HOME AND AWAY: GROUND ZERO AT THE PENTAGON: FOOD FOR THOUGHT

There is a restaurant in the courtyard of the Pentagon, affectionately called "Ground Zero Cafe" by those working there. The nickname originated from the expectation that if the old Soviet Union were to launch a nuclear attack, the Pentagon would be target No. 1. Located at the dead center of the behemoth headquarters of our country's armed services, the cafe was half-jokingly cited as the targeting point for incoming enemy missiles.

When told this by Mark Magee, a former Navy pilot now rising in the civilian ranks of government foreign policy professionals, I harrumphed: Didn't these military people know anything? I remember distinctly how some 1980s nuclear freeze advocates at Southeast Missouri State University insisted Missouri would be the first target. Something about the number of missile silos in the state. They weren't alone. Virtually every local nuclear freeze group propagandized that their corner of the nation was targeted for a first strike. And with Ronald Reagan in the White House, said the movement's leaders, such a strike became more likely by the hour. Out of these hysterics came TV movies like "The Day After" and "Threads," predicting imminent nuclear holocaust for Russia and the United States. A protracted nuclear winter was forecasted for everyone else. The movies started and ended with warnings encouraging parents to discuss nuclear war with their children lest they become psychologically crippled by doomsday anxiety. The not-unforeseeable result: men, women and children unreasonably besieged with nuclear nightmares. But also: a president doubly committed to reducing the threat of nuclear war.

Ronald Reagan outperformed the freeze leaders in the 1980s, all who reviled him as much as anyone reviles Bill Clinton today. When Reagan's talk-and-act-tough policies proved successful, however, none of the freeze leaders apologized for the names they had called him. Reagan didn't just seek status quo for the number of warheads Russia and the United States held in their arsenals. Through policies of "peace through strength" and the START talks, Reagan set in motion a historical change that would vastly reduce each side's nuclear firepower. The largely unanticipated side effect of his leadership was the accelerated demise of what was then the world's greatest problem -- a belligerent, internationalist Soviet Union -- and the reduction of tensions between East and West. Today's world is less dangerous than it was a decade ago. At the same time, it is in more turmoil. With the end of the Cold War has come violent nationalism, rife with human atrocity on all sides. The American role in these conflicts isn't always clear. No longer can the U.S. simply decide its actions by taking whichever side opposes communism. Also complicating much of today's world: economic instability and political corruption.

Last week I had lunch in the Pentagon with Jim Townsend of the European Policy Office and his summer assistant, Magee. Both work for Secretary of Defense William Perry, who had postponed his long-planned August vacation to deal with the onslaught of Cuban rafters -- not exactly a normal national security issue. This fresh problem came amidst the preparation of a U.S. invasion of Haiti, continued large-scale humanitarian assistance in Rwanda and vigilant on-guard status in South Korea, Macedonia and other neighbors to hot spots. In fact, instead of seeing a reduction in American involvement since the end of the Cold War, the Pentagon has found itself sent by the Commander and Chief to more and new areas. Most of this involvement -- from drug interdiction to humanitarian assistance -- is unlike traditional military operations.

In our discussion, Townsend and Magee talked about defining the U.S. role in today's conflicts and tragedies. Common themes from both were how integral the rest of the world views U.S. leadership, and how complex most problems are. As the lone superpower, they argued, the United States has unique responsibilities that can not be shirked.

Magee explained: "Often, just having the United States at the table offers the necessary credibility to get things started.""But where do we draw the line about what is clearly in our interest, what is intangibly in our interest, and what is not?" asked Townsend.

Cuba and Haiti are the two most visible foreign policy issues now, thanks to TV. Bosnia and North Korea follow close behind. What concerns many foreign policy professionals in Washington is that domestic politics -- and not prudent foreign policy -- are guiding our nation's leaders. Still, it's somewhat reassuring to remember. While all of today's problems are serious, none threaten to make the "Ground Zero Cafe" a reality. For that we can be thankful to those leaders who preceded the current batch.

* * * * *

In next Tuesday's column: specific world problems, the "CNN factor" and the Clinton administration. "I'm not sure Bush would have handled any of today's problems any better," says Defense Department policy adviser Townsend. "But our credibility is lessening. (Even our allies) are unsure that whatever decision is made will be handled smoothly. They fear something unexpected."Jon K. Rust, a former editorial page editor of the Southeast Missourian, lives in the Washington, D.C., area.