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.