COLUMN RIGHT : What Colors Should Our Soldiers Be? : Calling the armed forces racist is illogical and insulting; it’s also an anti-war smoke screen.

In a menagerie of curious objections to war with Iraq, certainly the most peculiar is the one holding that the President’s choice of force is racist and classist because a disproportionate number of African-Americans, Latinos and poor whites will die, reflecting their numbers in the U.S. military.

The proposition that the use of force is racist is actually a holdover from the Vietnam War era, when rich white kids avoided the draft by going to college and poor minority kids went to the killing fields in Southeast Asia. Unquestionably, the college-exemption clause in the draft had a racist effect: More precisely, it was classist, thus discriminating against minorities, who disproportionately come from the lower income strata.

The problem is that those poor kids were drafted and had no choice. But there is no draft today. The Americans serving in Saudi Arabia, regardless of color or gender, volunteered to join the military.

Contrary to popular belief, it has not been that easy to join the armed forces since they went all-volunteer. You have to go out of your way to sign up, pass tests more stringent than those found in most public high schools and then work hard to remain proficient in your specialty or risk getting bumped out.

No, the people serving in Saudi Arabia probably don’t want to be there, but they did want to be in the military. Talk to the men and women of the armed forces and you will find that they are, by and large, proud to belong.

Even the most ardent anti-war activist should concede this point. However, they are unwilling to let go of such an emotionally appealing argument, so they try to breathe life into this dead issue by saying that economic conditions (themselves a product of a racist society) forced minorities into the military. Or they argue that benefits like money for college hold an irresistible appeal to disadvantaged minorities, so they sell their lives for a chance to get ahead.

Maybe so, but what are the ramifications of this line of reasoning? An obvious one is to return to the draft--but without exemptions this time. Are anti-war activists in fact marching for the reinstatement of the draft over the strenuous objections of virtually every military commander?

Another solution is to set quotas limiting the percentage of minority men and women that may join the services. Since a disproportionate number of minorities apply, the restrictions would have to be rather stringent--for example, whites could score a 70 on the test and get in but African-Americans would have to score a 90. Over time, this would even out the racial balance in the military and make the use of force a racially acceptable option of national policy once more. Surely the anti-war activists do not want a cure that would return minorities to the days of discrimination by law.

Moreover, what were we doing with a large peacetime military if using it to conduct a war would be racist? Arguing against war because disadvantaged young people will die is an argument against having any military, volunteer or otherwise. (Note, it is not necessary to decide whether this particular war is a good one to assess whether any war is fair.)

If the peacetime military was really just a glorified form of workfare, it was the most extravagantly inefficient system ever devised. For starters, we wasted billions of dollars on useless combat training when we could have had them building hospitals and repairing bridges. Maybe we should have such a system of national service--but then why train people to fight if we believe it would never be right to expose them to battle?

And this, after all, is what lies at the heart of these arguments. These activists are not against just this particular use of force, or even just a use of force that involves an Army, Navy and Air Force made up of a large number of disadvantaged minorities. They are against any use of force, period. An interesting argument and one that deserves consideration in today’s highly bellicose world. But it is an argument that advocates should advance honestly, not cluttered with emotional baggage about racism and classism.

Perhaps the reason anti-war activists insist on deploying rhetorical smoke screens is because they suspect the majority of the American public--black, white or whatever--happen to believe it is sometimes just to resort to force. Anti-war activists rely on spurious arguments about racism because the activists are essentially anti-democratic: They are trying to trick the public into supporting a point of view that most Americans find irresponsible.