A Nuanced Approach to a Sensitive Matter : Aspin offers good advice on way to end military ban on gays

Defense Secretary Les Aspin, a 22-year veteran of the House and the respected former chairman of its Armed Services Committee, is both adept at gauging congressional sentiment and sensitive to the special culture of military life. What his political antennae tell him now is that President Clinton had better move carefully and with consideration for feelings all around as he prepares to carry out his promise to lift the ban on homosexuals serving in the armed forces.

Aspin supports that necessary move to erase a discriminatory practice. But he understands that Clinton’s timing and manner are no less important than the goal he seeks. If he handles the matter badly, Clinton could invite a politically stunning override in Congress and delay indefinitely the end of an unfair policy. Through proper handling, he may be able to ease many of the concerns about the planned change that are being expressed in the armed forces and by legislators.

The members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who last week met with Aspin and Monday met with Clinton to voice their opposition to lifting the ban, have specific worries about the possible effects of the change on discipline, morale, recruitment and retention. Some observers may regard their concerns as the products of groundless suppositions or nervous speculation, rather than any record of experience. That misses an essential point. What the chiefs have told their civilian superiors largely reflects what they have been hearing for months from subordinate commanders and the rank and file. The concerns they express must be addressed and responsibly answered, not dismissed out of hand.

Aspin’s recommendation is for Clinton to try to overcome congressional and military opposition by persuasion and compromise, rather than simply trying to deal with it by executive dictate.

An immediate executive order doing away with the prohibition on homosexuals, Aspin fears, would only invite a prompt legislative restoration of the ban. That restoration would probably stand until some unknowable time when the federal courts would rule that refusing to allow homosexuals to serve in the military constitutes a denial of their rights under the equal-protection clause.

So Aspin advises Clinton to begin working right away with key members of Congress to prevent an overturning of the planned policy change. At the same time he urges forming a small task force to consult with senior members of the military--officers and enlisted personnel--to try to break down resistance to ending the ban, and with gay rights advocates to try to get their cooperation on key issues of timing and implementation.

This strikes us as a sensible and politically nuanced approach to what has clearly emerged as a highly sensitive and divisive controversy. Clinton’s aim is unquestionably right: The ban on homosexuals in the military must go, because it is wrong. But pragmatically, necessarily, removing this prejudiced restriction requires the active cooperation of the armed forces and at least the acquiescence of Congress. Lifting the ban must be accompanied by a reaffirmation that equal rules will apply throughout the military and that a single standard of judging worth and eligibility, based on behavior and nothing else, must prevail.