Powell Degree Ceremony Will Be Marked By Protest

For Harvard, Gen. Colin Luther Powell, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has come to personify the struggle over gays in the military, a struggle which has been played out at the national level since the inauguration of President Clinton.

Since the announcement of Powell as Commencement speaker, it sometimes has seemed on campus as though Powell's entire person and career can be summed up by one statement: He does not believe that gays and lesbians should be in the military.

Powell, however, is more than simply a supporter of the ban. Long before the issue grabbed national headlines, when Clinton was still just an Arkansas politician, Powell was a presence in the upper echelons of government. Whatever his supporters and opponents may argue over, all agree that when it comes to national security policy, Powell is a force to be reckoned with.

Powell's story is one that has been retold many times. Born in Harlem on April 5, 1937, he grew up in the South Bronx and graduated from the City College of New York in 1958. Afterwards, he became a second lieutenant in the Army through ROTC.

Powell came into the tradition-ruled armed forces without a West Point ring and as a Black man just 10 years after the military was integrated by executive order.

It was not an easy time for Powell, according to former Secretary of Defense Casper W. Weinberger '36 who worked with Powell for several years.

"When he was over in Vietnam, his wife and family stayed behind at home in Alabama and were treated miserably, as was common at the time," Weinberger says. "He never let it affect what he was doing or how he felt about America."

While Powell has publicly discussed the hardships of racism at times, says Weinberger, it is not a subject that dominates his interaction with others. "He simply rises above such ignorant people and goes about his business," says Weinberger. "He is not a man consumed with bitterness."

If anything, says Weinberger, Powell is consumed with a desire to do his job in the best way he can--a desire which led him from the fields of Vietnam to the Office of Management and Budget in 1972, where he served for a year as a White House fellow, After returning to active military service, he went back and forth between active military duty and government policymaking positions until 1989, when he succeeded Admiral William J. Crowe as chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Before long, Powell became well-known to the public for his role in orchestrating the military movements of the U.S.-led coalition that drove Iraq out of Kuwait during Operation Desert Storm.

But ironically, despite the cries of protesters who have called him "bloodthirsty" and "warmongering," Powell was reluctant to engage in military warfare with Iraq, according to Bob Woodward's book The Commanders.

His opposition, however, was not based on the moral questions that many anti-war activists claimed for their motivations. Rather, he was moved by the same characteristics that have shaped his military and government style--caution and success.

"He was always extremely well-prepared--he knew more about everything than anybody else," Weinberger says. "Everything he did, he did extremely well. In everything he did, he succeeded."

It was a lesson first taught to Powell in the jungles of Vietnam in the 1960s, when the results of poor military planning were evident.

"[It was a] war where the American military felt let down by the political leadership," says Gen. Bernard E. Trainor, director of the National Security Program and adjunct lecturer in public policy at the Kennedy School of Government. "Colin Powell, like most military men of the time, took the position of, 'Never again."

More than a decade after Powell left Vietnam, Weinberger made a speech laying out certain tests for the use of military force abroad--a policy which Powell helped formulate, according to Trainor.

The tests, said Weinberger in 1984, were: "The United States should not commit forces to combat overseas unless the particular engagement or occasion is deemed vital to our national interest;" an engagement should only be undertaken "with the clear intention of winning" and carried out with "clearly defined political and military objectives;" an involvement "must be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary" and "have the support of the American people and...Congress;" and engagement should be "a last resort."

Pete Williams, who served as press secretary for Bush Defense Secretary Richard E. Cheney, says Powell's mindset is not unusual in light of his position. "I think you'll find it's true among military commanders," Williams said. "They're not the ones who are the blowhards."

But Williams also says that, as a commander, Powell goes above the norm, describing him as one of the best chairs of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the history of the position. "Even those who disagree with him can't argue with that...that's tautological," Williams says. "He's decisive, articulate, persuasive--and not easily intimidated by high-ranking civilians."

Apparently, those qualities have quite an effect on troops in the field. Williams says he remembers one occasion in the Persian Gulf when Powell went to visit soldiers and was greeted with demands for his signature on everything available--including underwear, helmets and arms.

"He's a very good [commander]--He's totally selfless," says Weinberger, "He's a born leader."

Powell is described by those who know him as extremely popular, although he may not be so on the Harvard campus at the moment. "He was very great working with people. Everybody liked him," says Weinberger. "I always enjoyed working with him."

Williams says Powell is now using his personality to adjust to his new surroundings. "My impression from watching him from afar is that he's trying very earnestly to get along with the new administration," he says.

But Powell's relationship with the Clinton administration started out on a rather sour note--the issue of gays in the military.

On this matter, Powell was caught between the military, which strongly resisted the removal of the ban, and the president, and commander-in-chief, who strongly opposed the ban and had made a campaign promise to lift it.

At first, Powell made it known in public and in front of Congress that he disagreed with Clinton's campaign promise to lift the ban. But then, he went no further.

"Any feeling at Harvard that the chairman is representative of resistance would be incorrect," says his spokesperson Col. F. William Smullen. "He was principally concerned about the effect the changing of the policy would have on unit cohesion and morals. We are now working very vigorously to construct a policy to implement the presidential program."

Military experts say Powell was obligated, as a representative of the military, to express concerns over the proposal--just as he is obligated to put into practice any legally correct order by the president to change the current exclusionary policy.

"He will do his best to carry it out as long as what the President does is legal," says Trainor. "He's not an ideologue--he has principles, but he realizes that in the U.S., the way to get things done is with compromise."

Indeed, the caution which has served Powell so well throughout his years in the military is the quality which brings him into opposition with his new commander-in-chief over the issue of gays in the military.

After all, this soundly falls to pass his criteria for intervention in the status quo. Vital to the national interest of the majority? Gays and lesbians are a definitive minority in the human population. Supported by the people and the Congress? Poll after poll says no. A last resort? The American military system has functioned smoothly enough under the policy in the 1980s and 1990s to effectively accomplish set objectives. Prejudice and anger would most likely endanger openly gay soldiers as well.

But opponents of the ban have other points not covered under Powell's rules of engagements, points about individual accomplishments and the perceived injustice of the ban. Their main concern is the well-being of individuals who do not choose their sexual orientation; his is for the well-being of the military.

In answer to Powell's concern that an abrupt shift will weaken the military, opponents answer that the military has undergone rapid shifts in the past, such as when it was integrated in 1948, an action which made the rise of Colin L. Powell possible.

The military, however, is changing as it never has before, much as is society, in the post-Cold War era. Budgets are being downsized and rules of intervention changed to include justifications of morality. An old, tradition-bound structure is changing, and some say it should change even further.

It is a change Powell is aware of, one that guided him in the Gulf War and afterwards. And it is one that Harvard considers him well-versed in, according to President Neil L. Rudenstine.

"He has played a crucial role in helping to shape global policies concerning the use of armed forces in the complex environment of the post-Cold War era," said Rudenstine in a statement issued on the same day as the announcement of the speaker choice. "General Powell has had an outstanding record of distinguished service to the nation."

Powell will speak this afternoon at a crossroads in the military's relationship with the issues affecting civilian society, a crossroads that he will only officially leave in September when his term expires and he steps down, as most expect him to do.

His speech today is one battle he cannot win. Whatever he does cannot possibly satisfy both the protesters he will see at Harvard Yard or the military men and women he will see when he returns to Washington

"When he was over in Vietnam, his wife and family stayed behind at home in Alabama and were treated miserably, as was common at the time," Weinberger says. "He never let it affect what he was doing or how he felt about America."

While Powell has publicly discussed the hardships of racism at times, says Weinberger, it is not a subject that dominates his interaction with others. "He simply rises above such ignorant people and goes about his business," says Weinberger. "He is not a man consumed with bitterness."

If anything, says Weinberger, Powell is consumed with a desire to do his job in the best way he can--a desire which led him from the fields of Vietnam to the Office of Management and Budget in 1972, where he served for a year as a White House fellow, After returning to active military service, he went back and forth between active military duty and government policymaking positions until 1989, when he succeeded Admiral William J. Crowe as chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Before long, Powell became well-known to the public for his role in orchestrating the military movements of the U.S.-led coalition that drove Iraq out of Kuwait during Operation Desert Storm.

But ironically, despite the cries of protesters who have called him "bloodthirsty" and "warmongering," Powell was reluctant to engage in military warfare with Iraq, according to Bob Woodward's book The Commanders.

His opposition, however, was not based on the moral questions that many anti-war activists claimed for their motivations. Rather, he was moved by the same characteristics that have shaped his military and government style--caution and success.

"He was always extremely well-prepared--he knew more about everything than anybody else," Weinberger says. "Everything he did, he did extremely well. In everything he did, he succeeded."

It was a lesson first taught to Powell in the jungles of Vietnam in the 1960s, when the results of poor military planning were evident.

"[It was a] war where the American military felt let down by the political leadership," says Gen. Bernard E. Trainor, director of the National Security Program and adjunct lecturer in public policy at the Kennedy School of Government. "Colin Powell, like most military men of the time, took the position of, 'Never again."

More than a decade after Powell left Vietnam, Weinberger made a speech laying out certain tests for the use of military force abroad--a policy which Powell helped formulate, according to Trainor.

The tests, said Weinberger in 1984, were: "The United States should not commit forces to combat overseas unless the particular engagement or occasion is deemed vital to our national interest;" an engagement should only be undertaken "with the clear intention of winning" and carried out with "clearly defined political and military objectives;" an involvement "must be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary" and "have the support of the American people and...Congress;" and engagement should be "a last resort."

Pete Williams, who served as press secretary for Bush Defense Secretary Richard E. Cheney, says Powell's mindset is not unusual in light of his position. "I think you'll find it's true among military commanders," Williams said. "They're not the ones who are the blowhards."

But Williams also says that, as a commander, Powell goes above the norm, describing him as one of the best chairs of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the history of the position. "Even those who disagree with him can't argue with that...that's tautological," Williams says. "He's decisive, articulate, persuasive--and not easily intimidated by high-ranking civilians."

Apparently, those qualities have quite an effect on troops in the field. Williams says he remembers one occasion in the Persian Gulf when Powell went to visit soldiers and was greeted with demands for his signature on everything available--including underwear, helmets and arms.

"He's a very good [commander]--He's totally selfless," says Weinberger, "He's a born leader."

Powell is described by those who know him as extremely popular, although he may not be so on the Harvard campus at the moment. "He was very great working with people. Everybody liked him," says Weinberger. "I always enjoyed working with him."

Williams says Powell is now using his personality to adjust to his new surroundings. "My impression from watching him from afar is that he's trying very earnestly to get along with the new administration," he says.

But Powell's relationship with the Clinton administration started out on a rather sour note--the issue of gays in the military.

On this matter, Powell was caught between the military, which strongly resisted the removal of the ban, and the president, and commander-in-chief, who strongly opposed the ban and had made a campaign promise to lift it.

At first, Powell made it known in public and in front of Congress that he disagreed with Clinton's campaign promise to lift the ban. But then, he went no further.

"Any feeling at Harvard that the chairman is representative of resistance would be incorrect," says his spokesperson Col. F. William Smullen. "He was principally concerned about the effect the changing of the policy would have on unit cohesion and morals. We are now working very vigorously to construct a policy to implement the presidential program."

Military experts say Powell was obligated, as a representative of the military, to express concerns over the proposal--just as he is obligated to put into practice any legally correct order by the president to change the current exclusionary policy.

"He will do his best to carry it out as long as what the President does is legal," says Trainor. "He's not an ideologue--he has principles, but he realizes that in the U.S., the way to get things done is with compromise."

Indeed, the caution which has served Powell so well throughout his years in the military is the quality which brings him into opposition with his new commander-in-chief over the issue of gays in the military.

After all, this soundly falls to pass his criteria for intervention in the status quo. Vital to the national interest of the majority? Gays and lesbians are a definitive minority in the human population. Supported by the people and the Congress? Poll after poll says no. A last resort? The American military system has functioned smoothly enough under the policy in the 1980s and 1990s to effectively accomplish set objectives. Prejudice and anger would most likely endanger openly gay soldiers as well.

But opponents of the ban have other points not covered under Powell's rules of engagements, points about individual accomplishments and the perceived injustice of the ban. Their main concern is the well-being of individuals who do not choose their sexual orientation; his is for the well-being of the military.

In answer to Powell's concern that an abrupt shift will weaken the military, opponents answer that the military has undergone rapid shifts in the past, such as when it was integrated in 1948, an action which made the rise of Colin L. Powell possible.

The military, however, is changing as it never has before, much as is society, in the post-Cold War era. Budgets are being downsized and rules of intervention changed to include justifications of morality. An old, tradition-bound structure is changing, and some say it should change even further.

It is a change Powell is aware of, one that guided him in the Gulf War and afterwards. And it is one that Harvard considers him well-versed in, according to President Neil L. Rudenstine.

"He has played a crucial role in helping to shape global policies concerning the use of armed forces in the complex environment of the post-Cold War era," said Rudenstine in a statement issued on the same day as the announcement of the speaker choice. "General Powell has had an outstanding record of distinguished service to the nation."

Powell will speak this afternoon at a crossroads in the military's relationship with the issues affecting civilian society, a crossroads that he will only officially leave in September when his term expires and he steps down, as most expect him to do.

His speech today is one battle he cannot win. Whatever he does cannot possibly satisfy both the protesters he will see at Harvard Yard or the military men and women he will see when he returns to Washington