Responding to charges that he flip flopped on his support for repealing DADT, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)’s office issued a statement arguing that Mike Mullen’s recent testimony does not reflect the view of the military as a whole. “One person, speaking individually, not on behalf of the Navy at all, is not going to change Senator McCain’s position” on the issue, McCain communications director Brooke Buchanan said and noted that “McCain had submitted for the record a list of thousands of former military officers who oppose lifting the ban on openly gay people serving in the military.” “Well, I hope you’ll pay attention to the views of over a thousand retired and flag general officers,” McCain said during yesterday’s hearing.

Of course, the over 1,000 “distinguished retired military leaders” who oppose repealing DADT do not accurately reflect military opinion. A PBS inquiry of the list found that “not all of those who appear on the list gave their permission to be used as signatories, and several are dead.” The majority “of the officers have not served in the military this century and never served under the current “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.” Officers who have overwhelmingly oppose the policy.

McCain’s insistence on submitting ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ to an opinion poll — despite real world experiences and research suggesting that repealing the policy would not undermine unit cohesion — suggests that the Senator believes that we should surrender the rights of a minority to a vote before the majority. And that triggers some rather uncomfortable historic parallels.

In 1948, for instance, when President Harry Truman desegregated the military, “most civilians and military personnel opposed racial integration“:

One month before President Truman’s Executive Order, a Gallup poll showed that 63% of American adults endorsed the separation of Blacks and Whites in the military; only 26% supported integration. 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. However, 68% of white soldiers were willing to have Blacks and Whites work together, provided they didn’t share barracks or mess facilities.

A 1993 RAND study on integrating gay service members into the military noted, “[m]any white Americans (especially Southerners) responded with visceral revulsion to the idea of close physical contact with blacks. Many also perceived racial integration as a profound affront to their sense of social order.”

Since 1948 and 1993, attitudes and circumstances have changed. Most Americans have forgotten that the armed forces were ever racially segregated and many senior military officers — including Collin Powell — support allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. Surveys also suggest that an overwhelming majority of military members “are comfortable with lesbians and gays.”

And while their support may ease the integration process, it’s not a strong reason for repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ — a policy that was as unjust and counterproductive in 1993 (when many supported it) as it is today. That decision should be rooted in this country’s principles and moral obligations. As Mullen argued in yesterday’s hearing, “No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.” “For me, it comes down to integrity – theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.”

During yesterday’s DADT hearing, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that he will ask the Defense Department for recommendations in the next 45 days on how the law could be more humanely implemented and announced the formation of a “high level working group” to “immediately begin a review of the issues associated with properly implementing a repeal of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy.” The “working group” would “examine all aspects of this question and produce its finding and recommendations in the form of an implementation plan by the end of this calender year“:

1. The working group will reach out to the force to “understand their views and attitudes about the impacts of repeal.”

2. “Undertake a thorough examination of all the changes to the departments’ regulations and policies that have to be made. These include potential revisions to policies on benefits, base housing, fraternization and misconduct, separations and discharges, and many others.”

3. “Examine the potential impacts of a change in the law on military effectiveness, including how a change might affect unit cohesion, recruiting and retention, and other issues crucial to the performance of the force.”

While several studies have found that repealing the law would not undermine military effectiveness, the military has never performed a comprehensive review of the nuts and bolts involved in fully integrating the ranks. As Aubrey Sarvis, Executive Director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, writes “It is true that the services will need time to make the transition work. Some regulations will need to be revised, some written, then issued. Training will have to be scheduled over a period of several months to inform and educate troops about the new policy, just as education and training were needed when the military ended segregation in the ranks. Leadership from senior enlisted and the officers corps will be key to a successful transition.”

“But a smooth and responsible change need not take years,” he concludes. Studying the implantation challenges makes sense but Congress should ensure that the study does not delay the repeal. During the hearing Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) proposed writing into repeal 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.’” Sarvis suggests that Congress could first repeal DADT and “write a provision in the legislation giving the Pentagon another six to nine months for the transition.”

Whatever it does, Congress should not outsource repeal to a ‘working group’ or sit on its hands until the review process is complete. “The 16-year-old policy is a creature of Congress. Thus, it is Congress that must permanently right this wrong” and it should do so before the end of the year. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) has signaled that Congress will institute a moratorium on discharges while the military is studying the policy but it could probably do more. Congress can require the working group to produce bimonthly progress reports and set firm deadlines for completing the reivew. After all, if there is no road map to repeal, there is nothing stopping reluctant military leaders from driving off track.

During today’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on repealing the military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) criticized Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen for supporting the repeal of DADT without first conducting an exhaustive review of the policy or consulting with Congress.

“And so your statement is one that is clearly biased, without the view of Congress being taken into consideration,” McCain said. “I’m happy to say we still have a Congress of the United States that would have to pass a law to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’, despite your efforts to repeal it in many respects by fiat”:

I’m deeply disappointed in your statement…Your statement is ‘question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we best prepare for it.’ It would be far more appropriate, I say with great respect, to determine whether repealing this law is appropriate and what effects it would have on the readiness and effectiveness of the military before deciding on whether we should repeal the law or not and fortunately it is an act of Congress and it requires the agreement of Congress in order to repeal it.

Watch it:

McCain’s harsh dismissal of Gates and Mullen contradicts his previous commitment to consider repealing the policy at their request. In October of 2006, for instance, McCain explained that he understood the arguments against repealing DADT, but promised that “the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, Senator, we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to.”

But today, McCain refused to “consider seriously” repealing the law, arguing that the Pentagon should not change policies in the middle of two wars. The logic of course, makes little sense, and something McCain himself may have rejected in October of 2006. 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. As Mullen put it, “No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.”

Mullen admitted that the military had not conduced a review of the policy but also said that he hasn’t been any research showing that openly gay members undercut military moral. Instead, Mullen pointed to studies that concluded that ending the policy would not hurt military preparedness and cited personal conversations with nations that have fully integrated their forces. “I have talk talked to several of my counterparts in countries whose militaries allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, and there has been as they have told me, no impact on military effectiveness,” Mullen said. “I have served with homosexuals since 1968,” he added. “Everyone in the military has.”

At the hearing, Gates called for a review of DADT and suggested that it may take up to two years to implement a full repeal. Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) also suggested that this year, “what’s more likely than repeal…is a moratorium” on discharges. “I think [it's] a more likely prospect because of the study,” Levin said.

Transcript: Read more

Spurred by President Obama’s pledge to “work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country,” the Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing this afternoon to unveil the Pentagon’s initial plans to abolish the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy (DADT). Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen are expected to announce that the Defense Department “will not take action to discharge service members whose sexual orientation is revealed by third parties or jilted partners” and establish “a special investigation into how and when to repeal the long-standing 1993 law.” “Their review is expected to look at several sensitive issues, including whether the military should extend marriage and bereavement benefits to the partners of gay soldiers,” the Hill is reporting:

But that upcoming inquiry — and, ultimately, the end of the military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” ban — could take years to complete, officials have recently suggested…Their inquiry seems to be an attempt to assuage military leaders’ fears that an end to “Don’t ask, don’t tell” could jeopardize the U.S. military during war time. However, activists alike fear an actual repeal may still be years away. The delay seems to be the result of general reluctance among military leaders to end the policy, and trepidation on the part of lawmakers to broach the issue ahead of what is sure to be a tough midterm election year.

While the new standard for DADT investigations could signal “a shift in the military’s focus toward keeping gay troops, reflecting the military’s belief that they are as essential as their heterosexual peers,” the Pentagon’s slow crawl towards repealing the policy suggests that any changes to the law would be incremental — driven by the military’s resistance to change rather than military necessity or consideration.

After all, numerous studies as well as real world experience in Canada, Britain, France and Israel have already concluded that rapid integration “minimizes disruptions to unit cohesion and morale.” A 1993 Rand Corporation report found that “implementing gay service that stated that openly gay service was entirely workable, but that a successful new policy must be “decided upon and implemented as quickly as possible” to avoid anxiety and uncertainty in the field. It said it was crucial “to convey a new policy that ends discrimination as simply as possible and to impose the minimum of changes on personnel.”

Last year, a RAND survey of military personnel who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan “found that having a gay or lesbian colleague in their unit had no significant impact on their unit’s cohesion or readiness.” “Service members said the most important factors for unit cohesion and readiness were the quality of their officers, training and equipment,” not their sexual orientation. “Serving with another service member who was gay or lesbian was not a significant factor that affected unit cohesion or readiness to fight,” the study found.

As John Aravosis notes, “There is no reason the White House can’t work with the Congress to repeal the ban this year, and simply delay implementation of the repeal until next year when the “study” is done.”

Ideally, the Pentagon could conduct its review while simultaneously dismantling the policy. The committee should pressure the Pentagon to expedite the review process and can even require the reviewers to produce bimonthly progress reports. A review that’s concurrent with the repeal process would prevent the military brass from dragging its feet and meet the President’s goal of repealing DADT before the end of the year. In today’s POLITICO, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) suggested that the military should be “sensitive to any complications of this policy shift” and urged “those who favor change not to mistake deliberation for undue delay.”