DADT repeal vote

Pima

10-Year Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
13,900
This is very interesting because of the split within the Chiefs.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/1/military-chiefs-split-with-mullen-on-gays/

Adm. Mike Mullen, Joint Chiefs chairman, in February first broke with the chiefs of the Navy, Air Force, Army and Marine Corps by endorsing President Obama's campaign pledge to end the military's ban on open homosexuals.

The gap widened last week. Adm. Mullen approved a White House deal for Congress to go ahead with a vote on repeal of the law barring openly gay members from the military, rather than waiting for completion in December of a Pentagon study that is seeking the views of troops. Adm. Mullen's move brought an instant rebuttal from the four chiefs in the form of letters to Congress urging lawmakers not to hold the vote.

In fact, the service chiefs did not see the Pentagon-White House-congressional deal to rush a vote until after the administration announced it May 24, Pentagon officials said.
 
I am not sure what you mean by a finite window for overturning.

The one thing that burns my goat, is the amount of taxpayer dollars and manpower hours used to do the study, only for Mullen, to say, never mind we don't need it let's go forward now.

If Obama, Gates, and Mullen felt this way to start with, they should have never ordered a study in the first place. It makes me question if they were even going to take the study into an account before deciding their path.

This is a prime example of Fraud, WASTE and Abuse. You spend a fortune on a study with no intentions of utilizing the information obtained from the results is WASTE.

I don't have an issue with repealing DADT. I have an issue on how Mullen approached it. I understand how the shoulder toss works, i.e RHIP, but as a leader he has a duty not only to the administration, but to the troops. Don't ask them their opinion, and tell them it doesn't matter.
 
only for Mullen, to say, never mind we don't need it let's go forward now.
no, no, no - read the article I just posted.

The survey is important. It's one thing to repeal it - yet another to implement it.
 
He may have the pulse on the military, IMHO, he is probably correct in the decision. That is not my point of contention. You don't have a study created and then make a decision before it is is completed. That is called WASTE and ABUSE.

It is a study, and I am sure that there is someone at every post/base that has been assigned to perform this study in their job requirements. That person will then bring it up the chain at the base, it will then go to a higher chain and a higher chain until all of the info is collected, reviewed and assessed ending up on Adm. Mullen's desk, where he would then brief Gates, and Gates would brief Obama. This is a lot of man power hours that were wasted. He has made a decision, I accept that. I have no issue with his decision. I have an issue that he ordered a study and for whatever reason decided to make a decision without the results of the study. If he knew he was going to go this route, why order the study? Just do it. He made think he has the pulse, and acted pre-emptively, but what if the study came out against his opinion? What if his pulse was wrong?

More over another signal was sent. There is a fracture in our CS's. There are 4 CS's that openly acknowledged their opinion of the JCS regarding this issue. It is not a minor thing for the 4 of them to write a letter to Congress. The fact that Congress acted against their position also sends a statement. Additionally, it is a problem if this article is correct, that Mullen left them with their pants down by not informing them before announcing the decision. He owed it to them to inform the CS's before the announcement. I know through Bullet's job, that they have meetings to discuss the most minute details. The amount of briefings that occur at the Pentagon are insane, and many of them happen last minute at 4:30-5:00 to put out a fire. Mullen owed that respect to the other CSs. I will caveat, that I take media reports with a grain of salt when no name is attached to it...pentagon official to me is different than XXX Smith.
 
Last edited:
Pima - read the article.
The survey is going to assist the military in IMPLEMENTING the repeal of DADT, assuming it happens and it looks like it will happen.

The Military has learned from other major changes that proper planning and implementation is needed for the transition to be successful.
From the JCS website:
http://www.jcs.mil/newsarticle.aspx?ID=294
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said yesterday that he’s comfortable with proposed legislation that seeks to repeal the law that bans gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military because it includes “very clear language” that gives senior leaders the final say in whether it’s implemented.
The proposed amendment, which Congress could put to a vote as soon as this week, wouldn’t immediately go into effect if passed, Navy Adm. Mike Mullen told about 500 servicemembers at a town hall session here.
Implementation wouldn’t take place until after a Defense Department study assessing its impact is completed, the chairman explained, and military and defense leaders get to weigh in on the findings.
The review, expected to be completed by December, is progressing well, the chairman said, “but by no means is it over.”
Mullen said he’s particularly interested in determining how the law’s repeal would affect “readiness, unit cohesion and our ability to do our mission.” That, he said, requires input from the people directly affected.
“That was what was behind making sure we surveyed our people and our families -- to understand … the potential impact,” he told the group. “And I, as a senior military leader in the country, feel obligated to make sure I understand that, so should it change, I can lead that and understand what the impacts are.”
After reviewing results of the study, Mullen, the service chiefs and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates would provide their recommendations to President Barack Obama. “So having that information will inform me and our leaders about what our recommendations will be,” he said.
Mullen called the “certification trigger” provided in the proposed amendment critical.
“The language in there right now preserves my prerogative – and I believe, my responsibility – to give the best military advice,” he said.
“That trigger is to certify whether we should move ahead with that change, even if the law were to repeal it,” he told a reporter following the session.
Mullen brought up the issue at the end of his town hall session after no one had asked about it. He occasionally gets questions about it when he meets with servicemembers, the chairman told reporters traveling with him, but just as often doesn’t. “I haven’t found it to be a particularly burning issue,” he said.

As for the "fracture". meh. It's all politics. The other chiefs are namely concerned with their own service and the leaders (Generals). Of course, maintaining the status quo is the easy way out. Change is difficult.
Admiral Mullen, otoh - knows and understands the enlisted and officers who are out doing the "real" work. He is unafraid of change and smart enough to know that the transition will take come planning and thought.
 
Adm. Michael Mullen said soldiers should participate in the Defense Department’s survey to determine how to implement new rules....
“Their voices are absolutely vital and will be incorporated to how we move forward if and when the law changes.”

This is what he stated yesterday.

Now this is what he stated almost 2 weeks ago
Adm. Mullen approved a White House deal for Congress to go ahead with a vote on repeal of the law barring openly gay members from the military,

Does he actually believe that Congress will not repeal it? MOCs are elected officials and they bend to their constituents, rightly so. The majority of Americans and military members are A-OK with the repeal. HOWEVER, MOC's are not on the battle grounds or serving in the military. Social views should not play a part in military issues. Those serving should have a larger voice in the matter than the outsider. They will live and die by the uniform.

It should also be noted Mullen stated NEW rules. To me, and maybe I am reading into it, but how could there be new rules if DADT isn't repealed? How do you state New rules if DADT is not overturned?
 
We crossed posted on the last one.

As for the "fracture". meh. It's all politics. The other chiefs are namely concerned with their own service and the leaders (Generals). Of course, maintaining the status quo is the easy way out. Change is difficult.
As for the "fracture". meh. It's all politics. The other chiefs are namely concerned with their own service and the leaders (Generals). Of course, maintaining the status quo is the easy way out. Change is difficult.
Admiral Mullen, otoh - knows and understands the enlisted and officers who are out doing the "real" work. He is unafraid of change and smart enough to know that the transition will take come planning and thought. . He is unafraid of change and smart enough to know that the transition will take come planning and thought.

I have an issue with this comment. JCS rotate. General Myers(AF) was JCS from 01-05. Gen Pete Pace was Vice, (Marine) who served as JCS from 05-07. Admiral Mullen (Navy) replaced Pace As you can see they rotate among the branches. To state that chiefs are namely concerned with their own service is a dis-service to them. Yes, as leaders of their own branch, they will fight tooth and nail for their branch. However, this is not about the Navy getting more defense dollars for a carrier while the Army wants a new tank, and the Marines want to resuscitate new Marine 1 Helo's.

This is not about grabbing money out of the pot. That is when they are concerned with their service. Trust me as a spouse whose DH works on a program in the Pentagon, where the AF and Navy are at odds, I do get it.

To even state that they care about their service more than the overall military, places a crack in the foundation of your defense regarding this argument. 4 CS signed the exact same letter. That means, they united as ONE front against Mullen. They are stating that each service has an issue.

May be incorrect, but isn't Admiral Mullen wearing 2 hats...JCS and CSN? In your theory if I am correct that he is the CSN he is looking out for the Navy not the entire military...your words "The other chiefs are namely concerned with their own service and the leaders"...are you stating that he can or cannot differentiate if he is CSN? If he can, why can't you give the same faith to the other leaders?

Finally, it is an insult to every CS to say this:
Admiral Mullen, otoh - knows and understands the enlisted and officers who are out doing the "real" work.

Are you really implying that the other Generals don't know and understand? If anyone has a political pawn in the game it is the JCS, not the CS. I refuse to agree that any of these Generals know the troops better than their counterparts. They all deserve equal respect. JCS is not only about qualifications, but it is appearance too. All are equally qualified to be JCS, but to maintain the image of equal branches it is all about timing. General Schwartz (CSAF) knows there is a snowball chance in hell that he would ever be appt JCS, over General Casey. Why? Because it would not look good that a second AF General would be appt again before an Army General. In essence, DOD in my scenario, would have gone AF, Marine, Navy, and AF again. The Army would not take this as positive support from DOD. It would cause issues.
 
Last edited:
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. Any perceived "rotation" is coincidental.
The Chief of Naval Operations is Admiral Roughhead. Admiral Mullen wears one hat - the Chairman of the JCS. He outranks the other four chiefs and some might think that their letters to Congress would be tip-toeing on insubordination.

The "letters" simply ask Congress to wait until the survey is complete before the repeal. Admiral Mullen basically is saying this is not necessary. He says - repeal is inevitable. Go ahead and do it but let us finish the survey and use that to provide leadership and guidance to implement the new regulation.

I would be willing to wager that Admiral Mullen has greater visibilty among the troops than the other 4 Chiefs. No disrespect intended to any of them of course - they are all hard-working.
 
The "letters" simply ask Congress to wait until the survey is complete before the repeal.
Wrong. The letters simply ask Congress to wait for the results of the survey BEFORE voting for repeal. Clearly they believe the results may have an influence on the vote.
Admiral Mullen basically is saying this is not necessary. He says - repeal is inevitable. Go ahead and do it but let us finish the survey and use that to provide leadership and guidance to implement the new regulation.
Perhaps I misunderstood the purpose of the "survey"? The purpose is to provide leadership and guidance to implement the new regulations?

I interpreted Admiral Mullen's position as one of helping the President and the Democrats to pass a bill now that they very well may not have the votes for after November. In other words, a political decision as opposed to a "best interest of the military" decision.
 
Wrong. The letters simply ask Congress to wait for the results of the survey BEFORE voting for repeal. Clearly they believe the results may have an influence on the vote.
This is what I meant. They want the survey completed before Congress votes. Congress wants to vote now. This is a political "deal". Congress could vote tomorrow and demand immediate implementation. Mullen has reached a deal where implementation will wait until after the survey is complete.


Perhaps I misunderstood the purpose of the "survey"? The purpose is to provide leadership and guidance to implement the new regulations?
Yes - this is a big part of the survey and it's purpose according to Admiral Mullen. From the link I posted in post #4:
Adm. Michael Mullen said soldiers should participate in the Defense Department’s survey to determine how to implement new rules. That study, due in December, is based on a current survey of troops and their families.

I interpreted Admiral Mullen's position as one of helping the President and the Democrats to pass a bill now that they very well may not have the votes for after November. In other words, a political decision as opposed to a "best interest of the military" decision.


I would agree that those who are opposed to DADT somehow think the survey will provide inrefutable evidence as to why it should not be repealed. You are probably right in that the Chiefs want to use it to influence the vote. I don't think it will influence the outcome of the vote much - most members of Congress have made up their mind either way.

Are you saying that as Chair of the JCS - Admiral Mullen is nothing more than a puppet of the Obama administration? He was appointed in October 2007. Wasn't George Bush still President then?
I have confidence that in his position as Chair of the JCS he is doing his job as the highest ranking military officer and providing his own sound advise to the President of the US. If he is not capable of doing this, he is in the wrong job.
 
You are probably right in that the Chiefs want to use it to influence the vote. I don't think it will influence the outcome of the vote much - most members of Congress have made up their mind either way.
So your opinion is that the survey will have no bearing on which way the MOC will vote or what Admiral Mullen will recommend to the president? If that is the case then I'll have to agree with Pima; why waste the money on a survey that has no purpose?
aglages said:
I interpreted Admiral Mullen's position as one of helping the President and the Democrats to pass a bill now that they very well may not have the votes for after November. In other words, a political decision as opposed to a "best interest of the military" decision.
Are you saying that as Chair of the JCS - Admiral Mullen is nothing more than a puppet of the Obama administration?
I wouldn't (and did not) use the term "puppet". I do think Admiral Mullen is making THIS decision based on political considerations as opposed to military ones. Why else rush this to a congressional vote before the survey is done and without the support of the JCS? Would six months make a difference for any other purposes than political?

He was appointed in October 2007. Wasn't George Bush still President then?I have confidence that in his position as Chair of the JCS he is doing his job as the highest ranking military officer and providing his own sound advise to the President of the US. If he is not capable of doing this, he is in the wrong job.
I bow to your superior knowledge of how these things work. Perhaps you can help me with a question about the "system"? Is the President able to replace Admiral Mullen if he isn't happy with the support/job that he is doing or is Admiral Mullen immune from being replaced because of political considerations?
 
Wrong. The letters simply ask Congress to wait for the results of the survey BEFORE voting for repeal. Clearly they believe the results may have an influence on the vote.

Perhaps I misunderstood the purpose of the "survey"? The purpose is to provide leadership and guidance to implement the new regulations?

I interpreted Admiral Mullen's position as one of helping the President and the Democrats to pass a bill now that they very well may not have the votes for after November. In other words, a political decision as opposed to a "best interest of the military" decision.

Spot on :thumb:

This is just like the Health Care debacle, 'Rahm' it through quick and then we'll find out the details lol I agree, it'll be done in the next year or so, good or bad, with or without the support of anyone except special interest groups pushing Obama.

Like Pima said, he's (Mullen) putting the horse behind the carriage and full steam ahead, even after he flip flopped. He does appear to be a puppet, I wonder if he was offered a job too? lol. I agree, it'll be done in the next year or so, good or bad, with or without the support of anyone except special interest groups pushing Obama.
 
Instead of surveys to see how best to implement, they should have started with surveys among those in the military to see if they agreed with the decision to get rid of the DADT. And congress should see what their constituents want. This subject needs to stop being a political tool that people use to get votes or their agenda.
 
Maximus said:
I agree, it'll be done in the next year or so, good or bad, with or without the support of anyone except special interest groups pushing Obama.

Maximus, I hope I am not putting words in your mouth but you seem hard core straight line with all things to do with honor, from Marcus Curry to the Marine officers and even your displeasure in that you feel that the USNA honor concept is too soft.

Again, not putting words in your mouth but you also seem to be against the repeal of the DADT.

If my perceptions are correct, which every indication of your posts seem to support that they are, how do you justify a policy where it is perfectly acceptable for gay officers to serve in the military so long as they are forced to lie and decieve about it?
 
Last edited:
So your opinion is that the survey will have no bearing on which way the MOC will vote or what Admiral Mullen will recommend to the president? If that is the case then I'll have to agree with Pima; why waste the money on a survey that has no purpose?
Yes. The President has supported it and obviously has the votes. Admiral Mullen gave his opinion months ago that he thought it should be repealed.
This thing needs to be implemented correctly. Otherwise, it will be a nightmare. There will probably be some changes to some regulations and the Brass needs to know what the 'issues' are. We can assume what concerns our servicemembers have but there is no way to know unless we ask them.
This is not about the rank and file creating policy - that is done higher.... it's about feeling out the opinions and concerns or lack thereof in order to be proactive.


I wouldn't (and did not) use the term "puppet". I do think Admiral Mullen is making THIS decision based on political considerations as opposed to military ones. Why else rush this to a congressional vote before the survey is done and without the support of the JCS? Would six months make a difference for any other purposes than political?
Of course it's political! It is all political. DADT was political. Adm Mullen knows this is a done deal and is providing the leadership to accomplish it. As you noted the general election is in Nov. The survey won't be done until Dec. The President made this a goal last winter - he and congress are under "pressure" (not from the military) to move on it.


I bow to your superior knowledge of how these things work. Perhaps you can help me with a question about the "system"? Is the President able to replace Admiral Mullen if he isn't happy with the support/job that he is doing or is Admiral Mullen immune from being replaced because of political considerations?
The Chairman of the JCS serves at the pleasure of the President.
 
Back
Top