President Obama Should End DADT with the Stroke of a Pen

by: Aaron Belkin

Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 06:25:02 AM EST


(This is a guest piece by Dr. Aaron Belkin from the Palm Center at UC-Santa Barbara.  We asked him to post here because he's one of the experts on the military's DADT policy. - promoted by Brandon Friedman)

A Catch-22 is now paralyzing the movement to lift the gay ban. Many members of Congress are fearful that supporting repeal could cost them political support, despite polls showing overwhelming support for openly gay service members even in conservative circles.  Because of that fear, those lawmakers seek to pass the buck to the Pentagon.  But senior insiders in the Pentagon are unwilling to tackle "don't ask, don't tell" because they view the issue as a "hot potato," so they pass the buck back to Congress. It thus is highly likely that service by openly gay personnel will happen only through an order by civilians.  As my colleague Dr. Nathaniel Frank notes in his new book Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America, militaries in other countries that lifted their bans acted to end discrimination only when so ordered, not on their own volition.  Frank explains that in 1993, Ambassador John Holum, the incoming Clinton administration's representative on the issue, consulted extensively with all levels of the U.S. military, ranging from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to enlisted personnel. Despite these consultative efforts, the Chiefs claimed in public that they had not been sufficiently consulted.

This precedent suggests that, whether the Obama administration consults with the military or not, Pentagon leaders may claim that they have not been adequately consulted. Thus, despite the President's pledge to take military perspectives into account on this issue, he must realize that (1) He may be accused of not consulting with the Pentagon whatever he does; (2) If he does consult, he will be told that most service members do not want the ban to be repealed, thus boxing himself in; (3) Significant support for repeal exists within the military, but there is enormous institutional pressure to avoid expressing that support, which hence does not get registered in consultation; (4) A significant cadre of military leadership, although they will not acknowledge so in public, want the politicians to tell them what to do on this issue so as to give them cover; (5) While many people in the military oppose policy change, the percentage that feels strongly that gay men and lesbians should not be allowed to serve openly is quite small; (6) Even among opponents of repeal, most military members understand its inevitability.

In the next several weeks, we will be releasing a study, which we will post on our web site, explaining the legal justification for an executive order suspending the gay discharge process.  President Obama does not need to wait for Congress.  He can suspend the implementation of the ban with a stroke of the pen.  Eighty-one percent of the public, according to a new CNN poll, supports allowing open gay service.  A group of 104 retired generals and admirals recently signed a statement calling for repeal.  If President Obama listens to the voices calling for equality, he will improve the military and affirm the best traditions of American democracy.

Aaron Belkin is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Santa Barbara. His publications have appeared in International Security, Armed Forces and Society, the Journal of Conflict Resolution, Parameters (the official journal of the U.S. Army War College) and elsewhere, and he has made presentations on gays in the military at the Army War College, National Defense University, Naval Postgraduate School, and U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

Aaron Belkin :: President Obama Should End DADT with the Stroke of a Pen
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

"Stroke of the pen" is pretty vague (0.00 / 0)
I guess you're talking about using 10 USC S 654(e)(2): "Nothing in subsection (b) [requiring separation of homosexuals] shall be construed to require that a member of the armed forces be processed for separation from the armed forces when a determination is made in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense that . . . separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces."  I suppose Obama would just order SECDEF to issue a regulation stating that it is never in the best interest of the armed forces to discharge a homosexual service member who perform his military duties adequately and who does not demonstrably disrupt good order and discipline.  Of course, such a regulation would be totally reversible by a future administration...

I suppose the other option is to rely on a preclusive Commander in Chief power, but that's unlikely to be popular in the post-Yoo legal community....  


I'm not sure an executive order is best (4.00 / 2)
I support getting rid of DADT and allowing gays to serve openly in the military. But Obama's past statements indicated he thought executive power was overreaching under Bush, and this would continue that trend, not reduce it.

Congress should tackle this - and it is up to us as constituents to press them to do so!  


I would prefer an executive order (0.00 / 0)
Sending it to congress just gives more time to the debate, distracts from other issues, and gives the pundits too much raw meat.  If it is done by executive order, then it's done.  Period.  After that the critics can whine and complain, but it is a done issue.

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama

[ Parent ]
I'm not sure it would be a done issue in your scenario (0.00 / 0)
The only way to achieve any measure of finality is to get the statute off the books, in my opinion.  It may be, as you say, a lot easier for one man to change the policy than it is for Congress to act, but that's the whole point.  If the decision is retained by the executive branch, then the issue will just bounce back and forth each time the Presidency is delivered to the other political party (like other social issues that may be addressed as a matter of executive discretion... international aid to health organizations that provide abortion services, for example).  And then what do you say to the guy that reads the executive order, comes out of the closet, and then gets booted when the next right wing administration rolls in (as it inevitably will sooner or later)?      

[ Parent ]
This needs to be an openly democratic process (0.00 / 0)
I have to side with Kayla on this one. DADT is a civil rights and national security issue and needs to be presented as such. There should be congressional debate and there should be an opportunity for leaders to choose publicly whether to be on the side of right or wrong. It needs to be clearly demonstrated that there is public support behind this initiative and is not simply the result of overzealous executive authority.

The critics are going to whine and complain no matter what, but public discourse and the opinion of the legions of national security experts who disagree with DADT will help chip away at their already indefensible position. On one side, you'll have Jim Webb, Wesley Clark, Paul Eaton, etc, etc, etc. On the other, you'll have Elaine Donnally and Sean Hannity. It may take more time, but it will get done the right way with no chance to be overturned by future administrations.  


[ Parent ]
I have to take a moment and say one thing (0.00 / 0)
I really appreciate being able to discuss this.  I know it may sound like a simple thing, but it is not.  I was on a certain other blog yesterday.  No one on either side wanted to actually discuss the issue like this.  It was simply partisan attacks and petty attitudes back and forth.  I seriously appreciate being able to discuss the logistics of this issue in a reasonable manner.  Thank you.

I don't really care how it happens - as long as the policy ends.  I can see pros and cons of the executive order versus congressional mandate.  I still lean towards the executive order method, but as long as DADT is ended, I don't really care how.

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama


[ Parent ]
Elaine Donnelly (4.00 / 1)
is my nemesis. Why does anyone listen to her on issues of gays or women in the military? She has never served, and makes ridiculous, outdated arguments.  

[ Parent ]
Elaine (4.00 / 1)
You're not afraid of the army full roaming bands of attack lesbians that Donnelly has warned us about?

If you're going to insist on only listening to advocates who have credibility and logic on their side, I'm afraid that this is going to be a very one-sided discussion.

--Casey


[ Parent ]
Cedibility and Logic? (4.00 / 1)

Like this guy?

David Gibbs III, a lawyer who in 2005 fought to keep brain-damaged Terri Schiavo on life support, told rally participants gay marriage would "open the door to unusual marriage in North Carolina.

"Why not polygamy, or three or four spouses?" Gibbs asked. "Maybe people will want to marry their pets or robots."

http://www.newsobserver.com/po...


[ Parent ]
Link to Dr. Franks interview on Rachel Maddow for a little more info (0.00 / 0)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26...

Review committee "didn't know what 'sexual orientation' meant".


VetVoice on Social Media
Follow rockrichard on Twitter

VoteVets.org on Facebook
  • VetVoice Recommends

    "The War I Always Wanted,"
    By Brandon Friedman

    "The welcome mat for memoirs by veterans of operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom might never wear out so long as they write with the savvy of Brandon Friedman . . . Friedman's take is vivid, frank, precise and dramatic." --Military Times

    "Add Brandon Friedman's The War I Always Wanted to the ranks of outstanding non-fiction produced by officers from elite combat units in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Always truthful, often excruciatingly so, The War I Always Wanted rises at numerous points to the level of literature." --Steven Pressfield, author of Gates of Fire

    Buy The War I Always Wanted here.

    "A Time To Lead,"
    By General (Ret.) Wesley K. Clark

    "A Time To Lead confirms the rewarding benefits of military service at a time when such service is experiencing considerable strain. It also includes a comprehensive description of America's current national imperatives, which deserve serious consideration." --General Alexander M. Haig, Jr., former Secretary of State

    "This is a primer on leadership forged in battle and by decades of experience. . .This isn't just a book; it's a manual for leading people and living a good life." --Barry McCaffrey, General, USA (ret.)

    Buy A Time to Lead here.

    "Love My Rifle More Than You,"
    By Kayla Williams

    "Whip smart, sassy, with a mouth as foul as a sailor's, 28-year-old Sergeant Kayla Williams. . .tells what it's like to be a female soldier in Iraq." --Booklist

    ". . .echoes military memoirists from Julius Caesar to Ernie Pyle." --Publishers Weekly

    ". . .a shocking, on-the-ground view of one military woman's experience in Iraq." --Bookmarks Magazine

    Buy Love My Rifle More Than You here.

    "How to Break a Terrorist,"
    By Matthew Alexander

    "...a riveting, fast-paced account that reads like a first-rate thriller." --Publisher's Weekly

    " ...an absorbing behind-the-scenes look at the secret intelligence war within a war." --Military.com

    Buy How to Break a Terrorist here.

    Search

    Advanced Search

    RSS Feed Links

    Subscribe to VetVoice in a feed reader!

    Subscribe to VetVoice by Email!

    Diaries and comments at VetVoice do not necessarily represent the views of VoteVets.org. VetVoice will strive to remove any illegal material as soon as it is flagged. Similarly, VetVoice will use its discretion in determining whether to remove exceedingly offensive material. However, between posting and removal, any offensive or illegal material does not reflect the condoning or endorsing of said material by VoteVets.org or VetVoice.
    Similarly, the views expressed on this website are those of the authors alone. Opinions on this website do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense or any of its components.
    Menu

    Front Page Writers
    PTSD Resources
    TBI Resources
    IRR Information
    Casualty Reports
    VA Information
    Support the Troops
    Veteran Candidates We Support
    Congressional Committees
    Contact Your Elected Leaders
    Sites We Like

    Paid for VoteVets Political Action Committee. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. VoteVets Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) organization which primarily focuses on nonpartisan education and advocacy on behalf veterans and their families. VoteVets Political Action Committee is a federal political committee which primarily helps elect Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran candidates and educates about veterans and military issues aimed at influencing the outcome of the next election.

    Site Design: Articulated Man

    VoteVets Political Action and Vote Vets Action Fund are separate organizations.

    Powered by: SoapBlox