The Unlted States should undertake a reasoned, thorcggli national debate imm stely to reach a consensus on solutions to mllltary manpower problems. And the central issue of debate should be whether we should revive the draft in some form of universal military training to improve preparedness. The issue has been moving toward t.he front burner for quite a while. Especially since the U.S. instituted a mllltary registration (without draft) after the Sovlets invaded Afghanistan; and as assertions have increased that the All-Voluntary Force (AVF) has slgniflcant weaknesses. Duringhlthe election campaign, esident Reagan sal he would review the draft registration but generally opposed a peacetime draft. The Presldent’s Task Force on Military Manpower ls expected to give its recommendations on the issue to President Reagan next month. These may have some bearing on the administrations official position in the future. Meantime, Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, D-Tex. has come out with some persuasive pro-draft arguments in an article in the fall issue of International Security Review. Entitled, “Brlng Back the Draft,” the article was called to Congress’ attention recently by Sen. Sam Nunn, D4?-a. ”E?erlence since 1973 has emonstrated conclusively that the decision to abolish the draft and go with a corporate military has a dangerous mlstake that places U.S. security in real jeopardy,” Bentsen wrote. “Despite evidence to document the shortcomings of the AUF, the public and the officials who sha defense policies have Bf nored Amerlca’s urgent military manpower problems,” the Texan charged. Bentsen quoted Gen. Bemard Rogers, supreme Allied commander in Europe, as saying: “If the United States had to go to war today in Europe, the Army would run out of trained infantrymen, artilIerymen, tankers, and combat medics before the draft would take over.” Added Bentsen: “Even if the U.S. were to conclude the AUF might be minimally acceptable in the event of a classic European war, the system certainly was not designed with the Rapid Deployment Force in mind; it did not foresee the current unsettled sltuation in the Caribbean and Central America; it did not plan for the quantum jump in the complexity and sophistication of weapon systems; and it did not take account of the emerging strategic importance of the Persian Gulf and lndlan Ocean.” The upcoming recommendatlons of the Presldent’s Task Force could serve to bring the military manpower issue to official debate. Even If it doesn’t, world conditions being as they are and with many questions being raised about the voluntary program, this newspaper be leves the public nterest would be served through official debate on the Issue. Over the next several years the U.S. may well spend $1.5 trllllon on national defense, reflecting both past neglect of the armed forces and a critical need now to modernlze weapons and improve our defense posture. Adequate mllltary manEower, of course, Is at the ase of any successful defense system. As Bentsen quoted general Patton as saying’: “Wars may be foug t with weapons, but they are won by men.”