Commentary
By Charles C. Krulak, a former commandant of

the Marine Corps. 

Last week Vice President Al Gore vowed that if

elected president, he would lift the ban on

homosexuals serving openly in the military. He
further stated that he would impose a "litmus test"

on anyone he nominated to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appointing only those candidates who supported his

policy.

As a former member of the Joint Chiefs and the

father of a son now serving his nation in the military,

I am extremely concerned at the prospect of a president

who would use a social or political issue as a measure

of an officer's fitness to serve at the highest levels.

While Mr. Gore is now rapidly backpedaling, I believe

we already have the true measure of his attitude.

By statute, the members of the Joint Chiefs are military advisers to the president, the National Security Council,

and the secretary of defense.

Decisions on U.S. military participation in conflicts

around the world and the extent of that participation

are based, in part, on the counsel of these military

advisers. During the first four major conflicts of the
past century, more than 35 million Americans served

their country in the military. Of those who answered

the nation's call, more than one million were wounded
and hundreds of thousands lost their lives. These men

and women were sent into battle by civilian leaders who based their decision on the advice of our most senior

military officers. The courage of those who went to battle
was rooted in their faith in their country and in those

who had determined the need for them to fight.

The most serious debates that take place among the

Joint Chiefs are those that determine whether or not

we commit our service members to war. The people

of this nation--the mothers and fathers of those who

will fight our future battles--deserve to know that the

military individuals selected tom provide advice to the

civilian leadership on this gravest of matters are the

most qualified to do so.

They have the right to expect that the senior uniformed leadership is free to offer its best military advice, even

when that counsel is at odds with the commander-in-chief's views. The men and women who wear the uniform and
serve selflessly in the military deserve a head of state

who has the moral courage to accept, even to demand, the best military advice the Joint Chiefs can provide--regardless of how that advice might play politically.

There can be no question in the minds of the American people and those serving in the military that an officer's nomination and confirmation to serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff must be based on military experience, military expertise and leadership ability. It cannot be based on support or lack thereof for a current social or political position. As a nation
we must never allow our elected leaders to subordinate an issue of national security for the sake of political gain.