Despite my support for the initiative, I shared the concern of the service chiefs about the impact of making the change while we were fighting two wars, with all the stress already on the military. I was especially concerned about the impact on the combat and direct support formations of the Army, Marine Corps, and Special Forces, a relatively small portion of the overall military but the portion that had borne the brunt of the post-9/11 conflicts and where small-unit cohesion and camaraderie were crucial to success and survival. I knew the principal burden of making the new policy work would fall mainly on the same company grade officers and NCOs who were under the most stress. I wanted the troops down-range (in Iraq and Afghanistan) involved in the review as little as possible; I wanted instead to focus on recently returned units. Personally, I hoped we could get past the midterm elections before a vote, though I was quite aware of the hot breath of the courts on my neck. To be honest, I was skeptical Congress would pass repeal. While I wanted the review completed expeditiously, I wanted to avoid roiling the military over a change that I thought might well not happen. Of course, if it did, I would do my very best to lead and implement the change without incident.
Mullen’s “personal” testimony complicated life for the service chiefs. They all had been quite public—especially the commandant of the Marine Corps—in opposing repeal anytime soon. They expressed their concerns to me in a meeting in the Tank on February 19, Army chief of staff George Casey and Air Force chief Norty Schwartz being the most outspoken. Casey said he was comfortable with my approach but emphasized the need to consult with the troops and to avoid the appearance that “all of this is a done deal.” He added that he wanted to reserve the right to provide “informed military advice,” especially if the outcome of the review was to suggest that going forward with a change in DADT was a bad idea. “You can only change culture so much at a time,” he said. Schwartz said, “This is not the time for this.” Marine commandant Jim Amos expressed his concerns about the risk to unit readiness, then asked me what the chiefs should say if asked their “personal views.” I said matter-of-factly, “All you can do is be honest.” But I also told them that the review gave them a way to avoid disagreeing either with Mullen or their commander in chief. They could continue to express their concerns but promise to withhold final judgment until after the review was done. All of them were clear with me about one thing: if the law changed, they would implement it effectively.
Thanks to the good work of Jeh Johnson and others, I was able to announce in late March a number of changes, effective immediately, to make application of the existing policy and law fairer. I announced that I would raise the rank of officer authorized to initiate an inquiry or separation because of homosexual conduct to general or admiral. We would revise what constituted “credible information” about a service member’s homosexuality to require, for example, that a sworn statement would be necessary and hearsay would not be allowed. We would revise what constituted a “reliable person,” upon whose word an inquiry could be initiated, “with special scrutiny on third parties who may be motivated to harm the service member.” This was meant to address the problem of jilted lovers and spurned romantic advances, situations in which the accuser used the DADT policy to get revenge by “outing” a service member. Certain categories of confidential information would no longer be used in support of discharges, including information provided to lawyers, clergy, and psychotherapists, medical professionals in furtherance of medical treatment, and public health officials. In effect, these changes limited DADT inquiries and separations to service members who had “outed” themselves intentionally or made little or no attempt to hide their orientation. The military would not consume time and resources trying to ferret out gays and lesbians in the ranks who kept their personal lives to themselves.
As one reporter put it, “There will no longer be an investigatory zeal, a prosecutorial mode, or a policy designed to search for serving gays. A small step, but it will help change the culture.” Since 1993, more than 13,500 service members had been discharged for homosexual conduct. Now the number would plummet.
Since Mullen’s and my testimony, there had been considerable talk on the Hill about quickly enacting some kind of legislation for repeal. Senator Levin wanted to declare a moratorium on discharges until Congress could act. I wondered how you could declare a moratorium on the enforcement of any law. Fortunately Jeh Johnson backed me up. I made clear to the president and to Emanuel that any effort to legislate DADT before completion of the review was unacceptable to me because it would be perceived as a direct insult by men and women in uniform who had just been told that their views would be sought out before any policy change. It would send the message that neither the president nor the Congress gave a damn what they thought. Obama and Emanuel promised—unequivocally and on several occasions—to oppose any legislation before completion of the review.
By mid-April, we were hearing rumors of quiet side deals being discussed between members of the White House staff and Congress. I met with Rahm on April 21 and told him there were multiple indications from the Senate that White House officials were actively encouraging Senators Lieberman and Levin to move legislatively on DADT in advance of the Defense review. I told Rahm I was getting tired of the White House preoccupation with responding to pressure from gay advocacy groups on DADT without taking into account the impression on the troops that no one “over here” (at the White House) cared about military views and attitudes.
Nine days later Mullen and I repeated our position in a response to a letter from Ike Skelton on the advisability of legislative action to repeal DADT prior to completion of the Defense review: “I strongly oppose any legislation that seeks to change this policy prior to the completion of this vital assessment process.” Our concern fell on deaf ears. The politicos at the White House, despite protestations of innocence, continued to negotiate with congressional staffers and outside supporters on the terms of legislation. I knew this because on several occasions during the first part of May, Rahm approached me with one formulation or another to ask if it would work for me. After the assurances from the president and Rahm that they would oppose congressional action before the review was complete, I felt there had been a breach of faith by the White House.
On May 21, Robert Rangel and Jeh Johnson met with White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, NSS chief of staff McDonough, and several others from the White House on how to proceed with Congress. Rangel laid out my position (again). Messina said that the president could not publicly declare opposition to congressional action now. He said they had been able to “finesse” and “dodge” the issue over the last several months, but Congress’s insistence on taking action was about “to force his hand.” Johnson and Rangel explained why Mullen and I felt so strongly about preserving the integrity of the review process and asserted that no matter how “artfully” we rationalized a change of position in a way that could be sold in Washington, “it will not translate well to the world where the troops live—to them it’s a simple matter of Congress repealing in advance of the review or not.”
On Sunday, May 23, as Rangel, Johnson, and the White House tried to reach agreement on how to proceed with Congress that coming week, Mullen joined me on my porch at home to discuss the state of play. As I puffed on a cigar, I told Mike that Emanuel was pushing me to accept some sort of legislation that would repeal DADT but would delay implementation until after the review was done and recommendations considered. I said it still sent the wrong message to the troops—that Congress didn’t care what they thought. Mullen said he had been “diddled” by the White House on an issue where he already was way out in front of the chiefs. He was also deeply bothered by the recently published Jonathan Alter book The Promise, which portrayed the White House and the president as distrustful of the military leadership. I responded that I, too, was frustrated and stressed. Afterward I jotted down what I had told him: “The Democrats fear losses in the fall will prevent action on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell after the election (and after the review).” They are listening only to the gay and lesbian groups, I had said, and not willing to wait to listen to the troops: “It’s all politics, and I’ve had it.”