Servicemembers United is reporting that 443 soldiers were discharged under the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy during fiscal year 2009. “The annual fiscal year ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ discharge statistic combines the total number of discharges reported by the Department of Defense, which was 428, with the total number of discharges reported by the Department of Homeland Security for the Coast Guard, which was 15.”

“This brings the official 17-year total, according to the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, to 13,425 discharges,” the group says, noting that the number may be an underestimate:

Although only 443 total discharges are included in the official statistic for fiscal year 2009, the true number of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” discharges is very likely higher. When pressed by Servicemembers United, the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Freedom of Information Office confirmed on three separate occasions in late 2009 and early 2010 that the internal source of their annual “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” discharge numbers is the Defense Manpower Data Center, and that Defense Manpower Data Center statistics do not include discharges from the Reserves or the National Guard. [...]

The Department of Defense in general – and the Defense Manpower Data Center specifically – has consistently failed to disclose full information and data related to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” discharges in blatant violation of the Freedom of Information Act. In response to one request for information by Servicemembers United in mid-2009, the Department of Defense took more than twice the amount of time allowable by law to produce less than one-tenth of one percent of the requested data – data that was not classified and not protected by the Privacy Act. Information requests from members of Congress, including House Armed Services Committee members, have also been only partially filled.

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. It’s estimated that there are at least 65,000 gay and lesbian servicemembers on active military duty today and another 1 million gay and lesbian veterans.

The Washington Post is reporting that Navy officials are banning all smoking on Navy submarines and letting women join submarine crews despite the overwhelming opposition of Navy members:

Of all the pending changes, the introduction of women seems to be igniting the strongest reactions, according to interviews with active-duty and veteran sailors. The complaints often fall into two categories: first, that female sailors will invariably become pregnant, potentially compromising missions during which submarines can remain submerged for months at a time; and second, that submarines are not built for the mixing of the sexes, given the tight passageways, shared berths and lack of privacy.

Joseph Shook, a retired submariner from Texas, responded to Bruner’s blog with defiant comments, arguing that “over 99% do not wish to see it happen, all knowing it will not work as envisioned by whatever idiots have thought it up.” Some of the backlash stems from a desire to preserve one of the few remaining public institutions in America where adult men can openly act like, well, young adult men. (Women sometimes board submarines as guests or as technicians on short-term assignments but are not assigned to crews.) [...] “I’m worried that if you add women and remove smoking, some people will say, ‘Too much is changing; this isn’t what I like, and I’m going to get out,’ ” he said. “I don’t think you can remove cigarettes and add women and it not have some effect on the retention rate.”

Republicans and conservative military leaders should be outraged. They have insisted that the Pentagon poll military members and their families about replacing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and warned about the implications of adopting new social policies while the country is at war. Why aren’t they concerned that the Navy is about to institute some very unpopular policies?

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has been particularly cranky, recently telling reporters that he opposes ending the ban on gays and lesbians in the military because a majority of servicemembers believe that the current policy is still working. Similarly, Army Chief Of Staff Gen. George Casey has said that openly gay and lesbian troops could offend midlevel members and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway argued that marines are so opposed to allowing gays serve openly that they would have to stay in separate housing.

But in this case, the critics are silent, apparently cognizant of the fact that military policy should be determined by the needs and values of the military, not opinion surveys. This tacit acceptance undermines their concerns about DADT and suggests that their support for the policy has little to do with the needs of servicemembers. As one anonymous members observed, allowing gays to serve openly is small apples compared to taking away cigarettes and integrating women. “Everybody knows there are already homosexuals on our force, and I don’t think them being open about it will change anything on a boat.”

This morning, Fox and Friends covered GetEQUAL’s recent attention-grabbing protest, in which six veterans discharged under the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy handcuffed themselves to the White House fence to pressure the administration to repeal the policy before the end of the year. The network ignored the purpose of the protest and focused on the “transparency” angle, playing a footage of the Park Police closing down Lafayette Park and moving reporters away from the activists.

Host Gretchen Carlson asked conservative blogger Michelle Malkin to comment the police’s actions and insinuated that the protesters were not real soldiers:

CARLSON: I want to get your take on something that happened at the White House earlier this week, because, of course the message from the Obama administration is of course they will be the most transparent White House ever and there was this incident where some members of the military, at least dressed up like that, were handcuffing themselves in an area where typically protests happen and the police chased reporters away and basically said they could not cover the event that was happening. Now the police say it was a rookie mistake, but what’s your take on it?

MALKIN: Well, I think what amuses me most is the left wing frenzy very this, because you have all these blogs and left-wing journalists who are finally realizing that Obama lied and transparency died. And all the morons at Media Matters can Google it or search it in their transcripts. I’ve said it so many times on your show and Fox about this administration’s lack of commitment to transparency…

Watch it:

In reality, of course, all of the protesters were, or still are, members of the military. Lt. Dan Choi serves in the New York National Guard and served in the Army, James Pietrangelo II served in the army, Autumn Sandeen and Larry Whitt served in the Navy, Mara Boyd served in the Air Force ROTC and Evelyn Thomas served in the Marine Corps.

The Park Police was widely criticized for its action and initially “provided contradictory accounts of who ordered the move.” Yesterday, however, park police officials said that they acted without consulting administration officials or the secret service and admitted that young officers had “screwed up.” Press Secretary Robert Gibbs also said the police engaged in “some overzealous actions.”

This obviously isn’t the first time the channel has used left-wing protests to push a conservative agenda. On Tuesday, Neil Cavuto covered GetEQUAL’s protest of Obama in Los Angeles by inviting a tea party activist to explain the double standard between how the media treats DADT activists and conservative tea partiers. “I think we kind of have a political double standard going on here. It’s easy for one side when they see their issues being put forward to ignore rude behavior. But when it’s the other side of the aisle, they’re quick to point fingers,” the tea partier explained to Fox.