But opponents of the ban have other points not covered under Powell's rules of engagements, points about individual accomplishments and the perceived injustice of the ban. Their main concern is the well-being of individuals who do not choose their sexual orientation; his is for the well-being of the military.

In answer to Powell's concern that an abrupt shift will weaken the military, opponents answer that the military has undergone rapid shifts in the past, such as when it was integrated in 1948, an action which made the rise of Colin L. Powell possible.

The military, however, is changing as it never has before, much as is society, in the post-Cold War era. Budgets are being downsized and rules of intervention changed to include justifications of morality. An old, tradition-bound structure is changing, and some say it should change even further.

It is a change Powell is aware of, one that guided him in the Gulf War and afterwards. And it is one that Harvard considers him well-versed in, according to President Neil L. Rudenstine.

"He has played a crucial role in helping to shape global policies concerning the use of armed forces in the complex environment of the post-Cold War era," said Rudenstine in a statement issued on the same day as the announcement of the speaker choice. "General Powell has had an outstanding record of distinguished service to the nation."

Powell will speak this afternoon at a crossroads in the military's relationship with the issues affecting civilian society, a crossroads that he will only officially leave in September when his term expires and he steps down, as most expect him to do.

His speech today is one battle he cannot win. Whatever he does cannot possibly satisfy both the protesters he will see at Harvard Yard or the military men and women he will see when he returns to Washington