US combat operations involving women and revelations of sexual abuse in the US military have periodically sparked intense political debates about women’s military roles. In the midst of these debates, US policy makers have repeatedly created independent advisory commissions on issues concerning women in the military. This article uses qualitative case studies of three such commissions to evaluate whether commissions can foster meaningful civil–military dialogue on contentious matters involving the military and society. This article finds that commission deliberations have sometimes led military professionals to change their views of sensitive issues, but that commissioners have been less open to deliberation if they have been affiliated with an organization possessing a distinct political agenda on women in the military. More broadly, the findings suggest that independent advisory bodies can provide valuable mechanisms for civil–military dialogue, so long as policy makers appoint to them individuals who are relatively open minded and unconstrained by political commitments.