Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
AP reports:
More than 100 retired generals and admirals called Monday for repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays so they can serve openly, according to a statement obtained by The Associated Press.The move by the military veterans confronts the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama with a thorny political and cultural issue that dogged former President Bill Clinton early in his administration.
"As is the case with Great Britain, Israel, and other nations that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, our service members are professionals who are able to work together effectively despite differences in race, gender, religion, and sexuality," the officers wrote.
How will Obama handle this? He supports the repeal of DADT, but I think he needs to proceed cautiously. He doesn't want to get into a contentious fight over it right off the bat.
The issue of gays in the military became a flash point early in the Clinton administration as Clinton tried to fulfill a campaign promise to end the military's ban on gays. His efforts created the current compromise policy -- ending the ban but prohibiting active-duty service members from openly acknowledging they are gay.But it came at a political cost. The resulting debate divided service members and veterans, put Democrats on the defensive and provided cannon fodder for social conservatives and Republican critics who questioned Clinton's patriotism and standing with the military.
Retired Adm. Charles Larson, a four-star admiral and two-time superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy who signed the statement with 104 other retired admirals and generals, said in an interview that he believed Clinton's approach was flawed because he rushed to change military culture.
Larson said he hoped Obama would take more time to work with the Pentagon. Joining Larson among the signatories was Clifford Alexander, Army secretary under former President Jimmy Carter.
"There are a lot of issues they'll have to work out, and I think they'll have to prioritize," Larson said, noting that the new administration will immediately face combat-readiness issues and budget concerns. "But I hope this would be one of the priority issues in the personnel area."
I think Larson is right. The first step is to establish some credibility with the Joint Chiefs and the Pentagon brass. He should appoint a commission to study the question and recommend the repeal, give it a year or two and then look to pass legislation with the support of the Pentagon chiefs. Much has changed in the 15 years since this battle was fought the first time. The American public now supports the move and so do a great many military leaders. So do a large portion of the active duty military. This can get done, but it should be done intelligently and cautiously.
Politics
Comments
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand Clintons first year in office was a disaster for badly tackling issues such as this and there is some risk to Obama here. One other hand much as changed since 1993 and although the majority of people don't want to see us getting married or hanging around their kids - they have no issue with us serving open in the military.
Nate from fivethirtyeight.com also discussed the issue yesterday: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/ghosts-of-1993.html
Posted by: yoshi | November 23, 2008 10:39 AM
I think Obama is proceeding very wisely here in his choice of what issues to tackle when. Political capital is very important, and to come out of the gate swinging, his team needs a couple of wins on big issues of broad consensus.
Of course there are many issues like this that people care deeply about and want to demand that Obama tackle right away. But they can't all be first, and most activists have no idea what it actually takes to get things done in government, let alone whats involved in winning elections and building political capital.
I would say that this issue should come up after a few big domestic policy wins in energy and economic policy, which is right about when the focus will turn to Iraq and redeployment. At this point, rethinking the role and composition of the military will be at the forefront, and emphasizing the professionalism of military men and how insulting it is to claim that they cannot match in maturity the many nations that do not exclude homosexuals from service is a winning, pro-military argument.
Posted by: Bad | November 23, 2008 10:53 AM
Obama can repeal this policy with a great deal of ease and Republican support. He just has to frame it the right way. Rather than just ending it, he needs to publicly declare that the US will now emulate the policy of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and then boom, it's all good.
Posted by: I am so wise | November 23, 2008 11:29 AM
That....may be a good way to go about it.
It sounds flip and glib, but it's still a winner...
Posted by: gwangung | November 23, 2008 11:44 AM
""As is the case with Great Britain, Israel, and other nations that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly..."
Wait, what? I live in the UK; being discovered as gay in the military here gets you beaten up and dunned out, even now, even though they can't officially dump you "just" for being gay -- now they have to find another excuse, to make the inevitable dismissal legal. It may be legal to be gay in the military here, but it doesn't mean it is accepted.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | November 23, 2008 12:20 PM
Politics is infuriating. There are lesbians and gays willing to die for our country, but we can't let them because we don't approve of who they love or sleep with?
Why don't we discharge every soldier with an ugly wife?
Posted by: barry21 | November 23, 2008 12:22 PM
luna:
That is not the experience of my gay friends who serve in the military. I have one gay friend in the army who is out, and one who is in the air force. Neither of them have experienced any problems as a result of their sexuality.
Posted by: Donalbain | November 23, 2008 12:36 PM
I don't have any mixed feelings about this. As far as I am concerned this could be Obama's first act as Commander in Chief. No establishing credibility with the Joint Chiefs, no worrying about political capital, no comparing it to the policy of IDF, no more playing the same tired games with this issue.
Change, as Obama promised, now.
Posted by: JED | November 23, 2008 12:46 PM
Nate Silver over at fivethirtyeight.com posted about the change in public attitude in the 16 years since Clinton's efforts. Up to 75% of the general public now thinks gays in the military is okay (depending on the survey).
But it's true that the one thing holding Obama back from doing it is that he doesn't want to step into a situation where he will be compared with Clinton and it becomes a big story and the right-wingers get weeks of free publicity from the press to pound him over the head with it.
However he chooses to handle it, it should be with the minimum of fuss and publicity. He should not wait too long -- public opinion is on his side, so shying from the issue will make him look weak for not facing up to Limbaugh and his parrots in talk radio. So if it's not the first item on his agenda, it should not be three years down the road either.
Posted by: tacitus | November 23, 2008 1:21 PM
that this change is coming is inevitable, but making it before equivalently-important changes happen in the civilian world may not be the best strategy possible. the military tends to be even more conservative than the rest of the USA; let it follow on this subject, not lead.
let's see about same-sex marriage rights on a federal level, first. once servicemembers started entering into those, DADT would pretty much have to fall as a result.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | November 23, 2008 2:57 PM
If I recall, this was not the case with integration of the armed forces with respect to race.
That was social engineering as well, but it was the right thing to do.
Posted by: gwangung | November 23, 2008 3:36 PM
JED said:
And a Republican congress in 2010, just like Clinton.
Posted by: BaldApe | November 23, 2008 4:17 PM
Barry21, being gay is about more than who you sleep with. Don't fall into that fundie trap.
Posted by: Bachalon | November 23, 2008 4:45 PM
There's another problem. Obama can't move unilaterally as Clinton did. The prior ban was a matter of policy that could be changed by executive order. The current ban is in law and must be repealed by Congress. That said, this is all one big distraction, trying to force a Clinton parallel onto Obama in the first 100 days. He's a fool if he falls for it, and whatever else he may be, Obama is no fool.
Posted by: usagi | November 23, 2008 5:40 PM
Homosexuals have been allowed to serve openly in the Canadian Forces since 1992 after a court ruling found the previous policy of discrimination to be contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The CF have even presided over a same-sex marriage between two gay members at a military base in 2005. As a Canadian Army officer for over 30 years, I have not seen any negative operational or cultural impacts to the policy change. Once the US military gets on with their inevitable change, they will quickly realize that the sky will not fall. They need to get on with it already.
Posted by: Ex-drone | November 23, 2008 5:44 PM
It's about who you form relationships with, too.
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 23, 2008 7:30 PM
Well, I mean it's about identity. It wouldn't matter if I slept with 1,000 women, or married a woman, I would still be gay. That's the point I was trying to make.
Posted by: Bachalon | November 23, 2008 9:02 PM
How about Obama tells the joint chiefs that he doesn't want to hear or read anything about anyone being drummed out of the service because someone asked or told? In other words, all the way down the line, put out the word: in this time of serious military challenges, your career will go off track if you call attention to yourself by enforcing DADT.
Let it just fade away ... then overturn the law.
Posted by: Gerry L | November 23, 2008 9:16 PM
Re Gerry L
I think that Mr. Gerry L is right on. Former Navy Secretary John Lehman told a Congressional committee several years ago that the armed forces should be ordered to stop the witch hunt, that is, cease and desist from outing closeted gay service members.
Posted by: SLC | November 24, 2008 7:02 AM
JED -
No establishing credibility with the Joint Chiefs, no worrying about political capital, no comparing it to the policy of IDF, no more playing the same tired games with this issue.
Which would be a great way to alienate a lot of folks, including the military. Even the officers who support gays serving openly.
Rather than just coming in and running roughshod, he needs to make it an issue and make it clear that DODT is hurting our military and is a danger to national security. He needs to parade these and the many other officers, active and retired, who support gays serving openly. He needs to parade enlisted men and women who are perfectly comfortable serving alongside and even under gays. He needs to show the reams of evidence that gays serving openly isn't a problem.
Then he needs to make it happen. While it will still alienate some people, they would, at that point, be a insignificant minority. OTOH, it would go a long ways toward showing that he isn't just going to act as though he knows better than those who are in the military, how the military should be run.
Posted by: DuWayne | November 24, 2008 7:37 AM
There's another problem. Obama can't move unilaterally as Clinton did. The prior ban was a matter of policy that could be changed by executive order. The current ban is in law and must be repealed by Congress.
Well, now is the time to do it then, rather than wait for 2010 and risk not having a Democratic majority. This is not a distraction, this is a campaign promise made by Obama and to me, it looks like he is walking away from it. Not surprising, Obama has always played both sides of any issue.
Posted by: JED | November 24, 2008 7:54 AM
JED -
This is not a distraction, this is a campaign promise made by Obama and to me, it looks like he is walking away from it.
Good grief, he's not even president yet. You're as bad as the fucking right wingers. What could possibly make you think he's walking away from it? What part of bush is still the president don't you understand.
Posted by: DuWayne | November 24, 2008 8:11 AM
What could possibly make you think he's walking away from it?
Specifically, this:
Obama to delay 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal
President-elect Barack Obama will not move for months, and perhaps not until 2010, to ask Congress to end the military's decades-old ban on open homosexuals in the ranks, two people who have advised the Obama transition team on this issue say.
Repealing the ban was an Obama campaign promise. However, Mr. Obama first wants to confer with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his new political appointees at the Pentagon to reach a consensus and then present legislation to Congress, the advisers said.
When it comes to gay rights, consensus never happens and as far as Bush still being President, it's never to early to distance yourself from us radical gays.
Posted by: JED | November 24, 2008 9:21 AM
Even though Bush is still President, there's talk of lifting restrictions on stem cell research.
Foes of stem cell research now face tough battle
WASHINGTON (AP) -- When the Bush presidency ends, opponents of embryonic stem cell research will face a new political reality that many feel powerless to stop.
President-elect Barack Obama is expected to lift restrictions on federal money for such research. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also has expressed interest in going ahead with legislation in the first 100 days of the new Congress if it still is necessary to set up a regulatory framework.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g00d3sTMuNXZxBzh3E2nhBIiqMYAD94KLQ8O2
What? No confiring with scientists or consensus building?
Posted by: JED | November 24, 2008 9:41 AM
He campaigned opposing DADT? Who knew? The point remains the same, however, the ball is in Congress's court.
Posted by: usagi | November 24, 2008 3:36 PM
The point remains the same, however, the ball is in Congress's court.
Just as with stem cell research, the ball is in Obama's court. That's called leadership.
Posted by: JED | November 24, 2008 6:40 PM
Donalbain: Really? Wow. ...The experience I'm familiar with is a Scottish kid who entered the army from the TA, who confessed that he was gay to the (also Scottish) other people in his section -- and they beat the crap out of him, and then blamed him for starting the fight. He ended up being isolated away from the rest of the platoon for his own safety until they discharged him and shipped him off. There wasn't anything in the story about his having propositioned someone in the platoon, even...just that he had confessed that he was gay. But there ARE some rural areas of Scotland which are hard-core intolerant of poofters. (I live just south of Aberdeen, for reference.)
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | November 25, 2008 4:35 AM