Obama Caving on Gays in the Military
By Aubrey Sarvis
Huffington Post
May 10, 2009
We've begun to change the culture of Washington," President Obama said in his boffo remarks at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner Saturday night.
Sounds good. But the next morning on ABC's This Week, George Stephanopoulos asked the president's National Security Advisor retired Marine General James L. Jones if he thought DADT will be overturned. Jones replied, "I don't know," and then what is clearly one of the main talking points, "We have a lot on our plate right now."
Sounds like the same old Beltway blab to me. There was more of it, just the usual stuff: "preliminary discussions with the leadership of the Pentagon . . . [this] is not going to be a light switch but more of a rheostat in terms of discussing . . . a very sensitive issue and it has to be discussed over time . . . all sides have to be heard . . . We will have long discussions about this. It will be thoughtful. It will be deliberative. The president I know will reach out to fully understand both sides or all sides of the issue before he makes a decision . . . ." Surely this doesn't represent the vision and the work plan we've been hearing about from the White House and some of our allies.
In Washington we know about commissions and study groups and promise-them-anything when you're trolling for votes but after the election . . . well, memories fade. What candidate Obama said then is not what President Obama is doing now - at least in regard to "don't ask, don't tell." In October 2007, candidate Obama, responding to a question on DADT, said, "Anybody who is willing to serve our country and die on a battlefield . . . that's the criteria for whether or not they should be able to serve in our military. England doesn't have this policy. Israel doesn't have this policy. It's an outdated policy."
That same autumn he said, "America is ready to get rid of the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. That work should have started long ago. It will start when I take office. America is ready to get rid of the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. All that is required is leadership."
Ringing words from candidate Obama. But that was then; this is now.
President Obama has said almost nothing. Where is the leadership today? It's not coming from the president. President Obama is caving. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen, General Jones, and Chief of the U.S. Central Command General David Petraeus seem to be calling the shots for their Commander-in-Chief.
What's the evidence? The president's defense team presented their department's budget to President Obama, and the president sent it to the Hill last week. This Wednesday hearings begin in the House Armed Forces Committee. Nothing in the Obama defense budget provides for the elimination of "don't ask, don't tell."
More evidence? Karen De Young wrote in the Washington Post last week, "When Obama was under pressure to review the military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy on gay service members, Jones said he went 'to see him personally on it' and advised him not to add another controversy to his already-full plate. The president, Jones said, took his advice." Apparently so.
"Calling the shots" is not the metaphor the Defense Secretary and the officers mentioned earlier would use because in truth it is the president who calls the shots. While the president is playing basketball, a game he is pretty good at, his senior advisors are playing kick ball, as in "let's kick this ball down the road." Unfortunately, they're pretty good at kickball. The metaphors are flying all over the place. Mixing them up a bit more, "we've got a lot on our plates right now." We hear that a lot. No one could deny it. Has there even been a president who hasn't had a full to overflowing plate?
In the meantime one or two men and women are being discharged every day for who they are. This has nothing to do with national security or unit cohesion or any of the other buzz words like "full plate." Those words just cover up a crass political calculation made at the expense of the at least 13,000 men and women already discharged because of who they are.
Who they are is gay.
On March 19th, Lieutenant Daniel Choi told an audience of millions on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show, "I am an infantry platoon leader in the New York Army National Guard, and by saying three words to you today--I am gay--those three words are a violation of Title X of the U.S. Code."
Indeed they were. Last week the Army wrote Iraq veteran Lieutenant Choi, West Point Class of 2003, Arabic major and fluent in the language, that he was being dismissed. The letter says, in part, "this is to inform you that sufficient basis exists to initiate action for withdrawal of federal recognition in the Army National Guard for moral or professional dereliction. Specifically, you admitted publicly that you are a homosexual, which constitutes homosexual conduct. Your actions negatively affected the good order and discipline of the New York Army National Guard."
Not exactly a friendly note. President Obama may not have signed it, but what is now his policy dictated it. In fact, more than sixty translators have been discharged under "don't ask, don't tell." One of them even made headlines Saturday in Israel, where of course being gay in the military is no big deal. The big deal was that the Army fired an Arabic linguist.
A few days ago Second Lieutenant Sandy Tsao got a note quite different in tone. In January, on the Chinese New Year, she wrote President Obama, explaining that "today is also the day I inform my chain of command of who I am." Who she is, is gay. She went on to say, "I have fought and overcome many barriers to arrive at the point I am today. This is the only battle I fear I may lose." Well, she did lose. She will be out of the Army May 19th because she told her superiors that she is a lesbian. It took just four months.
But last Tuesday, in the same week she was informed she'd been fired, she received a handwritten note on White House letterhead from the President: "Sandy -- Thanks for the wonderful and thoughtful letter. It is because of outstanding Americans like you that I committed to changing our current policy. Although it will take some time to complete (partly because it needs Congressional action) I intend to fulfill my commitment."
Nice words, a nice souvenir for Lieutenant Tsao, and it's encouraging to know that President Obama intends to fulfill his commitment.
The question is, "When? How?"
05-10-09 By Aubrey Sarvis, SLDN Executive Director |






14 Comments
Comments for this entry are closed.Mike Gorman in Lodi, Ca on May 13, 2009 at 09.51 pm
Um, I know patience is running really, really, thin with some folks. We can either see the outcome of AB 1246? or some of us may consider going to a country’s military that will have us as we are. Out and proud. Anyone see how cute the boys are in Australia? HM armed forces are nice too.
Martina in Indiana on May 13, 2009 at 01.58 pm
In light of the tragic loss of 5 lives of servicemen at the hands of a comrade who has served 3 deployments to Iraq, allowing GLB folks to openly serve is paramount to the health and well being of all service members. What if ALL GLB service members went to their commanders and informed them they were gay and requested a discharge? The military would be hard pressed to NOT change the DADT policy. I served 20 years with heterosexuals and GLB comrades - it is ridiculous to suggest allowing gay military members to openly serve would negatively impact morale and unit cohesion!
Matthew in San Diego on May 12, 2009 at 01.42 am
How come navy enlisted such as myself dont get our stories told? t is always the officers who get the headlines. If it will make a splash, how to can I get on Rachael Maddows show to show my disgust with the law? Not just one I could have, I could have twenty five of us come out on national television. I dont think the navy would like that very much, or Mr. Obama. I signed up knowing this was LAW. Seeing the law in action and the lack of respect and outright homophobia in the military is ridiculous. They teach you it doesnt matter if someone is black or asian or a woman, but call you a faggot when you mess something up. The culture has to change. That is why I joined the navy. I have met and outed myself to numerous individuals. All tell me thank you for letting them know that all gays are not the stereoptpical person they thought before.
WE HAVE TO EDUCATE! This can change from inside the military, it always doesnt have to come from outside of it.
I serve proudly, and openly. As a military Intelligence Specialist it would make a nice splash of a headline on Keith Olberman. It may come back to haunt me, but what I have done in the military is something I will always be proud of.
James E. Pietrangelo, II in Cleveland, OH on May 11, 2009 at 09.51 am
Mr. Sarvis: the question for you is, now that you have concluded that Obama has betrayed Gays on DADT, what are you GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? If all goes to plan, I will be in DC in a couple of days to protest in front of the White House. Will you join me? Will you help me mobilize people? Will you help publicize the protest? You rightly say that Obama’s words without action mean nothing. But your (and mine) words without action also mean nothing. You have the bully pulpit of your own position, let’s use it to go on the offensive.
A in San Francisco on May 11, 2009 at 12.40 am
LF-
Not pulling rank, just letting you know that your sordid tales of hypnosis, betrayal and mass psychosis don’t contain my own story within them.
Sorry if that doesn’t suit your “champion of the anti-anti” vision of blogosphere domination.
Anyways, you are totally missing the point, and seem oblivious to the sarcasm in my initial post. Maybe we could petition SLDN to enable smilies so I can put the :rollseyes: one next to “gloriously” so you don’t launch your all-out attack on me as President Obama’s dastardly and nefarious lackey/monkey boy/ ass wiper in this smoking hot blog.
Drama.
A in San Francisco on May 11, 2009 at 12.22 am
Sir-
Thank you for your advocacy. Your question and talkback session with the GOP Panel on 28 November 2007 was awesome to watch. The contention that the current policy is a de facto claim that the military is not professional enough to serve with LGBTQ personnel is one of the most sound arguments in favor of repeal. Thank you for advancing it on a national stage.
Leland Frances on May 11, 2009 at 12.07 am
A, you have me confused with someone who cares what you think, even when you deny you meant what you wrote…..or are there two “A’s in San Francisco”?
Now you’ve spun the rationalization dial again and insist you weren’t really continuing to volunteer for Brainwash Duty over this particular President [“he, he, he, he, his word, his back, his political evolution” who has “so gloriously coated himself” in “hope”] but the “office of the Presidency” itself. What was your drill when the previous holder endorsed ripping gays out of the Constitution he swore to “preserve, protect, and defend”?
Stockholm syndrome much?
In grasping at straws to fend off fact and logic, you accuse someone challenging your beliefs with denying your right to them. Not guilty.
A veteran should be the last to attempt to “pull rank,” and your having been victimized by DADT. perpetuated now by three holders of the Office of President, does not make your beliefs superior to those of anyone else, nor any less subject to challenge. If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the blogs.
Keith Kerr in California on May 10, 2009 at 11.53 pm
Thanks, Aubrey, for an enlightening essay on DADT and the urgent need for leadership by POTUS.
The troglodytes have been on stage too long. If our allies are succesful in welcoming LGB personnel, why can’t the US? It’s time to fire the Joint Chiefs and put in some leaders who live in the 21st Century.
David on May 10, 2009 at 11.41 pm
The answer Jones gave. sorry
David in Iraq on May 10, 2009 at 11.40 pm
Does anyone remember the ask Gen.Jones (Ret) told the senate committee on DADT when he was still on AD? This guy doesn’t want it repealed.
A in San Francisco on May 10, 2009 at 11.18 pm
LF-
You have me confused with someone else. Your apparent need to make this an emotional discussion vice a rational analysis is beginning to bore me. I do not, nor will I ever worship President Obama, or any President for that matter. I do however, RESPECT THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY. Pull your head out of your fourth point of contact and take a breath of fresh air, hit the pause button on the feckless diatribe and invective for a moment and check this out:
I AM A SOLDIER WHO WAS DISCHARGED UNDER DADT.
Guess what that means: I have earned the right to believe what I believe because I have lived through the pain and suffering and emotional anguish that getting kicked out of the military by this hateful, hateful policy has caused me and my family. See how I choose not to accuse you of disloyalty to our servicemembers? What might that tell you? And how dare you even BEGIN to talk to me about disloyalty to our LGBTQ troops. You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to what my loyalties are. Quit running your suck. Your situational awareness is poor. Very poor. I’m not willing to jump on board your rickety-ass hate-wagon precisely because I think it is a stupid plan and a recipe for total failure.
Please continue spitting your religious-type harangues about St. Barack and Massa Jones to some impressionable youths who just might be willing to validate your obvious antipathy for the man, but this soldier is calling you out. You sound like a whiner and a quitter to me. Go bother someone else for a while or maybe, oh, I don’t know, actually do something productive with your anger until I feel like dealing with you again.
Leland Frances on May 10, 2009 at 10.34 pm
You’re right, A, you are naive; disturbingly so since you are still reading “repeal” DADT into that note when Mr. Words Are Important wrote “changing.” You might want to have the prescription changed on your rose-colored glasses.
OF COURSE he knew it would become public! After all, all the functionally hollow verbal and written smile f—king he did to us during the campaign fooled us then.
And, for you at least, it worked like the proverbial charm, a magical spell. “he’ll lose the luster of hope”...WHO CARES??? You’re still demonstrating your disloyalty to gay servicemembers by making this about HIM! HIS legacy, HIS image, HIS HOLY NAME when it’s about those gay soldiers in the DADT virtual body bags that are stacking up higher and higher the longer he’s President AND the damage their loss is doing to our national security…you know, that thing Massa Jones is supposed to be in charge of.
Save your hero worship for comic book conventions. This mere mortal must be judged by his own words:
“Change will not come if we wait for ...some other time.” BARACK OBAMA, Feb. 5, 2008.
Leland Frances on May 10, 2009 at 10.17 pm
Your verb tense is inaccurate. Obama isn’t “caving,” he’s totally caved, imploded, turned inside out even, torn his many written explicit promises to LGBTs into little pieces and swallowed them. Why is anyone swallowing the fantasy that he’ll change his mind again?
But at least we now have a name and face to replace “toxic rat in the White House.” Jones comes from a long line of national security advisors with minimal integrity like Rice, Powell, and Kissinger.
And as a former commandant of the Marines, Jones is merely continuing the history of the Corps bigotry that extends from his 1941 predecessor
Thomas Holcomb saying he’d rather have 5000 white Marines than 250,000 black ones to the shores of Tripoli. Should we be thankful that in Jones’ dishonest shuffle and excuse jive this morning he didn’t echo Holcomb’s other comment about blacks by saying that gays are “trying to break into a club that doesn’t want them”?
Now gays who still imagine there’s a sanity clause in the adminstration will try to find an encouraging explanation for “repeal DADT” having transformed to “change” and then to “rheostat” this morning. Just what part of “in a pig’s eye” don’t people understand?
Save your lobbying money to legally help gays caught in DADT’s spider web. They and you are going to need it for a long time yet.
A in San Francisco on May 10, 2009 at 10.10 pm
I believe strongly that when Pres. Obama made the decision to send Lt. Tsao a handwritten note, he realized fully that the note would be public, and he would be accountable in a new and very specific way.
He publicly gave his word to an individual servicemember that repeal would be done.
Taken at face value, that may sound naive. But I also believe in the bond between those that choose to serve this country, be they the President, or a Private First Class, or a volunteer at the VA. I have seen and felt that feeling of kinship more strongly in the military than anywhere else in my civilian life. If my CIC gives us his word he will repeal this law, something he has said he believes in the interest of the US Armed Forces to achieve, then I expect him to do so. While my political realism is always at hand, I also cling stubbornly to my idealism and optimism because to do otherwise introduces a chaos into our lives that disrupts us and harms us. I believe in hope, period.
If he does not do this; if he balks and turns his back on this issue, it will be a signal development in his political evolution, and for me, will cause him to lose the luster of “hope” with which he has so gloriously coated himself.
Thank you for the great post and thank you and your staff for the work you are doing.