERS, RESERVISTS (SELRES), AND
CIVILIAN SUPERVISORS OF MILITARY MEMBERS. WE WILL USE A BLENDED AND
TIERED APPROACH SO THAT ALL PERSONNEL WILL RECEIVE THE TRAINING
NECESSARY FOR THEIR ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. TIER LEVELS ARE
DEFINED AS:
A. TIER 1: SENIOR LEADERSHIP AND SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS WHO MAY
DEAL FREQUENTLY WITH REPEAL QUESTIONS OR ISSUES (FLAG OFFICERS, ALL
MEMBERS OF THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE, GOLD AND SILVER BADGE
COMMAND CHIEFS, CHAPLAINS, JUDGE ADVOCATES, WORK-LIFE AND FAMILY
ADVOCACY PERSONNEL, CIVIL RIGHTS SERVICE PROVIDERS, RECRUITERS,
SERVICING PERSONNEL OFFICE SUPERVISORS, AND CGIS AGENTS). TIER 1
PERSONNEL HAVE BEEN PRE-IDENTIFIED BY THEIR PROGRAM MANAGERS AND WILL
RECEIVE ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE VIA EMAIL.
B. TIER 2: ALL COMMANDERS, COMMANDING OFFICERS, AND
OFFICERS-IN-CHARGE.
C. TIER 3: ALL-HANDS, INCLUDING ACTIVE DUTY, SELRES AND CIVILIAN
SUPERVISORS OF MILITARY MEMBERS. ALL OTHER CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES ARE
ENCOURAGED AND WELCOMED TO ATTEND THESE TRAINING SESSIONS.
D. TRAINING FOR OTHER MEMBERS OF TEAM COAST GUARD: WE ANTICIPATE
BEING ABLE TO OFFER POLICY AWARENESS TRAINING FOR CG AUXILIARY
MEMBERS, DEPENDENTS, AND OTHERS VIA THE INTERNET IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
WE WILL ISSUE MORE INFORMATION AT A LATER DATE. TRAINING IS NOT
REQUIRED FOR THESE MEMBERS, BUT MANY HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST.
5. FORCECOM WILL LEAD DELIVERY OF THE EDUCATION AND TRAINING. TWO
METHODS OF DELIVERY WILL BE USED:
A. COMPUTER BASED TRAINING (CBT). TIER 1 (SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS)
AND TIER 2 (UNIT LEADERSHIP) WILL TAKE THE CBT IN ORDER TO PREPARE
FOR INQUIRIES AND ALL-HANDS SESSIONS. COMMANDING OFFICERS AND
OFFICERS IN CHARGE WILL, IN TURN, EDUCATE AND INFORM THEIR PERSONNEL
IN ALL-HANDS SESSIONS. THIS REQUIREMENT CANNOT BE DELEGATED. THE
CBT IS AVAILABLE ON THE LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM LOCATED ON THE
CGPORTAL (HTTPS://CGPORTAL.USCG.MIL/). NAVIGATE TO THE CBT BY CLICKING
ON LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ON THE LEFT MENU. CLICK: COURSE
CATALOG, MANDATED TRAINING, MANDATED TRAINING B, AND THEN SELECT THE
TIER LEVEL REQUIRED. ENROLL IN THE COURSE, THEN NAVIGATE TO MY
ACCOUNT AND SELECT THE DADT TRAINING BY CLICKING GO. ONCE FINISHED,
CBT COMPLETION IS AUTOMATICALLY RECORDED IN THE TRAINING MANAGEMENT
TOOL (TMT) AND COAST GUARD BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE (CGBI) WITHIN 24-48
HOURS.
B. ALL-HANDS (TIER 3) TRAINING. THE MAJORITY OF COAST GUARD MEMBERS
WILL BE INFORMED OF POLICY CHANGES AND LEADERSHIP EXPECTATIONS FROM
THEIR COMMANDING OFFICER OR OFFICER IN CHARGE. IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS THROUGH THE CHAIN OF COMMAND, UNIT TRAINING
OFFICERS WILL RECORD UNIT PERSONNEL COMPLETIONS IN TMT. PERSONNEL AND
UNIT COMPLETION RATES WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE REPORTED AND TRACKED IN
CGBI. ATTENDANCE AT COMMAND FACILITATED DADT POLICY AWARENESS
TRAINING (TIER 3) SHOULD BE MAXIMIZED BY ALL UNITS. BUT SINCE IT MAY
NOT BE POSSIBLE TO REACH 100 PERCENT OF ALL PERSONNEL IN THIS MANNER,
THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY AVAILABLE (AFTER 15 MAY) TO
RECEIVE TIER 3 TRAINING THROUGH THE CBT ON THE LEARNING MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM. PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE TO ACCESS TIER 3 CBT.
6. CBT FOR TIERS 1 AND 2 WILL BE AVAILABLE BEGINNING 1 MARCH. IT MUST
BE COMPLETED BY 15 MAY. TIER 3 TRAINING SHOULD BE WELL UNDERWAY
ACROSS THE ENTIRE COAST GUARD BY 1 APRIL, (SUBJECT TO A FEW
OPERATIONAL LIMITATIONS), AND WILL BE COMPLETED NO LATER THAN 30
JUNE. MORE INFORMATION AND GUIDANCE WILL BE PROVIDED BETWEEN NOW AND
30 JUNE.
7. AS MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES, WE HAVE SWORN TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND
THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS GREAT NATION, AND WE WILL DO SO SMARTLY AND
PROFESSIONALLY. AS I STATED IN MY CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, REPEAL OF
“DONT ASK, DONT TELL” IS IN KEEPING WITH OUR CORE VALUES.
8. CGRIT POCS: FOR SPECIFIC QUESTIONS REGARDING THE TRAINING MODULE,
9. RELEASED BY ADMIRAL BOB PAPP, COMMANDANT.
10. INTERNET RELEASE AUTHORIZED.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
First, with great respect for Cong. Murphy, his response to the teleconference question about the out-of-the-blue gutting last May of the mandate for creation, with repeal, of a federal law that would ban discrimination against gays IN the military was no answer at all. We need not sort through tea leaves to guess what led to that extraordinary action which, without Executive or Judicial action, will haunt gay service members for years given Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi explicitly identifiedthe impetus in a conference call with reporters, as recounted in a June 3, 2010, Huffington Post article by Ryan Grim, emphasis mine, and NEITHER house of Congress was indicated as the source:
“Pelosi said the House WEAKENED ITS REPEAL LANGUAGE TO MOLLIFY THE WHITE HOUSE. …Military leaders REFUSED TO ACCEPT LANGUAGE THAT WOULD BAR DISCRIMINATION, so the clause was dropped.”
Recently Grim told me that “military leaders” clearly meant SECDEF Robert Gates.
Simply speculating further that this was necessary for buy-in by the military begs the larger question: WHY would they WANT to PRESERVE the power TO discriminate? Was that to preempt any legal objections to what the Pentagon report calls “flexibility” in living quarters assignments, and/or their present refusal to expand any partner benefits to include gay couples, even those, such as on-base housing, that they concede are NOT prevented by DOMA?
While we might not now be having to try to somehow put Humpty Dumpty back together again had advocacy groups protested that gutting at the time, I greatly appreciate Tom’s pushing for a formal nondiscrimination policy. But I am stunned that, simultaneously, he’s not just passively accepting this ridiculous charade that “training” must happen BEFORE implementation—refusing to see it AS “delay”—but also virtually applauds it with comments such as, emphasis mine, “the military has moved ahead with ALL DUE speed,” and, in an earlier opinion piece, “in good faith,” at the same time he applauds the Coast Guard for bypassing training entirely. He not only contradicts himself, but is contradicted by the December 2010 report from the Palm Center:
“Any claim that [implementation cannot happen] until after the completion of exhaustive training is inconsistent with DoD history and not based on military necessity. Whatever preparations are ultimately deemed necessary, the Pentagon ought to be able to pull them off faster than it did the implementation of DADT in 1994, which took approximately 40 days. Case studies demonstrate that training can take place quickly, even in combat zones, and that policies are generally implemented BEFORE OR CONCURRENT WITH training. The Pentagon’s request for up to a year to train the troops prior to the repeal of DADT is unprecedented. Training is not a prerequisite…to claim otherwise is a vote of no confidence in members of the armed forces, is not supported empirically, and is suspiciously dilatory. Training, like the formal publication of instructions, can occur (and has occurred) ex post facto.”
More shocking is his explicit assertion, “…training for repeal proceeds within the Department of Defense (DOD) in accordance with requirements of the law.” Unless a different law was passed than I’m aware of, his saying that it requires “training” before implementation is no more true than when Gen. Cartwright bleated it. All the only legislation voted on that I’m aware of says remotely related to the subject is in reference to the goals of the Pentagon “study”:
“Section 2 (a) (B) Determine leadership, guidance, and training on standards of conduct and new policies.
(C) Determine appropriate changes to existing policies and regulations, including but not limited to issues regarding personnel management, leadership and training, facilities, investigations, and benefits.”
The ONLY prerequisites to trigger the 60-day wait period [absurdly left in the standalone bill after Sen. Byrd's death, and, similary, NOT protested by advocacy groups] before actual repeal are that 1. Gates has received the Pentagon report, which he, obviously, has, and, 2. the letter to “congressional defense committees” signed by Obama, Gates, certifying:
“(A) That the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have considered the recommendations contained in the report and the report’s proposed plan of action.
(B) That the Department of Defense has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to exercise the discretion provided by the amendments made by subsection (f).
(C) That the implementation of necessary policies and regulations pursuant to the discretion provided by the amendments made by subsection (f) is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.”
Repeating Palm Center Director Aaron Belkin’s January observation: “The Pentagon could easily repeal the ban TODAY if there was the POLITICAL will,” that neither Mr. Carpenter personally, nor SLDN as a group, has chosen to protest this foot dragging which not only unnecessarily delays repeal but also sends the message to anxious nongay troops that open service by definition IS a big issue—which the 1993 RAND study explicitly warned against—that, again, the Coast Guard is choosing NOT to engage in—is, with all due respect, incomprehensible.
@Michael: While I share your concern about the delay that has occurred by the initial training, the DOD feels is necessary in order to make the recommendation for certification, what you are missing is the need for the uniform leadership to buy into the process. Recall 1993 and what happened when President Clinton tied to push repeal? He went up against two walls, his fellow democrats such as Sam Nunn, and all the Chiefs of Staff of the military services. What did we end up with- DADT, a disastrous “compromise” it has taken 17 years and over 14,000 careers to overturn. The reality on the ground today is that the discharges have stopped. So what is the problem with being patient but ever vigilant?
I agree there is another way to do this – the USCG approach. It is clearly preferable to this arguably unnecessary training program mandated by the Secretary of Defense and Chairman. Both say they want to proceed in what they have called a “cautious” manner. Both are charged with the heavy responsibility of defending this nation and ensuring that the Armed Forces can accomplish any military mission assigned by the President. They both have stated on numerous occasions they fully support repeal of DADT- I believe them. After 17 years, I think we can allow this to play out over the next few months. Repeal will happen.
In regards to my statement that the military is proceeding with all” due speed” and in “good faith”, I stand by those comments. There is absolutely no evidence that any of the Chiefs, or their subordinates, are dragging their feet. They are doing exactly what the Secretary and Chairman have ordered them to do in order to comply with the certification process.
The big issues ahead are adequate protections for GLB service members, such as those provided by the Commandant of the Coast Guard, as well as equal benefits. I would submit we should stay focused on the future and not beat ourselves up over how this legislation has evolved.
As DADT expert Nathaniel Frank might say, with respect, you take the wrong lesson from 1992 and 1993—and, while you did not repeat the associated false meme, Frank has documented that, contrary to Obama Nostra spin, Clinton did try to work with the Pentagon, including meeting with bigot CJCS Colin Powell a couple of weeks after being elected. Obama did not AVOID the ultimate mistake Clinton made: he replicated in excelsis. In fact, the record shows that the only substantive difference is that Clinton took office wanting to lift the ban, and then abandoned his responsibility and power as Commander-in-Chief and surrendered to the DoD which reported to him while Obama took office ALREADY having surrendered to them on control of every aspect of repeal…and, then, gave away even more by empowering Gates to arm-twist our allies in Congress into trashing the MREA. Again, as even SLDN Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis said at the time: “‘At the end of the day, extraordinary power was given’ to the Pentagon.” – “Politico,” May 26, 2010.
“What [I'm] missing is the need for the uniform leadership to buy into the process.”??? Puh-leeze! What you’re inexplicably ignoring is civilian control of the armed forces…and what Aaron Belkin said about lifting the ban TODAY being possible if there were the POLITICAL WILL. But, again, you’re in at least renown company—Clinton and Obama. All we need do re the following is change the date to March 2011:
“President Obama, …appears to have absorbed an unfortunate—and incorrect—lesson from the Democrats’ alienation from the military since Vietnam: that to earn the trust of the brass, the president must plead with the uniforms for a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Yes, Dems must win over the military; no, that is not done by having the president ask permission to act like Commander-in-Chief; it’s done by showing the world that the president knows how to lead. Sometimes moral and political leadership really are one and the same.” – Nathaniel Frank, HUFPO, August 2009.
Contrast that with what Aubrey told a San Diego reporter last month: “When Truman desegregated the Armed Forces, he basically told his Joint Chiefs if they were not on board, then to get out.”
Thus, “how this legislation has evolved” IS entirely relevant for the future. YES, I believe eventually they will certify “repeal,” but that is obviously beside my point. And, as the result of Gates engineering the gutting the MREA is the exact far-reaching problem you’re admirably concerned about, one would think you might have realized months ago it was time to stop singing Kumbaya, stop channeling Neville Chamberlain a la “Repeal in our time,” and take a more AGRESSIVE approach to demanding that the DoD not merely create a modern, variation on the Jim Crow Army in which out gays can serve but as second-class citizens.
The proverbial writing is on the wall that Obama is going to be no more responsive to merely receiving yet another letter from SLDN from the bulk supply they seem to purchase from Costco, this time pleading with him to ORDER nondiscrimination, than he was to countless other communiques over the last two years.
“The final push [for ‘repeal’] CAME FROM THE HILL, where key members of Congress who support ‘repeal’, like Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), the powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, made it clear that they were moving forward with “repeal” legislation WITH OR WITHOUT THE WHITE HOUSE’S BLESSING. ” – “Talking Points Memo,” May 26, 2010.
Or why such optimism persists expecting the DoD to reverse themselves and stop opposing equal protection given the SERIES of letters over a year to the DoD from both SLND and the ACLU urging Gates to use his discretion to stop denying eligible discharged gays 100% of their separation ay under 10 USC 1174. Even after the ACLU filed a class action suit against the government last November [curiously without SLDN], nearly three months later, this January 29th, the DoD defiantly reiterated that they have no intention of changing their discrimatory treatment of discharged gays. Why should they when they’ve gotten away with ignoring a District court ruling that the ban spawning such discharges is unconstitutional?
“the DOD feels [training] is necessary in order to make the recommendation for certification”??? Again, Dr. Belkin disagrees with you:
“[Army Chief of Staff Gen. George] Casey in particular is leaving soon and doesn’t want to be known as the Army chief of staff who let gays in on his watch, the foot-dragging is not about some sincere or legitimate sense that the troops need to be trained on how to deal with gays; it’s because they don’t want to be around when the policy happens.” – Washington Blade, January 6, 2011.
“The reality on the ground today is that the discharges have stopped. So what is the problem with being patient….”????
First, Mr. Sarvis told the “New York Times” a week ago that “his group was working with several service members who are currently under investigation, and that discharges were still possible.” But, even if YOU’RE correct, that the discharge trigger on those investigations won’t be pulled, gays ARE still being terrorized by the fear of discharge, are being forced to fight and die for their country in the military closet, unable to be their real selves to their band of brothers and sisters, forced to hide their partners….and you’ve already admirably demonstrated that stopping discharges is not the sole issue.
Bottom line: examining your litany of excuses and spin, it hurts me to say you seem more concerned about defending the DoD than you do gay service members. Over 70 years after the ban based on status alone was created, 17 years after it took effect as statute, two years after the Obama became both the President and CIC, having promised to personally fight not just for repeal but specifically for, quote, “the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which will make nondiscrimination the official policy of the U.S. military” and then abandoned that promise, one must ask what Harvey Milk once did in another context:
“At what point do we say ‘ENOUGH’? At what point do we stand up and say we will not allow it to happen anymore?”
Or, as active duty service member “Equality Colonel” recently said on this blog:
“Patience my ass.”