Don’t Let an Ambush Happen Again, Mr. President
By Aubrey Sarvis
Cross-posted on Huffington Post
March 2, 2009
Trying to connect the dots, it's not clear what kind of picture we're getting - but connections must be made, to paraphrase the words Arthur Miller put into the mouth of Willy Loman's wife. And to quote her directly, "Attention must be paid."
In recent weeks, Todd Belok, a student at George Washington University in our nation's capital who wanted to follow in his grandfather's Navy footsteps, was kicked out of the Naval ROTC program because two of his comrades spied him kissing his boyfriend at a fraternity party - and told. They felt it was their duty. But Belok is no patsy. He organized a campus rally at Kagan Plaza and a march to the White House on Saturday to protest his discharge, and he'll participate in the big "Freedom to Serve" rally March 13th on Capitol Hill.
In Kansas, Amy Brian, a specialist in the Kansas National Guard who had been deployed to Iraq where she worked 12-hour shifts on vehicle maintenance at Camp Anaconda (who comes up with the names for these places?), came home and kissed her girlfriend in the checkout line at Wal-Mart. Oops! Now that was stepping into the line of fire. Who knew that Topeka was more dangerous than Baghdad? For Brian it was. A civilian coworker happened to be in the vicinity and witnessed the act. She decided it was her patriotic duty to report it. (One wonders who's the patriot here, but that's another blog.) Brian was relieved of her job, receiving a general discharge under honorable conditions in January.
Congratulations, homophobes, score two for your side.
Meanwhile, back in Washington, the White House is playing cautious while ominous rumblings are emanating from Congress. Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell - an Obama campaign promise, after all - seems to be moving slowly. I suppose we should be thankful that it's moving at all, considering the mess the economy is in and those two drawn-out wars we're fighting many time zones away. Compared to that, repealing DADT is a piece of cake.
Or it ought to be. Repealing DADT requires only that Congress get a grip, catch up with its constituents, and pass the law. They'll have the chance, too. On Monday Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), a great champion of repeal, is re-introducing the Military Readiness Enhancement Act to end this nonsense.
President Obama didn't mention repealing DADT in his much praised address to Congress February 24th, but that's OK. He didn't need to mention it if he signals Congress and the Pentagon that he's behind it all the way - and is ready to lead. If he can get that whopping stimulus package through Congress within the first three weeks of his Administration, he can surely get DADT through Congress this year.
If he's not prepared, though, the opposition is waiting for its moment to embarrass him - or worse. In late April the Defense Department budget for fiscal year 2010 will be coming before the House Armed Services Committee and before its counterpart in the Senate not long after that. Secretary Gates will testify as will the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including the chairman, Admiral Mullen. The president needs to get his troops lined up now because someone is sure to ask a question about gays in the military, and the question may well come from one of those few troglodytes left in Congress who think the sky will fall and the command collapse if we simply acknowledge reality: thousands of gays and lesbians are serving openly and well in the military today.
The question came before Congress on that same occasion fifteen years ago, when the committees were considering the Defense Department budget. Guess who was prepared? Of course it was the opposition, and the opposition included Senator Samm Nunn, then chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and General Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Both are now reconsidering the issue.
The case against allowing gays in the military was as flimsy then as it is now, but it carried the day - and for one reason: the opposition was prepared; the president and the White House were not. That time, too, President Clinton was firmly against the ban. He had promised during his 1992 campaign that he would sign an executive order ending it. He couldn't do it because the White House had not prepared the way, either in the Pentagon or in the Congress. The opposition got there first, seized the issue, and framed it to their advantage. That's why the opposition won.
This time, if President Obama plans to keep his campaign promise - and I am confident that he does - the White House and the Pentagon had better get on the same page now - and be ready to face the tough questioning that is sure to come. They don't want to be ambushed - or Nunned or Powelled - this time around.
03-02-09 By Aubrey Sarvis, SLDN Executive Director |
5 Comments
Comments for this entry are closed.D in Southeast on March 09, 2009 at 04.17 am
My partner of almost 4 years has served in the USN for a year and a half as I type this. Many of his fellow sailors have been to our home and could care less about his sexuality. DADT is a blank pass for homophobes to exercise their bigotry when it is convenient and ignore it when it isn’t. I am disappointed that, as Commander in Chief, the President didn’t eliminate it immediately, and I reject the thought that the economy is more important. I expect our leadership in Washington to be able to multitask. Nevertheless, THANK YOU Rep. Tauscher, I can’t wait for the day when DADT is gone.
AR in Washington, DC on March 06, 2009 at 09.42 am
We need to get rid of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell today!
Jeremy Rice in Nappanee, IN on March 05, 2009 at 01.26 pm
I completely agree with you. I loved the Marines, but living behind a mask of lies is extremely difficult and stressful.
Arlton W. Campbell IV in Mesa, Arizona on March 03, 2009 at 11.16 pm
I wish you all the best in your endeavors at the capital on March 13, 2009. I served my country as a U.S Navy enlisted SH2 from 1995 to 2004. I was never discharged although in 1998 I had been bi/gay bashed and had SLDN’s help in winning my case. I had a good Navy attorney and fought back unlike many other sailors. At the time of my last enlistment I was at a round table discussion and all my enlisted upper chain of command whom pleaded with me to stay in the Navy. They compared me to another openly gay Navy man but I chose to get out because I didn’t want to serve a country anymore that encourages dishonesty.
I sometimes miss serving in the Navy and find myself often wanting to return to service. Sometimes almost daily!! It would be nice if one day in America we could treat one another with honor, respect, dignity, love, and peace. I imagine you are a person who wants the same in your own life. Imagine a piece of mind that would be mine again if I could have my career back one day!!
Jeremy Rice in Nappanee, IN on March 03, 2009 at 12.32 am
I think the more important issue behind repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is that doing so will make the military more equal regarding human rights. As a new generation of soldiers have taken up arms, the outlook on homosexuals in the military has changed in the eyes of many. Even back in 2004 while I was serving there were not many people who really cared about other people’s choices. After getting out in 2007 from the Marines I was no longer required to hide in order to live without fear. The opposition says that allowing us to serve openly in the Armed Forces will create a rift in unit cohesion, but while I was in there were a few other Marines who found out my orientation. When they asked me about it I told them the truth, and instead of “outing me”, they trusted me more. As a Marine I would have jumped in front of a bullet for my fellow brothers. I hid my orientation the best I could to serve my country, but I only felt as if I was living a lie. The people that knew me were the ones I could be honest with. Many of them came to me with problems and for advice after they knew the truth. Not because I was a Marine, but because I was a person they could trust. I think my experience would be more common, and would increase the unit cohesion and trust between members because you are not trying to constantly hide who you are from them. I think one important factor in actually repealing this absurd policy is to show how much support that allowing everyone to serve openly actually has. There are many good reasons why it should be repealed, and most of the reasons it should stay are thin and mostly incorrect. I also pray President Obama plans to keep his campaign promise and support the beliefs that I helped protect in the Armed Forces for three years. A service member, in my opinion, should not be judged by the color of their skin, the religion they hold in their heart, or the sexual preference they have, but only by the honor, courage, and commitment they display on a daily basis in support of our great nation.