With the mountain of issues piling up on the President's plate right now, among the words he'd least like to hear are probably these four: "don't ask, don't tell." President Clinton learned the hard way that this issue has the potential to derail agendas and stoke culture wars. Robert Gibbs confirmed in January that it's Obama's intention to end the policy, but amid significant economic and international challenges, it simply isn't a priority. General Jones recently told the Washington Post he'd advised Obama to avoid the issue for now. But the White House might not get to dictate the timing on this one. There's a small storm brewing in the blogosphere and on cable TV over Dan Choi, an officer in the National Guard who received notice that he'll be discharged after admitting he is gay on the Rachel Maddow Show in March. Choi, who recently returned from a tour in Iraq, is a fluent Arabic speaker - a skill the military needs and sorely lacks.

The administration surely wants to avoid a politically costly battle over Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Although the tide of public opinion has turned -  a CNN poll in December found that 81 percent of respondents think openly gay people should be able to serve - the military heirarchy is still powerfully opposed. But maybe the Administration can satisfy gay advocates and mollify generals in one move. Dr. Aaron Belkin argued in the Huffington Post yesterday that Obama could simply sign an executive order directing the military to stop investigating the sexual orientation of members, effectively rendering the policy inactive. Over time, the military would become accustomed to openly gay members thus making the policy easier to repeal in the long run.

Riffing off that idea, Tim Fernholz at The American Prospect suggests Obama could suspend Don't Ask Don't Tell for a specified period while the policy is reviewed. This would buy time for a decision to be made, and allow all sides to feel heard. Fernholz writes:

Say that he signed an executive order halting all investigations and prosceutions of soldiers for their sexual orientation over a six-month period while -- you know Washington would love this -- a blue ribbon commission looked into the effects of the policy. Given that all evidence indicates that no harm and great benefit comes from allowing gays and lesbians to serve, and that public opinion is on the side of this measure, it's not hard to predict what the outcome would be. But a symbolic delay would help defuse the politics of the situation while preventing further discharges.

Your Gaggler is unsure about how useful a prolonged Washington debate over the issue would be. People who feel strongly about about gays in the military - either for or against - are unlikely to change their mind, and the current policy is about as close to a middle ground as is possible on this issue. For vehement advocates of either position, there really isn't a compromise. You're in or you're out. So, it's possible that a six month long debate would just become bitter, each side would hunker down, and regardless of the outcome, the pros and the antis would end up more hostile to each other than when they started. Perhaps the best solution is the Australian method - just rip the bandaid off.

 In 1992, the Australian Armed Forces changed their policy to allow openly gay men and women to serve. The decision met with some resistance at the time, but it was hardly a major national controversy. Eight years later, Belkin's think tank, the Palm Center, released a study which found "that the full lifting of the ban on gay service has not led to any identifiable negative effects on troop morale, combat effectiveness, recruitment and retention, or other measures of military performance." In the Australian experience, repealing the ban was, in the words of Navy Commodore Gates, a "non-event". Servicemen didn't rush out the door, recruiting didn't suffer, and, at the time of the study, only 5% of all complaints involving sexual misconduct or harassment related to sexual orientation. Maybe the Aussie example shows that Washington (and Arlington) just makes a much bigger deal out of this than needs be. 

Our favorite bits of news this morning from around the web:

Obama's deficit economics look a lot like McCain's
President Obama decided to tackle wasteful spending this week, proposing $17 billion in cuts from the federal multi-trillion dollar budget. It's a small, largely symbolic move that makes him oddly resemble candidate McCain. (Slate)

Calif heading quickly into the red
With the state's deficit already large, a new analysis shows that California -- with a $38 billion shortfall -- could be broke as early as this summer. (LA Times)

Report shows Pelosi briefed on waterboarding
The back and forth continues about how much Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew, and when, about the torture techniques used on detainees at Guantanamo. Now, a Director of National Intelligence report shows Pelosi was indeed briefed early and in full. (Washington Post)

New timers in Senate pose challenges for Obama
On paper, Obama might have the numbers in the Senate to squeak through a bold agenda, but what the legislative body lacks is the institutional memory. With the majority of senators being new to the job, few have the experience of brokering contentious deals. (Bloomberg)

More Americans to start looking soon for personal assistants
In a speech Thursday, Michelle Obama expressed gratitude for her "blessed life," arguing that more people should be able to take sick days and have a staff like she does. (Wouldn't that be nice?). She ended by calling for more family-friendly policies. (AP)