by Patrick Appel

Jonathan Bernstein asks:

[D]id the shift from the ban to DADT help the fight to achieve the original goal of ending the ban?  Putting aside the issue of implementation (for which I don't think those affected can forgive Bill Clinton, unless I have the facts of the situation wrong), and assuming that the votes just weren't there in 1993 for Clinton to win on the issue, was accepting DADT better than just continuing the status quo?  I think there's a case to be made, but I'm really not sure...I can see a case that it made no difference, or a case that it was worse than nothing.  Anyone have an argument one way or another?

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