WHY NOT A DEPARTMENT OF PEACE?

With this nation embroiled in what threatens to be an interminable "war on
terrorism," an idea put forward last year by Ohio Congressman Dennis
Kucinich has considerable appeal.

Kucinich, who was the one candidate in the Democratic primaries to
unfailingly promote the party's traditional Franklin Roosevelt liberalism,
proposed the establishment of a Department of Peace. He has introduced in
the House a bill that would add a new Cabinet post to the executive branch
of government. The Department of Peace would "advise the Secretary of
Defense and the Secretary of State on all matters relating to national
security, including the protection of human rights and the prevention of,
amelioration of, and de-escalation of unarmed and armed international
conflict."

The secretary of peace would serve as a delegate to the National Security
Council and would "provide training of all United States personnel who
administer post-conflict reconstruction and demobilization in war-torn
societies." In other words, the Department of Peace, with a highly trained
and dedicated staff, would be a constant, working counterpoint to the
Defense Department and its expenditure of billions of dollars to perfect
the weapons of war.

The department would act not only in an international context, but also in
those areas of domestic policy that endanger the nation's well-being: the
proliferation of automatic weapons and the violence in our schools, our
homes and in our streets, where the intolerant prey on those whose
lifestyles they find offensive. It might well come up with some new
strategies for turning around our losing war on drugs, and it might also
lobby Congress to put an end to the cruel and unusual punishment of
small-time drug offenders called "mandatory sentencing." It would also
advise the attorney general on matters of civil rights and labor law. But
its primary importance would be international affairs, demonstrating to the
rest of the world - to borrow the old motto of the Strategic Air Command -
that "peace is our profession." Now, to some, this is going to sound
terribly naive, given the current state of things and the very real,
hard-edged dangers that face us. But the naivete just might lie on the
other side on the side of those who believe that military force and our
policy of pre-emption are alone sufficient to make us safe. The fact is
that there is nothing in this proposal that would weaken our military
posture or our ability to strike terrorists and their havens and to do
whatever is necessary for the defense of the United States.

But wouldn't it be an advantage to have a peer of the secretaries of
defense and state whose primary responsibility it was to develop the
methods and means of peaceful conflict resolution and to offer peaceful
alternatives in the councils of war? Wouldn't it have been an advantage in
the run-up to the Iraq War to have had a cabinet officer whose department
was responsible for training U.S. personnel in human rights, conflict
resolution, reconstruction and the detailed planning necessary to restoring
a durable peace; in short, to do what was so disastrously absent when our
forces rolled into Baghdad? Kucinich's bill is more elaborate and specific
than I can spell out here. It is a long way from realization, with only a
few dozen congressional sponsors.

There is an urgency to its adoption. In this dangerous world, where the
strength of the United States is needed to keep the peace, we need a
visible manifestation of our intention to play that role, without the
arrogance that cost us friends and allies among the nations and peoples of
the world.

But no matter how far off it might be, it is an idea that deserves our
attention. We can hope that Kucinich and those who are pioneers in
supporting his bill stay the course and redouble their efforts.

Walter Cronkite has been a journalist for more than 60 years, including 19
as anchor of the CBS Evening News.