National security is vital. A strong military is vital. As a professional soldier, I was an expert on weapons of every caliber that the Army possessed, from 8-inch to 5.56 mm (.22 inch). If they called me again, I would go.

As I hope I made clear in my statement on the Iraq War, I have nothing but admiration for the valiant women and men who have carried out their orders in that rugged duty. But I hope I also made it clear that the Iraq War, like the Vietnam War, is dissipating our strength in a war that has little to do with our security.

I can't do better to illustrate than quote an April 2008 column by the editor of a Panhandle newspaper: "I supported the invasion because Saddam was a thug, and I believed our leaders when they said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Also, I was angry about the September, 2001 terrorist attacks. Even though Saddam had nothing to do with the attacks, [the editor knew at the time] I felt he was a threat worth eliminating — I was disappointed when no weapons of mass destruction were found."

In Congress I will vote and campaign not to use brave young Americans to chase down thugs — especially just because we are mad about something that has nothing to do with the thug. There are too many thugs in the world. More importantly, experience has shown that armed force is the least effective way of replacing them.

I can say from personal contact with villagers in Vietnam that providing them with even bare necessities, like clean water or Army rations, reduced the threat of attack. I read the Army’s counterinsurgency manual written by David Petraeus. Eighty percent of it was about civil affairs. When General Petraeus was commanding the 101st Airborne Division in Iraq, their record in reducing insurgent attacks was remarkable. In my opinion, the success of the surge was due more to General Petraeus’s profound understanding of people than the additional troops. If I were to nominate a Secretary of State for the next president, it would be David Petraeus.

A council of Christian scholars with field experience in risky places like Colombia, Central America and East Germany (before the wall fell) composed a set of practices called “Just [as in justice] Peacemaking.” The practices range from direct action, as with Dr. King and Gandhi, to independent initiatives, to conflict resolution, and more. [See the references below.] Do not think that nonviolent peacemaking is "being nice," that it is the safe and easy way. Far from it! Peacemakers are soldiers just as I was, and they risk their lives. Their groups take casualties just like the Infantry.

Over the last 30 years, Freedom House (freedomhouse.org) has kept records of countries that were not free, partly free, and free. There has been a steady transition in the direction of freedom. The transitions were overwhelmingly the result of nonviolent, grass-roots civic action. Even setbacks in 2007 and 2008 did not come close to wiping out the gains.

It also well to remember that freedom, once gained, can also all to easily be lost. In the course of the last eight years, in the name of national security, we have experienced ever-greater personal surveillance and government secrecy that encroaches on America’s constitutional freedom. Do not for a minute think, "If I have done nothing wrong I have nothing to fear." History shows otherwise, and the founding fathers knew this.

I have a solid knowledge of how the military operates at ground level — what military technology can do in the hands of a soldier, how a military unit operates, and what makes or breaks its efficiency and morale.My knowledge of military strategy and foreign policy — my understanding of why, when and how to use America’s military power — stems mostly from other sources, however. Chief among those are my personal commitment to justice and freedom, to the principle that peace can be achieved, and to my conviction that violence is an absolute last resort in true national defense. I understand all too well that wars like Vietnam and Iraq bleed us of money and other resources, kill our young men and women, and diminish America’s ideals and values, which are our true strength.

Effective diplomacy and effective world leadership both rest on solid moral and ethical foundations. As we put this page together, we hear of more Americans being killed in Afghanistan than in Iraq. Do you remember that America helped the Mujahideen, the good guys who drove the bad Russians from Afghanistan? Do you remember that America promised aid to develop the country? Unfortunately, we later reneged on that promise, which created a vacuum that the Taliban filled. Our own promise-breaking sowed the seeds for further disaster and strife.

References

Just Peacemaking was developed by a council of Christian ethicists, American and international, based on the words of Jesus of Nazareth and the Hebrew prophets. Just Peacemaking is not based on the dogma or interpretation of any church. For more information, see Stassen, Glen H, “Yes to Just Peacemaking; Not Just No to War,” Church & Society Magazine, November-December 2005; Stassen, Glen H, Just Peacemaking: Ten Practices for Abolishing War, Pilgrim Press, 1998 and 2004. Go to the Fuller Seminary site, www.fuller.edu, and find Glen Stassen in the faculty. Or Google “Just Peacemaking.” See related information in How Freedom is Won: from Civic Resistance to Durable Democracy, Freedom House, Washington; Wallis, Jim, God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It; and Schell, Jonathan, The Unconquerable World.