Ask. Tell. Move On Already.

After 17 years of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy of allowing men and women to serve in our armed forces as long as we don't find out that they're homosexuals, President Barack Obama has communicated his desire to see the policy overturned. He has made it clear that he favors legislation passed by Congress to end DADT rather than a unilateral executive order.

The counter-arguments that had been advanced back in the early 1990's when the Clinton administration settled for the DADT compromise are resurfacing now: that allowing openly gay individuals to serve in the US military will have a negative effect on unit cohesion and troop morale. I don't buy it. Other liberal democracies have made the change (e.g. Canada and Britain) without serious adverse effects.

And this time it's different than it was back in '93, because high-ranking military officials and well-respected bureaucrats are coming out in favor of ending DADT. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, supports the change. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is behind the effort, as is the highly-esteemed Colin Powell. These men, who have changed their position on the issue over the past decade and a half, say they're now convinced that ending DADT wouldn't threaten morale or destroy unit cohesion.

Let's face it: a number of people who oppose ending DADT don't genuinely believe that its repeal will harm "unit cohesion" or "morale." They're socially/religiously conservative, in some cases quite old-fashioned, and they're uncomfortable with homosexuality. Rather than brand these folks "bigots" and sneer at them as intolerant, ignorant rednecks like so many elitist liberals do, we should try to UNDERSTAND where they're coming from and PERSUADE them to change their minds.

Some Republican legislators are already saying that it's foolish to overturn DADT while we're fighting two wars. That's silly. Our military is the greatest in the world because it can adapt- just look at Iraq, where the surge turned the tide and allowed us to win the war. The success of the surge in Iraq wasn't primarily due to the extra manpower. It was due to strategic/tactical alterations, such as relaxed rules of engagement. Claiming that our military can't adapt to a minor change like repealing DADT is a slap in the face to all the brave, highly-skilled men and women who serve in our armed forces. They're professionals. They're great at what they do. They're adults. They can handle it.

And if you believe that we should mostly defer to military leaders on military issues, you're now in the "end DADT" camp anyway. If Republicans come out against repealing DADT, they risk looking awfully inconsistent, since many of them also urged Commander in Chief Obama to accept General McChrystal's request for 40,000 additional troops in Afghanistan. How can you call for complete deference to General McChrystal's position (and that was also a flawed position, by the way), but then turn around and make a complete break with Admiral Mullen's judgment that it's time to end DADT?

This was smart politics on the part of President Obama and his advisers. Pushing for the repeal of DADT does two things simultaneously: it throws a bone to his liberal base AND it puts Republicans in a difficult position. If Republicans in Congress vote to end DADT, they risk alienating the social conservatives that make up a significant portion of their base. But if they support upholding DADT, they'll likely turn off independents and moderate voters who tend to be socially liberal/moderate (especially on gay rights' issues) but fiscally conservative.

I think the best (and the only) path forward for Republicans is to support repealing DADT...and they can do this on solid grounds, by simply pointing out that the military brass have changed their minds since the early '90s. If the Republican Party is going to be successful going forward, it has to appeal to young people and social moderates/liberals. It has to be a big tent. The DADT issue before us now is a test that Republicans must pass if the party is going to win elections in the future. But more than that, it's an opportunity to do the right thing. We're so lucky to have men and women who are willing to risk their lives to defend freedom around the globe and protect American lives. Why would we want to stop men and women from doing this simply because they happen to be gay?

Bottom line: anyone who doesn't want gay men and women to serve in our armed forces should drop whatever they're doing and enlist in the armed forces. Or let's start a sign-up sheet. People who don't want gay people serving in the military can put their name on the list, and each time a gay soldier is expelled from the service, we'll pick a name off the list so that a civilian can go put his life on the line in defense of liberty, in defense of the USA.