War is Not the Answer

Dear Mr. President:

I know I tend to be a dreamer and an idealist. I also know we're frowned upon by many people in politics. However, I still envision a world where we become a global community some day and eliminate world-wide poverty and disease and attempt to make the human race better. I wish I knew how to get there from where we are now. I know war isn't the answer. I know our politics of relying on defense makes us more prone to choose war as a solution rather than some other method (sanctions?, aid? simply making our borders safer rather than preemptive attacks on terrorists).

My more conservative friends and family have asked me what I would require from our military? How should we be prepared to defend this country? Well, our military policy has not simply been "defend our country". Our policy has been to maintain a position of strength so that any would-be attacker would have to weigh the risks of attacking us against the benefits. That explains our response to 9-11. Bush all but stated that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9-11 attacks, and using that connection, he launched us into a war in Iraq. Granted, Saddam was (and is) a very bad guy and he deserved to be toppled. But did WE have to do it? Did we have to do it in the way that we did, by making it seem like he was behind 9-11 instead of (or rather in conjunction with) Bin Laden? The whole affair reeks of mistrust, dishonesty and denial. I think Bush and his advisors may have wanted Saddam so bad they simply ignored any evidence or information that contradicted his involvement. And that's the best-case scenario. The worst-case scenario is that Bush intentionally lied to the American people and to Congress about the WMDs and Saddam's involvement simply so he could topple Saddam and gain control of Iraq. Trust me, I am rooting for the first explanation.

As for our country and military, I would like to see more technology being used in the defense of our country. Reagan's Star Wars policy (though not perfect) was very intriguing. Why not cut back on our overseas troops, reign in the troops, close down some (why not all) overseas bases and focus on protecting our shores from closer to home. I see the inherent flaw in that already. If someone is going to attack, it's best to have look-outs to see from where and when they are attacking. For this reason we maintain bases in Germany, the South Pacific, Cuba, and a myriad of other places. Are they all strategically necessary in this day and age? How many troops are needed to watch for activity? Hundreds? Thousands? Do we need all the missiles and spy planes and submarines and guns, guns, guns. Why not take some of the guns away from our citizens and give them to the military? We have become a nation of war-mongers simply because that is what we know best now, not because we want to go to war. I think it's time to broaden our horizons (metaphorically speaking, of course.) :*) Let's put our minds and money towards finding non-lethal methods of defense. Non-invasive methods of defense. Doesn't that seem odd that we are defending our country by attacking someone else's? I thought we were a nation of Christians. What happened to "turn the other cheek." No, our foreign policy has always been strike 'em dead so they know not to mess with us. And, admittedly, in this day and age "turning the other cheek" may not be the best policy either. But there has to be a middle ground somewhere, doesn't there?

Thoughtfully Yours,