ON PAPER, President Reagan's decision to extend draft registration was the "sharp policy reversal" the headlines screamed about. Even the White House agreed, arguing that a practical need for registration overwhelmed Reagan's long-standing opposition to the program. Though it may seem like a case of the idealogue bowing to pragmatism, we are anything but reassured by the president's decision. The circumstances surrounding the announcement indicate that complex motives were involved, that the Administration is clumsily trying to conceal these motives, and that the continuation of registration could lead to a far more serious step: resumption of the peacetime draft.

Jimmy Carter revived draft registration to express American concern over the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Two years later, it's clear how much the step improved life in Kabul. Candidate Ronald Reagan predicted as much, calling the sign-up a meaningless gesture and taking the debate one step further: "Perhaps the most fundamental objection to draft registration is moral." Last week, President Ronald Reagan regretted to inform us that military realities had forced him to break his promise on abolishing registration. He had new information from his blue-ribbon manpower task force: registration would save six weeks in a potential mobilization, rather than three to five days, as had once been assumed.

Ranking Administration officials adamantly denied reports (already confirmed from sources within the White House) that the Polish crisis inspired Reagan's decision. But what of the on-the-record explanation? The Selective Service System, which administers registration, has insisted for almost a year that it initially underestimated how much time the sign-up could save. Why is Reagan only discovering the information now? And beyond the question of who knew what and when, how have these estimates been compiled? Why have there been such large discrepancies? And where is the plan for integrating four million 18-year-olds into the armed forces in the event of an emergency?

The answers to these questions would probably embarrass the nation's lumbering military bureaucracy. But more important as far as the politics of registration is concerned is the realization that regardless of official rhetoric, the president views registration as a convenient saber to rattle at the Soviets, much in the same way Carter did in 1980. Growing European uneasiness over American inconsistency in international affairs only encouraged Reagan further, according to some White House aides.

Our opposition to draft registration is based on practical concerns. We oppose the program because it is--to borrow a line from one of Reagan's three-by-five cards--an empty symbol. It will not deter the Russians, or anyone else, from doing anything, and it only helps buttress the assumption that the answer to geopolitical friction is military action. Moreover, registration does nothing to improve the Pentagon's legitimate manpower deficiency in the existing reserve forces; and those are the divisions which would respond initially to a crisis. In addition, registration has already made federal criminals out of at least 800,000 young men. How will the Justice Department enforce the law equitably? Is this how we want to spend millions of dollars when first graders are losing hot lunches and college students are losing crucial loans?

Finally, there is Reagan's promise that registration "does not foreshadow a return to the draft." He reiterated his belief that "only in the most severe national emergency does the Government have a claim to the mandatory service of its young people." Again, we are not reassured. The president has already demonstrated that his "moral" convictions are easily toppled when burdened with enough political pressure. Furthermore, he has failed altogether to explain what type of national emergency would require a draft and whether conscription might conceivably begin independent of a shooting war.

Registration itself is little more than a nuisance, but its continuation warns of more unpleasant things to come.

The Crimson will address the issue of a peacetime draft in an editorial next week.