It may be true that Obama owns the outcome. I can think of no scenario where the outcome is good. Maybe every Marine discovers his inner-tolerant-liberal-feminine self? (Okay, that wouldn’t be good either.) But in the meantime, dozens if not hundreds or even thousands of good soldiers will either be punished for “intolerance,” or will leave the service. No matter what, the United States will be the weaker for this “change.”
Perhaps that’s the legacy Obama wants to own.
I think this is the point. Gays could already serve if they wanted. This was a victory for those who demand not just tolerance but approval--and a stern warning to anyone who will not give that approval.
“No matter what, the United States will be the weaker for this “change.”
-Yep.
I’ve felt for the longest time that weakening the military was the secret goal of all this. (The gays argue that DADT was “discriminatory”... but there was nothing preventing them from serving.). It’s not simply that many radical, Sixties-type Libs hate the US- they also want a weakened military so they can cut defense spending. (The latter reason is also why I think Ron Paul voted for this in the House)