Stop-Loss

This week the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy governing gay troops. In doing so it granted a request by the Obama administration which had asked the court not to hear the appeal of James Pietrangelo, an Army Captain who was fired under the policy.

In asking the court not to take the case, the White House put itself into a tricky position. The administration found itself arguing that the lower court had ruled correctly in finding that the policy furthers a "legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion." Yet if the President believes that, why has he promised to get rid of the policy? Indeed, Obama has stated clearly that he believes the opposite to be true, saying the policy is a "counterproductive strategy" that "doesn't make us more safe." His press secretary, thrown on the defensive recently by mounting pressure to lift the ban, has repeatedly said that the policy "isn't working for our national interests."

Of course, discouraging the Supreme Court from hearing a challenge to a government policy does not necessarily mean you believe that policy is a good one. And it is unfortunately the case in politics that, sometimes, telling the truth is not the best way to get where you want to go. If President Obama had not defended the lower court's ruling, he would have faced defending the policy in the far more visible setting of the highest court in the land. He also would have risked winning: if the Supreme Court were to uphold the constitutionality of "don't ask, don't tell," that decision could make it harder to end the ban in the court of public opinion.