While DADT should be overturned, Obama should wait for military leaders to make the argument…

A change like this is not likely to originate from the military side due to the simple “if it ain’t broke…” mentality. There is no need for the military to allow openly gay personnel because it has succeeded thus far without them. A change in DADT is going to need to come from the civilian leadership side, or from our elected representatives in Congress.

Obama can’t lead every progressive parade…

Yes He Can! Unless it’s related to anything to do with the rights of gay people.

…others have to lead the charge so that Obama can use his popularity to “seal the deal”

Does he really need to use his popularity to seal the deal on an issue which something like 70% of the nation supports? It’s been a while since I took a civics lesson, but isn’t the President of the United States able to suggest legislation to Congress?

A bad law that affects only a few people isn’t a law that needs to be overturned.

Hey Numb Nuts, the point I was arguing against was the point that DADT policy needs to be overturned because of the need to recruit people. Not that the policy itself needs to be changed.

Of course CSS, I’m glad you’re only taking me out of context this time instead of confusing me without someone else entirely.

Translation: A bad law that affects only a few people isn’t a law that needs to be overturned.

Fucking idiot.

the GAO [Government Accountability Office] also noted that nearly 800 dismissed gay or lesbian service members had critical abilities, including 300 with important language skills. Fifty-five were proficient in Arabic

That is over a 13 year period beginning in 1993. Which works out to what… 4 per year? The Army alone recruits over 300 native speaking Arab linguists a year, and even more who will be school trained.

Again, not that important to replace the personnel lost through the policy/

http://google.com/search?q=gay+linguist+military

There’s been repeated complaints about not having enough linguists in the military, especially in the languages and dialects of the countries we’re most concerned with.

Some of the gay soldiers that were kicked out were specialists in fields that aren’t and have not been replaced by the raw numbers you are talking about.

Linguists are especially rare and valuable contributions to our efforts overseas.

From a 2006 Ass ociated Press on gay military linguists:

“… the GAO [Government Accountability Office] also noted that nearly 800 dismissed gay or lesbian service members had critical abilities, including 300 with important language skills. Fifty-five were proficient in Arabic, including [decorated U.S. Army sergeant Bleu] Copas, a graduate of the Defense Language Institute in California.

Discharging and replacing them has cost the Pentagon nearly $369 million, according to the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California, Santa Barbara.” [emphasis added]

Since those numbers were from 2006 they are assuredly higher now.

Pushing out soldiers who chose to serve honorably and have critical skills and crucial language abilities is not tactically or strategically sound.

But it is politically pragmatic and also a very conservative approach to governing.

I disagree with Oliver, there would be be a steep political price to pay. It’s picking a fight with the rabid right wing at a time when the right wing is already feeling cornered and lashing out irrationally.

But instead of looking at it as ’spending political capital, it should be seen as ‘investing political capital, the costs are heavy up front but the dividends would be paying off for years to come.

But that’s true for most of the progressive issues that haven’t been given a seat at the table (cough, universal single payer health care, for instance…).

Logistically, we need them…

The services have met their recruiting and retention missions nine out of the past ten years. The Army has even had to reduce its recruiting mission by 13,000 this year because it was on track to be above the authorized end strength.

Allowing homosexuals to openly serve is the right thing to do, but saying that they’re needed because we’re critically short on people is so 2005.

I think he will.

I know he will. It just won’t happen until unemployment hits 15%, or some bailout-related thing goes to hell in a hand basket.

I’m predicting the worst is yet to come. So other than being completely wrong, you have a point.

The kiss of death. We’ll see. Unemployment’s really bad right now. So bad as we may see some significant social change. I think it’s gonna get worse and not get too better too soon. We’ll see.

It’s not going to get that bad. In fact, I would doubt it would get half that bad. There are already signs that the bottom is nearing. (I’m still predicting hitting the bottom at the end of 2009 or the beginning of 2010.)

In fact, politically, huge bonanza payoff by overturning DADT. Be remembered as a pro-active leader on the right side of history while simultaneously further marginalizing the wingnut right. The more someone like, say Huckabee, protests, the more foolish he’ll look to most Americans. The sooner Obama makes this happen, the larger the payoff. Make another awesome speech, make it happen, reap the political rewards. Oh, and it’s good policy too. But I guess that’s just gravy.