COLUMN RIGHT/ TOM BETHELL : A Good Army Doesn’t Have Room for Gays : Bush should reassert the ban, which recognizes homosexuality as an impediment to morale.

It seems extraordinary that Bill Clinton, on Veterans Day, in his first policy decision as President-elect, and having been accused in the campaign of evading the draft, should have promised to reverse the ban on homosexuals in the military. The decision verges on the reckless, and it raises doubts about Clinton’s fabled political antennae.

To a considerable extent, the federal government derives its legitimacy and its public acceptance from the Department of Defense, and no President can afford to oppose it. If Clinton had encountered Republican opposition worth the name, he could have been severely embarrassed by the issue. As usual, however, it seems that the Republicans will allow their principles to be shaped for them by the Democrats.

The promised change was resisted by Sen. Sam Nunn, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who sensibly observed that we should “consider not only the rights of homosexuals but also the rights of those who are not homosexual and who give up a great deal of their privacy when they go into the military.” Senior military officers also oppose the change, and Gen. Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified earlier this year that removing the ban would be “prejudicial to good order and discipline.”

More recently, Clinton has somewhat modified his position, saying that he intends “to firmly proceed,” but only after “consulting” with military leaders. Clinton made a distinction between behavior and “status,” saying that there should be a “very strict code of conduct,” and that gays already are in the military in large numbers and should be permitted to be there “without lying about it.”

Unlike race or sex, homosexuality is inconspicuous in the absence of conduct, and for that reason the public declaration of one’s homosexuality is itself a form of conduct. This is especially the case in a military setting, where, as Powell said, there is often no privacy and “you don’t get a choice of association.” A friend of mine put it this way: “As a rule, soldiers don’t like taking showers with the kind of guys who like taking showers with soldiers.”

It is discomforting to heterosexuals to be viewed with speculative sexual interest by members of their own sex. To dismiss the belief that this discomfort is likely to undermine morale or lead to a breakdown of discipline is to express contempt for the military and its traditions. Military institutions have long discouraged homosexuality, and it is both folly and arrogance to assume that this was mere prejudice. We should be wary of those who are willing to sweep aside old traditions with the aggrieved observation that a fashionable minority’s “rights” are being impeded.

There is, of course, no “right” to serve in the military. Many criteria--height, weight and health, for example--can be and are used to exclude whole categories of people, and commanders who do not discriminate between applicants in this fashion are derelict in their duty. It is not reassuring, incidentally, to be told that only Britain among NATO countries now excludes homosexuals from service. As demonstrated in the Falklands and Gulf wars, Britain appears to be one of the few remaining combat-ready Western countries. It’s far preferable to demobilize military units completely than to allow them to degenerate into a government jobs program. The Dutch army’s pigtailed, earringed battalions do not inspire confidence; and the European Community’s failure to muster a fighting force against the Serbs should come as no surprise.

Where, one wonders, is the commander in chief? President Bush upheld the ban on gays for four years, so presumably he believed it was a good thing. He could turn the tide on the issue now by standing up in public and stating that his successor of course has every right to issue or rescind executive orders, but that he, Bush, believes that this change is not in the nation’s best interest. If, as has been reported, one or two of the Joint Chiefs are also opposed to the change, Bush could have them standing by his side as he spoke. Precisely because the election is now over, he could not be accused of trying to reap any personal political advantage from the issue.

Such an intervention is improbable, however, which should serve as a final object lesson in the political ineptitude of the GOP under its current leadership. All along, Bush has shown difficulty in distinguishing political principle from mere partisan infighting. In the election campaign, he did try to stir up public concern--not unreasonably, it would now seem--about the prospect that Clinton would become commander in chief. But Bush, commander in chief for two more months, remains silent.