Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!americast-post Newsgroups: americast.twt.news From: americast-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: americast-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: Clinton likely to face women-in-combat decision Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 16:10:35 EST Message-ID: \SE A;NATION \HD Clinton likely to face women-in-combat decision \BY Rowan Scarborough \CR THE WASHINGTON TIMES Bill Clinton will likely have the opportunity to change the face of the American military, not just by approving homosexuals in uniform, but also by deciding whether women should go into direct combat. The Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces delivered its final report to the White House on Sunday night. President Bush has until Dec. 15 to make comments and forward the document to Congress. But because the administration plans no major policy changes, White House and congressional sources said the women-in-combat issue will likely be punted to the president-elect. "We want to be careful not to do anything that prejudices the new administration," Bush spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said yesterday. "There's no sense in trying to do something at the end that the new administration would have to undo. . . . I don't think we would start some policy initiative just for the sake of imposing our philosophy of government." An administration official said Mr. Fitzwater's comment likely means Mr. Bush will let the current women-in-combat policy stand until he leaves office. A delay would leave Mr. Clinton facing two major sociological decisions affecting the 1.8-million-member active-duty force. The Arkansas governor has already pledged to fulfill a campaign promise by lifting a ban on homosexuals in the military. During the campaign, he declined to offer an opinion on women in combat. Although Mr. Bush will likely leave the policy on women intact, his recommendation to Congress is important to Republican conservatives who plan to fight against erasing the ban. A Bush nod toward women in combat would provide Mr. Clinton "political cover" to claim bipartisan support, said one conservative activist. The Pentagon now prevents women from taking part in direct combat on land, on sea or in aircraft. On Nov. 3, the presidential commission voted 10-0 to recommend retaining the exclusion rule for land combat and 8-7 to keep the air-combat ban. It voted 8-7 to open Navy combat ships - except submarines and amphibious ships - to female sailors. During eight months of hearings and field trips, the 15-member commission was bitterly divided. On final voting day, five conservative commissioners walked out after Chairman Robert Herres, a retired four-star general, refused to meet their demands for structuring the final report. The five later returned, setting the stage for the close votes on air and sea combat. The vote against women in combat planes was a bitter blow to some women's groups, female aviators and lawmakers who lobbied Congress last year to lift the prohibition. After Congress' vote, Defense Secretary Dick Cheney chose to stick with the status quo until the commission did its work. The acrimony evident at commission meetings spilled into the final report. Members favoring women in combat accused conservatives of joining the panel with set agendas. "Those members with current or previous ties to conservative groups had the effect of tipping the results of commission work against any progress for servicewomen," wrote commission member Mary Finch, an Army captain and helicopter pilot, in a signed statement. "As a commission member and active duty Army officer, I believe that the work of this commission has been an insult to all servicewomen," she said. "From the start, a minority of conservative commission members attempted to demean and degrade servicewomen and their accomplishments at every turn. . . . These commissioners would have liked us to believe that were the roles of women in the armed forces to expand, American society would be led down the path of moral corruption from which it would never return." Commission member Kate Walsh O'Beirne, a vice president of the Heritage Foundation who opposed women taking up arms, objected to Capt. Finch's characterizations. "I'm disappointed that some of my fellow commissioners who failed to prevail on the merits found it necessary to engage in ad hominem criticism," Ms. O'Beirne said. "I'm pleased to say the commissioners with whom I happen to agree stuck to the merits of the case and never resorted to ad hominem personal attacks. It's unfortunate all the commissioners could not have done that." This article is copyright 1992 The Washington Times. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM