Pivoting off this post, Mark Kleiman all but declares DADT over:

Now that it’s obvious both that Obama had a strategy for getting rid of DADT and that the strategy will work, can he expect any apologies from his critics, starting with Sullivan?

It's not at all obvious. The brass has never been able to sustain a credible actual argument in defense of the ban; and the article was simply a superb piece of work. If it had been spiked, despite its excellence, that would have been the story. The next generation regards this ban as absurd and so its disappearance is probably inevitable in the long term. But soon? DADT will have to be ended by the Congress. You think Pelosi or Frank or Reid will push for it? You think Rahm Emmanuel will want to ignite that on the way to midterms or as the president faces re-election against Sarah Palin?

Kleiman's argument is on the lines of "progressives" should support a "progressive" president and stop whining. Well, I'm proudly not a "progressive" whatever that means. I want the US to stop persecuting its own servicemembers for reasons utterly unrelated to their job performance. Period. I will never apologize for that, nor should I. But if Obama actually does what he promises in his first term, I'll be the first to congratulate him. Until then: no quarter.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.