Admiral Mullen now subtly undercutting the Commander in Chief as well

I'm really astounded at how the Pentagon is the only agency in our government that is permitted to outright challenge the orders from its boss, in this case, the commander in chief, also known as the President of the United States. Imagine another agency where underlings to the secretary publicly complain about the secretary's positions. They'd be fired in an instant. But of course, at least with other agencies, we don't have to worry about the Deputy Secretary at Agriculture undercutting our democracy. With the military, it's much more serious. There's a reason we have civilian control of the military in the United States. It is expressly to stop military leaders from acting like they run the show. A civilian runs the show, and ultimately, that civilian is named the president.

Gates and Mullen have been permitted to give their input on this policy, their commander in chief has made his decision, and our elected representatives in Congress have spoken. Unless Gates and Mullen think we're living in some banana republic, where it's okay for the military to undercut their elected leaders, both men should STFU. And the same goes for this absurdly patronizing argument that we simply must consult the troops before making any changes. No we mustn't. We don't consult the troops on anything, just as we don't consult every employee at DOT when making new aviation policy. It's frankly, none of their business, and undercuts our democracy by even suggesting that they should somehow trump our elected officials, be they in the White House or Congress. They should sit back and wait for their orders, and when they get them, salute and say "yes, sir" - that's it.

Then there's the condescension, and utter contempt, hidden in the message our military leaders are sending out about the troops. Our military leaders would have us believe that US soldiers can't handle following orders. That they're so sensitive, and so easily broken, that we simply must consult them - and their families! - before changing any policy (and that, unlike foreign troops in Israel, Britain and beyond, for some reason US troops can't handle following orders). Strike that - we don't consult our troops, or their families, about any policies... until now.

The subtle campaign to undercut the President's decision - to undercut next year's repeal of DADT - has begun. Every single one of us, and everyone at the White House, needs to watch these people like a hawk. They will screw this up, if we let them. And if they do, there's going to be hell to pay by the people who actually run this democracy - us. Read More...

Ben Smith profile of SLDN's Aubrey Sarvis

Had it not been for Aubrey Sarvis of SLDN, Alex Nicholson of Servicemembers United, the gay Netroots, and GetEqual, all HRC and CAP would have still been debating how they could win this if they could just get rid of those pesky bloggers, activists, and unsophisticated military groups.

And leading groups split, sometimes bitterly, on strategy. Human Rights Campaign and the Winnie Stachelberg of the well-wired Center for American Progress conducted quiet talks with the White House on a compromise that could satisfy the Pentagon, with the backing of a small coalition that had formed around the issue. But Sarvis, whose small group’s single-issue focus gives it outsized prominence on the issue, had grown concerned that the White House would allow the crucial Defense Authorization bill – the best chance to repeal “Don’t Ask” with just 50 votes in the Senate – to be passed without an amendment on the issue, so he shifted his focus to lobbying key members of Congress and began criticizing the White House increasingly sharply.

His group helped spur a shift among gay activists – a reliable wing of the Democratic base – from confidence in the administration to protest and open criticism of Obama. Sarvis wrote a series of urgent letters to Obama, making the case for action this year, and even organized a protest outside the White House last summer, an unusual move for the group and a sign of a shift in the mood of Obama’s gay supporters.

Sarvis’s stance won the loyalty of impatient bloggers and activists (many of whom are now furious at him for accepting the compromise). Establishment groups, meanwhile, “scoffed” at him, one insider said. His stance reflected “a lack of political sophistication” said another official involved in the talks, an estimate shared by some in a gay Establishment that believe that Obama deserves more trust than many in that community give him.

As in many political victories, the debate over credit goes on. The groups who negotiated the compromise view their roles as crucial. The outsiders who demanded it say it wouldn’t have happened without their protests. Sarvis has located himself firmly in the latter camp.

When the bill passed, the top officials at HRC, Joe Solmonese and David Smith, were seated in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s box, along with Stachelberg, the CAP official who had been central to the compromise talks. Sarvis was seated across the chamber, five rows up.

“I’m not here to get invitations,” said Sarvis. “My objective and my focus has always been to get this thing done.”

Read More...