Don't tell this general that gays can't serve

For too long, the U.S. military has operated on official policy that tells gay and lesbian servicemen and women they are second-class citizens. This takes place, of course, while they are offering their lives to serve their country.

Politicians, recalling the hailstorm of negative response to the attempt in the 1990s to make the rules moreequitable, hide behind the off-putting policy of "Don't ask, don't tell."

Don't ask, don't tell really means, "We don't approve of your sexual orientation, but if you want to come here and pretend otherwise, give it a try."

Gays serve openly in the military in many other countries and should be allowed to do so in the U.S.

To that end, John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when the Pentagon enacted its policy, is coming forward to correct a mistake. Shalikashvili, who lives in Steilacoom, may change the way American political leaders deal with a delicate question from this moment forward.

Shalikashvili retired in 1997 after four years as the nation's top military adviser. He had argued that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would hurt troop morale and recruitment and undermine cohesion of combat units.

But in a seminal op-ed in The New York Times last week, he had the guts to publicly change his mind, with a clear intent to be part of an about-face in U.S. policy.

"I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces." Shalikashvili wrote. "Our military has been stretched too thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."

We all have these eureka moments, when we know that we were looking at something one way, then see it in a completely differently manner.

For the Army general, the change was more evolutionary than revolutionary. It came slowly after listening to perhaps 30 gay and lesbian servicemen and women.

The general's words are not so much a confession that he was wrong at the time the policy was enacted. But as public opinion changed, he could not abide sitting on the sidelines while an unfair policy continues.

"I thought that if we allowed gays and lesbians to serve openly in our military, it would affect adversely unit cohesion, readiness. Then I realized if the young people were of my generation, it would be true," he said in an interview last week. "But because they come from a different generation, things are completely different."

Insightful words from an important spokesman, one powerful enough to bring about change. The former Joint Chiefs chairman explains his change of heart in the context of changes in public attitude.

A more lenient policy should come about — not immediately, he argues, but after the new Congress has time to create a more-effective policy toward Iraq. The issue of gays in the military should not overwhelm other important defense issues.

One fact of life is clear. The more-heated viewpoints, the greater discomfort with homosexuals marrying or having equal rights, are more prevalent in the older population.

More teens and 20- and 30-somethings readily accept gays and lesbians as equals deserving equal rights. Clearly, the next generation will reconcile the issue of gays in the military in a positive, forward-looking manner.

But we don't have to wait. Congress ought to address this after a more-sensible Iraq policy is drafted. Then, the change is not just a matter of practicality and the need for more soldiers. It is first and foremost a matter of fairness and respect.

Joni Balter's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. Her e-mail address is jbalter@seattletimes.com