Leaders from the Navy and the Marine Corps echoed the Army’s opposition to instituting a moratorium on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell discharges, claiming that a freeze could complicate the review and confuse soldiers. Today, during a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee, Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations and General James Conway, Commandant of the U. S. Marine Corps, said they accept the President’s decision, support the military’s review efforts but stopped short of personally supporting the repeal.

“I believe that [a moratorium] would be extremely confusing to the force and I do not recommend that,” Roughead said. Conway stressed that the military should take precautions to ensure that a repeal does not interfere with readiness:

CONWAY: Our Commander in Chief has spoken and the Secretary of Defense has devised a way, through a working group, to examine the data…I support his efforts…However I would encourage your work, mine, and that of the working group to be focused on a central issue and that is the readiness of the armed forces of the United States to fight this nation’s wars…My concern would be if somehow that central purpose and focus were to become secondary to the discussion because that’s what your armed forces is all about… In terms of the moratorium…I would encourage you to either change the law or not, but in the process half measures I think will only be confusing in the end.

Watch it:

Some reports had indicated that “Conway has emerged in internal Pentagon deliberations as the most outspoken opponent of permitting gay men and women to serve openly in the U.S. military,” and many proponents of a repeal had feared that an overtly negative statement could jeopardize the effort.

Conway’s tepid response is reassuring, but his fears about openly gay members undermining military readiness seem unfounded. A new survey of the 25 nations that allow gay members to serve openly found that “transitions to policies of equal treatment without regard to sexual orientation have been highly successful and have had no negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness.” In fact, American service members have repeatedly said that “the most important factors for unit cohesion and readiness were the quality of their officers, training and equipment,” not their sexual orientation.

During today’s hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the army announced its opposition to instituting a moratorium on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell discharges, but some lawmakers suggested that they may still press ahead with the policy.

Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) asked Army chief of staff Gen. George Casey and Secretary of the Army John McHugh to obtain an official legal assessment “as to whether there are complications for a moratorium” and Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) pressed the military to find ways to prevent additional discharges and protect soldiers who have not been officially discharged:

UDALL: So it seems that the eventuality of the repeal isn’t in question and so in that spirit, this Senator thinks we ought to put a moratorium in place during this implementation period…Who’s going to be the last gay service member to be discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? That would be a tragedy in my mind because they are clearly patriots. They clearly want to serve their country.

Watch it:

Earlier this month, Udall suggested that Congress should move concurrently on repeal while the Pentagon conducts its study. “[We should write into the repealing legislation] the period of time you suggest you need [to review the policy]…while legislating that at the end of that time we would have finality. In other words, a complete end to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” Udall proposed at an earlier hearing.

The Army rebuffed Congressional efforts to impose a moratorium on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell discharges today, telling the Senate Armed Services Committee that it would oppose oppose the freeze while the Pentagon reviewed the DADT policy.

Asked about the moratorium by Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) during today’s appropriations hearing, Army chief of staff Gen. George Casey argued that a moratorium could complicate the Pentagon’s study:

I would recommend against it, it would complicate the whole process … implementing while we were studying it…This process is going to be difficult enough, anything that complicates it more I would be opposed to.

John M. McHugh, secretary of the Army, agreed. “Any number of current cases would be greatly complicated.” McHugh said his preference would be not to institute a moratorium, but promised to respect and adhere to a moratorium if it were to pass Congress.

Earlier this month, Levin said that he would support imposing a moratorium and Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA), the chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on Military Personnel, predicted that Congress had enough votes to pass a limited moratorium on third-party discharges.

Congress could certainly pass a moratorium over the Army’s objections, but the best way for Congress to counteract the military’s feet-dragging is to include repeal language in the Defense Authorization bill. The President could also declare a “stop-loss” (the policy could not be enforced because nobody can leave the military) or institute a high threshold for enforcing the policy.

General Raymnd Odierno, the current Commanding General of forces in Iraq, has joined Gen. David Petraeus, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen and Collin Powell in expressing his opposition to the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. But what’s surprising isn’t that Odierno thinks gay and lesbian service members can serve openly with straight soldiers without undermining unit cohesion or morale. It’s the indifference with which Odierno — a senior military leader currently leading troops in battle — discusses the matter, suggesting that allowing homosexuals to serve in the military is, well, no big deal.

The issue is ‘controversial’ only because conservatives exploit it to divide the electorate and raise money for their causes:

Asked repeatedly about his stance on the gays in the military, the top commander in Iraq told reporters at the Pentagon, “I dont have time to think about it.” General Raymond Odierno said he hasn’t been focusing on the issue because “we’re kind of busy right now, trying to do our job in Iraq.”

When pressed on his personal opinion he said, “my opinion is everyone should be allowed to serve, as long as we’re still able to fight our wars and we’re able to have forces that are capable of doing whatever we’re asked to do.”

Odierno said he supports the decision by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to conduct a year long review that explores repealing the current “Dont Ask Dont Tell” policy and allowing gays to openly serve. “Let’s give the soldiers a chance to give their opinion, and then move out from there.”

On the other hand, I’d like the military to do more than simply endorse a theoretical, eventual repeal in a quiet way. I’d like to hear Odierno, Powell, Petraeus and Mullen really fight for the military values they believe in and demand an end date on the policy. Their rhetorical support does lend credence and legitimacy to the cause. It places DADT repeal activists in the mainstream. But it also limits the confines of the debate. Military leaders who endorse a repeal without laying out a roadmap for ending the policy legitimize endless policy reviews and delays and zap all credibility of those who argue that repeal can’t wait another year. And so if military leaders want to be helpful, they should really be asking for more.

Senior Armed Services Committee member Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) — who opposed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in the 90s — has confirmed that he will introduce legislation repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ in the coming week. “I see this as an extension, the next step of the civil rights movement,” Lieberman told New York Daily News’ James Kirchick. “When you artificially limit the pool of people who can enlist then you are diminishing military effectiveness”:

“My own experience as a member of the Armed Services Committee, visiting our troops on bases here in this country and abroad, particularly in war zones, the most remarkable quality you’ll find is unit cohesion,” he told me. “What matters is not the gender of the other person in your unit or the color or the religion or in this case the sexual orientation. It’s whether that person is a good soldier you can depend on. And that’s why I think it’s going to work.”

While it’s unclear if Lieberman’s proposal will reflect the House’s repeal legislation, set a firm day for repeal (as one group has proposed) or attract the support of Republicans like Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), repeal advocates are arguing that the best way for Congress to counteract the Pentagon’s feet-dragging (and win over enough support for the measure) is to include the repeal language in the Defense Authorization bill. “The President can have the repeal policy included in recommendations sent from the Pentagon to the Senate. That would show the President’s sincerity on the issue,” John Aravosis is suggesting.

Lieberman’s legislation can also benefit from some fortunate timing. On Tuesday, the Palm Center will release a “new study on foreign militaries that have made transitions to allowing openly gay service members concludes that a speedy implementation of the change is not disruptive.” The study concludes that “in foreign militaries, openly gay service members did not undermine morale, cause large resignations or mass ‘comings out.’ The report found that ‘there were no instances of increased harassment” as a result of lifting bans in any of the countries studied.’ Interestingly enough, the review did not study a gradual repeal — which is what the Pentagon seems to be suggesting — because “no foreign military has ‘tried it.””

Lieberman will have an opportunity to discuss the need for a swift repeal tomorrow when the Army’s Gen. George Casey and the Air Force’s Gen. Norton Schwartz will testify before Armed Services Committee. “Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway, who is said to oppose changes to the policy will testify on Wednesday.”

Our guest blogger is Jeff Krehely, director of the LGBT Research and Communications Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

On a press call this morning to announce a new poll commissioned by the Center for American Progress, Stan Greenberg — who was President Bill Clinton’s chief pollster when Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) was implemented and has previously stated that the issue of gays serving openly in the military was a major factor in the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 — underscored the significance of public support for repealing DADT:

Frankly, I don’t know of another issue…that you would have thought it was polarizing given its history, but I think people have moved to a different place on tolerance, they’ve moved to a different place on the role of the military…and want to see this policy reversed. … I don’t get many issues on which to speak about [this] kind of historic change.

One of the poll’s most striking findings is that 60 percent of likely voters believe that with the United States in the middle of two wars, the military needs every talented woman and man it can get, regardless of a person’s sexual orientation.

Other key poll findings:

– DADT repeal is not a politically polarizing issue: Among likely voters, 68 percent of Democrats, 55 percent of independents, and 41 percent of Republicans support repeal. What’s more, 56 percent of voters in House battleground districts and 56 percent in Senate battleground states support repeal.

– Surprising groups of people support repeal: 64 percent of Catholics, 61 percent of white married women, and 59 percent of whites aged 50-64 support repeal.

– Voters do not want to defer to the military on DADT: A clear majority — 63 percent — would not change their opinion on DADT repeal even if the U.S. military was opposed to open service by gays and lesbians. This is despite the fact that the poll found the public to hold the U.S. military in very high regard, with a 90 percent favorability rating.

Last night, the Courage Campaign hosted a conference call about the pending repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Lt. Dan Choi. Gillibrand laid out a three options for repealing the policy, but said that she had yet to secure 60 votes for a repeal. “I think we can have an immediate moratorium, or immediate repeal, or immediate stop of funding, whichever vehicle we can get done first, I think is what we should do,” she said, suggesting that Democrats are coalescing around a strategy that would insert a moratorium into the defense authorization bill.

“The reason why a moratorium might be the quickest way is because there may be one or two senators who believe that because the military asked for a year, they want to show in some way that they’re giving them time.” “A moratorium might get you to the 60 votes, whereas a full repeal might be shy 59 or 58,” she added:

GILLIBRAND: I talked to Chairman Levin today again what he thought the best strategy was and he thinks if we can put it in the underlining bill, in the authorizing legislation, to put a moratorium on the policy for the next 18 months would be the best approach and so I’m going to start writing a letter to get signatures of my colleagues to really begin to develop the votes that I need to show that we can repeal this policy.

Listen:

Gillibrand sounded optimistic. “I think there are one or two other senators who are in play on this issue [besides Snowe and Collins],” Gilliband said. “I think on the Democratic side, when I asked all my colleagues and I asked all of them, nobody said that they would vote against repeal, nobody said that. They just said they were undecided…there may be one or two that would have trouble doing that, but they did not say they were against repeal.” She said that the President’s commitment and the military’s strong testimony in favor of the repeal emboldened her to ask wavering senators, “what’s your excuse now?”

Asked about what the President could do to end DADT, Gillibrand explained that Obama couldn’t issue an executive order repealing the DADT law, but could declare a “stop-loss,” “meaning we just don’t enforce the policy because we don’t allow anybody to leave the military or the President could create very high requirements for enforcement that noone would ever meet those requirements.”

“I feel it’s my calling, I feel, it’s something I’m built to do and I feel very passionate about it and as soon as we repeal DADT, we’re going to go straight for DOMA and we’re going to get an inclusive ENDA and we dont’ want to leave out the ‘T’ because it’s convenient for some people to leave out the ‘T’.

Missouri State Senator Gary Nodler responded in the comments section about my claim that his argument for preserving DADT was more than just a little ridiculous:

I never said that this would be a cultural affront to terrorists. I don’t care what they think. I said it would be a cultuaral affront to the Muslims in who’s country we are operating. We can not win the hearts and minds of the people by insulting them and ignoring the standards of their culture. This is about the people who live there and the armies we are serving with. Your comment makes the common mistake that all Muslims are terrorists.

For some reason, Nodler is comfortable allowing foreign nations and cultures to guid U.S. military policy, which is generally overseen by an American code of conduct. The “Code of the U.S. Fighting Force,” for instance, states: “I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.” Forcing service members to lie about their orientation violates the code, but adapting to the restrictive cultural and moral standards of certain cultures would most certainly undermine American ‘principle’. (Which is ironic, given that Nadler’s campaign slogan is ‘Standing On Principle.’)

It would also push women and even minorities out of the military. As commenter Laura observes, “You know, many Muslims are deeply offended by Jews and Christians; are we making sure none of them are in the field, as well? And women, of course – wearing pants! Carrying guns! Commanding – sometimes – MEN!”

During the hearing, Nodler was asked how his “philosophy applies to women already serving in combat.” “Nodler suggested that might be a problem, also.” “I agree that is happening now [women serving in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq], [b]ut I am not certain that is advancing the goals of the U.S. military,” he said.

Nodler’s specific comments about DADT are particularly misinformed. Gay soldiers are already serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and despite Nodler’s rather offensive perceptions about these soldiers — they’re apparently incapable of personal discretion, constantly making out on patrol, fornicating in the streets, or even worse, seducing the locals — the U.S. military seems to be doing just fine.

Lt. Dan Choi — the DADT advocate who was discharged from the military after he came out as gay on The Rachel Maddow Show — appeared on CNN’s The Situation Room yesterday to discuss his recent call back to training with the National Guard. “Essentially, my commander says, we’re going to war and we need all of the capable soldiers that we could get to train with us,” Choi explained.

Choi said he knew other gay soldiers who were in the process of being discharged but “had been told by their commanders” to come back for the time being. “I know of some of them that are out there. And there’s a lot of people that are in their units that I — I think they realize, look, we’re in a time of war, we’ve got to have everybody that we can.” Asked if anyone was uncomfortable about his return, Choi responded firmly:

BLITZER: Was anyone hostile or seemingly uncomfortable?

CHOI: Absolutely not. And here’s the thing, when you assume that people would do that, when you assume that people would be uncomfortable and quit, you are insulting soldiers in the most treacherous way. I can’t believe there are people that are saying a soldier would quit. You want to insult a soldier in the worst way, tell him he’s going to quit. Call him a quitter.

Watch it:

Choi emphasized that “there are people that are openly gay in their units right now” but stressed that they are not exceptions to the policy. “I could get fired right after I walk off the set here,” he said.

“I want to send a message to all the senators and the Congress that I’m watching them. And my promise remains — I will hold everyone accountable until we can, as Admiral Mullen said, have an organization and an institution that lives by those values of integrity.”

On Tuesday, the Missouri State Senate debated President Obama’s call to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) with dueling “non-binding resolutions alternately calling for the repeal and preservation of the military policy.” Both sides regurgitated familiar arguments but State Senator Gary Nodler, who is running in the Republican primary for Rep. Roy Blunt’s (R-MI) seat, carved out a new reason for maintaining the current policy.

Nodler said that “being openly gay in the military ‘in and of itself‘ could be grounds for a sexual harassment complaint by another serviceman, and characterized Don’t Ask Don’t Tell as a way to accommodate gays’ service ‘in a way that doesn’t create a hostile workplace.’” Then, Nodler suggested that allowing openly gay soldiers in the military “could represent a ‘cultural affront‘” to terrorists intent on killing American troops.

“So you would create specific geopolitical strategic dilemmas for the U.S. military — specifically in the war in Afghanistan, ” Nodler said. “There are real-world implications. This is a policy that would directly threaten the lives of soldiers today.” St. Louis Post Dispatch columnist Tony Messenger summed up Nodler’s argument this way:

The Muslim nations of Iraq and Afghanistan, where America is fighting two wars, are opposed to homosexuality. Changing “Don’t ask, don’t tell” would offend the terrorists in such a way that could put soldiers — and America — at risk of further terrorist attacks.

The logic is simple: adopt a new nondiscrimination policy and the terrorists win. Re-segregate the military along sex and race and the terrorists are appeased. It’s a win-win, right?

Eager to capitalize on the recent momentum for repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) and weary of the military’s ability to derail the process with a year-long review, a national organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans has proposed a plan that would lock in a date for full Congressional repeal and give the military 18 months to “do its studies, work through its issues, and plan for successful implementation.” “After the hearing, I think there’s been an expectation that we would have a study process in 2010 and a legislative process in 2011,” said Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United told the Advocate. “But a lot of us in the military community feel like that’s a grave political mistake and we’re potentially risking the entire issue by proceeding that way.”

The group’s Set End-date / Delayed Implementation (SEDI) model would proceed in the following way:

- Immediately: Pentagon Working Group begins work; Legislation introduced to lock in repeal

- After 3 months: Deadline for interim changes to policy enforcement; First report to Congress

- After 6 months: Second report to Congress on progress of repeal implementation planning

- After 9 months: Third report to Congress on progress of repeal implementation panning

- After 12 months: [Repeal passed]; Repeal implementation begins according to plan established by Pentagon

- After 18 months: Full repeal completed; Final report to Congress

The model places Congress and the Pentagon on two separate tracks: the former repeals the policy, the latter studies “how we best prepare for it.” There is no endless delay or year-long review to tell us what numerous studies and real world experiences in other countries have unanimously concluded: on the whole, straight soldiers don’t really care about the sexual orientation of their colleagues. As one headline in Foreign Policy magazine put it about gays in the Israeli military: ‘They’re Here, They’re Queer, It’s No Big Deal.’

The ‘big deal’ is the threat of a manufactured controversy that could arise from a drawn out process. “Even if all parties involved have the best of intentions, the DADT issue does not exist in a vacuum. Many other forces can intervene between now and the future point at which the Pentagon finishes its planning and study that can derail the intended trajectory, including a year’s worth of time for reactionary opposition to organize and wage a serious campaign, the midterm elections, and the outcomes of other volatile political issues,” the report notes.

After all, if the health debate taught Democrats anything, it’s this: “Never put off till tomorrow what you can do today.”

During an interview with Fox News, Defense Secretary Robert Gates implied that he would slow walk the military’s review of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT). “I think this has to be done very carefully and very deliberately,” he said. “The military culture is a very strong one… These people do not have choices about who they associate with“:

GATES: The review I am launching is to help inform the legislative process of some facts about the attitudes of our men and women in uniform, what they think about a change in the law, what their families think…The truth is we don’t have any facts. There are a lot of articles, a lot of assertions made. But we need to understand all of the different things that have to be with in terms of housing and benefits and regulations and fraternization rules and conduct and training.

Watch it:

While studying possible changes to “benefits and regulations and fraternization” would help commanders implement a new non-discrimination policy once DADT is repealed, it’s not clear why the right of a minority to serve openly should be put to a vote before the majority — particularly when doing so recalls some rather uncomfortable historical parallels. After all, when President Harry Truman desegregated the military, a 1949 survey of white Army personnel revealed that “32% completely opposed racial integration in any form, and 61% opposed integration if it meant that Whites and Blacks would share sleeping quarters and mess halls.” Attitudes about both blacks and gays have certainly changed since 1948, but that doesn’t mean that keeping blacks and whites segregated or forcing gay and lesbian service members to lie about their sexuality is any more wrong.

Increased tolerance does, however, disproves Gates’ implication that a quick policy reversal would lead gay members to come out in a way that would lead large numbers of straight solders to “just up and walk off the job.” An article in today’s Washington Post observes that straight soldiers are already serving comfortably alongside gay and lesbian recruits. “A younger and more liberal corps of commanders and soldiers has given rise to bubbles of tolerance in today’s military.” “In recent years, service members and researchers say, a growing number of gay troops have disclosed their sexual orientation to supervisors and comrades.”

“Underground gay communities” already exist “at bases across the United States and even in war zones.” And even if the current policy is repealed in the coming months, “gay soldiers are unlikely to come out of the closet in large numbers,” service members say. “An openly gay soldier would have a lot to overcome,” said Matthew Gallagher, a former Army captain and popular blogger who left the Army last year. “It is a culture fueled entirely by machismo, and it definitely has a bit of locker-room homophobia.”

Despite all of these challenges, experiences in the 25 countries that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly also suggest that a new policy must be “decided upon and implemented as quickly as possible” to avoid anxiety and uncertainty in the field. Surveying military members may certainly prove useful, but using the survey to delay repealing DADT is just bad policy.

The Bilerico Project is reporting that Lt. Dan Choi — a DADT advocate who was discharged from the military after he came out as gay on The Rachel Maddow Show — has been called to “attend training” with his National Guard unit. “Apparently, Lt. Choi’s commander has always been in full support of him, and even after Lt. Choi came out on The Rachel Maddow Show, his commander did not press for his discharge,” Jeff Sheng, a BP contributor who spoke to Choi, explains. “The military did eventually serve Lt. Choi a discharge notification – essentially firing him from his job, but he was allowed to fight this at trial, and as it currently stands, the discharge has not been finalized“:

I was heartened though to hear Lt. Choi’s response, when I asked him what he thinks his new voice might be as the repeal of DADT takes shape. He spoke about perhaps helping the military implement a future non-discrimination policy, and advising in issues involving sensitivity trainings on LGBT issues. But the comment that struck me the most was when he said, “Actions speak louder than words.” It made sense all of a sudden, that the sheer act of him rejoining his unit and serving with everyone else, could be his most powerful voice in the debate so far. That seeing an openly gay service member train and fight with his unit, is something that truly does speak louder than words.

Alex Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United, clarifies that Choi has not been re-called or activated for active duty, as some have reported. Rather, “Choi is still in the New York Army National Guard, so he is completing a regularly scheduled drill weekend, which he has continued to do all along.” “This is still significant because he is continuing his regularly scheduled drills with his unit with the full support of his command, peers, and subordinates,” Nicholson wrote in an email. Indeed, Choi’s participation in the drill reaffirms what Choi himself has suspected — soldiers “care about what a person can do for the team. We’re in a time of war. We have bigger things to worry about than people being gay.”

Choi “served as an infantry officer, translator and language instructor in Iraq in 2006 and 2007.” Under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the army “has discharged 59 gay Arabic linguists and nine gay Farsi linguists in the last five years, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defence Network.”

Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA), the chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on Military Personnel, has said that Congress should institute a moratorium on third-party Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) discharges until Congress formally repeals the policy. Davis estimated that outings by a third party make up for 30-40 percent of all DADT discharges and said she hoped to attach the moratorium to the upcoming defense authorization bill. “That would be the really first act of Congress to just put a hold on any discharges,” she said during a radio interview on KPBS San Diego public radio:

I think what’s being suggested here is a kind of limited moratorium. I don’t know whether the language that comes forward would be a total moratorium. I suspect that it might be easier to get this limited moratorium through with more support.

Listen:

During the Davis’ interview, Abe Shragge, professor of history, war and American society at UCSD, compared conservative arguments against repealing DADT to the case put forward by proponents of racial segregation of the military.

“That same argument was offered in the late 1940s, before President Truman integrated the services racially, that this would affect recruitment, it would reflect badly on the readiness of the service. That well qualified people who’d be very uncomfortable if forced to serve with or next to or in close proximity to African Americans would simply have to leave. That didn’t’ happen then. And I would not expect it to happen in any great numbers now.”

Last week, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) also suggested that Congress would pass a moratorium and on Saturday Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) promised to add an amend to the budget that would deny “funding to the military for the costs of pursuing inquiries, dismissal proceedings and other procedures associated with enforcing” DADT.

During her first appearance on Fox News Sunday, Sarah Palin criticized President Obama for calling for an end to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ in his State of the Union address, but did not defend the policy. “There are other things to be worried about right now with the military. I think that kind of on the back burner, is sufficient for now,” Palin said:

PALIN: I don’t think so right now. I’m surprised that the President spent time on that in his State of the Union speech when he spent only about 9 percent of his time in the State of the Union on national security issues. And I say that because there are other things to be worried about right now with the military. I think that kind of on the back burner, is sufficient for now. To put so much time, and effort, and politics into it, unnecessary.

Watch it:

Palin suggested that the policy is working without adopting a more reactionary tone towards gays openly servicing in the armed forces. Unlike her other proclamations, this answer sounded almost reasonable. After all, should the military really alter DADT during a time of war?

It should. It’s particularly during times of war, when the military is stretched thin and is asking its members to fight for freedoms in distant lands that it should grant all of its soldiers the right to be who they are. But the argument against change during wartime also doesn’t work because “there is no end in sight to the war on terror” and endless war cannot be a reason for “permanent stasis in military policy.”

In fact, as historian Mary L. Dudziak points out, wartime has actually “the context for the expansion of equality rights” within the military and civil society. President Truman desegregated the military in the context (and largely because of) the Korean War. Congress passed ‘The Women’s Armed Services Integration Act’ — granting women permanent status in the Regular and Reserve forces of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and the Air Force — in 1948, and President Johnson signed sweeping Civil Rights legislation during the conflict in Vietnam.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) plans to introduce an amendment to the budget that would deny “funding to the military for the costs of pursuing inquiries, dismissal proceedings and other procedures associated with enforcing” ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ The NYT’s Caucus blog reports that “Gillibrand has considered such a proposal before but held off because she felt she did not have the 60 votes needed to get the measure through the Senate.” Congress’ new emphasis on freezing wasteful spending and the military’s support for ending the policy could generate votes from more fiscally conservative members. As Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) — who opposes repealing DADT — himself admitted, “I don’t think any agency of the federal government should be exempt from rooting out wasteful spending or unnecessary spending. And I, frankly, I would agree with it at the Pentagon. There’s got to be wasteful spending there, unnecessary spending there.”

Studies have indicated that the cost of discharging and replacing service members fired because of their sexual orientation during the policy’s first 10 years varied from $190.5 million to $363.8 million (if the high cost of training officers and other factors are considered).

Gilibrand’s amendment also suggests that Congress will begin to chisel away at DADT this year without instituting a full repeal. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) has signaled that Congress might adopt a moratorium on discharges but seemed to accept that Congress would have to wait for the Pentagon to finish its review before reversing the policy. Defense Secretary Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen have testified that they would need a year to study DADT and then at least another year to implement a new policy.

Still, the Democrats’ timeline for repeal is unclear. On Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters that “she’s unsure whether the House will overturn ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ this year” and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has indicated that he would support a moratorium as an interim measure. Meanwhile, Vice President Joe Biden told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday that “by this year’s end, we will have eliminated the policy.”

On Thursday Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) appeared on The Michelangelo Signorile Show to argue that Congress should proceed with the repeal before the review is complete. “By the time the bill can be signed by the President, and it’s going to take a bill and it goes through the House and it goes through the Senate and he has to sign it and it will be 6 to 7 months. As quickly as we can do this, it will be by toward the end of the year.” “So Gates has plenty of time to study whatever the hell it is he thinks he has to study,” Frank said.

Last night, Oliver North, the retired U.S. Marine Corps officer turned Fox News contributor, appeared on Hannity’s America to condemn the administration’s decision to over-turn “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” North characterized Obama’s support for the repeal as a “stunning assault on the all-volunteer military, the very best in the world” and suggested that allowing gay and lesbian soldiers to serve openly was the tantamount to letting pedophiles into the military:

Stunning assault on the all-volunteer military, the very best in the world. Barack Obama now intents to treat them like lab rats in a radical social experiment, and it can be very, very detrimental. … In other words, this isn’t about rights. This isn’t about fairness. It’s all about national security. And apparently, Mr. Obama has forgotten it. … Now, here’s what’s next. NAMBLA [North American Man/Boy Love Association] members, same-sex marriages. Are chaplains in the U.S. military going to be required to perform those kinds of rituals? Do they get government housing?

Watch it:

The irony of a convicted felon who lied about diverting proceeds from arms sales to a rebel group in Nicaragua supporting a policy that forces gay and lesbian servicemen to lie about their sexual orientation was lost on both Hannity and North. The pair also failed to mention that Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen personally supports the policy’s repeal, which would have forced North to condemn him for treating the troops “like lab rats in a radical social experiment.” (HT: MMFA)

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) is angry that some progressives touted his willingness to listen to both sides of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ argument — rather than simply making a knee jerk argument about the disruptive effects of homosexuality — as evidence that there was more support for repealing DADT in the Senate than previously thought. Hatch has issued this press release clarifying that he does not favor repealing the policy:

“It’s deeply regrettable that liberal groups are misconstruing my position on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ for activist purposes. I certainly do not support repealing this policy,” Hatch’s statement on Thursday said. [...]

“What I said was that I want to see Adm. Mullen’s report. This is a controversial issue with inflamed passions on both sides,” Hatch said. “Over the years, the views of the military officers and experts, whom I respect, have said that repealing ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ would make life for our troops more difficult — especially as our armed forces wage a global war on terrorism,” Hatch said.

This is fairly awkward. If Hatch has already made up his mind that he does “not support repealing this policy” then why wait for Mullen’s report or elicit views of “military officers?” I suspect that the Senator really believes that service members “shouldn’t have to lie about being gay” but is feeling some backlash from conservative culture warriors for even considering a repeal.

Hatch’s backtracking suggests that activists can’t afford a protracted, drawn out debate about DADT. A year-long process will give the right-wing an opportunity to organize their troops, dig up some fear mongering propaganda about the dangers of cohabitation and begin turning public opinion (sound familiar?) Congress must find a way to expedite the military’s “review” process and get the ball rolling on a repeal before more fence sitters decide that they too “certainly” don’t support “repealing this policy.”

But DC Agenda is reporting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters today that “she’s unsure whether the House will overturn ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ this year before the Pentagon completes its review on implementing repeal.” “‘I don’t know,’ she said during her weekly press conference. ‘I’ll have to examine. We’ll take a look. We’ll sit down together and see what is the advantage of going first with legislation or would the legislation more aptly reflect what is in the review — or is it a two-step process?’”

Last Friday, Bill O’Reilly hosted a panel discussion about such hot “culture warrior” issues as President Obama’s call for the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and CBS’s decision to run a pro-life ad during the Super Bowl. During the DADT portion, O’Reilly asked “does anybody care about ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ anymore’ and opined that “the only way I care about this is if the military brass would say, ‘look in our culture, with the military recruiting mostly conservative people…they’re not comfortable with openly gay people in the barracks.”

“It’s not about anti-gay,” he insisted. “It’s about being comfortable in the barracks. It’s not about anti-gay. I’ve seen polling that shows that most military people just don’t want openly gay people”:

OREILLY: I never objected to Bill Clinton’s vision, that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ was okay. Just don’t talk about it. And don’t be coming out or whatever.

Watch a compilation:

While it’s unclear if O’Reilly’s concerns have been assuaged by the testimonies of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen or the opinion polls that suggest that a majority of conservative families who attend church at least once a week actually support the repeal, his argument that deliberately hiding one’s sexuality somehow improves morale does not hold up to real world experience.

As Danny Kaplan notes in this Foreign Policy magazine article about Israel’s successful integration of openly gay and lesbian troops into the armed forces, “Despite what military officials want to ask or insist on not asking, and despite what gay activists want soldiers to tell about their sexuality, most straight soldiers are not interested in hearing it, and many gay soldiers are not interested in telling it. They simply are what they are and find ways to function together. Policies restricting the participation of gay soldiers paradoxically make sexuality a more salient issue.” “The paradox is that when gays are allowed in the military, but not allowed to identify as such, everyone becomes suspected of being gay,” Kaplan writes. “It is no wonder that a rise in sexual harassment and homophobic crimes have been reported in the U.S. military ever since the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was introduced.”

Former Army officer Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) — a co-sponsor of legislation to repeal DADT — believes that O’Reilly argument — the idea that straight troops are just “not comfortable with openly gay people” — is really suggesting that American service members are “less professional and less mission capable than service members of other foreign militaries,” like Israel and 24 other nations. “As a former army officer that’s an insult to me and to many of the soldiers,” he said during a recent hearing.

(H/T: NewsHounds)

Despite saying he would consider repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ (DADT) if military leaders like Colin Powell believed that “we ought to change the policy“, McCain appeared on Fox News’ Greta van Susteren yesterday to argue that he only wants to hear from leaders that agree with his position.

“I respect the views of Admiral Mullen, who said it was his individual opinion, that we have not heard from the rest of the military leadership. And I’d be very interested in hearing from our military on this issue,” he said:

MCCAIN: So I think, again, when I talk to men and women in the military, they say it’s not broke, it’s not broken, so we don’t need to fix it. … I hope we’re going to get the opinion from our military leadership…If they can show me the evidence that it needs to be changed, obviously, then I would give that serious consideration. That has been my consistent policy. But I do believe that the policy in effect today is working.

Watch it:

McCain dismisses Mullen’s “individual opinion” but says he hopes to hear “the opinion from our military leadership” and suggests that he values the individual opinions of military members who “say it’s not broke, it’s not broken, so we don’t need to fix it.” After all, the overwhelming majority say they are comfortable serving alongside openly gay and lesbian soldiers.

McCain’s reluctance to listen to opposing view points also explains his certainty that DADT “is working.” Since 1994, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has resulted in the discharge of more than 13,000 military personnel across the armed services and cost the nation at least $190.5 million over 10 years. A 2005 General Accounting Office (GAO) report also found that “757 (about 8 percent) of the 9,488 servicemembers discharged for homosexual conduct” from 1994 through fiscal year 2003 held critical occupations” and 209 servicemembers studied an “Important Foreign Language.”