Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 1:10 PM ET, 11/30/2010

Pentagon report will leave opponents of DADT repeal little to work with

By Greg Sargent

Okay, I've got some more detail for you on the findings in that forthcoming Pentagon report on the impact repeal of Don't Ask Don't tell will have on the military. The upshot: It will leave GOP moderates with no reasons left to oppose repeal.

One of the key findings in the report is that a whopping 74 percent of spouses of military service-members say repeal of DADT would have no impact on their view of whether their husbands or wives should continue to serve. This number comes by way of a Congressional staffer who attended a private briefing that the report's authors, Defense Department officials Jeh Johnson and Carter Ham, gave to Senate Armed Services Committee staffers this morning.

This finding is important, because it undercuts a key argument made by repeal opponents: That having service-members mingle with gay colleagues could worry their families.

Also: The report will also undercut another key argument being made by repeal opponents: That opposition remains strong in the Marines. According to the source, while the report does find that concern runs high among Marines, it also finds that 84 percent of Marine combat corps combat arms units who said they thought they'd worked with homosexual service-members in the past found the experience either very good, good, or neutral.

More broadly, the authors told the briefing, across the entire military, a stunning 92 percent who reported working with people they thought were gay said the experience been either very good, good, or neutral.

Ed O'Keefe's sources mostly reported the same findings.

The Congressional staffer summarized the conclusion this way: "The conclusion of the report is that the authors believe that with the prompt implementation of their recommendations, the risk of repeal for military effectiveness is low. The U.S. military can adjust and accomodate the change."

The report itself will be released in about an hour.

Bottom line: The military has spoken. And the pretexts for opposing repeal are running out.


UPDATE, 1:39 p.m.: The report's topline finding, which has already been widely reported, is that some 70 percent of members of the military don't think repeal of DADT will matter. But the key is also in the report's details, and whether they give opponents any oxygen at all. It looks like that won't happen.

UPDATE, 2:00 p.m.: Another key thing just happened in Robert Gibbs' briefing with reporters: He flatly stated the president believes there's enough time in the lame duck session for the Senate to do what it takes to repeal DADT. That's important: It could increase pressure on Harry Reid to schedule the requisite floor debate.

UPDATE, 2:23 p.m.: The report is now online.

By Greg Sargent  | November 30, 2010; 1:10 PM ET
Categories:  Foreign policy and national security, gay rights  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Bipartisan group of senators calls for ethanol subsidies to expire
Next: Boehner to Obama: Ongoing talks no substitute for extending all Bush tax cuts

Comments

It's not a bunch of pre-texts

Many, many people believe it is the WRONG way for the military to go

If DADT is repealed, then all of a sudden "sensitivity" issues have to be addressed - and that distracts from readiness.


WHEN will the liberals realize that the military is FOR DEFENSE, not social policy.


This is simply the wrong way to go, study this, study that - Poll this, poll that -


So what if a bunch of 20 year olds tell a pollster they "don't care" - other things have to be considered.


The nation has REJECTED the liberal agenda -

WHEN WILL THIS CRAP STOP ????


.

Posted by: RainintheForest | November 30, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Has Senator Reid announced what the process will be for the bill and if amendments will be allowed?

Posted by: jnc4p | November 30, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Senator Collins won't support repeal until she hears from "the Presidents Bush" on the issue. That apparently is the new "duck and cover" for Republican moderates.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 30, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

RainintheForest - That really isn't a cogent argument against repeal. It also assumes that support for repeal coincides with a liberal agenda, which just isn't true. It's cross cutting.

Posted by: adammc123 | November 30, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

jnc4p

not yet. the key is if GOP moderates signal support...that ups pressure on Reid to make the time for debate

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 30, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

@Greg Sargent

"not yet. the key is if GOP moderates signal support...that ups pressure on Reid to make the time for debate"

Why can't Reid just do this and, you know, actually lead on this issue?

Posted by: jnc4p | November 30, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw,

I thought Susan Collins was wanting to hear from Bush Greater and Lesser on the START treaty.....

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 30, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

@RainintheForest: Sir, you are right, sir! The social policy experiment of excluding gays has failed, sir! The social policy experiment of enshrining religious hatred has failed, sir!

Sir, you correctly note that the purpose of the military is defense, sir! Not enforcing religious hatred, sir!

Sir, many, many people have no use for religious hatred, sir! Thank you, sir, for pointing this out, sir!

Permission to defend America, sir!

Posted by: Garak | November 30, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

suekzoo,

True. I'm just (snarkily) extrapolating that precedent to any issue arguably touching on national security.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 30, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

I am going to listen to the news conference at 2pm (Eastern) today on CSPAN.

Posted by: maritza1 | November 30, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

This really comes down to Reid. If he allows time for debate then we can get this thing done.

Posted by: maritza1 | November 30, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

For a 20-something to tell a pollster that they "don't care" is far different from indicating support - AND it smacks of the questions being stacked one-way.


Was the question: Do you SUPPORT this proposal?? If that was the phrasing of the question, perhaps the answers would be different, and more accurate.


One has to consider carefully ALL military policy. The liberal approach is to grab a poll, and immediately spin it like crazy so no one knows what is going on.


The liberals are always in a rush to push their ideas through -


The liberals rarely want people to think through all the ramifications, and the costs - they just want to rush to get something through. The nation is sick of it. When will the liberals realize their agenda has been REJECTED ?

Posted by: RainintheForest | November 30, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

@Rainintheforest

And the purpose of elections is...?
And the purpose of marriage is...?
And the purpose of fair employment...?
And the purpose of fair housing...?

No one should be polled or voting on anything, huh?

The brain is for rational thinking. Try it. Some of the "crap stops," if you do.

Posted by: ldfrmc | November 30, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

"Many, many people believe it is the WRONG way for the military to go".

Actually the survey (the data) says the opposite. The general public doesn't care, 74% of the military doesn't care, less that half of the hyper-macho Marines care most Christians don't care, and most telling, of those Christians that do care it's only the conservative Evangelicals that care.

Sounds like a radical rightwing religiious fringe group that wants to impose their narrow-minded religious views on the rest of us rather that accept the scientific data about the biological basis of homosexuality and the changed social mores that accept it.

Republebans are a dangerous, civil rights-hating splinter group that casts all Christians in a bad light. Kind of like Al Q'ida does for the Muslim faith.

Posted by: thebobbob | November 30, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Garak | November 30, 2010 1:30 PM

It isn't "religious hatred"


Again, the way you are phrasing the issue blurs the real situation.


The liberals are acting like - "well, if you don't have anything to say, then the liberals get their way"


That isn't how it works - the liberals have to CONVINCE A MAJORITY that their way is better.


The liberals never do that.

Posted by: RainintheForest | November 30, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

"This really comes down to Reid. If he allows time for debate then we can get this thing done.

Posted by: maritza1 | November 30, 2010 1:41 PM
=====

Agreed. Tell Reid to stop obstructing!

Posted by: sbj3 | November 30, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

ldfrmc at 1:48 PM


Not really sure what you are talking about

However, the nation just had an election, the liberal agenda has been rejected, perhaps for a generation.


I don't think you get it: the American People do NOT want the "gay agenda" taught to young kids in schools.


And yet the liberals, time and time again, without notification, review or letting the people vote, they try to push through their "gay agenda."


The American People have said no.


The purpose of marriage is to have children by the way - so please don't fight on that one.

Posted by: RainintheForest | November 30, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

OT...this could be a BFD...

"China Acknowledges Cables Mostly Reflect Its Position On Korean Reunification"

China supports the "independent and peaceful reunification of the Korean peninsula" and cannot afford to give the North Korean regime the impression it has a blank cheque to act any way it wants, Chinese officials based in Europe said today.

The officials, who asked not to be identified, spoke after the Guardian revealed that senior figures in Beijing, exasperated with North Korea behaving like a "spoiled child", had told their South Korean counterparts that China was leaning towards acceptance of reunification under Seoul's control.

China's moves to distance itself from the North Korean regime were revealed in the latest tranche of leaked US embassy cables obtained by WikiLeaks and published yesterday by the Guardian and four international newspapers.

One Chinese official said today reunification was not going to happen overnight and China's first priority was to calm down the situation, restart a dialogue, and maintain stability in the region. But Beijing had always backed peaceful reunification as a longer term goal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/30/china-wants-korean-reunification?CMP=twt_gu

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 30, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

thebobbob at 1:48 PM


A poll which says "don't care" is different from support.


And 20-somethings in the field and on bases are really not the people who should be making reasoned assessments on overall readiness issues.


The liberals have simply refused to listen, time and time again -


"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" IS THE COMPROMISE.


Remember - that was the compromise with Clinton. Now the liberals are complaining they didn't get their whole way. Well, it was the compromise. Neither side gets everything it wants.


Compromise - funny that is what Obama promised the nation - but Obama never said

"Compromise, except for the "gay agenda" - we aren't compromising on that."

Posted by: RainintheForest | November 30, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

@Rainintheforest: 'the military is FOR DEFENSE, not social policy'

And the purpose of elections is...?
And the purpose of marriage is...?
And the purpose of fair employment...?

Guess that's why you call the other policy "Defense of Marriage Act."

The brain is for rational thinking. Try it. Some of the "crap stops," if you do.

20 year-olds are telling pollsters they care, if they and anyone else they serve with, dies to preserve liberty for everyone, even you.

Posted by: ldfrmc | November 30, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

The real problem is that too many people pushing the "gay agenda" have become bigoted against Christians.


And too many minorities have become bigoted against white people.


Too many times we hear a hostile comment "old white men."


Ageist, Racist and Sexist - all in one short phrase.


The liberals don't get it -


They just don't.


The liberals just lost the election - time to start working with people (which is what you refused to do over the past two years.)


.

Posted by: RainintheForest | November 30, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

So far, economic "recovery" data are too mixed to tell whether red states or blue states are better off for being that way.

http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/government_finance/state_revenue_report/2010-11-30-State_Revenue_Flash.pdf

Posted by: shrink2 | November 30, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

@shrink: "So far, economic 'recovery' data are too mixed to tell whether red states or blue states are better off for being that way."

Maybe that's because we're all in this together. Sniff. Sniff.

A lot goes into state tax revenues. Levels of taxation, business incentives, natural resources, number of miles of Interstates and exits to business districts, tourist attractions, cost of living and quality of life . . . etc. Where or not a state is red or blue over a few or many election cycles may not be definitive.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 30, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

"Where or not a state is red or blue over a few or many election cycles may not be definitive."

But if it doesn't matter much to the economy which party wins, why do we always say, "its the economy stupid," and why is ever more money spent on elections at all levels? I think I know, pay-to-play is an area of broad bipartisan consensus.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 30, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

@KW: "Maybe that's because we're all in this together. Sniff. Sniff."

So much for tribalism, eh Kev? jk ;)

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 30, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Red State, Blue State

the economies in the different states are fundamentally different to begin with -

So to make any points, for instance, on level of taxation - the states are too different to draw conclusions.


For instance, to compare states with different levels of state income taxes - how that spurs growth. However, Federal taxes are much heavier, and that mutes any differences.

Posted by: RainintheForest | November 30, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

@shrink2: "But if it doesn't matter much to the economy which party wins, why do we always say, 'its the economy stupid'"

Because a bad economy provides leverage for challengers to use against incumbents. Because a bad economy prompts people to find someone to blame and punish.

But in the case of state economies, I left out one of the most important factors: other states! It's hard to judge to relative value to a state of being red or blue when all the states are so interdependent. And blue New York will still buy stuff from red Texas, thus as the NY economy improves, so will Texas, etc.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 30, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Rainintheforest, I find it hilarious that you think that members of the military, their families, and the public are all incapable of expressing their opposition in terms clearer than "I don't care."

You are grasping at straws. And a moron.

Posted by: btmom | November 30, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

A lone hacker can bring down wikileaks - but Obama can not


Clearly, Obama didn't even try.


The only conclusion one can draw is that Obama purposely allowed the wikileak documents to leak


Draw you own thoughts about why Obama would do that.


However, the leftist ideas of Obama come out in strange, strange ways.


.

Posted by: RainintheForest | November 30, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

A lone hacker can bring down wikileaks - but Obama can not


Clearly, Obama didn't even try.


The only conclusion one can draw is that Obama purposely allowed the wikileak documents to leak


Draw you own thoughts about why Obama would do that.


However, the leftist ideas of Obama come out in strange, strange ways.


.

Posted by: RainintheForest | November 30, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

All, Boehner has already told Obama that the ongoing talks on the Bush tax cuts are a nonstarter:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/boehner_to_obama_no_substitute.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 30, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

The military is not the place for dangerous and disruptive social experiments. Plus homosexuality is an abomination to God. I don't see how we can uphold our place as moral leaders to the world if we allow this.

Posted by: ToddPollard | November 30, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse


There are already gays in the military. That's why 80,000 have been separated by DADT, many of them with more important skills and medals for bravery being badmouthed by some drunken redneck lowbrow privates who never distinguished themselves in combat at all.

It is clear that many officers in the military VIOLATED THIS LAW, they did ASK, they witchhunted private emails from people who never TOLD. If you are kicking out somebody, let's kick out every officer who violated the law and revoke their pension! Gay taxpayers should not be supporting homophobe haters who break the law!

I'll trade you, one hatefilled homophobe kicked to the curb for every gay you bully. This policy ends fast when the ASKERS get their ASK kicked!

Posted by: Liann | November 30, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

"homosexuality is an abomination to God"

Posted by: ToddPollard
+++++++++

And what words in Hebrew and 1st Century Greek (the language in which Paul's epistles were written) translate as "homosexuality"? Please be specific. I'm very curious -- given that the term "homosexuality" was coined in the 19th Century, I'm wondering how you have happened upon scriptures written millenia earlier that used the same term.

By the way, do you believe that the appropriate punishment for a man who rapes a young girl is that he must pay her father 50 silver coins, then he must marry her and they can never divorce? That's in the Bible too.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 30, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Now Greg can join the military and no one will know or even care---unless he joins the Marine Corps. Fat chance, as their ways of sniffing out degenerates like Bradley Manning and other resentment-filled inverts who are traitors through and through. The ninety percent of loyal gays don't make up for a monstrosity like Manning, a true traitor-gay.

Bearclaw, don't pose as a linguist when you are intellectually illiterate.

Posted by: djman1141 | November 30, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Bearclaw, don't pose as a linguist when you are intellectually illiterate.

Posted by: djman1141
++++++++++

So you can't answer the question either?

And what do you mean by "intellectually illiterate"? Does that mean an intellectual who is illiterate? Does it mean someone who is unfamiliar with the writings of intellectuals? Our does it mean that you like to put big words together in the vain hope that the near-random combinations will make you appear smart?

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 30, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

What social experiment? There have been gay people in the military since the beginning of time! If the bigots cant handle the reality that gay people exist and should be treated like all other Americans then THEY should leave. Its crazy to defend bigotry in the name of freedom. Freedom is what America is about.

Posted by: MarcMyWords | November 30, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Why is it SO important that it be voted on now instead of a month from now? The same with all these other bills the Democrats want rammed through. The 20th amendment was supposed to stop this crap. That the politicians still played around with it has left us with this nonsense.

Posted by: mwoss | November 30, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

I nearly laughed when you said that GOP moderates will have no reasons left to oppose repeal.
There are no GOP moderates left, so your point is moot.

Posted by: RalfW | November 30, 2010 11:38 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company