This afternoon, in a wide-ranging discussion about the LGBT community’s reaction to the recently released survey about ‘Dont Ask, Don’t Tell,’ Department of Defense spokesperson Geoff Morrell vehemently pushed back against LGBT groups who have characterized the survey as “derogatory and insulting,” insisting that the survey was designed to inform the Pentagon about how best to repeal the ban against open service.

On Friday, Servicemembers United condemned the survey, saying it “stokes the fires of homophobia by its very design and will only make the Pentagon’s responsibility to subdue homophobia as part of this inevitable policy change even harder” and has since unveiled a petition condemning the survey, which they pegged at “$4.4 million.” Morrell promptly defended the Defense Department’s questionnaire, saying, “We think it would be irresponsible to conduct a survey that did not address these questions,” and suggested that the military might use the results from the survey to make “adjustments to facilities themselves,” prompting many to assume that segregation of forces was under consideration.

In an interview with Morrell this afternoon, the Pentagon spokesman told the Wonk Room that his comments were twisted and taken out of context and vehemently denied that the Defense Department was considering segregating the troops. “So what I said, I used the term ‘facilities adjustments’ and I think people have gotten carried away as to what that could mean,” he began:

MORRELL: So, when I was asked, about the, you know – this is in the context of “why are you even asking these questions?” – well, we’re asking these questions because in our engagements with the force thus far, this has been an area of some concern. Now we need to test it to see if that holds for—if it really reflects the concerns of the force, and which members of the force. Is it older members? Is it younger members? Are they, you know—which ones? And, and then along with this information, the working group will make some recommendations about how to deal with those concerns. It could be, as I said, who knows? This could be dealt with through education programs, through training programs, or it may require “facilities adjustments.” But no one, no one is considering “separate but equal” bathing or living facilities for you know, gay and straight troops. That’s just not ever a consideration.

Q: So that’s off the table.

MORRELL: Absolutely off the table.

Throughout our discussion, Morrell couldn’t understand why LGBT groups would interpret the survey as being offensive to gay people, insisting that the entire questionnaire was designed to minimize disruption once the policy is repealed. “It was not in any way, in any way, not designed to be offensive to anyone. What it was designed to do was to get us the best sense of how the force feels about this issue so we could make adjustments for implementation,” he said. “The intent here is to get the best understanding of how the force feels so that we can take measures to prepare for implementation. That’s what it’s about.” “It is abundantly clear to this working group that their marching orders from the Sec. of Def. are to determine how to implement a repeal of DADT. Their job is not to determine whether or not the force wishes a repeal to take place or not to take place. Their job is to prepare for that inevitability,” he added.

When I asked him how questions like, “Do you currently serve with a male or female Service member you believe to be homosexual?” or “If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, how, if at all, will it affect your willingness to recommend to a family member or close friend that he or she join the military?” got at how best to implement the policy, Morrell explained that they gave the military an idea of hurdles they would need to overcome once the policy is repealed.

Q: OK, so if the survey is bad, and that means if you get a lot of people that don’t like gays, what happens to the policy?

MORRELL: Well we’re gonna have to figure out how we overcome that. Whether it’s through additional training or education or recruiting techniques – I can’t tell you what the working group may or may not come up with. This is not in any way intended for us to find potential landmines that would cause us not to proceed with a repeal, but rather is to edify us about the kinds of challenges associated with repeal that would need to be dealt with post-repeal. I guess what I don’t understand here is why you and some of these others who are writing on this issue can’t take what we say at face value.

“I think it’s just difficult for people to believe that if when the survey comes back, it’s negative – you’re gonna have a fight in the joint chiefs with all those folks who don’t want to do it,” I said, to which Morrell responded:

MORRELL: You’re gonna have to take us at our word on that. But I would say to you this though, Igor. What do you want us to do? Do you want us to put our head in the sand and ignore concerns that have been voiced to us by the force? And so that when we are charged with implementing the repeal, we don’t have any of the information necessary to alleviate or mitigate some of these problems? It is better for us to ask some of these questions up front in as candid a manner as possible, to get as much information as possible, so we are prepared for this eventuality. It would be irresponsible of us to do otherwise.

The Department is also disputing Servicemembers’ claim that it “paid the research firm Westat the outrageous sum of $4.4 million to design and administer an email-based survey,” insisting that the true cost is closer to $850,000.

On Friday, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell pushed back against critics of the recently released DADT survey, and dug the Defense Department in an even bigger hole in the process. Last week, several prominent gay groups criticized the survey for asking the troops to speculate on the sexual orientation of other service members and took umbrage at the implication that gays would pose a problem within the military.

Morrell admitted that the Pentagon outsourced the survey to a private firm without consulting with LGBT groups and suggested that segregating gay and straight troops would not be out of the question once Congress repeals the policy:

Morrell also insisted that the questions with which most critics took the most umbrage — i.e., those related to lifestyle issues like socializing outside of work as well as showering and sharing barracks with openly gay and lesbian colleagues (as though that does not currently occur) — were developed as part of a process within the department and the working group to address the “privacy” issues of concern to heterosexual members of the military. Morrell said, “We think it would be irresponsible to conduct a survey that did not address these questions,” but insisted they were asked to help the military determine what adjustments might be necessary “when DADT is repealed.”

In response to questions from reporters, Morrell clarified that the survey responses could lead the military to conclude that it would “perhaps need adjustments to facilities themselves,” indicating that it is not outside the realm of possibility that, in order to preserve the privacy and modesty of heterosexual service members in group showers and barracks, the military would consider segregating gay and lesbian service members in some way.

When quizzed about the development of the survey questions, Morrell admitted that they didn’t consult with advocacy groups about the design of the survey, leaving that to the professionals at Westat, the private contractor who developed the questions in consultation with the Pentagon and working group.

Several points here. First, it’s unclear that asking soldiers to speculate about the homosexuality of their colleagues and report anecdotal accounts of perceived or actual discomfort with gay troops will inform the military about how best to implement repeal. These questions may reveal how troops perceive their fellow soldiers or the accuracy of their gaydar, but it will say almost nothing about which regulations need to be changed in order to guarantee an orderly transition. If anything, Morrell’s suggestion that facilities may be adjusted to accommodate insecure straight soldiers would only undermine that goal and suggest that military members need only to register their distaste for gays loudly enough to relegate them to separate but equal treatment.

The troops are already forced to live in a whole host of disagreeable conditions and train, sleep, and eat with men and women of all races, religions, and values without detriment to unit cohesion or military effectiveness. That’s because segregating the troops would actually hurt the forces. As General Carl Mundy, commandant of the Marine Corps from 1991 to 1995 and an opponent of a repeal has predicted, segregating the forces “would be absolutely disastrous in the armed forces. …It would destroy any sense of cohesion or teamwork or good order and discipline.” Indeed, none of the 25 nations that have allowed open service provide separate housing, shower, or other common-use facilities for gay and lesbian service members. But the U.S. military seems open to putting them up to a vote and in the process is greatly mishandling a policy change that this administration and an overwhelming majority of Americans — and by some accounts service members — support.

Former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA), who actively opposed allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military and later help craft the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has stated his support for repealing the ban in the clearest, if somewhat conditional terms. In a recent interview with the Sun News Times, Nunn implied that he would support repeal if the Pentagon study concluded that it does not undermine military effectiveness:

NUNN: If they can mitigate the damage and make sure the military can properly administer (the repeal) in a fair way, but in a way that protects unit cohesion and the morale of our forces, then I would favor making whatever changes are necessary...I don’t think any policy like that can last forever. I don’t think it was designed for that. I think it was designed for giving the military and society the chance to make sure we did not damage national security in any way before the policy was changed.

Nunn told reporter Thomas Day that he did not agree with the Democrats’ decision to begin the process of repeal before the Pentagon finished their study, however, placing him somewhat to the right of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen, both of whom gave — at least conditional — support to the Democrats’ approach. Other members of the Joint Chiefs however, have publicly condemned effort to attach repeal legislation to the defense authorization bill.

Nunn had previously suggested that he was open to reviewing the policy in 2008. Then, he told reporters that “times change” and it is now time to reconsider the ban. When “fifteen years go by on any personnel policy,” he said, “it’s appropriate to take another look at it — see how it’s working, ask the hard questions, hear from the military.”

In February, Colin Powell — another strong proponent of DADT in the 1990s — also reversed his position and came out against the policy, noting that “attitudes and circumstances have changed.”