Schmedlap:
You may be right - this may not be the optimal time, from some objective, Archimedean point of view, to repeal DADT. But I think you've framed the issue wrongly. It should be: WTF is Obama thinking? As I see it, Gates and Mullen are behaving correctly, at least the latter: the CINC has given a directive, and Mullen is seeking to comply with that directive. Perhaps Obama's directives ought to do more with winning the war(s). Still...With Gates, I suppose the issue is somewhat murkier, and even with Mullen, I suppose the issue of resignation exists, but again, I think my framing of the issue trumps yours (to be blunt).
For the record, and to expose any biases that ought to be pointed out, I support the repeal of DADT.
ADTS
I agree with the gist of your point. I think Zen Pundit put it well in 140 characters via Twitter. When the budget tightens, political patronage is doled out by way of measures like this that don't require budgetary haggling. Gates and Mullen are carrying the water. I just don't understand why. I generally defer to Gates's quadruple digit IQ, but I'm just baffled on this one. He's got plenty of clout in the administration as I understand it. One would think he could pull the President aside and counsel him on this one.
As Platoon Sergeant #1 used to say: "There's never gonna be a good time. You just need do it." Of course, he wasn't talking about DADT, but he said that a lot and it's true. So from a political standpoint, if there's never gonna be a good time (when are we leaving Afghanistan again?), then you might as well do it when it's politically advantageous to you.
Schmedlap, is your issue the timing or that you don't agree with the decision, period?
Is the lifting of DADT to be done with what is actually good for the military in mind by its commander-in-chief or does this have more to do with a President utilizing an institution that "must" obey orders to keep a campaign promise?
I would have preferred had Adm. Mullen, who is on his twilight tour, and will never have to implement, carry-out, and supervise what will certainly be a small unit leadership challenge, had also brought to the table what our operational commanders think about whether the timing is right.
And I stress the issue of timing, not the lifting of DADT, as I personally believe it must happen, oddly from a moral standpoint, the very stanpoint many might find it objectionable.
My primary objection is the timing. Whenever this happens, it will embroil the military in an issue that is highly political and polarizing*. If it is implemented, then stretching it out over a period of years would be better (though I think Gates might be advocating that). But it would be preferable to do when the force is not undergoing the strain that it is currently under.
I do admit that I naturally object to repeal and would thus be resistant to it at any time. I would hope that if it is repealed that it be done so in a way that is mindful of whatever improvement in combat effectiveness proponents claim it will provide, rather than a sweeping change. Perhaps start off by only allowing gays to serve in non-combat roles, like we do with women. But whatever form the repeal takes, if it is going to happen, this is horrible timing.
* - Douche bags like Dan Choi don't help this in any way.
In my view, the only issues which would need to be stretched out over years are the peripheral ones--like whether or not to grant military spouse rights to gay spouses. As it affects small units in the workplace, unlike integration in the 1940s, there are already gay troops serving on the front lines. So when you say "start off by only allowing gays to serve in non-combat roles," I'm not sure how you would do that--since there's gay guys in the infantry already.
I mean, we're not infusing drag queens into line units here. The gay troops we're talking about are already in their units--some (or many) in leadership positions.
I've got another question: You say it's "highly political and polarizing." So was the Iraq War under Bush. But that didn't cripple line units. Why would this? Is it different?
I’ll hit the issues in the following order: implementation timeline, the non-combat thing, and polarization. But first, I’ll add a few things that I had in mind when I typed the above comment(s).
I would expect the implementation of this to be met with fanfare and heavy media coverage. I also expect a lot of overreaction and overplanning (akin to safety measures for range training) and briefings. I expect lots of “training” being necessary for leaders and Soldiers on what the new rules mean, what problems are anticipated and/or are to be guarded against, standards for doing so, et cetera. I expect lots of logistical nutrolls, like shuffling Soldiers among their barrack rooms; lots of JAGs figuring out whether we need to ask, should ask, or not bother asking about sexual preference and giving (at least initially) conflicting and confusing guidance; lots more emphasis on barracks inspections because commanders will be petrified of anything even remotely resembling a “hate crime” occurring and being reported (that’s probably more detrimental to a career than a PowerPoint slide). That’s just off the top of my head.
In regard to implementation timeline. Given the thoughts above (and others that I’m sure anyone else who has lived on a military installation can think of if they spend more than 30 seconds thinking about it), I anticipate lots of logistical, administrative, and judgment errors occurring when this is initiated if it occurs all at once. And, if it does occur at once and there is much media fanfare, I see all of these implementation problems being dramatized, exaggerated, and amplified in the news and making the implementation infinitely more painful. So, I would hope that it is implemented slowly, deliberately, methodically.
In regard to the “non-combat” thing, that wasn’t intended as a policy prescription, but more of a “for example” comment. But, now that I consider it some more, read the op-ed in the WSJ by Mackubin Thomas Owens and read the objections he raises. In my opinion, most of the concerns that he hits on can be addressed by keeping the combat arms on the DADT policy. I do agree there are gays in the combat arms. I’m just saying, if concerns like his are genuine issues (which I’m not sure of), then an initial non-combat arms integration seems logical. Yeah, I know that gays are not synonymous with drag queens. But, back to my original comment, my primary objection is the timing and my primary concern is the manner of implementation. Media circus + over reaction = unnecessary administrative pain for a force that is already stretched thin and wearing out.
On your final point, I think you missed my point and/or oversimplified to the point of absurdity. You asked…
I've got another question: You say it's "highly political and polarizing." So was the Iraq War under Bush. But that didn't cripple line units. Why would this? Is it different?
Indeed, I did type the part in quotes. It was preceded by my statement that,
“[m]y primary objection is the timing” which referred to my initial statements on the thread where I typed,
“we've got a war going on in Iraq, another in Afghanistan, troops across the border from an unpredictable authoritarian regime in Korea, and a bunch of other fairly significant issues in the national security arena” and then griped that we’re now going to
“open a new can of worms.” So, in response to your last question, of course it’s different. If this occurs after we pull most of our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, then I can’t see having any objection with the timing. This should be a peacetime initiative (like when Clinton implemented DADT). Right now, our military really doesn’t need another political football thrown its way.
I probably oversimplified to the point of absurdity. I do that a lot these days. Anyway, on this whole DADT issue, I'm with Ron Burgundy. You think San Diego means "Saint Diego." I think it means "a whale's vagina." Agree to disagree.
You may have oversimplified but, to be fair, I should point out that I'll read whatever is on the teleprompter. Agree or disagree, you stay classy.
Dudeki. does this policy strengthen our position in the conflict zones? WHat are the strategic implications? Just undermines credibility in that area of the world. Another jab abu ghraib, gtmo and DADT.