Speaker Pelosi's office announced it is the Speaker's "intention" to hold a vote on DADT repeal this year. Great news.
It will be interesting to see how the White House reacts, and how members vote, in advance of the Pentagon review being completed. Remember Sec. Gates said in answer to a direct question on that issue, "I do not recommend a change in the law before we have completed our study."
This afternoon, President Gates and Vice President Mullen weighed in:
WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates is warning Congress not to tamper with the military's ban on openly gay service members until he can come up with his own plan for repeal. In a strongly worded letter, obtained by The Associated Press, Gates told a House committee on Friday that forcing policy changes on the military before it's ready "would send a very damaging message to our men and women in uniform that in essence their views, concerns and perspectives do not matter."
I'm having embed issues, but full text of the letter is here. The letter, written in response to a request for comment from House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton- a known opponent of repealing DADT- makes clear that this review is to conduct an "assessment of the impact of such a policy change".
There you go. This is not a "how and when" review; this is an "if" review, and that is unacceptable. Did the White House even vet this? This can all be amenable to all parties by including a date certain for repeal in the legislation, while allowing the Pentagon to finish examining how best to implement such a change.
I go back to my interview with retired Vice Admiral and Rep. Joe Sestak, who oversaw substantial change inside the E-ring:
Adam: You talked about a "Z-Gram"- what is the fastest process that could and perhaps should be taken versus a long, drawn-out process?
Rep. Sestak: A "Z-Gram" was where the Chief of Naval Operations would say, here's the new policy. The best way to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell is to call the flag leadership together and then they meet with their commanders, then those officers meet with their subordinate commanders, and through the chain of command there's an explanation of why and how this policy is going to be changed. You have the chain of command, the leadership including the chief petty officers, who are the backbone of the Navy, understanding why. Then you set out, on this date certain, this will be the change. But the problem is they're going to study it for a year first, then there will be the implementation. And I just think that's an awful long time to study an implementation.
[...]
Adam: If the Pentagon implemented the timeline that you outline, how long do you think that should take?
Rep. Sestak: I would say two to three months. Because you can do this in a nice deliberate way and still finish it in that period of time. Someone used the phrase to me, the military is always "ready". We can do these things. I always remember former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Crowe once said, supposedly to President Clinton, just tell the military to do it and they'll do it.
Apparently that's not how the chain of command works in President Obama's President Gates' administration.
Update: Over e-mail, I received Sen. Gillibrand's statement. Sen. Gillibrand has led part of the push on the Hill for hearings and for repeal in general.
Washington, DC - Following a letter from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, telling Congress today to wait to repeal "Don't Ask Don't Tell," U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand issued the following statement:
"I respectfully disagree with Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. Congress should not sit on their hands.
"Now is the time for Congress to show strong leadership and repeal this disastrous policy. 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is wrong for our national security and inconsistent with the moral foundation upon which our country was founded.
"When we repeal this policy - and we will repeal this policy - we will strengthen America - both militarily and morally."
Update 2: Also received over e-mail, Servicemembers United, a DADT repeal group affiliated with HRC, rips the letter, and describes the date certain process I talk about above (bolding mine):
"This letter from Secretary Gates is a significant cause for concern for those who truly respect and support the gay military community," said Alexander Nicholson, a former U.S. Army interrogator who was discharged under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and who is the current Executive Director of Servicemembers United. "Several of the points in this letter are patently offensive and false, such as the claim that repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' would have a 'direct impact for [troops] and their families' or the suggestion that legislative action to repeal the law this year would 'send a very damaging message to our men and women in uniform that in essence their views, concerns, and perspectives do not matter.'"
For more than a year, Servicemembers United has been actively lobbying for a repeal plan that would respect the need of the Department of Defense to proceed in a thoughtful and measured way and to plan for repeal implementation in advance. The plan, which Servicemembers United released publicly in early February but which the White House has had since last spring, would allow for legislative repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" statute now but delay the effective date of full repeal until a pre-determined future point at which the Department of Defense is comfortable and ready for the change. This type of plan, referred to as a Set End-Date / Delayed Implementation plan, would accomplish both the goals of the President and the goals of the Pentagon without risking the lives and livelihoods of gay and lesbian troops by delaying legislative action.
Nicholson added, "If the White House and the Department of Defense had been more engaged with us and had communicated with us better about the alternatives available, Secretary Gates would surely not feel that legislative action this year would disrespect the opinions of the troops or negatively impact them and their families. This is partly a failure of the Administration to substantively engage the gay military community in a timely manner, and it remains unacceptable. The Commander-in-Chief should strongly and immediately speak out about the need to move swiftly and decisively on this issue for the sake of military readiness. It is, after all, as the President said, 'the right thing to do.'"
Well said.
Update 3: I received a statement from the White House over e-mail:
"The President's commitment to repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell is unequivocal. This is not a question of if, but how. That's why we've said that the implementation of any congressional repeal will be delayed until the DOD study of how best to implement that repeal is completed. The President is committed to getting this done both soon and right."
This avoids the issue. The issue is whether or not to hold a repeal vote before the review is completed assuming a delayed implementation, not whether to implement repeal upon the President's signature. They've never answered this question, and that's the one on the table- is the White House in favor of a repeal vote NOW assuming implementation is delayed- something even more aggressive supporters of repeal like me, Servicemembers United and SLDN are in favor of- or not?
Update 4: Over e-mail, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network's statement, also spot on (excerpted):
"The President of the United States appears to have reversed himself from what he told the American people in his State of the Union Address. We have the votes in the House and we're close to having the votes in the Senate Armed Services Committee -- the President, however, is not helping us to get the votes we need. Service members around the world took the President at his word; we still do.
"It's time for the president and commander in chief to speak clearly and frankly on this issue. The commander in chief sounds like he is deferring to his Defense Secretary, to a House Chairman who opposes him on repeal, and to his political operatives.
"With all due respect to Secretary Gates, it is Congress that determines the legislative schedule, not the Secretary of Defense. Congressional leaders and repeal advocates may need to give the Pentagon leaders a gentle reminder.
Update 5: Now this is getting interesting. Speaker Pelosi issued a statement calling on the President to issue a moratorium on discharges (h/t Aravosis):
Washington, D.C. - Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the following statement in response to a letter sent this afternoon by Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Defense Secretary Robert Gates concerning the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy:
"We all look forward to the report on the review of the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy by the Defense Department. In the meantime, the Administration should immediately place a moratorium on dismissals under this policy until the review has been completed and Congress has acted."
I agree with John, that's on the unusual side. Of course, I wouldn't be thrilled either if I announced my intention to hold a repeal vote this year and the Defense Secretary essentially told the world "that would be a mistake."
By the way, if this pisses you off too, don't forget the rally on Sunday in Lafayette Park, 12-3 PM. Details on Facebook.
To follow up on yesterday's piece about the Pentagon's coming changes to Don't Ask, Don't Tell regulations, this morning Sec. Gates was on C-SPAN3 announcing the changes. Some notes I took below:
The plan is to increase the level of both the people and the evidence involved in DADT discharges.
Currently, peers of those suspected of being gay can act as "third parties" and help lead to discharges. Cases have been brought by those who snooped in servicemembers' e-mail and found items that would hint at a servicemember's orientation, leading along a path to an inquiry and possible discharge. Gates would raise the level of "credible information" to start an inquiry. Certain evidence is off-limits, for example, a servicemember's discussions with a therapist or clergymember. According to the Palm Center, about a fifth of discharges are via third-party outings.
These specific changes seem to adopt at least some of the recommendations laid out by the head of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network head Aubrey Sarvis last summer.
The rank of those who can initiate an inquiry is raised.
There is unanimous support from the Joint Chiefs of Staff for these new regulations, and they take effect immediately.
Notable is that when asked by The Advocate's Kerry Eleveld if the ongoing review is an "if" review or a "how" review, Gates said "the study is about how you would implement it... the study is not about should we do it. The study is about how would we do it." This is good given multiple assertions to the contrary around town, and lots of word from members on the Hill who, when approached privately and in lobby days, tell advocates they want to wait and see if the review is in favor or not.
Positive news, and I suppose a "kindler, gentler" policy. Now the Obama administration needs to include repeal language in its defense authorization bill sent up to the Hill, and let's keep our eye on full repeal.
Update: Via e-mail, an excerpt of Servicemembers United's reaction:
"The changes announced today by Secretary Gates constitute a solid first step to help reign in many of the abuses of the policy that have become common practice over the past seventeen years," said Alexander Nicholson, a former U.S. Army interrogator who was discharged under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and the current Executive Director of Servicemembers United. "These changes are by no means a substitute for full legislative repeal of the law this year, but they are certainly a good start."
[...]
In a move that has also concerned servicemember advocates, the Secretary of Defense went on to voice his opinion that Congress should not exercise its prerogative to repeal the law on which "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is based until after the Pentagon Working Group completes its study of repeal-related issues. On this, Nicholson added, "The study group that Secretary Gates has commissioned is tasked with providing recommendations to the Secretary on how to effectively implement a new policy of allowing open service by gays and lesbians, and it is intended to be completely internal to the Department of Defense. The results of this study are not necessary for Congress to go ahead and lock in repeal of the law this year, especially if repeal is scheduled to take effect after the study group finishes its work. Lawmakers should trust the military to successfully implement any policy change with which it is tasked."
Alex makes a good point about the study review- a beat that needs beating. A repeal vote should be locked in with a date certain.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) likes to tout his experience as a former military lawyer. Graham apparently thinks this makes him sound more convincing when he goes around advocating military trials for all suspected terrorists, as he's been doing lately. Graham's now trying to get that idea signed into law in a bill he's introduced in the Senate. A similar provision is likely headed to a vote today in the House of Representatives.
This past week I covered the bold testimony of Ret. Cpl. Rick Reyes before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, drawing the comparison between Reyes's anti-war testimony and a young John Kerry alerting the nation to the horrors of the Vietnam War 38 years ago. I certainly wasn't the only one to connect the dots between Vietnam and the current quagmire in Afghanistan, as you can see from this video with excerpts of Andrew Bacevich's testimony.
Bacevich, a retired Colonel who served in Vietnam and is now professor of International Relations and History at Boston University, has become one of the most vocal critics of the "Long War," as Defense Secretary Robert Gates dubbed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Paraphrasing General Bruce Palmer's account of the Vietnam War, Bacevich said that our country is once again "mired in a protracted war of an indeterminate nature, with no foreseeable end to the US commitment."
The Long War, as Bacevich exclaimed, has become the second most expensive war in US history (second only to WWII). Now that we our facing trillions in debt, Bacevich urged Congress to question the reasons for escalation in Afghanistan. "We just urgently need to ask ourselves whether or not the purposes of the long war are achievable, necessary, and affordable," Bacevich claimed, "and Afghanistan is a subset of that longer set of questions." Congress needs to address questions of cost before they vote on President Obama's $83 billion war funding bill in the coming weeks. And the most direct way to follow Bacevich's lead and confront Congress is by calling your Representatives as soon as possible, urging them not to vote until we have more oversight hearings like these, and more questions answered.
By voting to fund the war in Iraq every single time Bush asked Congress for a Supplemental Appropriation, and sending more troops (17,000) to Afghanistan than he was withdrawing from Iraq (12,000), Barack Obama has defined himself as an "anti-war" candidate that only the Pentagon could love.
Now "Honest Obe" and the Bush/Cheney tool that he held over as Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, have decided that what the United States really needs...
The protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are forcing the Obama administration to rethink what for more than two decades has been a central premise of American strategy: that the nation need only prepare to fight two major wars at a time.
In an interview with National Public Radio last week, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates made it clear that the Pentagon was beginning to reconsider whether the old two-wars assumption "makes any sense in the 21st century" as a guide to planning, budgeting and weapons-buying.
The good news is that Mr. Gates and "Honest Obe" aren't planning to fight four wars at exactly the same time.
Another formulation envisioned the United States defending its territory, deterring hostility in four critical areas of the world and then defeating two adversaries in major combat operations, but not at exactly the same time.
So serially or simultaneously, at home or abroad, on air or sea or land, the White House and Department of Defense are making plans for the United States to engage in virtually any number of wars...
My only reaction to Daschle's withdrawal from Health and Human Services is that I wish either Treasury Secretary Geithner or Defense Secretary Gates had been defeated, too.
Giethner, like Daschle, had tax issues, and yet he was confirmed by the Senate. Now, he is about to light hundreds of billions of dollars on fire as part of the biggest corporate welfare program in history. He also worked with the Bush administration in handling the first $350 billion of the bailout.
The three largest federal departments, in terms of budget outlays, are easily Treasury, Defense, and Health and Human Services. While I don't want to defend Daschle, I do wonder why nominees for the two other large federal departments--both of whom were directly tied to the Bush administration, both of whom have ethical questions, and both of whom are currently lighting hundreds of billions of dollars on fire--passed and Daschle was defeated. Why did Daschle have to fall on his sword, but Gates and Geithner did not? It is a worthwhile question to ask, and one of the few thoughts I have on the Daschle story.
I had wondered for a while why Obama didn't appoint Wesley Clark as Secretary of Defense instead of keeping Gates on. Turns out there's at least one really compelling reason: he can't. At least, not yet. According to Wikipedia: "By statute (10 U.S.C. § 113) the secretary must be a civilian who has not served in the active component of the armed forces for at least 10 years." Now, General Clark retired on May 2, 2000 - which means he will be eligible for the post of Secretary Defense as of May 2, 2010....
Obama's retention of Gates as Secretary of Defense signals, above all, a clear unwillingness on Obama's part to engage in politically difficult fights at the start of his administration. Consider what Rahm Emanuel stated would be Obama's first legislative priorities when he becomes President:
Asked what Barack Obama was elected to do, and what legislation he's likely to find on his Oval Office desk soonest, Mr. Emanuel didn't hesitate. "Bucket one would have children's health care, Schip," he said. "It has bipartisan agreement in the House and Senate. It's something President-elect Obama expects to see. Second would be [ending current restrictions on federally funded] stem-cell research. And third would be an economic recovery package focused on the two principles of job creation and tax relief for middle-class families."
There is a connection between these three pieces of legislation that goes beyond Obama backing them during his time in the Senate and in his campaign. Specifically, all three of these pieces of legislation were already passed by at least one chamber in Congress, but blocked because Bush was President. In other words, they are the lowest hanging fruit possible. The same also goes for withdrawing from Iraq, which Obama pledged to do today. Withdrawal legislation was first passed through Congress 19 months ago, and thus there won't be any serious opposition to it now, either.
Picking Gates is in line with this desire to avoid fights early in Obama's tenure. David Corn:
Second, Gates is no agent of change when it comes to the Pentagon budget. In the Bush years, the regular military budget has increased by 40 percent in real terms (not counting so-called "emergency" supplemental spending bills for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan)--partly because of hundreds of billions of dollars in cost overruns. During the campaign, Obama talked about the need to cut "billions of dollars in wasteful spending" from the military budget. But Gates has yet to demonstrate he is truly interested in reworking the Pentagon's out-of-control budget. Keeping Gates in place sends the signal that Obama, who faces a host of hard jobs, is not eager to take on the Pentagon at the start of his presidency. "There are so many problems at home," says one of the critics, "Obama may not want to do anything fundamental about the Pentagon."
Keeping Gates on as Secretary of Defense allows Obama to avoid a confirmation fight, thus maintaining Obama's pattern of grabbing the low hanging fruit. Obama's rationale for avoiding early fights probably comes from the start of Bill Clinton's Presidency, when he was "tamed" by the military:
The "taming of Bill Clinton" came two weeks into his presidency, on January 25, 1993, when the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) showed up in the Oval Office to question his promise to allow gays to serve openly in the military. Clinton was in a weak position: the military was arrayed against him. JCS chairman Colin Powell offered a compromise: stop asking and stop pursuing.
Clinton agreed, but he had little choice. As Clinton's de facto press secretary George Stephanopoulos later noted: "Their [the JCS] message was clear. Keeping this promise will cost you the military. Fight us and you'll lose - and it won't be pretty." The military's victory over Clinton in the early days of his presidency set the tone for the next eight years. On any sensitive military subject, he took the views of the JCS into account: as later confirmed, he couldn't "afford a break with the military".
Obama appears to be doing everything possible to avoid a similar fight. His goal appears to be to rack up a quick series of smaller victories achieved with overwhelming b-partisan support. Such a strategy will undoubtedly build upon his political capital rather than spending it, thereby hopefully avoiding the many difficult fights Clinton faced early in his first term.
However, a lack of early fights will also result in less than sweeping change early in Obama's tenure. Now, I have no real desire to argue over ultimate vague terms such as "change," as it is always difficult to compare campaign rhetoric to any specific reality. Still, in regards to more specific fights, like defense spending, Obama's current pattern of avoiding early fights will probably carry over into that area as well. Even though I still think there are reasons to remain optimistic over defense spending, early on the improvement that Obama makes, if any, will probably be of the incremental, near-consensus variety. What this specifically means for things like missile defense, Pentagon "waste," and contractors / mercenaries remains to be seen. The next supplemental Department of Defense appropriations bill will probably come sometime in April or May, and it is possible that after his first 100 days, Obama will be more willing to take on some larger battles. Our job, as progressive activists, should be to help lay the groundwork for those battles when they occur.
I'm not a huge fan of Robert Gates, but I think it's worth noting that asking for a progressive to lead the Department of Defense relies on the assumption that America will begin to follow a more anti-imperialist foreign policy. Residual Cold War orthodoxy and the iron triangle is so strong that it's going to even more serious economic shocks before that becomes possible. So is Bob Gates a reasonable choice to lead the Pentagon, knowing of course that 'reasonable' in modern American politics means only insane as opposed to batshit insane?
I think, yes. While he did advocate for the US to bomb Nicaragua in the 1980s and was heavily involved in the Iran-Contra scandal, Gates is the reason that America has not yet attacked Iran, and while people don't normally get credit for preventing messes, I'd like to give him some. A few years ago, Glenn Greenwald implied that a war with Iran was practically inevitable and up to the President's personality, and I assumed he was correct. This was a reasonable supposition at the time, and Gates deserves a lot of credit for turning Bush away from using force against Iran. Now, it may yet happen that America goes to war with Iran, since we're only down from batshit insane to insane, but still, we haven't yet gone to war, and with Cheney's itchy trigger finger away from the White House the chances of doing so (or at least doing so joyfully) have dropped.
My hunch is that Gates wants a chance to make the kind of leaps in the Middle East I have been writing about for some time. He wants to try and push Iran-US relations into a constructive direction. He wants to change the game in Afghanistan -- and the answer will not be a military-dominant strategy. He wants to try and stabilize Iraq in a negotiated, confidence building process that includes Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey and other regional forces. And he wants to support a big push on Israel-Palestine peace and reconfigure relations between much of the Arab League and Israel.
This is a far more progressive agenda than you'll find among most Democratic hawks, who are quite happily situated in the Obama administration. Of course, I don't think anyone should expect Obama's policy apparatus to be particularly progressive. Peace in the Middle East, negotiations with Afghanistan, a partial withdrawal from Iraq, a grand bargain in the Middle East - these are all realist policies. A genuinely progressive foreign policy would involve all of this plus removing American bases from half the countries on the planet, ending the drug war, restructuring global trade and financial flows to make a more equitable planet that is not dependent on oil, and negotiating a new global social contract. But that'll have to wait until there's a political consensus for all that nice stuff.
For now, the centrists are in charge, and if Gates and Hillary Clinton want to negotiate peace between Israel and Palestine, I will happily watch and encourage them to do so. Eventually, the folks from Avaaz.org will be in major policy-making roles, and at that moment we can put forward strong alternatives.
Remember who the last Secretary of Defense was under a Democratic President? It was a Republican:
On December 5, 1996, President Clinton announced his selection of Cohen as secretary of defense. Cohen, a Republican about to retire from the United States Senate, was the "right person," Clinton said, to build on the achievements of William Perry, "to secure the bipartisan support America's armed forces must have and clearly deserve." In responding to his nomination, Cohen said that during his congressional career he had supported a nonpartisan national security policy and commended the president for appointing a Republican to his cabinet.
Barack Obama and Robert Gates are negotiating policy issues with a view toward Gates remaining Defense secretary, the Financial Times reports, a move that would make the Bush appointee a key member of a bipartisan cabinet that resembles Abraham Lincoln's "team of rivals."
Kind of remarkable that every time Democrats seek elite media and political credibility for having a "bi-partisan" cabinet, they turn to Republicans to manage the Pentagon. Kind of makes you think that Democrats believe Republicans are better at managing both national security, and what is by far the largest department of the federal government. There have been no Democratic Defense Secretaries since 1996, and only eight years of Democratic Defense Secretaries since 1968.
Managing the Pentagon involves a budget that will dwarf whatever the new Treasury Secretary receives from Congress. In fact, the Defense Department involves 52% of all net discretionary spending, making it about half of what the President oversees. (While the actual military budget is an even larger percentage of spending, I am just looking at the DoD in this case, since other departments oversee the rest of military expenditures.) Further, that doesn't even include supplemental bills for Iraq and Afghanistan, which Congress will be approving for the next two years and which do mainly fall under the purview of the Department of Defense. It also involves the semi-important debate over the use of contractors, and the largest energy expenditures within the federal government. You can't build a greener America without building a greener military.
And yet, just like in 1996, we are once again handing those responsibilities over to Republicans and Republican appointments even after we win huge, landslide victories. This is half of the federal government, and it is as though change is utterly impossible within it. But hey, at least Obama looks good for receiving bi-partisan credibility from The Village. Hopefully, Obama will accrue as much political capital from Republicans and media elites as Bill Clinton did during his second term for appointing a Republican Secretary of Defense. Also, I hope it works out as well as all of those Democrats Bush appointed to run the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, or Housing and Urban Development.
(This is part of my series on my website and radio show called Bad Pennies. Lawrence Summers was first on my list and Robert Gates was second. And the list goes on... montanamaven.com )
Americans are very self congratulatory about their ability to make a smooth transition from one administration to another. Or at least that's what we are told to believe by the punditocracy. But is that what the American people really voted for? Did they vote for the "let bygones be bygones" crowd that we are subjected to on TV talk shows?
Hey, people, the election was the transition. We voted the bums out. We voted out a failed system. We voted. It's done. Now amongst of all this hugging and mending of fences and amongst all the reaching across aisles, we must be careful not to just rearrange the deck chairs on the sinking ship.
Melvin Goodman was an analyst for the CIA for 24 years when the CIA actually did independent analysis and did not fix the facts to support the policies of the President.
STATE BLOGS
