Congressman tackles Don't Ask, Don't Tell; Obama wisely waits for repeal

Pennsylvania's U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, a former Army lawyer and Iraq War veteran, announced at a Washington news conference last week that he's now spearheading the Congressional drive to overturn the idiotic, homophobic and national-security-damaging statute known as "Don't ask, don't tell."

"I've seen great soldiers get kicked out of the Army," Murphy told the Philadelphia Inquirer, "not because of sexual misconduct, but because of their sexual orientation. It's hurt our military, and it's a policy that's long overdue for a change."

Noting that DADT had "led to the discharge of 58 Arabic speakers since" 9/11, Murphy further observed that "they could be on the ground right now in Iraq ... producing vital intelligence that would help us win the war on terror"; as could, overall, the "nearly 13,000 gay service members" who have suffered involuntary discharge since 1993.

A bit more problematically, Murphy said "When I was in Iraq ... my men did not care if you were gay or straight; they just wanted to get the mission done and come home alive."

Why do I say problematic? Purely for political reasons, because as the Inquirer article pointed out in partial opposition to Murphy's assessment: "He's in a pretty serious minority as far as military people go," said Tommy Sears, the Center for Military Readiness' executive director, as evidenced by "a 2006 Military Times poll [that] showed that 58 percent of active-duty personnel support keeping 'don't ask, don't tell.' "

Needless to say, Congressional opponents of the measure's repeal will hammer away at that statistic with a self-satisfied relentlessness.

Nonetheless, Murphy's determined enthusiasm for repeal may erode that statistic over time, and, as he himself admits, Congressional repeal is "not going to happen in a couple days. It's going to be months." So time, Murphy knows, he has plenty of.

"Murphy said he doesn't expect Obama to use an executive order to bypass the legislative process" -- that is, "to stop the military discharges until Congress takes up the issue" -- and he seemed okay with that: "It's our job in the Congress to put a bill on his desk to overturn this policy."

In my recent, more idealistic days, I was supportive of an Obamian preemption. Would that have been the "right" thing to do? Absolutely; but, given the tepidity of this Democratic Congress, also the most politically wrong thing to do. The president's first year in office, as Bill Clinton discovered the hard way, is his best and often only year for signature legislation -- such as health-care reform, affecting 300 million Americans -- and, right as DADT's repeal may be, an executive order, now, to effectively accomplish the same, would be a complication on a much grander scale.

These political games are tedious, but also an unalterable fact of life.

Comments

[Vic]

Respectfully, American attitudes towards sexual orientation have matured quite a bit in the last three years. If the 2006 poll were redone, I would thoroughly expect the numbers to flip; with 58% in favor of repealing DaDt.

[Helen Rainier]

Let's see if I understand this. Murphy was a combat infantry officer in Iraq and says his men could have cared less about sexual preference. There is a group SLDF (Soldiers Legal Defense Fund) that has active and retired members on its board which is also fighting for repeal of DADT. Then we have Tommy Sears from the Center for Military Readiness (which is an independent think tank with right wing ties). Couldn't find any bio info on Sears to determine if he even HAS any military experience. CMR is founded by a woman named Elaine Donnelly who served on a presidential committee (DACOWITS -Department of the Army Committee on Women In The Service)ostensibly as a civilian. Again, I could find no bio info on her to determine if she has any military experience. I suspect if you ask most military people they could give a rip as long as a person does their job. I am a military vet -- 6 years active and almost 10 reserve and I served with G/L. I didn't give a rip. We should listen to civilians exactly WHY? We already know that when the military has to listen to civilians, such as Rumsfeld or McNamara they end up on the short end of the stick.

Please -- gag me with an entrenching tool.