Daniel Blomberg at the Alliance Defense Fund has an interesting article over the negative impact of DADT repeal implied even by those championing it:

If this change is risky enough that even the President scrambles to prevent it from happening “too quickly,” the Secretary of Defense who championed it focuses on limiting damage wrought by it, and most combat troops anticipate harm from it, why are we forcing it on our service men and women at all?

If you recall, some were asking how DADT repeal would improve the US military’s effectiveness.  Blomberg points out it seems most say they’re doing what they can to “mitigate” the negative.