Peacetime -- like the United States is now enjoying -- is the very time when we must be most vigilant in pursuit of our national security policies, lest that peace be lost or national interests compromised, says Senator Max Cleland. He calls for regularly scheduled Senate debates to help define what those national interests are. Cleland, a Georgia Democrat, has been a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee since his election to the Senate in 1996.

As we approach the end of the 20th century, the dread certainties of the Cold War have given way to the unsettled and uncertain, but also hopeful, era in which we find ourselves today. As in any transition period, we are feeling our way for the most appropriate strategy and policies with which to maintain and enhance our national security interests.

In the Cold War days, our diplomatic and military policies were directed at countering the world's communist regimes through NATO and other mechanisms designed to help us deal with the realities of the bipolar model. Now, the United States bears the heavy burden of "keeping peace" around the world by virtue of having the strongest, best-trained, and best armed military in the world.

While our direct involvement will not always be either required or desirable in regional conflicts around the globe, the U.S. can be indirectly, and effectively, involved in peacekeeping missions through a strategy of appropriate international engagement by our armed forces. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Henry Shelton, recently testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, "The U.S. is a hammer, but not every conflict is a nail." Through education and engagement, we can ensure a more favorable outcome in cases which do not involve our vital national interests, but are certainly in our interests as a member of the international community where peace and respect for human rights benefit us all.

Military engagement in peacetime activities is of considerable importance to the United States today as we enter the 21st century. Since 1989, we have had to reevaluate and reshape our national military strategy several times. In all of the reshaping and examination, a constant, and largely unmet, need has been for a national consensus on a cohesive engagement policy for our national foreign policy makers, as well as our national military personnel and leadership.

As has been true throughout history, the American military, as with any country's military, is a significant part of our own national power structure. Very few nations have been lasting world powers, either economically or politically, without a military of significance to reinforce their philosophical goals. The principal goal of our armed forces, of course, is to protect our national interests by deterring attacks on those interests, as well as to be able to prevail in any conflict which arises, should deterrence fail. The key is appropriately defining our interests and then devising the best means, military or otherwise, for ensuring those interests.

It is not always the case that use of military means is the best or preferred method of advancing our interests. Indeed, diplomatic, cultural, or economic efforts will very often be more cost-effective than military engagement or intervention. In addition, our armed forces can be, and in fact have been, asked to do too much, given the resources that have been made available to them. An overstretched military is a recipe for serious operational, morale, and budgetary problems, and is a problem that must receive priority attention from both our political and military leadership.

Having said that, in my opinion we should and must continue such efforts as military education for our allies through the Marshall Center in Europe, the School of the Americas, and similar programs. It has always been my belief that those who understand war, including the true costs of war, understand peace and all of its blessings. Today, we train our military in the strategy of war and the art of peace. U.S. military personnel are well schooled as students of (Karl von) Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, (Alfred Thayer) Mahan, and the best known writers of conflict and engagement. At the same time, they also receive thorough and effective training in such fundamental American principles as subordination of the military to civilian control and respect for human rights. While our foreign military education efforts have not always succeeded in instilling such values, I believe that recent reforms will eliminate any such shortcomings in the future.

As we work with other nations through our military, Congress must also be involved. My hope and my goal is for us to approach these issues in a more bipartisan manner. Since I have come to the Senate, I have been deeply disturbed by the tenor of our debates in the Congress on a host of important national security issues. The Senate has made monumental decisions on our policies in the Balkans and the Persian Gulf, as well as the future of NATO and the United Nations, all without a comprehensive set of American goals and policies. Simply put, I do not believe we can afford to continue on a path of partisanship and division of purpose without serious damage to our national interests. For these reasons, I announced plans this fall for a major initiative to bring debate to the floor of the Senate next year to discuss America's goals in national security issues.

The plan calls for debate between Senators every four to six weeks on topics including the United States' relationship with NATO and the UN, the proper role of the United States in peacekeeping missions around the globe, and a definition of "national interests" to help determine when American troops are deployed abroad. We must prove that we are more concerned about foreign policy than foreign politics. The stakes are too high, and the results too important for the American people, the American military, and the international community, for us to do anything less.

Although "peacetime" connotes no military activity, it is in fact the time when I believe the United States must be most vigilant in its national security policies, to ensure the continuation of the peace and the protection of our national interests.