President Obama's Center-Right Military Team

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 16:30


I spent a lot of time during the transition criticizing many of President Obama's choices for top appointments as too centrist. Eventually, I dropped the argument, realizing that arguing over abstractions like "centrist" versus "progressive" rarely, if ever, leads to new knowledge. The arguments just never seem to go anywhere.

However, I am going to break the seal on these arguments today, now that there is growing evidence that, at least when it comes to LGBT rights, many key Obama appointees are, in fact, to the right of the American public as a whole. For example, take his senior military advisors on Don't Ask, Don't Tell:

Supporters of the repeal in recent days have pointed out that Obama's senior military team has not been in line with the president's decision to overturn the policy known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

"So far his senior military team is not on the same page with the president and has not aligned with him yet," said Aubrey Sarvis, the executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), a nonprofit organization dedicated to repealing the ban.

"Or if they are, it is certainly not apparent," he added.

Every poll, not matter how it is phrased, shows that only a minority of Americans oppose repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. There is a wide variation, but those opposing repeal are always under 50%:

Quinnipiac University Poll. April 21-27, 2009. N=2,041 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 2.2

"Federal law currently prohibits openly gay men and women from serving in the military. Do you think this law should be repealed or not?"

Should repeal 56%--37% should not repeal

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. April 23-26, 2009. Adults nationwide.

"Do you favor or oppose the policy sometimes called 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' in which the U.S. military does not ask new recruits whether they are gay or lesbian, but prohibits gays and lesbians from serving in the military if they reveal their sexual orientation?"

Favor 48%--47% Oppose

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Dec. 19-21, 2008. N=1,013 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Do you think people who are openly gay or homosexual should or should not be allowed to serve in the U.S. military?"

Should 81%--17% Should Not

Why are President Obama's senior military advisors aligned more with the conservative minority on this one? Even if you think that the evenly divided 48%-47% poll is the most accurate one, surely a Democratic President, representing the nation's center-left coalition, should have advisors that represent the center-left position. Otherwise, there is no way to ever hope that progressives can become senior leaders within the military apparatus.

Now, I know that one reason for this is that progressives have not done as much successful organizing in the military area as they have in, say, labor and environmental matters. Generally speaking, one should expect more progressive appointments in areas of policy where progressives have done more successful organizing. However, Democrats did retake Congress in 2006 largely because of a military issue (Iraq), and President Obama won the Democratic nomination largely for the same reasons. After all that, it is still extremely frustrating that there seems to be no way to win in areas of military policy.

Chris Bowers :: President Obama's Center-Right Military Team

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
No way to win? (0.00 / 0)
Chris's argument is that military officials, civilian or uniformed, should lead the rest of government -- all nine distinct echelons of it -- in this matter. Actually, as with race, the military as an institution is, and I think, always has been more attractive and accommodating to homosexuals than society as a whole.

That is likely even more true of the "all volunteer" military today than of the "draft" of old. Is that why "liberals" imagine you can uphold a republican democracy with the military institutions of the British monarchy and agree with the NRA that the second amendment is about guns (not mentioned) rather than a well-regulated militia (universal military obligation + franchise)?

Getting rid of DADT would be good on strictly military grounds, but so would be a lot of obsolete, anglophile baggage: priviliging regular over reserve, line over restricted, combat over support specialties. My favorite, of course, is barring intelligence officers from language school.  

That really cannot be done so long as liberals think that government is just whining, bargaining, and legal jargon.

So, what Chris is really doing here is calling for military intervention in a question of domestic policy and politics that is far from resolved in a way that most candy-ass elected officials want to take responsibility for. That is troubling: The center-left need to restore the constitution and the rule of law not punt legislative questons to the executive or the judiciary.

So, why should this President, who is doing a great job as C-in-C, expend any capital at all or task his senior military officers to fix this instance of what are a whole list of problems that a Federalist bench and a cowardly Congress have created or failed to fix. Doesn't the executive have enough to do within the limits of their constitutional and practical responsibilities?

Chris, do you really want the military to fix ordinary political and domestic social problems?

That is what this whining amounts to.

I expect that if Congress straightens out matters like gay marriage, that the President can order the military to translate that into practical terms of discipline, cohesion, and hygiene within the military, actually, better than the rest of society. The military does a good job of taking orders, much better than the nearly worthless Democratic majority in Congress.

But, right now, there are wars to fight and a huge military-pork drogue on the budget and the economy to reel-in.

Why should the President bother with a matter tangential to his office, when, for instance, most of the captains, straight or gay, male or female, regular or reserve are resigning in droves with or without making a show of it on the Rachel Maddow show?

::JRBehrman


The military became black friendly only after (0.00 / 0)
Truman desegregated.  The numbers of blacks in the military dropped during the Iraq war.

Military sees big decline in black enlistees
Iraq war cited in 58% drop since 2000

By Joseph Williams and Kevin Baron, Globe Staff and Globe Correspondent  |  October 7, 2007

WASHINGTON - African-Americans, whose longstanding relationship with the US military helped them prove their abilities and offered a way to get ahead, have turned away from the armed forces in record numbers since 2000, a period covering the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the start of the Iraq war.

Defense Department statistics show the number of young black enlistees has fallen by more than 58 percent since fiscal year 2000. The Army in particular has been hit hard: In fiscal year 2000, according to the Pentagon statistics, more than 42,000 black men and women applied to enlist; in fiscal year 2005, the most recent for which a racial breakdown is available, just over 17,000 signed up.

The unpopular Iraq war is the biggest reason, according to military analysts, Pentagon surveys, and interviews with young African-Americans. But they say mistrust of the Bush administration is adding to the problem - along with the notion that black soldiers are being steered to combat jobs, a lingering perception from the Vietnam War.



My blog  

[ Parent ]
Plain nonsense (4.00 / 1)
Last I checked, the rest of government does not bar openly gay men and women from serving within it. The military is not at the forefront of progress here, it's about twenty years behind the curve and attempts to claim otherwise are fairy tales.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
We have a lot more leverage (0.00 / 0)
over individual members of Congress on this issue than we do over the military or Obama. That doesn't absolve either of the latter, but it just seems to me that its more likely to produce results if we focus there. Also, the more members of Congress that sign on to repealing DADT, the more likely that the Obama Admin and / or the military will get on board.  

DADT is bad policy, bad for national security, and unconstitutional. The fight against it could be a vehicle for showing that rights and security are generally on the same side.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


I think there are a couple reasons for this (4.00 / 2)
The military is and, I believe, has always been a bastion of conservatism (both big and little C's).  It is, by its very nature, right of center on this and most issues.  Therefore, the advisors of/from the military are going to have a distintly rightward tilt.  I never met too many liberals, or even dedicated centrists, in my 10 years or so of affliation.

Secondly, I think there are political reasons for this administration not pushing on this issue at this time.  Democrats, and this President in particular, have consistently been framed as "weak," or lacking, on military matters.  Whether this means unwilling to project military power abroad, unwilling to pour resources into the world's most expensive military, or unwilling to support the conservative status quo is immaterial.  It is a political soft-spot.  Factor in that there are bigger issues brewing (UHC, economy, SCOTUS nominee, etc.) that are requiring political focus and capital, opening such an apparent can of worms which would offer up easy low-hanging fruit for the Rep machine to refocus internally on while switching the political discourse away from such "stronger" political ground for the Dems and this really appears to me as a "no-brainer" right now.

In other words, by keeping a right of center military advisory team (particularly Gates), it removes a bright shiney object from the political and media monkeys.

If this topic isn't addressed eventually, though, say later in the first term, then I think we have a legitimate complaint.


There are political reasons (0.00 / 0)
but I'm not sure they are good ones.  Democrats could put Republicans on the side of weakening national security. They could force them to defend sacking Arab translators, and soldiers who want to go serve during war time.  They could do this and have majority support from independents and Democrats, whose positions on this are similar and unlike Republicans.  They could put Republicans on defense (regarding defense), which would be nice for a change.

The Republican advantage on national security, which always depended on Democrats cooperating, is vanishing, because Americans like the alternative that Obama has offered. They didn't vote for him to be Republican-lite, or to be indecisive, and that's what continuing this policy is.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


[ Parent ]
Obama is a center right President (0.00 / 0)
if you wanted change in this area, you should have chosen a less centrist candidate, and more likely a different party, as the two major ones in my opinion are just too connected to corrupt Washington culture.

My blog  

I heard an argument that Truman had studies agreeing with him before he acted (0.00 / 0)
I imagine being able to show studies saying that repealing DADT won't hurt but help, will be helpful, yes?

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox