IG: Pentagon DADT Report had “Pro-Repeal Agenda”?

The Department of Defense Inspector General recently issued a report of its investigation into the improper “leak” last fall of the DoD survey on the policy most often known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  (Ironically, the publicized IG report — available on a public website — is also annotated “For Official Use Only,” as was the leaked survey.)

The DoD IG appears to have come to the same conclusion as many critics of the report did last year:  the statistics were creatively presented so as to suggest a “pro-repeal” agenda.

The report was focused on the improper leak of the survey results.  The IG obtained sworn affidavits from all but 5 people who had access to the report, all saying they did not release the information.  (The remaining 5 were White House staffers.)  While the IG was unable to identify the leaker, it did describe his motives:

“The DoD IG report concluded that someone who ‘had a strongly emotional attachment to the issue’ and ‘likely a pro-repeal agenda’ violated security rules and leaked selected, half-true information to the Washington Post,” [Elaine Donnelly] explained.

That was the “70 percent” figure that has been discussed as the percentage of active-duty and reserve troops “not concerned about repeal of the law.”

Part of the justification for this assignment of motivation was the source’s specific use of the survey data, that is, the “70% of troops…” figure:

We considered that the primary source’s likely pro-repeal sentiment was further demonstrated by his/her inclusion of the key 70 percent figure in the information provided to the Washington Post.

Had [the source] desired to further an anti-repeal bias for the article, he/she could likewise have combined four results categories from that same survey question to conclude that “82 percent of respondents said the effect of repealing the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy would be negative, mixed or no effect.”

Of course, the characterization of the data the IG is calling “bias” was, in fact, exactly how it was portrayed within the report itself as well as to the general public (as was noted here at the time).

Another important detail has been highlighted by Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness.  The IG report indicates an early draft of the report in July 2010 — before the survey was sent out to troops and their families — already indicated general support for repeal from the troops.  Donnelly said this was evidence the entire survey was a sham — nothing more than using the troops as “props in a campaign” whose purpose was to generate momentum for repeal regardless of the truth.


  • Oh joy, yet another he said, she said on DADT…Nobody was duped… except maybe the CMR…there is nothing this organization (or Elaine Donnelly) can say that will make me believe she knows better than the Military what we need for sound military personnel policies for the troops. It also appears, according to Donnelly, Congress can’t make a decision without her biased, bigoted, opinionated input…ha!

    CMR’s (Donnelly) very own doublethink, groupthink, and political correctness is clouding the waters even more by implying the President, SECDEF and the CJCS are big fat liars…and the CMR is supposed to be a non-partisan educational organization? Sounds more like a political [agenda] organization to me.

  • “…the President, SECDEF and the CJCS are big fat liars…and the CMR is supposed to be a non-partisan educational organization? Sounds more like a political [agenda] organization to me.”

    So, WT, this administration is completely non-political and the DADT repeal was purely in the interest of national security and combat readiness, right? Yeah, sure.

  • Deleted by Admin

  • eye open,

    i didn’t know that you knew watchtower so well. Also, your statement isn’t terribly productive towards any convincing argument. If you are opposed to homosexuality, at least be up logical about it.

  • @Dealer
    Some of Eye Open’s other comments haven’t posted because of their content. If he can moderate his tone and stay on topic, he can continue.

  • @watchtower
    When will this scourge on our culture end? The only bigots I see are the very ones who accuse otbers of being so because thats their only defense. We will repeal this garbage attempt to compromise ojr military.

  • Mudrose — what “compromise of our (sic) Military” do you speak of? I assume you are talking about the repeal of DADT; the facts don’t support any compromise at all. In fact, the law is still enforced (no one can serve openly “yet”) but we’ve already seen a tremendous amount of support (where I’m at anyway) for its repeal. There is a fair amount of ambivalence; but for the most part our troops are all about the mission and don’t care too much about peoples sexual orientation as long as they are pulling their weight too. So, lets just see how much of a compromise it is when we actually have a “final” repeal; until then, no one, not even you, can declare our Military has been or will be compromised.

    –Break, Break —

    Vada Lavina — Yes, I think the discharge of ~64,000 troops was not in the best interest of national security and combat readiness. These troops could have been highly effective, despite their sexual orientation, if given a chance.

  • Watchtower, I am curious to where the number “~64,000” is coming from. All the statistics I can find list under 15,000 for the number of people discharged under DADT. Would you clarify that for me?

  • end — yes, the initial report I read did say ~6,400 not ~64,000 (my transpo error). http://www.palmcenter.org/resources/dadt/discharge_data

    Upon further research I found other sites reporting figures totaling up to ~14,000.

    GAO and other Commissions collectively report ~$400 million is expenses.

    Actual numbers and cost data is believed to be hirer than what we can find on the internet, and I’m certain the powers that be don’t really want us to know that either.

  • The 14,000 number has been widely reported for several years. As has been noted, it equates to 0.33% of all discharges — far less than the amount of almost every other kind of discharge, including those for being pregnant or overweight. No one has ever explained how that so dramatically affects national security.

    And no, being “overweight” by the military’s standards does not directly translate into affecting performance. While 24,000 were discharged for being overweight, only 2,400 were discharged for failing their physical fitness test.