Ana Marie Cox

"Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" is dangerous and wrong, sapping the Armed Forces of thousands of skilled, patriotic men and women anxious to serve their country. So why is Obama stalling on repealing it?


Last January, Robert Gibbs, spokesman for then-President-elect Barack Obama, fielded a citizen-submitted question about the military's policy of dismissing openly gay soldiers. Thaddeus from Lansing, Michigan asked, "Is the new administration going to get rid of the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy?"

GIbbs, looking a tad paler and heavier than he is now, was obviously pleased with his own answer: "Thaddeus," he said, "You don't hear a politician give a one-word answer much. But it's 'Yes.'"

Last month, I asked Gibbs on two occasions if the administration would be getting rid of "don't ask, don't tell," and he took over 105 words and several minutes to give a qualified "maybe."

The administration has moved to the center on a lot of issues since Inauguration, with Obama changing his position on the release of detainee abuse photos, slowing down his timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, and deciding to keep some of the expanded executive powers that he (and other Democrats) used to criticize. He's also caved on moderate criticism of the stimulus plan and refused to come out against California's Proposition 8. But of all the national security decisions he will make, where Obama winds up on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT), has the most potential to affect the everyday lives—and the safety—of troops and civilians alike.

About 12,000 troops have been dismissed under the policy since 1993, and the non-partisan Government Accounting Office has tallied the cost of their loss at $95.4 million in wasted recruiting costs, and $95.1 million in training replacements. These numbers are almost certainly too low. Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, an 18-year Air Force fighter pilot currently fighting a DADT dismissal, estimates that the United States has spent about $25 million training him alone.

Today, Obama's official position, articulated (or not) by Gibbs, is that "the only durable and lasting way" to overturn the policy is via an act of Congress, but that they are "actively" working with the Pentagon to change it.

On the latter point, the Pentagon's own spokesman told reporters the day before Gibbs' response, "I do not believe there are any plans under way in this building" for don't ask-don't tell to be repealed. Later, pushed by the White House to "clarify" his remarks, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell issued a statement saying "President Obama has been clear in his direction to Secretary Gates and Chairman Mullen that he is committed to repeal" of the DADT policy.

And on Monday, in a lengthy interview with The Air Force Times, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Michael Mullen expanded on what actions (loosely defined) the White House has taken: "We’ve had preliminary discussions. I’ve had preliminary discussions with the President about this. And I think it’s important, as we look to this change, that it be done in a way that doesn’t disrupt the force at a time where it’s under a lot of stress, and that to me means in a measured, deliberate way over some time to be determined. And I don’t know what that would be."

When Obama installed GOP congressman and ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee John McHugh as Secretary of the Army, it was difficult to square the assurance that repealing DADT was "a priority" for both men given McHugh's lack of action on the issue in Congress.

Let me unwind this a little for you; I speak fluent Washingtonese. There are, in all likelihood, no active discussions between Obama and the Joint Chiefs to undo DADT. It is something that "doesn’t make us more safe" (as Obama put it in April 2008), that Obama hasn't changed his mind about, but that he has made a calculated decision not to do anything about. Sometimes I try to imagine how the media might react to the administration taking a similar position on, say, domestic terrorism.

Pressed on their lack of leadership among the Joint Chiefs, White House aides say that the President's ability to act further is restricted by DADT's status as a federal law. And it's true that this is where parallels to Truman's racial integration of the military fall apart—a favorite example of proponents of repealing DADT, who say that, like Truman, Obama could end this particular form of discrimination "with the stroke of a pen."

"We're a nation of laws," pleaded Mullen to the Air Force Times. As a sign of just how uncomfortable the White House is in explaining its shift in policy, at the second press conference where I posed a DADT question Gibbs actually changed the subject to the arguably more explosive issue of Guantanamo Bay—75 percent of Americans favor gays serving openly in the military, only 53 percent think we should close the controversial detention facility. Gibbs brushed off purely executive action by saying, "Try as one may, a President can't simply whisk away standing law of the United States of America. I think that's maybe been the undercurrent of some of the conversations we've had over the past few days on Guantanamo Bay. But if you're going to change the policy, if it is the law of the land, you have to do it through an act of Congress."

As our last president proved again and again, this is not actually the case. (And the administration did not in fact wait for congress to act before issuing an executive order to close Gitmo.) Few would advocate that Obama attempt to extend the reach of the executive office to the extralegal lengths Bush and company pushed for, but having already stated his intent to keep some of those expanded powers in place—and, in the case of environmental regulation, use them—why not employ them to restore equality and social justice within the one truly meritocratic institution in American society, the Armed Forces?