DECISION TO WAGE WAR IS THE MOST TERRIBLE DECISION WE CAN EVER MAKE; IT IS SO TERRIBLE THAT WE SHOULD STRUCTURE OUR ARMED FORCES IN A WAY THAT REQUIRES NATIONAL INVOLVEMENT, ONE THAT TOUCHES MAIN STREET

The armed forces of the United States are to become smaller. The military calls it force reduction. The move, driven by budget considerations and a perceived decrease in the need for armed forces is most noticeable when the closing of a major military base or mothballing of a ship like the battleship Missouri is announced.

Across the nation citizens are learning that defense cutbacks will be felt in their hometowns. Army National Guard units face drastic cutbacks under plans developed at the Pentagon.

In Missouri, for example, units in 19 communities large and small will be deactivated over the next four years. Almost a quarter of the state's 9,800 Army Guard soldiers will no longer have a unit to serve in. Nationally, under only the first round of cutbacks, Pentagon planners project almost a third of the National Guard will disappear.

While the initial Congressional action on next year's defense budget reduces the planned cuts to the Guard, force reductions are coming and the Guard will be affected.

If the units on the current Pentagon deactivation list close, the deficit will be reduced. In Missouri alone, the annual savings will be approximately $20 million. But what is the cost?

In Missouri, the Pentagon plan will strip away nearly half the engineer units in the state, units with a key role after tornadoes or during floods. These units are also at the center of Guard earthquake response plans.

In fact, affected communities do not necessarily see the national budget savings as good news, either, because those savings will come at the expense of their local economies. Almost all federal spending for hometown Guard units is in the form of federal military pay, which goes right into local cash registers.

Is economics the primary factor? If so, a variety of studies indicate that more money can be saved if more expensive active duty units are shut down. But straight dollar costs should not be the sole factor when military units are considered for deactivation.

A more important concern is the major contribution the National Guard has played historically in our national defense, and the new, greater role that it has been asked to take in the future.

Prior to the late 1980s, all callups of the Guard came during defense buildups for what would be extended periods of conflict. It was circumstances more than planning that saw the Guard in the front line roles it played, from the War of 1812 to World Wars I and II and Korea and Vietnam.

In the 1970s, however, defense planners began to develop what is now called the "Total Force" policy. This policy has resulted in the Guard and Reserve units inclusion as integral components in all major war plans.

Guard soldiers are trained on par with active duty forces. And they are equipped in a comparable manner. The cliche phrase "Weekend Warrior" is now more than just insulting. It is inaccurate.

Without the Guard and Reserves, for example, Desert Shield could never have been carried to the battlefield. Without the Guard and Reserves, no lightning would have struck in Desert Storm.

Moreover, as the United States geared for war less than two years ago, the thoughts of thousands of citizens turned to the Persian Gulf. Not because CNN was airing live reports, or because some distant and detached conflict might begin at any moment. Thousands of Americans became deeply and personally involved because a member of their family, a next-door neighbor, or a co-worker had been called to duty with a hometown Guard unit.

If the conflict in the Persian Gulf had been fought only with anonymous active duty service members, we would have been much less driven to examine and debate our goals. And because we did examine and debate our goals, when the first day of combat came, the forces of Desert Storm knew that the need for their sacrifice was understood, appreciated and supported by hometown America. Because of this understanding, as General Schwarkzkopf told Congress, "We knew we would not fail."

The decision to wage war is the most terrible decision we can ever make as a nation. It is so terrible that we should structure our armed forces in a way that requires national involvement, one that touches Main Street not just some far away Army post.

We need a strong National Guard to hold down the cost of the armed forces, meet emergency needs at home and continue our historic tradition of making national defense a shared commitment of the people.

James Madison wrote in 1788, "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the governments to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control of government."

Heavy reliance on armed forces centered on citizen-soldiers and on hometown National Guard and Reserve Units ensures we will not wage war without that vital element of dependence on the people. That is just as it should be.

Maj. Gen. Charles Kiefner, a native of Perryville who joined his hometown National Guard in 1947, is Missouri Adjutant General. He is also the immediate past president of the 55,000-member National Guard Association of the United States.